• Tesla is fast

    From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 13 12:52:41 2022
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Apr 13 14:02:03 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cydrome Leader@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Apr 13 21:11:38 2022
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 13 14:52:12 2022
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.

    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Cydrome Leader on Wed Apr 13 18:05:16 2022
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US
    for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>

    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 13 15:43:59 2022
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Wed Apr 13 15:38:11 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Wed Apr 13 16:06:28 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 3:44:19 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...

    Going uphill, some trucks have trouble keeping up with 55. Distributed motors might help. Also better handling going down hill.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Wed Apr 13 17:06:23 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 3:44:19 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...

    And yes, i think we need at last 500kWhr or 7500 lbs. Assuming 1 mi/kWhr and 15 lbs per kWhr.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to r_delaney2001@yahoo.com on Wed Apr 13 17:57:31 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.

    When they are not in line to get to a charging station.

    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Some people enjoy alternating between max accel and max decel.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Apr 13 21:15:48 2022
    On 4/13/2022 8:57 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.

    When they are not in line to get to a charging station.

    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Some people enjoy alternating between max accel and max decel.




    Can't recall ever lining up for one. Mostly around here they're not used
    very much, not that there's a shortage of EVs but most people charge at
    home.

    Businesses and public parking lots and state parks etc. often have them
    but don't tend to be able to figure out how to set the pricing on them
    or particularly care to they tend to be set at like $0 or 50 cents a
    kWh, depending, totally divorced from the price of gas or electricity
    for that matter.

    I think they tend to install them because they get a tax credit or
    legislation mandates it in the case of public facilities but nobody
    really understands the tech once it's installed or knows how to make any
    money off it or cares to figure out how, only Tesla's network seems to
    have accomplished that in a meaningful way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cydrome Leader@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 14 01:15:43 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train
    locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's
    nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US
    for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>

    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest, heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.

    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>

    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Thu Apr 14 11:16:43 2022
    On 14/4/22 8:43 am, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...


    Someone should tell <https://www.januselectric.com.au/>

    <https://bigrigs.com.au/index.php/2021/04/26/sydney-to-brisbane-for-525-in-electric-converted-prime-mover/>

    Granted it's a limited roll-out, but you have to start somewhere.
    They can convert an existing prime mover in under a week.

    CH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Apr 14 03:26:32 2022
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7abd9443-de36-42ca-8e8a-1eb0430058b5n@googlegroups.com:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight
    calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich


    Just wait until battery tech gets better.
    You'll see 0 to 60 times of less than 2 seconds. Except now we are
    heading into the "no longer connected to the pavement" area.

    They will need an optical sensor that looks at the road and at the
    wheel spin and keeps the car from breaking the tires loose at max
    acceleration. Need a big 100 foot long plate of hot rubber ensconsed
    dragway surface too.

    Has anyone fashioned a Tesla motor powered dragster yet? Carbon
    fiber.

    Remember the first corbon comp hulls and Kevlar sails in the
    America's Cup Race? It was also a ground breaking shift.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Thu Apr 14 03:34:40 2022
    Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote in news:a42b2143-d5b6-4eec-a2a1-da348c1ee3aen@googlegroups.com:

    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight
    calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors.
    For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per
    wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.



    For one thing you are being presumptuous... again. Not very
    bright.

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjhGSy5pCJA>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Wed Apr 13 21:11:12 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:34:47 PM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote in news:a42b2143-d5b6-4eec...@googlegroups.com:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight
    calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors.
    For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per
    wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.


    For one thing you are being presumptuous... again. Not very
    bright.

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjhGSy5pCJA>

    If there is a will, there is a way. Well, but that's not it. The point of multiple motors is to be close to the wheels, without energy lost in transmission.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to RichD on Thu Apr 14 00:27:44 2022
    On 4/13/2022 3:52 PM, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Biggest engine is always better than anything there's no replacement for displacement.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT VRRRRRROOMM BRRRRRRR

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 04:53:48 2022
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 03.16.52 UTC+2 skrev Clifford Heath:
    On 14/4/22 8:43 am, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...

    Someone should tell <https://www.januselectric.com.au/>

    <https://bigrigs.com.au/index.php/2021/04/26/sydney-to-brisbane-for-525-in-electric-converted-prime-mover/>

    Granted it's a limited roll-out, but you have to start somewhere.
    They can convert an existing prime mover in under a week.

    why not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Corporation

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 04:55:48 2022
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 05.26.39 UTC+2 skrev DecadentLinux...@decadence.org:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:7abd9443-de36-42ca...@googlegroups.com:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight
    calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    Just wait until battery tech gets better.
    You'll see 0 to 60 times of less than 2 seconds. Except now we are
    heading into the "no longer connected to the pavement" area.

    They will need an optical sensor that looks at the road and at the
    wheel spin and keeps the car from breaking the tires loose at max acceleration. Need a big 100 foot long plate of hot rubber ensconsed
    dragway surface too.

    Has anyone fashioned a Tesla motor powered dragster yet? Carbon
    fiber.

    sure they make electric dragsters, https://youtu.be/9bxwQeKhYXQ?t=111

    still twice the time and half the speed of ICE dragster records from nearly 40 years ago

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Cydrome Leader on Thu Apr 14 09:36:38 2022
    On 4/13/2022 9:15 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train >>> locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's >>> nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US
    for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>

    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest, heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.

    The FRA imposed some big-time regulation on passenger rail vehicle
    strength after WW2, yeah. I think those are _maybe_ getting finally
    relaxed a bit as of the past couple years? Not sure with respect to
    diesel rail cars on freight lines maybe I'm thinking of something else.

    It's too bad as light weight DRCs that could run alongside freight
    equipment would open up possibility of service on under-served routes
    like e.g. Worcester MA -> Providence, RI and Boston -> Nashua, NH (just
    as local examples I know of) where there's some demand but hard to make
    the numbers work either as a public service or commercial venture with
    heavy rail.


    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>

    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?

    Maybe, there were some DC motors that fit between the wheels then. The
    shafts on those in the pic are huge though, I think at the time around
    the turn of the century engineers were very conservative with this new technology and their main concern was ensuring they had enough torque
    hence the giant shafts. But there were many improvements in insulation,
    core material, bearings etc. from 1910-30 and the AC motor size
    decreased rapidly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 14 09:45:12 2022
    On 4/14/2022 9:36 AM, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 9:15 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case?  Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why
    train
    locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast,
    there's
    nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US >>> for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>

    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in
    Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in
    Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The
    north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so
    the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially
    passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest,
    heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.

    The FRA imposed some big-time regulation on passenger rail vehicle
    strength after WW2, yeah. I think those are _maybe_ getting finally
    relaxed a bit as of the past couple years? Not sure with respect to
    diesel rail cars on freight lines maybe I'm thinking of something else.

    It's too bad as light weight DRCs that could run alongside freight
    equipment would open up possibility of service on under-served routes
    like e.g. Worcester MA -> Providence, RI and Boston -> Nashua, NH (just
    as local examples I know of) where there's some demand but hard to make
    the numbers work either as a public service or commercial venture with
    heavy rail.


    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>


    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way
    they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors
    with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?

    Maybe, there were some DC motors that fit between the wheels then. The
    shafts on those in the pic are huge though, I think at the time around
    the turn of the century engineers were very conservative with this new technology and their main concern was ensuring they had enough torque
    hence the giant shafts. But there were many improvements in insulation,
    core material, bearings etc. from 1910-30 and the AC motor size
    decreased rapidly

    Er, DC motor size rather the DD1 was DC-powered. Both AC and DC motors decreased in size over that time though for similar reasons I think

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Cydrome Leader on Thu Apr 14 08:11:49 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 5:11:45 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich
    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Locomotives don't give a durn about "pickup speed fast". The generator/traction motor is all about avoiding the complication of a gearbox and clutch which is harder to do at such power levels with good reliability. If you've ever seen a locomotive or
    locomotives pull a mile long freight train from a dead stop, you would realize "fast" doesn't enter into the equation and that a clutch would be toast very quickly. Even a hydraulic clutch would need to be very large and dissipate a lot of heat.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 14 08:22:20 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:05:25 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque, there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.
    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US
    for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>

    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>

    My dad was a dispatcher on the CSX railroad and complained about the unreliable Budd cars. Seems they often broke down and the headache of a blocked track was his. They were used for commuter trains because they could be configured into different sizes
    easily with one driver and could even driven by one car if the others broke down, which was not uncommon according to my dad. Some failures did not allow for any operation though.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Cydrome Leader on Thu Apr 14 08:29:00 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:15:50 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train >> locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's >> nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>
    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest, heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.
    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>
    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?

    The motor turns at the RPM of the wheels. Even for an electric motor that is slow. So to get adequate torque at low speed the motor needs a large diameter. Compare to BEVs today where the motor is very compact, but turns at 9x the wheel rate which
    is much faster than the locomotive wheel rate. Some of the old steam engines had wheels tall as a man.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 14 08:30:43 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:27:52 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 3:52 PM, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.
    Biggest engine is always better than anything there's no replacement for displacement.
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT VRRRRRROOMM BRRRRRRR

    I think you missed the "silver" medal point. For cars on the road, you have to go to extreme lengths to find a faster accelerating car than BEVs.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Apr 14 08:43:22 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 8:57:43 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    When they are not in line to get to a charging station.

    I am amazed at how quickly they are building Superchargers. My home town Frederick, MD had a bank of 8 chargers which would often be more than half full. Given the sharing of each charger between two "hoses", this means someone is not getting the most
    rapid charge rate. About 200 yards away they installed another bank of eight, 250 kW charging units.

    A spot I sometimes charge on my way to the airport in Laural, MD, now has three stations of Superchargers while it used to have only one! Again, all the new ones are 250 kW with no sharing which will charge each car as quickly as possible.

    It's funny to watch Larkin rage against the light. As BEVs take over transportation, when do you think Larkin will throw in the towel and acknowledge BEVs are the better solution? In many ways, they are the Jetson mobile doing everything but fly.
    Actually, I seem to recall the Jetson mobile leaving a trail of exhaust. I guess they weren't all that forward thinking.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Thu Apr 14 08:46:28 2022
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...

    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    --

    Rick C.

    ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 14 09:28:04 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple the
    drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cydrome Leader@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 14 18:04:01 2022
    Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 5:11:45 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich
    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train
    locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's
    nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Locomotives don't give a durn about "pickup speed fast". The generator/traction motor is all
    about avoiding the complication of a gearbox and clutch which is harder to do at such power
    levels with good reliability. If you've ever seen a locomotive or locomotives pull a mile
    long freight train from a dead stop, you would realize "fast" doesn't enter into the equation
    and that a clutch would be toast very quickly. Even a hydraulic clutch would need to be very
    large and dissipate a lot of heat.

    Glad you read the part about needing starting torque and freight trains.

    Long ago I toured general motor's EMD locomotive factory in IL. It was a fascinating plant with
    largest of all machine tools. They eventually shifted new production to Kansas and Canada, then
    the company got sold a bunch of times. I think the Canadian plant is gone now too. GM's
    vehicles are trash, but their giant diesel engines are spot on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 14 11:18:50 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:15:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/13/2022 8:57 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.

    When they are not in line to get to a charging station.

    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Some people enjoy alternating between max accel and max decel.




    Can't recall ever lining up for one. Mostly around here they're not used
    very much, not that there's a shortage of EVs but most people charge at
    home.

    Businesses and public parking lots and state parks etc. often have them
    but don't tend to be able to figure out how to set the pricing on them
    or particularly care to they tend to be set at like $0 or 50 cents a
    kWh, depending, totally divorced from the price of gas or electricity
    for that matter.

    I think they tend to install them because they get a tax credit or >legislation mandates it in the case of public facilities but nobody
    really understands the tech once it's installed or knows how to make any >money off it or cares to figure out how, only Tesla's network seems to
    have accomplished that in a meaningful way.

    EVs all about tax credits and climate nonsense. Absent those, there
    wouldn't be any.

    What happened to the Tesla semi? I'd think that truck drivers are too
    smart to buy into that.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Apr 14 18:36:36 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote in
    news:5pN5K.130148$WZCa.25644@fx08.iad:

    On 4/13/2022 3:52 PM, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Biggest engine is always better than anything there's no
    replacement for displacement.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight
    calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT VRRRRRROOMM BRRRRRRR


    There is an 8500HP funny car that launches to 100MPH in 0.8 sec.

    8.2 liter displacement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 14 15:10:48 2022
    On 4/14/2022 11:29 AM, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:15:50 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train >>>> locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's >>>> nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US >>> for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>
    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest, heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.
    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>
    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?

    The motor turns at the RPM of the wheels. Even for an electric motor that is slow. So to get adequate torque at low speed the motor needs a large diameter. Compare to BEVs today where the motor is very compact, but turns at 9x the wheel rate which
    is much faster than the locomotive wheel rate. Some of the old steam engines had wheels tall as a man.

    Those DD1s ran off about 600 volts DC, at the time the wire diameter for
    the rotor & stator field coils must've been pretty large, too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 14 15:13:50 2022
    On 4/14/2022 11:22 AM, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:05:25 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train >>> locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's >>> nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.
    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US
    for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to
    service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>

    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven
    locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>

    My dad was a dispatcher on the CSX railroad and complained about the unreliable Budd cars. Seems they often broke down and the headache of a blocked track was his. They were used for commuter trains because they could be configured into different
    sizes easily with one driver and could even driven by one car if the others broke down, which was not uncommon according to my dad. Some failures did not allow for any operation though.


    Maybe they were designed by bus-people, or Budd forgot a bunch of what
    it learned about RDC design in the time between 1945 and 1975...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 12:29:44 2022
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 17.29.05 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:15:50 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train
    locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's
    nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque,
    there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>
    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest, heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.
    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>
    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?
    The motor turns at the RPM of the wheels. Even for an electric motor that is slow. So to get adequate torque at low speed the motor needs a large diameter. Compare to BEVs today where the motor is very compact, but turns at 9x the wheel rate which is
    much faster than the locomotive wheel rate. Some of the old steam engines had wheels tall as a man.


    large wheels avoided a gear between the slow steam engine, fast spinning bearings, and large wheels also have more traction

    look like this train has about a 4:1 gearing between the motor and wheels https://youtu.be/WokCyQAsh-E?t=149

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Thu Apr 14 15:53:25 2022
    On 4/13/2022 4:52 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    Yep, I put a 2hp 28V motor on a go Kart. 2HP = 1492 watts/28V = 53 amps.
    But I ran it on 48v and the 250 amp meter pegged on acceleration.
    48v x 250 = 12,000 watts. 12,000 / 746 = 16 HP. We could run it a full speed 40mph without any heat problems, but by the time you got to full speed
    the current
    had dropped way down.
                            Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Thu Apr 14 14:14:24 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple the
    drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.

    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off. In a 30 minute break, charging can restore some 70-80% of the initial range.
    Call it 75%, so 11 hours of driving can extend to 175% of the initial range. 11 hr x 65 mph = 715 miles requires a vehicle range of over 400 miles. That's not a stretch in any way. Tesla is planning 300 and 500 mile versions. I can't tell you the
    weight of those batteries, but Tesla is saying they will not have to give up significantly on the payload capacity, "less than 1 ton", according to Musk.

    Batteries are improving all the time. A couple of automakers are saying in three or so years they will be offering solid state batteries with better performance. There's no reason to think electric semi trucks are in any way not happening.

    --

    Rick C.

    --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Apr 14 14:16:33 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 2:19:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:15:48 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

    On 4/13/2022 8:57 PM, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.

    When they are not in line to get to a charging station.

    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Some people enjoy alternating between max accel and max decel.




    Can't recall ever lining up for one. Mostly around here they're not used >very much, not that there's a shortage of EVs but most people charge at >home.

    Businesses and public parking lots and state parks etc. often have them
    but don't tend to be able to figure out how to set the pricing on them
    or particularly care to they tend to be set at like $0 or 50 cents a
    kWh, depending, totally divorced from the price of gas or electricity
    for that matter.

    I think they tend to install them because they get a tax credit or >legislation mandates it in the case of public facilities but nobody
    really understands the tech once it's installed or knows how to make any >money off it or cares to figure out how, only Tesla's network seems to
    have accomplished that in a meaningful way.
    EVs all about tax credits and climate nonsense. Absent those, there
    wouldn't be any.

    What happened to the Tesla semi? I'd think that truck drivers are too
    smart to buy into that.

    Hucksters are particularly skilled at fooling others. Some people are uniquely good at fooling themselves. lol

    --

    Rick C.

    --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Thu Apr 14 14:21:50 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 3:29:48 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 17.29.05 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:15:50 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 5:11 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    --
    Rich

    electric motors have a far more useful torque curve too. That's why train
    locomotives are not direct drive in the civilized world but run a
    generator and traction motors. If you want to pickup speed fast, there's
    nothing better. If you're hauling freight, and need starting torque, >> there's also still nothing better than an electric motor.

    Incidentally there were some torque-converter driven trainsets in the US
    for niche applications e.g.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car#Design>

    Basically a city bus on rails.

    The later SPV-2000 was similar but an unreliable and difficult to service design it seems:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000>
    What odd machines. I recall diesel operated light duty railcars in Ireland about 15 years ago.
    They made strangest sounds when operating. I think they were made in Korea. For the intended
    use of moving light weight trains around, I guess the worked fine. The north american train
    standard are unlike anywhere else in the world except maybe russia, so the entire concept of a
    fast light weight train just isn't happening here. Essentially passenger trains have to survive
    a very small crash with a freight train, and we have the biggest, heaviest railcars. They will
    obliterate any trains made anywhere with the exception of russia.
    When AC traction motors were still quite large jackshaft-driven locomotives were pretty cool-looking:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackshaft_(locomotive)#/media/File:PRR_DD1_running_gear.jpg>
    Ha, never seen that before, but it makes sense as that's the only way they made large motors
    back then. I'm not completely sure why though. Were there no motors with long skinny rotors at
    all, sort of like a modern servo motor where minimal inertia is key?
    The motor turns at the RPM of the wheels. Even for an electric motor that is slow. So to get adequate torque at low speed the motor needs a large diameter. Compare to BEVs today where the motor is very compact, but turns at 9x the wheel rate which is
    much faster than the locomotive wheel rate. Some of the old steam engines had wheels tall as a man.

    large wheels avoided a gear between the slow steam engine, fast spinning bearings, and large wheels also have more traction

    look like this train has about a 4:1 gearing between the motor and wheels https://youtu.be/WokCyQAsh-E?t=149

    Yeah, to make that work, the motor has to be smaller or the gears are larger than the wheels. Or you use a large motor and the connecting rod.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 14:23:33 2022
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to amdx on Thu Apr 14 14:24:44 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:53:33 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 4:52 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    Yep, I put a 2hp 28V motor on a go Kart. 2HP = 1492 watts/28V = 53 amps.
    But I ran it on 48v and the 250 amp meter pegged on acceleration.
    48v x 250 = 12,000 watts. 12,000 / 746 = 16 HP. We could run it a full speed 40mph without any heat problems, but by the time you got to full speed
    the current
    had dropped way down.

    Many years ago some guys from a car magazine tried making a dragster out of a mail jeep and an electric motor, DC commutator I believe. They had a little trouble with the commutator I believe, but the ultimate problem was they used a cog belt drive, and
    kept shredding the belts! I guess no one tried doing any math to see what the forces would be.

    --

    Rick C.

    -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Thu Apr 14 14:28:34 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:23:37 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.
    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    A 45 minute break will get you a 90% charge if the supply can provide adequate current. That's a slam dunk! The EU also gives a 2 tonne weight extension for BEVs. In the US it's only 1 ton.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 14 14:45:50 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 2:14:28 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off. In a 30 minute break, charging can restore some 70-80% of the initial range.
    Call it 75%, so 11 hours of driving can extend to 175% of the initial range. 11 hr x 65 mph = 715 miles requires a vehicle range of over 400 miles. That's not a stretch in any way. Tesla is planning 300 and 500 mile versions. I can't tell you the weight
    of those batteries, but Tesla is saying they will not have to give up significantly on the payload capacity, "less than 1 ton", according to Musk.

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Apr 15 08:42:10 2022
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.

    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    Clifford Heath

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Thu Apr 14 16:19:59 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... >> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    --

    Rick C.

    ++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 14 16:28:46 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 09:48:14 2022
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>>>>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... >>>> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?


    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank
    locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel,
    and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    CH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Thu Apr 14 16:16:46 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:45:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 2:14:28 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off. In a 30 minute break, charging can restore some 70-80% of the initial range.
    Call it 75%, so 11 hours of driving can extend to 175% of the initial range. 11 hr x 65 mph = 715 miles requires a vehicle range of over 400 miles. That's not a stretch in any way. Tesla is planning 300 and 500 mile versions. I can't tell you the weight
    of those batteries, but Tesla is saying they will not have to give up significantly on the payload capacity, "less than 1 ton", according to Musk.
    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    Lol! Sometimes you truly amaze me.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 16:51:10 2022
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.

    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Thu Apr 14 17:08:57 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:51:14 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.
    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh

    My tiny Leaf can do around 3 miles per kWh. I don't think a fully loaded huge truck can do the same.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Thu Apr 14 18:57:38 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel,
    and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to
    have to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.

    Comparing to fueling up or charging, the battery swap is going to require trained personnel and something that may be a bit on the fancy side to swap out the battery. I don't know if that will be a significant factor in the cost of the service or not.

    The main issue will likely be the company itself. You are limited to working with one outfit, serving how large an area? They can even fold.

    --

    Rick C.

    +++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Thu Apr 14 19:06:42 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:51:14 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.
    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh

    That liter of diesel will get you 2.5 to 3 miles. 10 kWh will get you 5 miles according to Tesla. 100 kWh, 500 miles.

    To Ed, It is silly to think they are providing fuel consumption data for anything other than a fully loaded truck. The people they are providing data to aren't stupid.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 17:00:44 2022
    On 15/4/22 11:57 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>>>>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... >>>>>> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank
    locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel,
    and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to
    have to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.

    It's not that hard to read the damn FAQs, is it?
    The answer is 3 minutes (which took me about 3 seconds to find):

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=How%20does>

    "The Janus Electric software manages the time availability of charged batteries."

    Comparing to fueling up or charging, the battery swap is going to require trained personnel and something that may be a bit on the fancy side to swap out the battery. I don't know if that will be a significant factor in the cost of the service or not.

    The main issue will likely be the company itself. You are limited to working with one outfit, serving how large an area? They can even fold.

    For an e-power enthusiast, you're very full of reasons why it won't
    work. Yet you bleat so loudly when people act the same way about Tesla's.

    CH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 01:15:44 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:06:47 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:51:14 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.
    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh
    That liter of diesel will get you 2.5 to 3 miles. 10 kWh will get you 5 miles according to Tesla. 100 kWh, 500 miles.

    That's for burning. But diesel engine is around 30% to 50% efficient for moving. 10kWh will get you 2 to 3 miles.

    To Ed, It is silly to think they are providing fuel consumption data for anything other than a fully loaded truck. The people they are providing data to aren't stupid.

    Now, you are being silly with your data.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Apr 15 01:43:02 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 1:15:48 AM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:06:47 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:51:14 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.
    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh
    That liter of diesel will get you 2.5 to 3 miles. 10 kWh will get you 5 miles according to Tesla. 100 kWh, 500 miles.
    That's for burning. But diesel engine is around 30% to 50% efficient for moving. 10kWh will get you 2 to 3 miles.

    3kWh (30% of 10kWh) will get 2 to 3 miles, or less than 1 mile per kWh

    To Ed, It is silly to think they are providing fuel consumption data for anything other than a fully loaded truck. The people they are providing data to aren't stupid.
    Now, you are being silly with your data.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 12:22:00 2022
    On 2022-04-15, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >> >> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >> >> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank
    locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel,
    and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to
    have to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that
    no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my
    imagination.

    I can't see it being significantly slower than swapping trailers.

    drive into position, unplug the cables, release the clamps, whistle
    for a fork-lift, crane, or whatever.

    The main issue will likely be the company itself. You are limited
    to working with one outfit, serving how large an area? They can even
    fold.

    yeah, it's a risk if you're stuck with a single provider.


    --
    Jasen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Fri Apr 15 09:27:42 2022
    Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>>>>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... >>>>>> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.

    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh

    In Denmark or Holland or Florida, maybe. In Switzerland or Colorado,
    not so much. ;)

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs


    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Fri Apr 15 07:22:49 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:27:50 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in >>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000 6 cu.m(est) 1500lbs (est) 100kwhr (guess)

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.

    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh
    In Denmark or Holland or Florida, maybe. In Switzerland or Colorado,
    not so much. ;)

    For us imperialist: 4 * 3.78 * 0.62 = 9.37 miles per gal. That's pretty good. We used to deal with 5 to 6 mpg for big trucks. 30% of 37.8kWhr (1 gal) for moving is 9.37 miles for 12 kWhr or around 0.8 mile per kWhr.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 10:19:58 2022
    On 4/14/2022 4:24 PM, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:53:33 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
    On 4/13/2022 4:52 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    Yep, I put a 2hp 28V motor on a go Kart. 2HP = 1492 watts/28V = 53 amps.
    But I ran it on 48v and the 250 amp meter pegged on acceleration.
    48v x 250 = 12,000 watts. 12,000 / 746 = 16 HP. We could run it a full speed >> 40mph without any heat problems, but by the time you got to full speed
    the current
    had dropped way down.
    Many years ago some guys from a car magazine tried making a dragster out of a mail jeep and an electric motor, DC commutator I believe. They had a little trouble with the commutator I believe, but the ultimate problem was they used a cog belt drive,
    and kept shredding the belts! I guess no one tried doing any math to see what the forces would be.

     At one time I took it to a local marina where there were several guys.
    One heavy guy got on, he nailed it and took every tooth of my motor
    sprocket!
    Easy fix, I had on at home. So, ya, torque up the wazoo!
             Mikek

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Fri Apr 15 10:22:11 2022
    On 4/13/2022 10:34 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote in news:a42b2143-d5b6-4eec-a2a1-da348c1ee3aen@googlegroups.com:

    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight
    calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors.
    For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per
    wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.


    For one thing you are being presumptuous... again. Not very
    bright.

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjhGSy5pCJA>
    Seems all show and no go. 6 years on Youtube and not a single comment,
    you can be the first!

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Apr 15 17:19:28 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:52:41 +0100, RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    It's only fast while there's enough Lithium and electricity to go around. These are both running very low.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Apr 15 17:18:57 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:02:03 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.

    When did ICE start meaning Internal Combustion Engine and not In Car Entertainment? Classified ads always said ICE if it had a good stereo.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Fri Apr 15 09:25:21 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 3:00:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 11:57 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in >>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank
    locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel, >> and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to have
    to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.
    It's not that hard to read the damn FAQs, is it?

    This is one of those web sites I find very hard to read because instead of making the site legible, they chose to use stylish, like grey fonts with thin strokes. Sorry, they clearly are not looking for business or investment from me.

    I think I was in second grade when I was taught to not read every word individually, but to scan the paragraph looking at the shapes of words. My vision is no longer good enough to be able to do that for these obscured web sites. So rather than read
    every word, one at a time, I read none of them and visit web sites that aren't designed to torture their viewers.

    That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ.


    The answer is 3 minutes (which took me about 3 seconds to find):

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=How%20does>

    "The Janus Electric software manages the time availability of charged batteries."

    The three minutes is the time to actually change the battery. How long does it take to drive to the facility, get in line and handle the payment? I don't see any of that mentioned in the FAQ. It's not three minutes to swap the battery in any real
    sense, just like it's not 5 minutes to fill your gas tank at a service station.


    Comparing to fueling up or charging, the battery swap is going to require trained personnel and something that may be a bit on the fancy side to swap out the battery. I don't know if that will be a significant factor in the cost of the service or not.


    The main issue will likely be the company itself. You are limited to working with one outfit, serving how large an area? They can even fold.
    For an e-power enthusiast, you're very full of reasons why it won't
    work. Yet you bleat so loudly when people act the same way about Tesla's.

    Analogies are only useful when they are useful analogies. What I say about BEVs has nothing to do with this company. I didn't even know e-power was a thing.

    If you think my points are of no value, then explain that to me. Or you can just whine that I'm being "unfair". I didn't say it would not work. In fact, I start off saying it might be more useful for trucks than cars. It would have an even better
    chance of working if it used a primary battery with a much longer range. But mostly, there needs to be some competition on the battery replacement side.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri Apr 15 09:45:33 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:19:37 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:52:41 +0100, RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    It's only fast while there's enough Lithium and electricity to go around. These are both running very low.

    It's going to be terrible when we use up all the electricity and have to do without. I don't know why no one is working on an electricity substitute. Maybe we can use fiber optics and channel light around to supply energy. There's always light, well,
    at least in the daytime.

    --

    Rick C.

    --++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Fri Apr 15 09:40:41 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:31:03 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
    On 2022-04-15, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >> >> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >> >>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in >> >> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank
    locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel, >> and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to have
    to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that
    no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.
    I can't see it being significantly slower than swapping trailers.

    drive into position, unplug the cables, release the clamps, whistle
    for a fork-lift, crane, or whatever.
    The main issue will likely be the company itself. You are limited
    to working with one outfit, serving how large an area? They can even
    fold.
    yeah, it's a risk if you're stuck with a single provider.

    Too many engineers, too few who think. So a random truck drives in and the battery is replaced with no payment, no nothing? Even swapping a trailer means you have to park one trailer, uncouple, jack up the stands, then pull away, align with the other
    trailer, ect.

    Other than the first few, this won't be done by someone with a fork lift. Fork lift operators break things too often. Maybe they will find a way to optimize this, but I don't see how a 10 or 15 minute battery swap is going to be that much more useful
    than plugging in to charge while going inside to crap and eat. This invention satisfies a need that doesn't exist in the case of truckers. Truckers have to stop to eat. They are not machines. There is already time enough to charge in a trucker's
    schedule. If you use a smaller battery to improve payload capacity, you stop twice for 15 minutes each, you still have to stop for 30 minutes for the driver!

    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and explain the use case in detail? I'm not seeing it.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 17:49:43 2022
    On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:45:33 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:19:37 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:52:41 +0100, RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    It's only fast while there's enough Lithium and electricity to go around. These are both running very low.

    It's going to be terrible when we use up all the electricity and have to do without. I don't know why no one is working on an electricity substitute. Maybe we can use fiber optics and channel light around to supply energy. There's always light, well,
    at least in the daytime.

    We need to start recycling electrons.

    As for light, why not a fiber optic cable from the other side of the world?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri Apr 15 17:42:03 2022
    "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in
    news:op.1koec5avmvhs6z@ryzen.lan:

    We need to start recycling electrons.


    They do not deplete, you stupid fuck.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sat Apr 16 08:00:47 2022
    On 16/4/22 2:25 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 3:00:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 11:57 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in >>>>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The >>>>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, >>>>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed >>>> to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive
    motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank
    locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel, >>>> and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service
    costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to have
    to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.
    It's not that hard to read the damn FAQs, is it?

    This is one of those web sites I find very hard to read because instead of making the site legible, they chose to use stylish, like grey fonts with thin strokes. Sorry, they clearly are not looking for business or investment from me.

    I think I was in second grade when I was taught to not read every word individually, but to scan the paragraph looking at the shapes of words. My vision is no longer good enough to be able to do that for these obscured web sites. So rather than read
    every word, one at a time, I read none of them and visit web sites that aren't designed to torture their viewers.

    That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ.

    And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts.
    You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to
    dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and
    take seriously.

    For an e-power enthusiast, you're very full of reasons why it won't
    work. Yet you bleat so loudly when people act the same way about Tesla's.

    Analogies are only useful when they are useful analogies. What I say about BEVs has nothing to do with this company. I didn't even know e-power was a thing.

    If you think my points are of no value, then explain that to me.

    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and explain the use case

    Put in more time reading and thinking instead of just writing, and you
    might have something worth saying.

    There is *one* route where this system is being trialled -
    Sydney-Brisbane. It's Australia's most heavily-trucked route - hundreds
    of trucks a day drive this nine-hour route, so there's no issue with
    needing to sleep en route, and food is already catered by existing
    service centres. This one route represents a perfectly adequate reason
    for some prime movers to be converted, specialised for that route only.

    There is plenty of roadside real estate where these battery stations can
    easily be built with multiple bays, and directly on the wide road
    reservation. We have these rest stops already built every ten or twenty kilometres - most have no more structures than a composting toilet. But
    if there's power nearby (and there often is) then a charge/exchange
    station can be built there. The point is that trucks just pull into a
    side track beside the highway, there's no diversion.


    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and
    explain the use case

    Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has
    already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your
    own fetid imagination?

    CH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri Apr 15 16:00:10 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:49:52 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:45:33 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 12:19:37 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:52:41 +0100, RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >> >
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    It's only fast while there's enough Lithium and electricity to go around. These are both running very low.

    It's going to be terrible when we use up all the electricity and have to do without. I don't know why no one is working on an electricity substitute. Maybe we can use fiber optics and channel light around to supply energy. There's always light, well,
    at least in the daytime.
    We need to start recycling electrons.

    I always recycle my electrons. I also use only recycled electrons. I support a cleaner sub-atomic world.


    As for light, why not a fiber optic cable from the other side of the world?

    Sound good to me. I use fiber optics from my neighbor's security light.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Fri Apr 15 16:17:06 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 16/4/22 2:25 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 3:00:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 11:57 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in >>>>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable. >>>>>>
    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being >>>>>> installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed >>>> to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive >>>> motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank >>>> locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel,
    and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service >>>> costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts>

    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect
    battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to have
    to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.
    It's not that hard to read the damn FAQs, is it?

    This is one of those web sites I find very hard to read because instead of making the site legible, they chose to use stylish, like grey fonts with thin strokes. Sorry, they clearly are not looking for business or investment from me.

    I think I was in second grade when I was taught to not read every word individually, but to scan the paragraph looking at the shapes of words. My vision is no longer good enough to be able to do that for these obscured web sites. So rather than read
    every word, one at a time, I read none of them and visit web sites that aren't designed to torture their viewers.

    That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ.
    And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts.

    I like the fact that my vision is not perfect is the reason why you don't read my posts. Interesting. So why do you keep participating in this conversation?


    You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to
    dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and
    take seriously.

    I have tons of time. I don't have the patience to deal with crap web sites or marketing drivel.


    For an e-power enthusiast, you're very full of reasons why it won't
    work. Yet you bleat so loudly when people act the same way about Tesla's.

    Analogies are only useful when they are useful analogies. What I say about BEVs has nothing to do with this company. I didn't even know e-power was a thing.

    If you think my points are of no value, then explain that to me.
    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and explain the use case
    Put in more time reading and thinking instead of just writing, and you
    might have something worth saying.

    Meanwhile, you choose to attack me personally rather than being involved in a discussion of the facts. I think we see where the shortcomings of thinking lie.


    There is *one* route where this system is being trialled -
    Sydney-Brisbane. It's Australia's most heavily-trucked route - hundreds
    of trucks a day drive this nine-hour route, so there's no issue with
    needing to sleep en route, and food is already catered by existing
    service centres. This one route represents a perfectly adequate reason
    for some prime movers to be converted, specialised for that route only.

    There is plenty of roadside real estate where these battery stations can easily be built with multiple bays, and directly on the wide road reservation. We have these rest stops already built every ten or twenty kilometres - most have no more structures than a composting toilet. But
    if there's power nearby (and there often is) then a charge/exchange
    station can be built there. The point is that trucks just pull into a
    side track beside the highway, there's no diversion.

    Of course there is some sort of diversion, something that wastes time to get the truck into the bay, make the financial arraignments. Get someone's attention to do the change. Or is it fully automatic like a vending machine?

    But why you don't address the fact that this is solving a problem that doesn't exist? As I've already shown, a single stop to charge can be concurrent with the mandatory rest period (in the US anyway, not sure what laws are like down under). Someone
    commented that in the EU there are more/longer rest stops required. So there is already time for charging and no need for swapping batteries. Charging can be accommodated at existing truck stops with the addition of the chargers. It won't require
    extra land or zoning issues. It's an easy adaptation and can even be blended with the parking spots every truck stop provides. I don't know how large the battery swap buildings would be, but there has to be space for the inventory as well as means to
    charge them.


    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and
    explain the use case
    Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has
    already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your
    own fetid imagination?

    I'm having a conversation *here*. You've posted a link to a web site I've already explained I'm not going to struggle to read. If you have something useful to say, please say it. But stop being a horses ass about the simple fact that you are in a
    conversation you don't like. That has got to be the epitome of idiocy, to be in a conversation you hate, and rail about it constantly, rather than just shutting the fuck up!

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sat Apr 16 13:33:57 2022
    On 16/4/22 9:17 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ.
    And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts.

    I like the fact that my vision is not perfect is the reason why you don't read my posts.

    You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects, enable the accessibility features of your browser so you don't get low-contrast text.

    So why do you keep participating in this conversation?

    Because people who matter to me seemed inexplicably to be paying
    attention to you. I have no idea why, because you've still said nothing
    to deserve it.

    If you want respect, you need to show some respect first.

    When you write, you do it in the expectation that we will read.
    You expect us to spend the time to read your dribble, yet you are too
    lazy to do any reading yourself, so as to have something useful to say.

    That is the epitome of disrespect, and it characterises almost *all* of
    your posts in this forum. I skip them, because they're almost always content-free.


    You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to
    dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and
    take seriously
    Meanwhile, you choose to attack me personally rather than being involved in a discussion of the facts.

    Facts are good. I like facts. Unfortunately you choose not to seek or
    offer any.

    But why you don't address the fact that this is solving a problem that doesn't exist?

    Why do you care? It should be obvious that the truck owners, and the
    system's other investors, have done their due diligence and found that
    it is in fact a very real solution to a very real problem.

    This can significantly reduce the cost of transport on Australia's
    heaviest route, while providing a positive ROI for everyone involved,
    from the first year. And you think that's not solving any problem,
    because allow no facts to penetrate your thick skull?

    So there is already time for charging and no need for swapping batteries.

    This method reduces the barrier for entry presented by the high cost of
    the batteries. The truck owners get their ROI more quickly than the
    system's investors, who own the batteries.

    The conversion itself costs no more than an conventional engine
    swap/rebuild.

    Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has
    already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your
    own fetid imagination?

    I'm having a conversation *here*.

    No you're not. In a conversation, people pay attention to the other
    side, and consider their response. You just dribble out whatever
    nonsense gets triggered by your false understanding of things.

    I keep hoping against hope that one day you will reflect on what I've
    said (same on several occasions before, I might add), and will decide
    you no longer want to be such an incorrigible bore. Not to say boor.

    CH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Fri Apr 15 22:54:59 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:34:07 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 16/4/22 9:17 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ.
    And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts.

    I like the fact that my vision is not perfect is the reason why you don't read my posts.
    You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects, enable the accessibility features of your browser so you don't get low-contrast text.

    You are an arrogant ass. There are no useful features available. You are the one who wants to discuss the web page. If you can't be bothered to explain it, I'm not going to jump through hoops to read the damn thing.


    So why do you keep participating in this conversation?
    Because people who matter to me seemed inexplicably to be paying
    attention to you. I have no idea why, because you've still said nothing
    to deserve it.

    Nope, you are the only one who is in this conversation with me. You seem rather obsessed with it. It has nothing to do with anyone else.


    If you want respect, you need to show some respect first.

    I literally have zero interest in your respect. Is that clear enough for you?


    When you write, you do it in the expectation that we will read.
    You expect us to spend the time to read your dribble, yet you are too
    lazy to do any reading yourself, so as to have something useful to say.

    If you want to read and reply, fine. If you don't want to read and reply, that's fine too. But clearly, you can't not read what I write. You do seem to be rather in an odd state. You talk as if reading my posts hugely annoy you, yet you keep, not
    only reading, but replying. Yes, very odd.


    That is the epitome of disrespect, and it characterises almost *all* of
    your posts in this forum. I skip them, because they're almost always content-free.

    You simply have no respect for my handicap which is very different from having no respect for me. You are clearly not the sort of person who I wish to converse with.


    You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to
    dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and
    take seriously
    Meanwhile, you choose to attack me personally rather than being involved in a discussion of the facts.
    Facts are good. I like facts. Unfortunately you choose not to seek or
    offer any.
    But why you don't address the fact that this is solving a problem that doesn't exist?
    Why do you care? It should be obvious that the truck owners, and the system's other investors, have done their due diligence and found that
    it is in fact a very real solution to a very real problem.

    I don't see that at all. There are always people who get involved in bad ideas. Do you really not understand that??? If you don't understand that, you can't possibly judge useful projects from useless ones.


    This can significantly reduce the cost of transport on Australia's
    heaviest route, while providing a positive ROI for everyone involved,
    from the first year. And you think that's not solving any problem,
    because allow no facts to penetrate your thick skull?

    It may produce an ROI. That's not the question. Will it continue to produce an ROI and will it be an optimal ROI? I suppose if you have to have a solution today, then this might be useful. But I've already explained that this approach may not have
    legs and you may end up stuck with a lemon that has no support if the company goes under.


    So there is already time for charging and no need for swapping batteries.
    This method reduces the barrier for entry presented by the high cost of
    the batteries. The truck owners get their ROI more quickly than the
    system's investors, who own the batteries.

    I haven't seen numbers, but I would be more interested in knowing if the ROI will continue after other solutions are available. Will this system remain competitive? I think the other systems will expand more quickly. Since Australia is a self
    contained, island country, it may turn out that this system becomes dominant there, while BEV trucks dominate in the rest of the world.


    The conversion itself costs no more than an conventional engine swap/rebuild.
    Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has
    already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your >> own fetid imagination?

    I'm having a conversation *here*.
    No you're not. In a conversation, people pay attention to the other
    side, and consider their response. You just dribble out whatever
    nonsense gets triggered by your false understanding of things.

    I keep hoping against hope that one day you will reflect on what I've
    said (same on several occasions before, I might add), and will decide
    you no longer want to be such an incorrigible bore. Not to say boor.

    Ok, I am reflecting on what you say. I'm done with you. I've tried to participate in a reasonable conversation, but you insist on being highly insulting because of my handicap. You don't see it as important and that I should take the effort to read a
    web site intentionally made difficult to read, just so you can converse with me more easily. I think of your handicap the same way. Yours is a mental attitude, and that is often as incurable as any other disease.

    It's not like you have anything useful to say anyway. Your comments are basically, that this system is good and other systems are not as good. Brilliant! What insight! Thank you for your wisdom.

    --

    Rick C.

    -++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 15 22:28:49 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 16/4/22 2:25 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 3:00:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 11:57 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable. >>>>>>
    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being >>>>>> installed every few 100km along major highways.

    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?

    Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed
    to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive >>>> motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank >>>> locations, so there is no structural modification required.

    The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel,
    and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service >>>> costs also significantly reduced.

    <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts> >>>
    I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would
    expect battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help
    to have to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge?

    It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination.
    It's not that hard to read the damn FAQs, is it?

    This is one of those web sites I find very hard to read because instead of making the site legible, they chose to use stylish, like grey fonts with thin strokes. Sorry, they clearly are not looking for business or investment from me.

    I think I was in second grade when I was taught to not read every word individually, but to scan the paragraph looking at the shapes of words. My vision is no longer good enough to be able to do that for these obscured web sites. So rather than
    read every word, one at a time, I read none of them and visit web sites that aren't designed to torture their viewers.

    That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ.
    And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts.
    I like the fact that my vision is not perfect is the reason why you don't read my posts. Interesting. So why do you keep participating in this conversation?
    You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to
    dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and take seriously.
    I have tons of time. I don't have the patience to deal with crap web sites or marketing drivel.
    For an e-power enthusiast, you're very full of reasons why it won't
    work. Yet you bleat so loudly when people act the same way about Tesla's.

    Analogies are only useful when they are useful analogies. What I say about BEVs has nothing to do with this company. I didn't even know e-power was a thing.

    If you think my points are of no value, then explain that to me.
    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and explain the use case
    Put in more time reading and thinking instead of just writing, and you might have something worth saying.
    Meanwhile, you choose to attack me personally rather than being involved in a discussion of the facts. I think we see where the shortcomings of thinking lie.
    There is *one* route where this system is being trialled - Sydney-Brisbane. It's Australia's most heavily-trucked route - hundreds
    of trucks a day drive this nine-hour route, so there's no issue with needing to sleep en route, and food is already catered by existing
    service centres. This one route represents a perfectly adequate reason
    for some prime movers to be converted, specialised for that route only.

    There is plenty of roadside real estate where these battery stations can easily be built with multiple bays, and directly on the wide road reservation. We have these rest stops already built every ten or twenty kilometres - most have no more structures than a composting toilet. But
    if there's power nearby (and there often is) then a charge/exchange station can be built there. The point is that trucks just pull into a
    side track beside the highway, there's no diversion.
    Of course there is some sort of diversion, something that wastes time to get the truck into the bay, make the financial arraignments. Get someone's attention to do the change. Or is it fully automatic like a vending machine?

    But why you don't address the fact that this is solving a problem that doesn't exist? As I've already shown, a single stop to charge can be concurrent with the mandatory rest period (in the US anyway, not sure what laws are like down under). Someone
    commented that in the EU there are more/longer rest stops required. So there is already time for charging and no need for swapping batteries. Charging can be accommodated at existing truck stops with the addition of the chargers. It won't require extra
    land or zoning issues. It's an easy adaptation and can even be blended with the parking spots every truck stop provides. I don't know how large the battery swap buildings would be, but there has to be space for the inventory as well as means to charge
    them.
    So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and
    explain the use case
    Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has
    already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your own fetid imagination?
    I'm having a conversation *here*. You've posted a link to a web site I've already explained I'm not going to struggle to read. If you have something useful to say, please say it. But stop being a horses ass about the simple fact that you are in a
    conversation you don't like. That has got to be the epitome of idiocy, to be in a conversation you hate, and rail about it constantly, rather than just shutting the fuck up!

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    What would be REALLY interesting is a Canonball coast-to-coast race with EVs. I wonder what the time would be? Remember, an ICE-powered car did it in 27 h 25 m in 2020.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sat Apr 16 06:07:22 2022
    Ricky wrote:

    Clifford Heath wrote:

    You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects, enable the

    accessibility features of your browser so you don't get low-contrast
    text

    You are an arrogant ass. There are no useful features available.

    Of course not, Ricksy is using Google!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sat Apr 16 11:13:30 2022
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in
    news:t3dmeq$rje$2@dont-email.me:

    Ricky wrote:

    Clifford Heath wrote:

    You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects,
    enable the

    accessibility features of your browser so you don't get
    low-contrast text

    You are an arrogant ass. There are no useful features available.

    Of course not, Ricksy is using Google!


    Ctrl +

    Increases size on every web browser I ever saw. Ctrl 1 thru 9 as well
    and Ctrl 0 resets it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Sat Apr 16 10:05:53 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:34:07 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
    This can significantly reduce the cost of transport on Australia's
    heaviest route, while providing a positive ROI for everyone involved,
    from the first year.

    With the basic chassis ($50,000?), $85,000 conversion, $120,000 batteries, it's a 1/4 million truck. Doesn't matter who owns it, customers are indirectly paying for it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sat Apr 16 10:36:31 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:27:50 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: >>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in >>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The
    trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the
    power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being
    installed every few 100km along major highways.
    I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air?
    $120,000, guesses: 1 cu.m, 5000lbs, 300kwhr

    They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck.

    modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l
    a liter of diesel is ~10kWh
    In Denmark or Holland or Florida, maybe. In Switzerland or Colorado,
    not so much. ;)
    For us imperialist: 4 * 3.78 * 0.62 = 9.37 miles per gal. That's pretty good. We used to deal with 5 to 6 mpg for big trucks. 30% of 37.8kWhr (1 gal) for moving is 9.37 miles for 12 kWhr or around 0.8 mile per kWhr.

    BTW, Tesla Semi says less than 2kWhr/mile or more than 0.5mile per kWhr.

    https://www.tesla.com/semi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sat Apr 16 12:24:06 2022
    On April 13, Ed Lee wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel,
    which is hard to do with ICE.

    At the risk of asking a dumb question... how do they sync the
    speeds of the various motors? Does the vehicle have a single
    centralized servo controller, monitoring them all?

    In which case, one might ask what's the failure mode,
    if that controller goes on the fritz -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Apr 16 12:38:20 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:24:10 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    On April 13, Ed Lee wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel,
    which is hard to do with ICE.
    At the risk of asking a dumb question... how do they sync the
    speeds of the various motors? Does the vehicle have a single
    centralized servo controller, monitoring them all?

    In which case, one might ask what's the failure mode,
    if that controller goes on the fritz -

    Speed controllers do not need to be powerful. I don't see the need for a single central controller.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cydrome Leader@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sat Apr 16 19:59:39 2022
    Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle
    configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to
    trailers where eight of the tires are.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Cydrome Leader on Sat Apr 16 17:55:05 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >> > >
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250 miles
    (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Apr 16 20:35:49 2022
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 5:24:10 AM UTC+10, RichD wrote:
    On April 13, Ed Lee wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel,
    which is hard to do with ICE.
    At the risk of asking a dumb question... how do they sync the
    speeds of the various motors? Does the vehicle have a single
    centralized servo controller, monitoring them all?

    Have you never heard of ABS braking?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system

    The modern ones have a rotation rate sensor or each wheel, and that could provide the feedback to control the speed at which each wheel rotated. Of course when a car (or truck) is traveling around a curve the wheels on the inside of the curve have to
    rotate faster than the wheels on the outside (which is what differential joints cope with). Tizzying up the system with separate motors on each wheel means that you can cope with this inside the electronics.

    In which case, one might ask what's the failure mode, if that controller goes on the fritz -


    There's just such a controller in every ABS. They don't seem to fail. If one of the sensors stopped working, there may be a get yourself home carefully mode. but I never ran into it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 17 03:14:44 2022
    On 2022-04-17, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >> >> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >> >> > >
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle
    configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to
    trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    Avoiding those temperatures will not require any effort on the road
    between Sydney and Melbourne. The technology may need tweaking for use
    in other locations.

    --
    Jasen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Apr 16 20:57:31 2022
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium batteries.

    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to warm
    it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Sat Apr 16 23:30:03 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, Jasen Betts wrote:
    On 2022-04-17, Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle
    configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to
    trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    Avoiding those temperatures will not require any effort on the road
    between Sydney and Melbourne. The technology may need tweaking for use
    in other locations.

    --
    Jasen.

    Tell that to the Canadian part of Walmart, who has ordered 130 of them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Apr 16 23:32:17 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:57:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium batteries.


    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to
    warm it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    No, YOU don't know what you are talking about. Lithium capacity AND current drop with temperature, SNIPPERMAN - LOOK IT UP! Using ANY energy of the battery for heating WILL effect range, idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 17 02:15:16 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:55:09 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to trailers where eight of the tires are.
    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    The fallacy here is that the battery temperature is what is important to the range, not the weather. When charging a truck will keep the battery warm as a by product of the charging, just like an ICE provides waste heat to the passenger compartment for
    keeping the passengers warm. This is also true when driving, the battery heats up from waste heat in the battery and motor.

    I don't know about other cars, but Teslas have a mode where they will schedule the charging to end at a time of choosing, for the start of a trip, ensuring the battery is up to temp. No big deal.

    So unless the vehicle can't be charged immediately prior to use, this is not a problem.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Apr 17 02:35:26 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:57:35 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium batteries.


    Both the time•current and the voltage is reduced reducing energy. You should know this from physical chemistry. That's where I learned it, also every battery discharge curve I've ever seen.

    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=80512


    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to
    warm it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    The battery also self heats when being charged. Tesla allows you to specify your trip starting time and will charge the battery so it is just done when you are ready to leave. This should be easy to do for trucks as well.


    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    It's also free since the battery will self heat.

    --

    Rick C.

    +--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 17 18:37:58 2022
    On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:09 UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    ...
    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    All modern EVs can heat or cool the batteries as needed. So after a short period of driving they will be at optimum temperature so they can be at full performance.

    The batteries are insulated and can use waste heat both from the batteries themselves and the motors to keep within a reasonable temperature range so minimizing the battery power they need to use. They can also use wall power to condition the batteries
    to setting out.

    Tesla's are very popular in Norway even in low temperatures.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to RichD on Sun Apr 17 18:41:57 2022
    On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 12:24:10 UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    ...
    At the risk of asking a dumb question... how do they sync the
    speeds of the various motors? Does the vehicle have a single
    centralized servo controller, monitoring them all?

    The main control parameter is torque not RPM. The RPM largely takes care of itself except when the ABS or the electronic stability control is active.

    After all when going round a corner the outside wheels have to rotate faster than the inside ones and tire wear will also affect rotational speed.
    ...
    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Sun Apr 17 19:31:48 2022
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:09 UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    ...
    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    All modern EVs can heat or cool the batteries as needed. So after a short period of driving they will be at optimum temperature so they can be at full performance.

    Not trying to be pedantic, but not *all* BEVs heat/cool the batteries. I know this is an issue in the Nissan Leaf, but then you did say, "All modern EVs". They neither heat nor cool and the cooling can be a real issue at times, like when fast charging.
    I met someone who has one and he talked about several times when he was worried about the temperature, but continued to charge. Some of his stories were pretty desperate, like Ed Lee, trying to reach the next level 2 charger. What a crappy way to
    drive!


    The batteries are insulated and can use waste heat both from the batteries themselves and the motors to keep within a reasonable temperature range so minimizing the battery power they need to use. They can also use wall power to condition the batteries
    to setting out.

    I don't think the batteries are insulated. I know my Tesla is not. The batteries have a lot of thermal mass, so driving will heat them up, but it's not a fast process. Likewise, charging will heat them up too, but again, not real fast. Home charging
    with a level 2 connection can warm them, but it will take some time for them to reach optimum temperature, which I think is around 90°F. Even bringing them up from Freezing to a temp where the regen braking works fully takes a while.


    Tesla's are very popular in Norway even in low temperatures.

    Yeah, I'm not sure how much to read into that. Norway is not as cold as some places in the US and Canada unless you are in the far north end. Most people live in the southern end.

    --

    Rick C.

    +--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 17 19:25:39 2022
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:32:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:57:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >> > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >> > >
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium
    batteries.

    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to
    warm it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    No, YOU don't know what you are talking about. Lithium capacity AND current drop with temperature, Sloman - LOOK IT UP!

    As Rick C has also pointed out, this is known and has been measured. He seems to think that physical chemistry comes into this, and Gibbs free energy does depend on temperature, but not much.

    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=80512

    The paper he cites blames it all on the battery impedance changes, which means that when the battery self heats in operation, the effect goes away

    Using ANY energy of the battery for heating WILL effect range, idiot.

    But not much, You are a simple-minded idiot who can't do quantitative thinking, which does lead you to make moronic blanket claims, and to ignore what's actually going on.

    --
    Bill Sloman. Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Kragelund@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Apr 18 09:46:08 2022
    17.04.22 06:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >> > >> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle
    configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to
    trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium batteries.

    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to
    warm it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    I have a Tesla model 3, and when I plan the charging for longer trips, the car will preheat the battery to optimize charging


    --
    Klaus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon Apr 18 07:11:54 2022
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:09 UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    ...
    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    All modern EVs can heat or cool the batteries as needed. So after a short period of driving they will be at optimum temperature so they can be at full performance.
    Not trying to be pedantic, but not *all* BEVs heat/cool the batteries. I know this is an issue in the Nissan Leaf, but then you did say, "All modern EVs". They neither heat nor cool and the cooling can be a real issue at times, like when fast charging.

    Cold is not a problem. Leaf batteries have cell heaters from the beginning.

    I met someone who has one and he talked about several times when he was worried about the temperature, but continued to charge. Some of his stories were pretty desperate, like Ed Lee, trying to reach the next level 2 charger. What a crappy way to
    drive!

    It's just a reflection of how bad the charging infrastructure is. While towing 11 miles to find a charger, the driver stopped at 3 to 4 gas station to look for charger, so he can save some gas. If only every gas station has at least a level-2.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Klaus Kragelund on Mon Apr 18 07:52:22 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:46:15 AM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    17.04.22 06:57, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> > Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >> > >> > >
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle >> > configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to >> > trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).

    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium
    batteries.

    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to
    warm it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    I have a Tesla model 3, and when I plan the charging for longer trips, the car will preheat the battery to optimize charging

    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Apr 18 07:55:40 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:11:59 AM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:31:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:38:02 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:09 UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    ...
    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/
    250 miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    All modern EVs can heat or cool the batteries as needed. So after a short period of driving they will be at optimum temperature so they can be at full performance.
    Not trying to be pedantic, but not *all* BEVs heat/cool the batteries. I know this is an issue in the Nissan Leaf, but then you did say, "All modern EVs". They neither heat nor cool and the cooling can be a real issue at times, like when fast
    charging.
    Cold is not a problem. Leaf batteries have cell heaters from the beginning.

    I stand corrected. It's only overheating that is a problem, which can happen every time you charge.


    I met someone who has one and he talked about several times when he was worried about the temperature, but continued to charge. Some of his stories were pretty desperate, like Ed Lee, trying to reach the next level 2 charger. What a crappy way to
    drive!
    It's just a reflection of how bad the charging infrastructure is. While towing 11 miles to find a charger, the driver stopped at 3 to 4 gas station to look for charger, so he can save some gas. If only every gas station has at least a level-2.

    If only, they would almost never be used. The world does not revolve around your bizarre use case of having almost no range and being unwilling or unable to effectively plan your trips to suit.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon Apr 18 09:15:28 2022
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Mon Apr 18 09:47:13 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Mon Apr 18 10:39:04 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:15:32 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    Not really a significant detail. The issue is whether the battery is heated by waste heat or intentional heat used in addition to the waste. I'm pretty sure the heat is additional heat, or there would not be any concern with the current state of charge
    of the battery. Waste heat is always available for any use you can find for it.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Apr 18 10:55:29 2022
    On April 13, Ed Lee wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance,
    you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.

    The ultimate constraint is the energy source, and speed at which it
    can convert into kinetic energy. At the high end, it's a matter of air resistance; out of the starting gate, torque to overcome inertia.

    A motor isn't a power supply -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Klaus Kragelund on Mon Apr 18 14:49:07 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.
    I have seen it active many times, and also when ambient temperatures are
    20 degrees.

    See plot of lifetime vs temperature here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay-Lee-27/publication/260030309/figure/download/fig2/AS:296997371301891@1447821099785/Lithium-ion-battery-life-vs-temperature-and-charging-rate-36-39-44-45.png

    ESR:

    https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c9f4e352906f965c5327221f6d49854?rik=KR97DtfMdiFdaQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avdweb.nl%2fArticle_files%2fSolarbike%2fBatteries%2fLiFePO4-internal-resistance-versus-temperature.jpg&ehk=NHkwR3Qn%
    2bfG2QGCx8OagT20WqS3Cyb6azCKOMcvKkEs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1

    The point is that during charging you add say 60kW of energy. If you can increase the efficiency during charging that then looses less heat than
    used for warming the battery, you both save energy and prolong the life
    of the battery

    If that is the case, the error in logic is that you need to warm the battery prior to charging. The battery would be warmed sufficiently while charging by the waste heat without using additional heat.

    In the Tesla, the battery is warmed at the expense of otherwise useful energy, because it shortens the charging time. Time connected to the charger is considered a "precious" commodity since they are expensive units and there are only so many.

    Where did you get your data? The graph doesn't even say what type of battery it is for.

    --

    Rick C.

    +++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Apr 18 23:38:07 2022
    On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.
    I have seen it active many times, and also when ambient temperatures are
    20 degrees.

    See plot of lifetime vs temperature here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay-Lee-27/publication/260030309/figure/download/fig2/AS:296997371301891@1447821099785/Lithium-ion-battery-life-vs-temperature-and-charging-rate-36-39-44-45.png

    ESR:

    https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c9f4e352906f965c5327221f6d49854?rik=KR97DtfMdiFdaQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avdweb.nl%2fArticle_files%2fSolarbike%2fBatteries%2fLiFePO4-internal-resistance-versus-temperature.jpg&ehk=NHkwR3Qn%2bfG2QGCx8OagT20WqS3Cyb6azCKOMcvKkEs%
    3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1

    The point is that during charging you add say 60kW of energy. If you can increase the efficiency during charging that then looses less heat than
    used for warming the battery, you both save energy and prolong the life
    of the battery

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Mon Apr 18 22:54:56 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:52:12 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.

    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    Engines stall when a high load is applied, motors burn out. We need a happy medium.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Apr 18 22:57:02 2022
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:28:04 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >> > > > onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.

    There isn't enough Lithium. We're going back to horses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Apr 18 22:56:18 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:38:11 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

    So that's a truck truck not a car truck? You Merkins need to sort your language.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Mon Apr 18 22:57:32 2022
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >> > > > torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >> > > > > > > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >> > > > > > > >
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Mon Apr 18 22:59:10 2022
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 23:42:10 +0100, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >>>>>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >>>>>>>>
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? >>>>>>>>
    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... >>> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?

    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.

    Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in
    under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car,
    so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable.

    There's no reason you can't do that with cars. The underside of a car is pretty much the same for every model.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Apr 18 22:58:09 2022
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 2:14:28 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: >> > > > torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >> > > > > > > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. >> > > > > > > >
    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple
    the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off. In a 30 minute break, charging can restore some 70-80% of the initial range.
    Call it 75%, so 11 hours of driving can extend to 175% of the initial range. 11 hr x 65 mph = 715 miles requires a vehicle range of over 400 miles. That's not a stretch in any way. Tesla is planning 300 and 500 mile versions. I can't tell you the weight
    of those batteries, but Tesla is saying they will not have to give up significantly on the payload capacity, "less than 1 ton", according to Musk.

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Mon Apr 18 15:39:02 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon Apr 18 23:53:27 2022
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.

    We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Mon Apr 18 16:26:31 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >> >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.
    We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 01:37:11 2022
    On 18/04/2022 23.49, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the fact
    that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature. So
    when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.
    I have seen it active many times, and also when ambient temperatures are
    20 degrees.

    See plot of lifetime vs temperature here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay-Lee-27/publication/260030309/figure/download/fig2/AS:296997371301891@1447821099785/Lithium-ion-battery-life-vs-temperature-and-charging-rate-36-39-44-45.png

    ESR:

    https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c9f4e352906f965c5327221f6d49854?rik=KR97DtfMdiFdaQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avdweb.nl%2fArticle_files%2fSolarbike%2fBatteries%2fLiFePO4-internal-resistance-versus-temperature.jpg&ehk=NHkwR3Qn%
    2bfG2QGCx8OagT20WqS3Cyb6azCKOMcvKkEs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1

    The point is that during charging you add say 60kW of energy. If you can
    increase the efficiency during charging that then looses less heat than
    used for warming the battery, you both save energy and prolong the life
    of the battery

    If that is the case, the error in logic is that you need to warm the battery prior to charging. The battery would be warmed sufficiently while charging by the waste heat without using additional heat.


    If you charge the battery without preheat, the temperature due to higher
    ESR in the beginning is not uniform (has not spread out), so you wont
    get the benefit. When the car prepares the charging, it does so at least
    20 minutes before start of charge
    In the Tesla, the battery is warmed at the expense of otherwise useful energy, because it shortens the charging time. Time connected to the charger is considered a "precious" commodity since they are expensive units and there are only so many.

    Where did you get your data? The graph doesn't even say what type of battery it is for.


    I just randomly looked up Lithium Ion data. They are the same
    technology, so should be comparable to the Tesla battery

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Klaus Kragelund on Mon Apr 18 16:50:01 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:37:20 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 23.49, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the
    fact that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature.
    So when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.
    I have seen it active many times, and also when ambient temperatures are >> 20 degrees.

    See plot of lifetime vs temperature here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay-Lee-27/publication/260030309/figure/download/fig2/AS:296997371301891@1447821099785/Lithium-ion-battery-life-vs-temperature-and-charging-rate-36-39-44-45.png

    ESR:

    https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c9f4e352906f965c5327221f6d49854?rik=KR97DtfMdiFdaQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avdweb.nl%2fArticle_files%2fSolarbike%2fBatteries%2fLiFePO4-internal-resistance-versus-temperature.jpg&ehk=NHkwR3Qn%
    2bfG2QGCx8OagT20WqS3Cyb6azCKOMcvKkEs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1

    The point is that during charging you add say 60kW of energy. If you can >> increase the efficiency during charging that then looses less heat than >> used for warming the battery, you both save energy and prolong the life >> of the battery

    If that is the case, the error in logic is that you need to warm the battery prior to charging. The battery would be warmed sufficiently while charging by the waste heat without using additional heat.

    If you charge the battery without preheat, the temperature due to higher
    ESR in the beginning is not uniform (has not spread out), so you wont
    get the benefit.

    Sorry, why is it not spread out? Every cell has ESR. What is not uniform?


    When the car prepares the charging, it does so at least
    20 minutes before start of charge

    Ok.???


    In the Tesla, the battery is warmed at the expense of otherwise useful energy, because it shortens the charging time. Time connected to the charger is considered a "precious" commodity since they are expensive units and there are only so many.

    Where did you get your data? The graph doesn't even say what type of battery it is for.

    I just randomly looked up Lithium Ion data. They are the same
    technology, so should be comparable to the Tesla battery

    There are different lithium ion batteries. The internal resistance graph is for LiFePO4 which is a less often used battery type I believe. The curves will not be the same for the cobalt nickle batteries more often used. I'm not sure they all have the
    same curve for wear over temperature which is the curve with no description.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 02:37:56 2022
    On 19/04/2022 01.50, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:37:20 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 23.49, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the
    fact that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature.
    So when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.
    I have seen it active many times, and also when ambient temperatures are >>>> 20 degrees.

    See plot of lifetime vs temperature here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay-Lee-27/publication/260030309/figure/download/fig2/AS:296997371301891@1447821099785/Lithium-ion-battery-life-vs-temperature-and-charging-rate-36-39-44-45.png

    ESR:

    https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c9f4e352906f965c5327221f6d49854?rik=KR97DtfMdiFdaQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avdweb.nl%2fArticle_files%2fSolarbike%2fBatteries%2fLiFePO4-internal-resistance-versus-temperature.jpg&ehk=NHkwR3Qn%
    2bfG2QGCx8OagT20WqS3Cyb6azCKOMcvKkEs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1 >>>>
    The point is that during charging you add say 60kW of energy. If you can >>>> increase the efficiency during charging that then looses less heat than >>>> used for warming the battery, you both save energy and prolong the life >>>> of the battery

    If that is the case, the error in logic is that you need to warm the battery prior to charging. The battery would be warmed sufficiently while charging by the waste heat without using additional heat.

    If you charge the battery without preheat, the temperature due to higher
    ESR in the beginning is not uniform (has not spread out), so you wont
    get the benefit.

    Sorry, why is it not spread out? Every cell has ESR. What is not uniform?



    Thermal time constant

    When the car prepares the charging, it does so at least
    20 minutes before start of charge

    Ok.???


    In the Tesla, the battery is warmed at the expense of otherwise useful energy, because it shortens the charging time. Time connected to the charger is considered a "precious" commodity since they are expensive units and there are only so many.

    Where did you get your data? The graph doesn't even say what type of battery it is for.

    I just randomly looked up Lithium Ion data. They are the same
    technology, so should be comparable to the Tesla battery

    There are different lithium ion batteries. The internal resistance graph is for LiFePO4 which is a less often used battery type I believe. The curves will not be the same for the cobalt nickle batteries more often used. I'm not sure they all have
    the same curve for wear over temperature which is the curve with no description.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Klaus Kragelund on Mon Apr 18 18:51:14 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:38:03 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 01.50, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:37:20 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 23.49, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote: >>>> On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    ...
    That is using power that is not waste power... maybe? In discussions this has always been treated as consuming battery power, but the Tesla batteries are cooled as well as heated. This might be done by simply reducing the cooling. However, the
    fact that this is not enabled when your arrival charge level is below 20% implies it uses active heating. Yes, I'm sure this is the case, because there is no difference between the optimal temperature while driving and the optimal charging temperature.
    So when navigating to a charger, the battery will supply power to heat the battery if it is colder than optimal.
    ...

    The Tesla Model 3/Y is unusual in that it doesn't actually have a battery heater.

    The batteries can take heat from the motor cooling loop and if more heat is needed the motor controller operates the motor in an inefficient way to dissipate more power.

    It takes as much power to do it that way but reduces cost by avoiding the need for adding a resistive heater to the battery as most (all?) other EVs do.

    I believe the heater is only on when temp drop to -20C or so, which probably never happen in the west coast. As far as cost is concerned, it's about the same as the fifth seat heater.
    I have seen it active many times, and also when ambient temperatures are
    20 degrees.

    See plot of lifetime vs temperature here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay-Lee-27/publication/260030309/figure/download/fig2/AS:296997371301891@1447821099785/Lithium-ion-battery-life-vs-temperature-and-charging-rate-36-39-44-45.png

    ESR:

    https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0c9f4e352906f965c5327221f6d49854?rik=KR97DtfMdiFdaQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avdweb.nl%2fArticle_files%2fSolarbike%2fBatteries%2fLiFePO4-internal-resistance-versus-temperature.jpg&ehk=NHkwR3Qn%
    2bfG2QGCx8OagT20WqS3Cyb6azCKOMcvKkEs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0&sres=1&sresct=1

    The point is that during charging you add say 60kW of energy. If you can
    increase the efficiency during charging that then looses less heat than >>>> used for warming the battery, you both save energy and prolong the life >>>> of the battery

    If that is the case, the error in logic is that you need to warm the battery prior to charging. The battery would be warmed sufficiently while charging by the waste heat without using additional heat.

    If you charge the battery without preheat, the temperature due to higher >> ESR in the beginning is not uniform (has not spread out), so you wont
    get the benefit.

    Sorry, why is it not spread out? Every cell has ESR. What is not uniform?


    Thermal time constant

    You seem to be thinking the heat is not internal, but external, like sitting in the hot sun. Or I'm completely not understanding what you are saying. The heat generated from using the battery will be from every cell. So every cell has the same thermal
    time constant and very well matched temperatures. It would be externally supplied heat that might be less uniform.

    What am I not getting?

    --

    Rick C.

    --++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Mon Apr 18 23:03:02 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:25:35 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 11:51:19 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:38:03 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 01.50, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:37:20 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 23.49, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    <snip>

    Thermal time constant.

    You seem to be thinking the heat is not internal, but external, like sitting in the hot sun. Or I'm completely not understanding what you are saying. The heat generated from using the battery will be from every cell. So every cell has the same
    thermal time constant and very well matched temperatures. It would be externally supplied heat that might be less uniform.

    What am I not getting?
    The cells at the centre of the battery pack have longer thermal time constant than the cells at the surface - they have a higher thermal resistance to ambient, even if the heat capacity of each cell (temperature rise per joule dissipated) is the same (
    which it ought to be).

    Ambient??? What ambient??? These cell are all cooled/heated by water flowing past them. Ambient has very little to do with this when driving the car.

    Oh, and the "center" of the pack is of little consequence, since all the cells are adjacent to "ambient" at the ends since they are only stacked one high.

    They cool or warm all night, so by morning they are pretty uniform. They are heated INTERNALLY from the current flowing through them in use. Each cell receives the same amount of heat from use. There is very little, if any, gradient of temperature.


    The cells in the centre of the battery will get hotter than the cells on the surface. Since this will lower their ESR it makes the whole calculation even more complicated, because they won't be dissipating as much heat once the core of the battery has
    warmed up.

    No, the cells in the center of the pack do not get hotter. If there is significant temperature differences, the battery pack gets unbalanced and it impacts the performance and life of the cells. There is virtually no extra cooling/heating at the
    periphery compared to the cooling/heating from the water flowing through the battery pack. Tesla did a great job designing their batteries and this is an important aspect they did a great job on.

    Oddly enough, it's the UI they seem to have whacked.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon Apr 18 22:25:31 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 11:51:19 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 8:38:03 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 01.50, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:37:20 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote:
    On 18/04/2022 23.49, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:38:16 PM UTC-4, Klaus Kragelund wrote: >>>> On 18/04/2022 18.47, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 9:15:32 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 18 April 2022 at 07:52:26 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    <snip>

    Thermal time constant.

    You seem to be thinking the heat is not internal, but external, like sitting in the hot sun. Or I'm completely not understanding what you are saying. The heat generated from using the battery will be from every cell. So every cell has the same thermal
    time constant and very well matched temperatures. It would be externally supplied heat that might be less uniform.

    What am I not getting?

    The cells at the centre of the battery pack have longer thermal time constant than the cells at the surface - they have a higher thermal resistance to ambient, even if the heat capacity of each cell (temperature rise per joule dissipated) is the same (
    which it ought to be).

    The cells in the centre of the battery will get hotter than the cells on the surface. Since this will lower their ESR it makes the whole calculation even more complicated, because they won't be dissipating as much heat once the core of the battery has
    warmed up.

    --
    Bil Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 17:40:12 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >> >> >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.
    We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.

    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Tue Apr 19 11:46:11 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >> >> >> > > > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >> >> >> > > > > > > > The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.
    We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that if we
    did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.

    The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways. Heck, even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of
    consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.

    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?

    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 20:30:22 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: >> >> >> >> > > > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can
    decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.
    We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that if
    we did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.

    Bullshit. I ignore the speed limits unless I think there's a camera or cop around. If there was no speed limit, I wouldn't waste brain power checking and would concentrate on the road more.

    And it's been shown by a government study that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. But for some reason people like you think speeding is a bad thing.

    You also don't understand Libertarianism, it's not a free for all you can murder folk, it's about removing rules from things where we don't need them.

    The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways.

    No, you shouldn't assume someone will crash without a rest break. You should get him in trouble if he crashes, for whatever reason. What if the rest break involves him playing football? I bet that's not on the tachograph.

    Heck, even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.

    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?

    Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.

    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.

    Repetition of the above ignored.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Tue Apr 19 13:19:08 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they
    can decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers. >> >> We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that if we
    did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.
    Bullshit. I ignore the speed limits unless I think there's a camera or cop around. If there was no speed limit, I wouldn't waste brain power checking and would concentrate on the road more.

    And it's been shown by a government study that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. But for some reason people like you think speeding is a bad thing.

    And for some reason, people like you fail to understand that is WITH laws. Without laws about speeding the numbers would be much worse. But it doesn't surprise me you think this way. If nothing, you are consistent.


    You also don't understand Libertarianism, it's not a free for all you can murder folk, it's about removing rules from things where we don't need them.

    You had not mentioned Libertarianism until now. Why did you bring it up? I've not been discussing it.


    The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways.
    No, you shouldn't assume someone will crash without a rest break. You should get him in trouble if he crashes, for whatever reason. What if the rest break involves him playing football? I bet that's not on the tachograph.

    Unfortunately, once they have the crash and kill someone, it's too late. Laws are to prevent harm. Enforcement is too late, but the threat of enforcement is what gives the laws an impact. Otherwise they are just recommendations.

    A trucker doesn't need to sleep after driving for the max time. He just has to stop driving and do something else. Talking about playing football is just being silly, but again, consistent for you.

    They don't assume anyone will crash without a break. They *know* it will happen to some, too many. Those laws were passed and are enforced to prevent history from repeating.


    Heck, even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those
    conditions. If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.


    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?
    Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.

    LOL! Nearly everything you say is emotion. It has been shown time and time again that humans are bags of emotion tied up with little, tiny strings of thought. That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.


    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
    Repetition of the above ignored.

    Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?

    --

    Rick C.

    -++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 21:36:01 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they
    can decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers. >> >> >> We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that if
    we did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.
    Bullshit. I ignore the speed limits unless I think there's a camera or cop around. If there was no speed limit, I wouldn't waste brain power checking and would concentrate on the road more.

    And it's been shown by a government study that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. But for some reason people like you think speeding is a bad thing.

    And for some reason, people like you fail to understand that is WITH laws. Without laws about speeding the numbers would be much worse. But it doesn't surprise me you think this way. If nothing, you are consistent.

    People speed if they want to, the ones that stick to the limit do so because they think it's the right thing to do, not because it's the law.

    And think about my 4% again. Do you know hoe many people speed? Again, a government stat - a third. So even if everyone sped, that would make it 12% of accidents caused by speeding, the rest by morons doing something stupid.

    You also don't understand Libertarianism, it's not a free for all you can murder folk, it's about removing rules from things where we don't need them.

    You had not mentioned Libertarianism until now. Why did you bring it up? I've not been discussing it.

    That's the name of what we're discussing you ignoranus.

    The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways.
    No, you shouldn't assume someone will crash without a rest break. You should get him in trouble if he crashes, for whatever reason. What if the rest break involves him playing football? I bet that's not on the tachograph.

    Unfortunately, once they have the crash and kill someone, it's too late. Laws are to prevent harm. Enforcement is too late, but the threat of enforcement is what gives the laws an impact. Otherwise they are just recommendations.

    Stop being such a pansy.

    This way would work far batter - instead of getting an insurance premium rise when you cause a crash, no matter how minor, get points on your license. X number of crashes and you're off.

    A trucker doesn't need to sleep after driving for the max time. He just has to stop driving and do something else. Talking about playing football is just being silly, but again, consistent for you.

    You really are stupid, do you seriously think using your brain for something else is a rest?!

    They don't assume anyone will crash without a break. They *know* it will happen to some, too many. Those laws were passed and are enforced to prevent history from repeating.

    They assume because it happens to some it happens to all. I might crash because I didn't get any sleep last night, well before my break time. Only taking account of driving time is insanity.

    Heck, even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those
    conditions.

    I never said they had to did I?

    If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.

    If you're good enough to get better work, you do so. If you're not good enough, it's better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?
    Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.

    LOL! Nearly everything you say is emotion. It has been shown time and time again that humans are bags of emotion tied up with little, tiny strings of thought.

    No it hasn't. Compare us to animals as I suggested.

    That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.

    Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You're the touchy feely type that think it's ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
    Repetition of the above ignored.

    Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?

    Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you're saying the same thing twice, therefore there's no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Tue Apr 19 15:39:52 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 23:39:02 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 5:57:41 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:23:33 +0100, Lasse Langwadt Christensen <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 23.14.28 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:28:09 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations - >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ...
    More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks?
    Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they
    can decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV.
    Drivers can only be on duty for 8 hours before being required to take a 30-minute break. They can only drive for 11 hours total before having to take a much longer time off.

    EU rules are more restrictive, a minimum of 45 minutes rest every 4.5 hours and a maximum of 9 hours driving per day

    No wonder it costs so much to transport things.

    Yeah, we don't need safe drivers. We need cheap, disposable drivers.
    We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke.

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that if
    we did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.
    Bullshit. I ignore the speed limits unless I think there's a camera or cop around. If there was no speed limit, I wouldn't waste brain power checking and would concentrate on the road more.

    And it's been shown by a government study that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. But for some reason people like you think speeding is a bad thing.

    And for some reason, people like you fail to understand that is WITH laws. Without laws about speeding the numbers would be much worse. But it doesn't surprise me you think this way. If nothing, you are consistent.
    People speed if they want to, the ones that stick to the limit do so because they think it's the right thing to do, not because it's the law.

    You live in a very simple world. Most people, or even nearly all people speed. I've only ever met one person who does not speed at all. But how much they speed is set by the speed limit. If there were no speed limits I have no doubt there would be
    much higher speeds on many roads, especially highways. People who are happy keeping their speed under 70 because of the risk of getting a ticket would drive at 75 and 80, mostly because others would as well. With no speed limit, those who stick to the
    speed limit would drive at some arbitrary speed.

    There is no justification to say speed limits do not serve to reduce speeds and accidents on highways.


    And think about my 4% again. Do you know hoe many people speed? Again, a government stat - a third. So even if everyone sped, that would make it 12% of accidents caused by speeding, the rest by morons doing something stupid.

    I don't know how they came up with a 33% number. Drive the speed limit on a highway and you had better be in the right lane or you risk getting rear ended. Even in the right lane, you will have people riding up your bumper and you will catch up with no
    one. You will catch up with very few even at a few miles over the speed limit.


    You also don't understand Libertarianism, it's not a free for all you can murder folk, it's about removing rules from things where we don't need them.

    You had not mentioned Libertarianism until now. Why did you bring it up? I've not been discussing it.
    That's the name of what we're discussing you ignoranus.

    No, that's the name of what YOU are discussing now, but not what you proposed previously. I'm talking about your proposal to have no laws. That doesn't have a name, even if it deserves one.

    Here is a definition of libertarianism, "libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others." That's what we have today in the US. Those who
    disagree, such as yourself, simply disagree on the extent of appropriate laws, that's all.

    "We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke."

    "And the rules create more problems than they solve."

    I don't see any limitation to your proposal. That's a very, very extreme version of libertarianism, if it is that at all. Sounds more like chaos to me.


    The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways.
    No, you shouldn't assume someone will crash without a rest break. You should get him in trouble if he crashes, for whatever reason. What if the rest break involves him playing football? I bet that's not on the tachograph.

    Unfortunately, once they have the crash and kill someone, it's too late. Laws are to prevent harm. Enforcement is too late, but the threat of enforcement is what gives the laws an impact. Otherwise they are just recommendations.
    Stop being such a pansy.

    That is a convincing argument. The "pansy" philosophy.


    This way would work far batter - instead of getting an insurance premium rise when you cause a crash, no matter how minor, get points on your license. X number of crashes and you're off.

    You simply are unable to understand anything I've said, eh?


    A trucker doesn't need to sleep after driving for the max time. He just has to stop driving and do something else. Talking about playing football is just being silly, but again, consistent for you.
    You really are stupid, do you seriously think using your brain for something else is a rest?!

    Absolutely. We rest by doing things that do not use the same thought paths or the same muscles. Playing cards can be relaxing, or chess. They involve thought, but not the same sort as being an air traffic controller, so appropriate for a break.
    Driving in mentally fatiguing, not so much physically. So do something else that uses a different part of your brain. That is very relaxing and refreshing.


    They don't assume anyone will crash without a break. They *know* it will happen to some, too many. Those laws were passed and are enforced to prevent history from repeating.
    They assume because it happens to some it happens to all. I might crash because I didn't get any sleep last night, well before my break time. Only taking account of driving time is insanity.

    No, there's no such assumption. The point is to prevent the few accidents by imposing reasonable requirements.


    Heck, even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those
    conditions.
    I never said they had to did I?

    I'm saying they have to because of the economic results. Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you don't understand, ask a friend to help you read it with comprehension.


    If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.
    If you're good enough to get better work, you do so. If you're not good enough, it's better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

    Hmmm... there's a glimmer of understanding, but not enough to actually, get it. Ok, we'll leave this one since you are having so much trouble with it. Maybe this can be your post graduate work.


    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?
    Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.

    LOL! Nearly everything you say is emotion. It has been shown time and time again that humans are bags of emotion tied up with little, tiny strings of thought.
    No it hasn't. Compare us to animals as I suggested.

    I just did, but your emotional thinking got in the way of understanding.


    That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.
    Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You're the touchy feely type that think it's ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

    Lol. I guess that's why Trmp has to use rallies to rile up his voters, to appeal to their intellect with rational and thoughtful discussions like, "Lock her up!" LOL You are a trip. But this is getting old. Bill likes to let people wind themselves
    up, but it's not terribly entertaining for me. I was just wondering what ridiculous arguments you might come up with and they are doozies! They don't take much effort to swat down though, so not really entertaining other than in an AFV way.


    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
    Repetition of the above ignored.

    Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?
    Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you're saying the same thing twice, therefore there's no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.

    LOL Ok, I'll stop. A friend worked for a government contractor. Another worker was briefing an Admiral, one on one, and at a point the Admiral got up and said he was leaving, but the guy should complete the briefing. The guy continued the briefing
    until it was complete.

    I'm leaving now. Please complete the briefing.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 23:51:51 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:40:23 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 00:26:31 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    LOL! So no rules? No regulations? Perhaps you are not aware that we typically start with no rules. Then we have problems and create rules to deal with them. So now we have driver's licenses that you must qualify for, rules of driving, rules of
    commercial driving where you are piloting 40 tons of vehicle at 65 mph. Someone, somewhere thinks it is a good idea for the drivers to be adequately rested. Then there's you.
    And the rules create more problems than they solve. People are not animals, they don't need to be monitored and controlled like children. 99% of us are perfectly moral folk who wouldn't cause harm. Don't you trust yourself to behave?

    That's where you are wrong. Everyone breaks the rules even with the threat of punishment. We weight the cost and the likelihood of getting caught against the benefits of getting away with an act and behave appropriately. I am quite certain that
    if we did away with speed limits, there would be much worse behavior on the roads and many more accidents and deaths.
    Bullshit. I ignore the speed limits unless I think there's a camera or cop around. If there was no speed limit, I wouldn't waste brain power checking and would concentrate on the road more.

    And it's been shown by a government study that only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. But for some reason people like you think speeding is a bad thing.

    And for some reason, people like you fail to understand that is WITH laws. Without laws about speeding the numbers would be much worse. But it doesn't surprise me you think this way. If nothing, you are consistent.
    People speed if they want to, the ones that stick to the limit do so because they think it's the right thing to do, not because it's the law.

    You live in a very simple world. Most people, or even nearly all people speed. I've only ever met one person who does not speed at all. But how much they speed is set by the speed limit. If there were no speed limits I have no doubt there would be
    much higher speeds on many roads, especially highways. People who are happy keeping their speed under 70 because of the risk of getting a ticket would drive at 75 and 80, mostly because others would as well. With no speed limit, those who stick to the
    speed limit would drive at some arbitrary speed.

    There is no justification to say speed limits do not serve to reduce speeds and accidents on highways.

    Bullshit. There are loads of people who never speed. I know many of them, they believe it's morally wrong and unsafe to do so. And I'm always stuck behind the buggers.

    If I think there are no pigs about, I drive at the speed I consider safe. If I think there's a risk of being nicked, I go within 10mph of the limit.

    And think about my 4% again. Do you know hoe many people speed? Again, a government stat - a third. So even if everyone sped, that would make it 12% of accidents caused by speeding, the rest by morons doing something stupid.

    I don't know how they came up with a 33% number.

    I do, they put hidden speed cameras (which didn't get anyone a ticket) on many roads and counted how many broke the limit.

    Drive the speed limit on a highway and you had better be in the right lane or you risk getting rear ended. Even in the right lane, you will have people riding up your bumper and you will catch up with no one. You will catch up with very few even at a
    few miles over the speed limit.

    You'll catch up with trucks. I wish I lived where you do. On a motorway here, more people stick to the limit than speed, and there are actually quite a lot that go under (WTF?) the limit.

    I (despite there being limits) go as fast as the car permits. Haven't been done for a decade.

    You also don't understand Libertarianism, it's not a free for all you can murder folk, it's about removing rules from things where we don't need them.

    You had not mentioned Libertarianism until now. Why did you bring it up? I've not been discussing it.
    That's the name of what we're discussing you ignoranus.

    No, that's the name of what YOU are discussing now, but not what you proposed previously. I'm talking about your proposal to have no laws. That doesn't have a name, even if it deserves one.

    It does, it's Libertarianism. They want to do away with 95% of laws, look it up.

    Here is a definition of libertarianism, "libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others." That's what we have today in the US. Those
    who disagree, such as yourself, simply disagree on the extent of appropriate laws, that's all.

    Libertarianism in the UK would do away with equal rights for a start. That's a pathetic law. The only two laws needed are damage to people and damage to property. So basically murder, assault, theft.

    "We need to let people make heir own choices. The nanny society is beyond a joke."

    "And the rules create more problems than they solve."

    I don't see any limitation to your proposal. That's a very, very extreme version of libertarianism, if it is that at all. Sounds more like chaos to me.

    Why are you so keen on Authoritarianism? We are adults, not kids in kindergarten.

    The rules may create problems, but most people feel requiring truckers to take appropriate rest breaks is better than seeing more people die on the highways.
    No, you shouldn't assume someone will crash without a rest break. You should get him in trouble if he crashes, for whatever reason. What if the rest break involves him playing football? I bet that's not on the tachograph.

    Unfortunately, once they have the crash and kill someone, it's too late. Laws are to prevent harm. Enforcement is too late, but the threat of enforcement is what gives the laws an impact. Otherwise they are just recommendations.
    Stop being such a pansy.

    That is a convincing argument. The "pansy" philosophy.

    It is, it's high time we took back the world from the sissies who want everything to be safe.

    This way would work far batter - instead of getting an insurance premium rise when you cause a crash, no matter how minor, get points on your license. X number of crashes and you're off.

    You simply are unable to understand anything I've said, eh?

    What do you believe I've misunderstood?

    A trucker doesn't need to sleep after driving for the max time. He just has to stop driving and do something else. Talking about playing football is just being silly, but again, consistent for you.
    You really are stupid, do you seriously think using your brain for something else is a rest?!

    Absolutely. We rest by doing things that do not use the same thought paths or the same muscles. Playing cards can be relaxing, or chess. They involve thought, but not the same sort as being an air traffic controller, so appropriate for a break.
    Driving in mentally fatiguing, not so much physically. So do something else that uses a different part of your brain. That is very relaxing and refreshing.

    Bullshit. I can relax from driving by weightlifting, but I cannot relax by playing chess, both use the brain.

    They don't assume anyone will crash without a break. They *know* it will happen to some, too many. Those laws were passed and are enforced to prevent history from repeating.
    They assume because it happens to some it happens to all. I might crash because I didn't get any sleep last night, well before my break time. Only taking account of driving time is insanity.

    No, there's no such assumption. The point is to prevent the few accidents by imposing reasonable requirements.

    But it doesn't work. They make invalid assumptions based on fucked up statistics. Which is why we still have many accidents.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Wed Apr 27 10:27:42 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Heck,

    The word is hell. Or are you a religious nut?

    even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those
    conditions.
    I never said they had to did I?

    I'm saying they have to because of the economic results. Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you don't understand, ask a friend to help you read it with comprehension.

    I'm saying the law is wrong. Why prevent people from doing cheap labour if that's all they're able to do? Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you're going to poke fun at me, make sure you're not doing the same thing yourself.

    If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.
    If you're good enough to get better work, you do so. If you're not good enough, it's better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

    Hmmm... there's a glimmer of understanding, but not enough to actually, get it. Ok, we'll leave this one since you are having so much trouble with it. Maybe this can be your post graduate work.

    I notice you have no reasoning available for your viewpoint.

    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?
    Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.

    LOL! Nearly everything you say is emotion. It has been shown time and time again that humans are bags of emotion tied up with little, tiny strings of thought.
    No it hasn't. Compare us to animals as I suggested.

    I just did, but your emotional thinking got in the way of understanding.

    You did no such comparison, you just made the OCD comment that humans are animals.

    That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.
    Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You're the touchy feely type that think it's ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

    Lol. I guess that's why Trmp

    Why would you shorten a 5 letter word to a 4 letter word?

    has to use rallies to rile up his voters, to appeal to their intellect with rational and thoughtful discussions like, "Lock her up!" LOL You are a trip. But this is getting old. Bill likes to let people wind themselves up, but it's not terribly
    entertaining for me. I was just wondering what ridiculous arguments you might come up with and they are doozies! They don't take much effort to swat down though, so not really entertaining other than in an AFV way.

    Ah, so you're a left wing theiving liberal that thinks it's ok for my taxes to pay for your problems.

    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
    Repetition of the above ignored.

    Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?
    Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you're saying the same thing twice, therefore there's no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.

    LOL Ok, I'll stop. A friend worked for a government contractor. Another worker was briefing an Admiral, one on one, and at a point the Admiral got up and said he was leaving, but the guy should complete the briefing. The guy continued the briefing
    until it was complete.

    I'm leaving now. Please complete the briefing.

    Stop trying to sound smart, it doesn't befit you.

    And don't reply to everything then leave, that's the ultimate in childish behaviour.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Thu Apr 28 21:19:05 2022
    On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Heck,

    The word is hell. Or are you a religious nut?

    No, I said exactly what I meant. Why do you think you need to change what other people say to suit your preferences? That's very egotistical.


    even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those
    conditions.
    I never said they had to did I?

    I'm saying they have to because of the economic results. Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you don't understand, ask a friend to help you read it with comprehension.
    I'm saying the law is wrong. Why prevent people from doing cheap labour if that's all they're able to do? Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you're going to poke fun at me, make sure you're not doing the same thing yourself.

    I know exactly what you are saying, but you ignored what I wrote. You still don't understand that. Most likely you will *never* understand what I wrote, as is the issue that prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people.


    If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.
    If you're good enough to get better work, you do so. If you're not good enough, it's better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

    Hmmm... there's a glimmer of understanding, but not enough to actually, get it. Ok, we'll leave this one since you are having so much trouble with it. Maybe this can be your post graduate work.
    I notice you have no reasoning available for your viewpoint.

    I have explained it. You fail to understand. You seem to think that all jobs will be available to suit anyone looking for work. If you work for substandard wages, that eliminates jobs utilizing the same skills which pay better. A person doesn't have
    the choice of taking a job that is not available. As a society, we feel it is in *everyone's* interest for *everyone* to be paid a decent wage.

    If you wish to work for lower wages, please take the job that pays better, and then donate the unneeded money to a charity. Don't deprive others of a living wage by undercutting everyone else and driving wages so low, it is hard to survive. We live in
    a society where we all impact one another if you think so or not.


    BTW, people *are* animals and mostly do need to be treated as such. I guess you didn't pass biology, eh?
    Your pedantry isn't helping this discussion. Our brains function nothing like them. A dog for example will react to something on emotion, and attack. We think first.

    LOL! Nearly everything you say is emotion. It has been shown time and time again that humans are bags of emotion tied up with little, tiny strings of thought.
    No it hasn't. Compare us to animals as I suggested.

    I just did, but your emotional thinking got in the way of understanding.
    You did no such comparison, you just made the OCD comment that humans are animals.

    If that's all you read in my posts, there is literally no point in discussing anything with you.


    That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.
    Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You're the touchy feely type that think it's ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

    Lol. I guess that's why Trmp
    Why would you shorten a 5 letter word to a 4 letter word?

    I spell it as is appropriate. I suppose I could just say "it".


    has to use rallies to rile up his voters, to appeal to their intellect with rational and thoughtful discussions like, "Lock her up!" LOL You are a trip. But this is getting old. Bill likes to let people wind themselves up, but it's not terribly
    entertaining for me. I was just wondering what ridiculous arguments you might come up with and they are doozies! They don't take much effort to swat down though, so not really entertaining other than in an AFV way.
    Ah, so you're a left wing theiving liberal that thinks it's ok for my taxes to pay for your problems.

    Yes, that's what it's all about. YOUR TAXES. Ok, fine. Let's abolish taxes, all taxes. How can you say some tax spending is justified, but not others that YOU don't like? Taxes are decided by the method we in the USA have selected as our form of
    government. Are you anti-government?


    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
    Repetition of the above ignored.

    Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?
    Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you're saying the same thing twice, therefore there's no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.

    LOL Ok, I'll stop. A friend worked for a government contractor. Another worker was briefing an Admiral, one on one, and at a point the Admiral got up and said he was leaving, but the guy should complete the briefing. The guy continued the briefing
    until it was complete.

    I'm leaving now. Please complete the briefing.
    Stop trying to sound smart, it doesn't befit you.

    And don't reply to everything then leave, that's the ultimate in childish behaviour.

    Ok, are you happy now?

    You aren't actually discussing anything. At this point I can't distinguish you from some sort of strange bot. Why would I want to continue to discuss something with a bot?

    I actually got a spam call the other day where I was not sure if it was a bot or not? I guess at some point, the programs get so smart that they equal or surpass the apparent intelligence of the typical person who is hired to make such calls. They
    certainly have the language down better.

    So, I guess you win. :-P

    --

    Rick C.

    +--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Apr 30 12:11:00 2022
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:25:43 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:32:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:57:35 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
    On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: >> > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
    For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
    And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term

    I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
    18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle
    configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to
    trailers where eight of the tires are.

    Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/
    250 miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).
    The capacity you are talking about seems to be the capacity of the battery to deliver current, which does decline at low temperatures, rather than the energy stored in the battery which is what determines range, and doesn't decline in lithium
    batteries.

    As usual, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

    Once a battery is delivering power, it is also warming itself up. Think internal resistance. As soon as you have got the truck moving, the power available to keep it moving will immediately increase. Using some of the power stored in the battery to
    warm it up might be necessary, if the truck needed lots of power to get moving at all, but that doesn't seem to be an actual problem.

    Keeping the battery warm while you are recharging it does seem to be necessary, but it isn't going to use up much power or energy, and will have zero effect on range.

    No, YOU don't know what you are talking about. Lithium capacity AND current drop with temperature, Sloman - LOOK IT UP!

    As Rick C has also pointed out, this is known and has been measured. He seems to think that physical chemistry comes into this, and Gibbs free energy does depend on temperature, but not much.

    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=80512

    The paper he cites blames it all on the battery impedance changes, which means that when the battery self heats in operation, the effect goes away
    Using ANY energy of the battery for heating WILL effect range, idiot.
    But not much, You are a simple-minded idiot who can't do quantitative thinking, which does lead you to make moronic blanket claims, and to ignore what's actually going on.

    "Not by much" Is that a scientific term, SNIPPERMAN, like "a tad bit" or "just a shade"?

    Actual testing shows a significant drop in range: 59% in -33 C temperatures. https://insideevs.com/news/498554/tesla-model-3-range-extreme-cold/

    EV's quoted range isn't a realistic usable figure. First, Tesla recommends using only 80% of battery capacity (10% to 90%), so reduce it by 20%. Secondly, range is estimated based on slower than highway speeds, 55mph or 80kph, and is reduced when you
    drive faster.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEYPKjVUtFcaK2V1gecDx9g
    Thirdly, range doesn't factor in headwinds; all us pilots are acutely aware of the effect of wind on range, but your nonpilots aren't. Fourthly, range is further reduced by using the heater or air conditioner. Finally, prudent people keep a reserve for
    emergencies, like having to take a detour or finding that your supercharger is out of service. Pilots are required to have a 30 min reserve (45 min for IFR flights). If you don't go below 10% this could be part of your reserve, but not all. Factor all of
    these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.


    --
    Bill Sloman. Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat Apr 30 14:32:33 2022
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.

    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US driving
    and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach a
    destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain, wind,
    even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds
    are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    --

    Rick C.

    +--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sat Apr 30 22:10:27 2022
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US driving and
    there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach a
    destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain, wind,
    even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds are
    also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    --

    Rick C.

    +--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can drive at
    55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun May 1 06:51:06 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US driving
    and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to reach
    a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain,
    wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds
    are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can drive at
    55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.

    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    --

    Rick C.

    +-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 1 15:45:36 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US driving
    and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain,
    wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds
    are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can drive
    at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.


    --

    Rick C.

    +-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun May 1 18:34:20 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain,
    wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds
    are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.

    You can perhaps go for the 135kwhr version of Rivian PU, if they can get enough batteries to build them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun May 1 20:25:09 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain,
    wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds
    are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.

    The point that Flyguy can't get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can't deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

    As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn't make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

    Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn't going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun May 1 21:30:19 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 8:25:13 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    The point that Flyguy can't get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can't deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

    As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn't make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

    Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn't going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    The point I making is that SNIPPERMAN doesn't know WHAT THE FUCK is actually happening. I reference actual test results and SNIPPERMAN talks about things like "not so much." Hey SNIPPERMAN, get back to us when you have some actual DATA.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun May 1 21:50:12 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in rain,
    wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The winds
    are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn't stop at every charger along the route! In
    fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!


    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    I'm not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don't know what he did and I don't care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I'm not worried about some guy who can't provide his info.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.

    Yes, the key word there is "extreme". But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus. Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while
    connected to shore power without using the battery at all.

    So what other mistakes have you made?

    --

    Rick C.

    +-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sun May 1 21:32:50 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    You can perhaps go for the 135kwhr version of Rivian PU, if they can get enough batteries to build them.

    I am talking about the most readily available EVs on the market, and those for which data is available. Pie in the sky is of no help.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun May 1 21:54:07 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    The point that Flyguy can't get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can't deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

    Sorry, that is not correct. The energy content of a battery changes when the temperature changes.


    As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn't make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

    This is overstated. A battery will self warm, but in my car, for example, it can take an hour to fully warm the battery. In the meantime, much of the power has been drained with the battery at sub-optimal conditions resulting in a poor efficiency.


    Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn't going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Mon May 2 06:19:37 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:32:53 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed
    to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you charging a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    You can perhaps go for the 135kwhr version of Rivian PU, if they can get enough batteries to build them.
    I am talking about the most readily available EVs on the market, and those for which data is available. Pie in the sky is of no help.

    They did make a few thousands of them. I have seen some around charging stations here. 1kw should be enough to keep the vehicle warm. Rivian R1T/R1S can tow 3 to 4 tons for a hundred miles. Heating is no big deal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon May 2 08:15:10 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed
    to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.

    The point that Flyguy can't get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can't deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

    Sorry, that is not correct. The energy content of a battery changes when the temperature changes.

    Not a lot. And there's no chemical reaction going on driven by the temperature change, so when you warm the battery up again it is still storing the same amount of energy as it was before it got cooled.

    As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn't make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

    This is overstated. A battery will self warm, but in my car, for example, it can take an hour to fully warm the battery. In the meantime, much of the power has been drained with the battery at sub-optimal conditions resulting in a poor efficiency.

    Being cool doesn't drain energy out of the battery. Using a lot of energy out of the battery to warm up the battery, will use up some energy, but not much compared with the energy they can and do store.

    Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn't going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally reversible.
    Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that problem goes
    away.

    The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

    Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn't big.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon May 2 08:20:57 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 6:19:41 AM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:32:53 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you
    needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time,
    it is inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor
    in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph.
    The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You
    can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you charging a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    You can perhaps go for the 135kwhr version of Rivian PU, if they can get enough batteries to build them.
    I am talking about the most readily available EVs on the market, and those for which data is available. Pie in the sky is of no help.
    They did make a few thousands of them. I have seen some around charging stations here. 1kw should be enough to keep the vehicle warm. Rivian R1T/R1S can tow 3 to 4 tons for a hundred miles. Heating is no big deal.

    And we hit 100% renewable electricity, no need to feel guilty about financing Russian war:

    https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2022/05/01/california-100-percent-powered-renewables-first-time/9609975002/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Mon May 2 10:58:48 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

    The point that Flyguy can't get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can't deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

    Sorry, that is not correct. The energy content of a battery changes when the temperature changes.
    Not a lot. And there's no chemical reaction going on driven by the temperature change, so when you warm the battery up again it is still storing the same amount of energy as it was before it got cooled.

    Yes, but the battery has to be warmed up. Your definition of "not a lot" is not apparent.


    As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn't make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

    This is overstated. A battery will self warm, but in my car, for example, it can take an hour to fully warm the battery. In the meantime, much of the power has been drained with the battery at sub-optimal conditions resulting in a poor efficiency.
    Being cool doesn't drain energy out of the battery. Using a lot of energy out of the battery to warm up the battery, will use up some energy, but not much compared with the energy they can and do store.

    Actually, it does. If the energy in a cold battery is measured as it is used. It will be less that was put into the battery when warm. By definition the battery has less energy when cold. This energy does not recover when warmed if the battery is
    empty, so it's not a matter of the energy simply not being available.


    Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn't going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    Which is a fact of no consequence. That is literally no different from saying if you discharge a battery, it will have the same energy content when you recharge it again. The energy used in driving while the battery warms up is a significant fraction
    of the total energy available and is used at a lower efficiency. Reality doesn't lie. This has been measured many times in BEVs.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Mon May 2 15:41:54 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection. It's also not
    resettable without disassembling the battery pack, and not temperature-range rated,
    and generally not good automobile engineering.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon May 2 16:59:13 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed to
    reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the parking
    lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
    OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn't stop at every charger along the route! In fact,
    the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
    I'm not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don't know what he did and I don't care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I'm not worried about some guy who can't provide his info.
    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    Yes, the key word there is "extreme".

    Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can't you read?

    But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.

    No, that is right out of Tesla's operating manual.

    Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.

    Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.


    So what other mistakes have you made?

    None.


    --

    Rick C.

    +-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Mon May 2 17:07:13 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you
    needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time,
    it is inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor
    in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph.
    The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You
    can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.

    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.

    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.

    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.

    The point that Flyguy can't get into his head is that while a lithium ion battery can't deliver much current if gets extremely cold, it is still storing the same amount of energy.

    Sorry, that is not correct. The energy content of a battery changes when the temperature changes.
    Not a lot. And there's no chemical reaction going on driven by the temperature change, so when you warm the battery up again it is still storing the same amount of energy as it was before it got cooled.
    As soon as it starts delivering current, it warms up, so the outside temperature doesn't make as much difference, and the range is going to be pretty much what it always was.

    This is overstated. A battery will self warm, but in my car, for example, it can take an hour to fully warm the battery. In the meantime, much of the power has been drained with the battery at sub-optimal conditions resulting in a poor efficiency.
    Being cool doesn't drain energy out of the battery. Using a lot of energy out of the battery to warm up the battery, will use up some energy, but not much compared with the energy they can and do store.
    Flyguy has had this drawn to his attention before. but he isn't going to let mere facts stop him repeating his original mistake.

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    No it won't because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.


    Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally
    reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that
    problem goes away.

    The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn't. And this continues as you are driving.


    The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

    Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn't big.

    Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.


    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon May 2 18:57:21 2022
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 2 18:45:10 2022
    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 15:41:58 UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection. It's also not
    resettable without disassembling the battery pack, and not temperature-range rated,
    and generally not good automobile engineering.

    Some Tesla models have simple wire fuses at the cell level.

    At the battery level there are additional protections including a pyrotechnic fuse to get fast response.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 2 19:44:27 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).

    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Mon May 2 19:27:20 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:59:16 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you needed
    to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time, it is
    inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor in
    rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph. The
    winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You can
    drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
    OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn't stop at every charger along the route! In
    fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
    I'm not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don't know what he did and I don't care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I'm not worried about some guy who can't provide his
    info.
    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    Yes, the key word there is "extreme".
    Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can't you read? But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
    No, that is right out of Tesla's operating manual.

    Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.


    Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.
    Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.

    Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be fucked. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also fucked. What other "extreme" cases do you wish to address?



    So what other mistakes have you made?
    None.
    Other than the ones I've caught you in.

    The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that's some serious range degradation.

    Why can't you admit your errors?

    --

    Rick C.

    +++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon May 2 21:01:25 2022
    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 19:44:31 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).
    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.
    ...
    The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.

    If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.

    Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue May 3 05:01:46 2022
    On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:19:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Heck,

    The word is hell. Or are you a religious nut?

    No, I said exactly what I meant. Why do you think you need to change what other people say to suit your preferences? That's very egotistical.

    I change nothing, I use the original word. You disguise hell because it offends your antiquated religion.

    even factory workers get mandatory breaks by law. Without laws requiring some level of consideration of the workers, we would still have the sweatshops and child labor conditions of a hundred years ago.
    If I want to work in a sweatshop I should be allowed to do so. If I don't like the conditions, I'm free to leave. I'm not chained up am I?

    If you wish to work in a sweat shop, please do so. It will need to be in another country to be legal, but I'm ok with you leaving here. But, again, you think everything is about you. There are plenty of people who don't want to work in those
    conditions.
    I never said they had to did I?

    I'm saying they have to because of the economic results. Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you don't understand, ask a friend to help you read it with comprehension.
    I'm saying the law is wrong. Why prevent people from doing cheap labour if that's all they're able to do? Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you're going to poke fun at me, make sure you're not doing the same thing yourself.

    I know exactly what you are saying, but you ignored what I wrote. You still don't understand that. Most likely you will *never* understand what I wrote, as is the issue that prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people.

    The economic results of cheap labour are China. The world leader in everything.

    What prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people is you're so vague. You never make your point directly, you just hand wave at it then claim people have ignored you.

    If they are legal, it will be hard to find better work. So others *won't* have a choice.
    If you're good enough to get better work, you do so. If you're not good enough, it's better to work in a sweat shop than be unemployed.

    Hmmm... there's a glimmer of understanding, but not enough to actually, get it. Ok, we'll leave this one since you are having so much trouble with it. Maybe this can be your post graduate work.
    I notice you have no reasoning available for your viewpoint.

    I have explained it. You fail to understand. You seem to think that all jobs will be available to suit anyone looking for work. If you work for substandard wages, that eliminates jobs utilizing the same skills which pay better. A person doesn't
    have the choice of taking a job that is not available. As a society, we feel it is in *everyone's* interest for *everyone* to be paid a decent wage.

    Even when they aren't worth it? Let's make this simple for your little brain. A small country has 10 jobs available, and 10 people to do them. Job 1 requires great intelligence, and pays a lot. Job 2 requires strong muscles and pays a lot. They pay
    a lot so they're guaranteed the best 2 workers. The other 8 jobs are just little tasks like bin collection. They pay fuck all because they know they'll get somebody to work for them because anyone can do it. If those 8 people want to be rich, they
    have to get as good as the 2 that are.

    If you wish to work for lower wages, please take the job that pays better, and then donate the unneeded money to a charity.

    I have never said I want to work for lower wages, you're putting words into my mouth. I've said if I can't get a job that pays more, that means I'm not worthy of earning more.

    Don't deprive others of a living wage by undercutting everyone else and driving wages so low, it is hard to survive. We live in a society where we all impact one another if you think so or not.

    If you have everyone in society earning a reasonable wage, there's no incentive for people to do well. That's why everyone who works for the government sector is shite at their job. They can't get fired, they can't get into trouble, they can twiddle
    their thumbs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Tue May 3 05:12:03 2022
    On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).

    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection.

    But there's a hundred of those protectors then.

    It's also not temperature-range rated,

    Yes, it sense temperature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Mon May 2 22:13:03 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:01:30 AM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 19:44:31 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).
    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.
    ...
    The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.

    You need to read what I wrote. I didn't say the internal resistance doesn't matter. I said, "The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance". Until you understand what I wrote, there's no point in discussing this further. Let me know
    when the light bulb comes on for you.


    If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.

    If you review the graphs, you will understand... possibly. The point is that Amp-hours are not affected by the resistance. The series resistance causes a drop in voltage, and so reduces the power output. It won't change the number of coulombs coming
    out of the battery.


    Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.

    Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

    --

    Rick C.

    ----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Tue May 3 05:16:44 2022
    On Tue, 03 May 2022 02:45:10 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 15:41:58 UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection. It's also not
    resettable without disassembling the battery pack, and not temperature-range rated,
    and generally not good automobile engineering.

    Some Tesla models have simple wire fuses at the cell level.

    At the battery level there are additional protections including a pyrotechnic fuse to get fast response.

    They ought to have protection in single cell batteries aswell - https://youtu.be/PrdKgdPg1ZY?t=23

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Tue May 3 00:02:04 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:59:16 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    Yes, the key word there is "extreme".
    Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can't you read? But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
    No, that is right out of Tesla's operating manual.

    Not that you can tell us which one, or how - precisely - you have misunderstood what you have read (because you always do and can never be made to realise it).

    Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.

    Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.

    Canadian parking lots already have sockets for your car's radiator warmer. The cost of the power is covered by the parking fee.

    So what other mistakes have you made?

    None.

    None that he has enough sense to notice. Flyguy's conviction that he is infallible is one of the more obvious bits of evidence that he far gone in senile dementia.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Tue May 3 00:14:11 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    <snip>

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    No it won't because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

    Getting the same battery warm again isn't using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about

    Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally
    reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that
    problem goes away.

    The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn't. And this continues as you are driving.

    Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

    The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

    Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn't big.

    Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

    That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn't have anywhere to put it. I don't know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you either
    misunderstood when you first heard, or now remembering incorrectly, but you've clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won't ever be able to realise it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Tue May 3 00:53:55 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:01:57 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:19:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:46:11 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    I'm saying the law is wrong. Why prevent people from doing cheap labour if that's all they're able to do? Please read what I wrote, it's all there. If you're going to poke fun at me, make sure you're not doing the same thing yourself.

    I know exactly what you are saying, but you ignored what I wrote. You still don't understand that. Most likely you will *never* understand what I wrote, as is the issue that prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people.

    The economic results of cheap labour are China. The world leader in everything.

    Cheap labour helps, but you need educated labour to be a world leader in anything. China sends a lot of it kids overseas to get educated. Quite a few of them never go back, but enough of them do to let the Chinese generate useful innovations, and to
    recognise other people's useful innovations and exploit them on a large scale.

    Chinese solar cells are now cheaper and better than anybody else's. They are cheaper because they invested a lot in setting up to manufacture them in ten times the volume that anybody else was doing, but they are better because they chose mass produce
    devices that exploited some clever work done at the University of New South Wales in S.ydney

    What prevents you from having useful exchanges with many people is you're so vague. You never make your point directly, you just hand wave at it then claim people have ignored you.

    That the sort of thing that people who are thick as brick tend to say.

    <snip>

    I have explained it. You fail to understand. You seem to think that all jobs will be available to suit anyone looking for work. If you work for substandard wages, that eliminates jobs utilizing the same skills which pay better. A person doesn't have
    the choice of taking a job that is not available. As a society, we feel it is in *everyone's* interest for *everyone* to be paid a decent wage.

    Even when they aren't worth it?

    The proposition that it pays society to create jobs that even the most inept can do, because that keeps the inept off the streets and keeps them under the eye of more competent coworkers, If you don't do that you have to pay competent people to do
    nothing except looking after the inept, which is more expensive.

    Let's make this simple for your little brain. A small country has 10 jobs available, and 10 people to do them. Job 1 requires great intelligence, and pays a lot. Job 2 requires strong muscles and pays a lot. They pay a lot so they're guaranteed the best
    2 workers. The other 8 jobs are just little tasks like bin collection. They pay fuck all because they know they'll get somebody to work for them because anyone can do it. If those 8 people want to be rich, they have to get as good as the 2 that are.

    The two that are good are good in different ways. There are rather more ways of being good than just being clever or just being strong.

    If you wish to work for lower wages, please take the job that pays better, and then donate the unneeded money to a charity.

    I have never said I want to work for lower wages, you're putting words into my mouth. I've said if I can't get a job that pays more, that means I'm not worthy of earning more.
    Don't deprive others of a living wage by undercutting everyone else and driving wages so low, it is hard to survive. We live in a society where we all impact one another if you think so or not.

    If you have everyone in society earning a reasonable wage, there's no incentive for people to do well.

    You mean an adequate wage. It's reasonable to pay people doing more demanding work more than people who are doing less demanding work, and that does motivate people to improve themselves to point where they can do more.

    That's why everyone who works for the government sector is shite at their job.

    Actually, they aren't. That's just Thatcherite propaganda, and was part of her regimes desire to privatise everything. which was more about selling off public assets cheap to friends of the regime. Putin takes it further, but it is the same idea.

    They can't get fired, they can't get into trouble, they can twiddle their thumbs.

    They can get into trouble and get fired but it takes a real effort. Jonathan Aitken was bit further up the pecking order than regular civil servants, so it got into the newspapers.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk

    Twiddling your thumbs gets very boring very quickly. Thatcher's privatisation mania privatised a whole lot of stuff that had started off privately run under Queen Victoria, but hadn't worked all that well, and worked a whole lot better when run by the
    state or by the municipality. Natural monoplies don't work all that well when privately owned. Contrast and compare Microsoft and Linux. And look how well the UK's privatised contact-tracing service did at slowing down Covid-19.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue May 3 00:30:41 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).
    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.

    Okay, I'm confused. Mainly, why isn't 'amp-hours' a quantity of countable electrons, and
    NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of
    'normal' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn't fully convert the
    chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That's not variable battery capacity, that's stupid-charger algorithm failure.

    The constant-temperature test procedure doesn't appear to fully charge and/or fully
    discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to r_delaney2001@yahoo.com on Tue May 3 07:08:05 2022
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    It's like what people said about Saabs: Great car, between fires.



    --

    Anybody can count to one.

    - Robert Widlar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 3 07:53:25 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 3:30:45 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).
    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.
    Okay, I'm confused. Mainly, why isn't 'amp-hours' a quantity of countable electrons, and
    NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of
    'normal' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn't fully convert the
    chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That's not variable battery capacity, that's stupid-charger algorithm failure.

    The constant-temperature test procedure doesn't appear to fully charge and/or fully
    discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.

    I've always been a bit confused by this as well. Talking about Gibbs free energy doesn't explain what is happening in a battery at the atomic level. You would expect that N electrons going in produces N electrons coming out, indeed.

    The idea of getting different results by charging at different temperatures is hard to reconcile as well.

    Even though I passed P-Chem, it has been too many years for me to be able to unravel this mystery. Bill should be able to explain the results, but he keeps repeating the same stuff about Gibbs free energy without providing any insight.

    I wills say that it is entirely possible for stored energy to leave the battery as temperature drops, just as it would in a pressure based system. Maybe a question to Quora or another web site would provide some insight. I forget the name of the one
    that is all about answering questions with info provided by some very knowledgeable people. I'm drawing a blank at the moment, something exchange. (maybe I'm getting old?)

    --

    Rick C.

    ----+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue May 3 08:59:11 2022
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:53:29 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 3:30:45 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:44:31 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).
    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.
    Okay, I'm confused. Mainly, why isn't 'amp-hours' a quantity of countable electrons, and
    NOT a temperature-dependent variable? Did they charge the battery at low temperature instead of
    'normal' conditions, and stop charging according to a rule that didn't fully convert the
    chemical constituents unless the temperature was +20C? That's not variable battery capacity, that's stupid-charger algorithm failure.

    The constant-temperature test procedure doesn't appear to fully charge and/or fully
    discharge the battery unless temperatures are high-ish.
    I've always been a bit confused by this as well. Talking about Gibbs free energy doesn't explain what is happening in a battery at the atomic level. You would expect that N electrons going in produces N electrons coming out, indeed.

    At the atomic level that's exactly what should happen. You start off with lithium metal, and up with a lithium ion. That's one electron per atom.

    The voltage generated depends on the relative concentrations of uncharged lithium atoms and lithium ions (and the concentrations of the charge sink atom in the battery).

    The energy you extract is product of the charge you move around - which is one electron per lithium atom - and the output voltage at the instant you moved it - and that goes down as you discharge the battery, and will vary (a bit) with temperarture.

    The idea of getting different results by charging at different temperatures is hard to reconcile as well.

    You are changing one pair of chemical compounds into a different pair chemical compound. The electrical power you get out is the energy difference between the two sets of molecules.

    The energy content of all four compounds depends on their temperature and their concentration. The dependence on temperature isn't dramatic, since it depends on the entropies of the four compounds involved - which is what is brought out in the Gibbs free
    energy equation. The dependence on concentration is what's meant by charging a battery. It isn't linear.

    Even though I passed P-Chem, it has been too many years for me to be able to unravel this mystery. Bill should be able to explain the results, but he keeps repeating the same stuff about Gibbs free energy without providing any insight.

    Explaining the result in chemical terms does depend on the supplier being explicit about the chemicals present in a charged battery, and the uncharged battery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

    is explicit about one sort of lithium battery - one that uses lithium loaded graphite as its anode (LiC6), and cobalt oxide as its anode.

    LiC6 + CoO2 <=> C6 + LiCoO2

    The lithium moves through the battery, and and the electrons move through the electrical circuit.

    Getting insight into what is going is pretty much second year university chemical thermodynamics, which is hard to get to grips with. This kind of forum doesn't lend itself to delivering the weeks of lectures that I had to sit through (and the stack of
    problems that I had to work through (twice as it turned out because once I'd got a proper grip of the subject, I realised that my first pass through the problems hadn't actually solved what I should have been solving for).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Tue May 3 11:08:11 2022
    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection.
    But there's a hundred of those protectors then.

    It's also not temperature-range rated,

    Yes, it sense temperature.

    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

    There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

    The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can't help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

    In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

    In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell
    will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue May 3 10:36:25 2022
    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 22:13:08 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:01:30 AM UTC-4, ke...... wrote:
    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 19:44:31 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 9:57:25 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:54:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.
    That's not true at all. The energy content of a battery is the chemical energy of its constituents,
    and isn't a function of temperature. The effective output of the battery is lessened if its impedance
    goes up when cold, but that means little if the battery warms up in use (as an electric vehicle
    battery will).
    I must be using the wrong references then. Here is one that shows the Ah of an 18650 Li-ion cell over temperature. The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance, but very much does impact the energy content.

    https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-502-discharging-at-high-and-low-temperatures

    About a third way down the page.
    ...
    The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.
    You need to read what I wrote. I didn't say the internal resistance doesn't matter. I said, "The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance". Until you understand what I wrote, there's no point in discussing this further. Let me know when
    the light bulb comes on for you.
    If you could do the discharge at a low enough rate that the voltage drop across the internal resistance was insignificant then it would be seen that the capacity is not affected by temperature.
    If you review the graphs, you will understand... possibly. The point is that Amp-hours are not affected by the resistance. The series resistance causes a drop in voltage, and so reduces the power output. It won't change the number of coulombs coming
    out of the battery.
    Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.
    Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

    --

    Rick C.

    ----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    The internal resistance does affect the effective capacity because the discharge current causes the lower limit voltage (2.5V on those charts) to be reached while there is still energy within the cell.
    You need to read what I wrote. I didn't say the internal resistance doesn't matter. I said, "The Ah rating has nothing to do with the internal resistance". Until you understand what I wrote, there's no point in discussing this further. Let me know when
    the light bulb comes on for you.

    I read that perfectly well and understand what is happening and it is constant with my writing. You did not read or understand my text.

    Li-Ion cells are notable in that they have an extremely high coulomb efficiency, somewhere in the region of 99%. Especially compared to lead-acid or NiMH that are more like 70%-80%.
    Yes, that sounds like a good theory. Now explain the graph of Ah (coulombs * 3600) at different temperatures based on that notion. You do understand that Ah and coulombs measure the same thing, right?

    It is not the battery that is changing the measured Ah (Coulombs) out of the battery it is the test conditions that limit it.

    At low temperatures the test is terminated before the battery is discharged because the terminal voltage reaches the 2.5V limit. If the test could be continued for longer more capacity would be obtained.

    However that is not possible because the voltage gets to such a low level that other secondary reactions occur that compromise the cell. In some cases these secondary reactions can even cause permanent damage.

    If a lower current is used so the voltage drop in the internal resistance does not cause premature termination more capacity would be measured.

    The main problem is caused by the low diffusion speed of the lithium ions at low temperatures.

    Of course because of the lower terminal voltage there is less power and energy that can be extracted from the battery so the energy efficiency at low temperatures is low.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue May 3 21:47:14 2022
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:59:16 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from US
    driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you
    needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time,
    it is inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor
    in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph.
    The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You
    can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay better
    attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
    OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn't stop at every charger along the route! In
    fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
    I'm not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don't know what he did and I don't care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I'm not worried about some guy who can't provide his
    info.
    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    Yes, the key word there is "extreme".
    Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can't you read? But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
    No, that is right out of Tesla's operating manual.
    Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.
    https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/faq#:~:text=off%20the%20battery.-,What%20percentage%20should%20I%20charge%20the%20battery%20to%3F,from%20the%20charge%20settings%20menu.
    Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.
    Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.
    Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be fucked. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also fucked. What other "extreme" cases do you wish to address?
    What if your "home" is an apartment, dude?
    So what other mistakes have you made?
    None.
    Other than the ones I've caught you in.
    That would be NONE!

    The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that's some serious range degradation.
    Oh, now it is 200 miles. I providede a reference that indicated the average distance is 150 miles (223 miles max). You have provided, as usual, NOTHING.

    Why can't you admit your errors?
    I haven't made any - but you HAVE!

    --

    Rick C.

    +++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Tue May 3 21:51:54 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    <snip>
    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    No it won't because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.
    Getting the same battery warm again isn't using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about

    Tesla batteries do this all the time.

    Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally
    reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that
    problem goes away.

    If you are using stored energy to warm the battery, as you just stated, this reduces range.


    The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn't. And this continues as you are driving.
    Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.
    The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

    Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn't big.

    Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.
    That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn't have anywhere to put it. I don't know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you
    either misunderstood when you first heard, or now remembering incorrectly, but you've clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won't ever be able to realise it.

    Again, it is NOT a closed system - the car is exposed to an external climate that is pumping heat into and out of the battery.


    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed May 4 09:15:56 2022
    On 03/05/2022 15:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:52:41 -0700 (PDT), RichD
    <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
    The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal.

    Was it obvious to the designers, from day one,
    that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation?

    I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -

    It's like what people said about Saabs: Great car, between fires.


    They were notable for being particularly good for driving on cobbled
    streets. And the idiosyncratic can't take the key out of the ignition
    until the vehicle is put into reverse gear with the parking brake on.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed May 4 16:10:33 2022
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 12:47:19 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:27:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:59:16 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 9:50:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    Factor all of these things together and your winter range in Canada won't get you between superchargers - not even close. Oh, I forgot to mention that the battery capacity also declines with age.
    I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

    Yeah, I see diminished range in the winter. It's nothing like you describe. Canada is a bit of a special case since some huge percentage of the people live within 100 miles or so of the US border. So it's mostly not really different from
    US driving and there are no Superchargers over 90% of the country. Where they do exist, they are typically not more than 100 miles apart. There has been no time when I can't drive 100 miles from one charger to the next.

    BTW, you should not include the 80% charge limit in your calculations since that's not a real limit. The point is the battery wears faster at the higher end, so it's not a great idea to charge to 100% every time you charge. But if you
    needed to reach a destination, then by all means charge the battery up as high as needed. It's no different from stepping on the gas pedal in an ICE vehicle and dropping down a gear or two. That wears the motor faster, but unless you do it all the time,
    it is inconsequential.

    I've discussed the minor impacts on range with other Tesla owners and I still am not convinced it is significant. I drove the same pickup for 20 years and hardly ever saw the mileage change more than ±5%. It is claimed you need to factor
    in rain, wind, even sunshine as it heats the road. I think that is all nonsense for 99.9% of driving. An airplane is moving much faster than a car. Wind resistance impacts mileage as the square of speed. So it's very different at 70 vs. 200 or 300 mph.
    The winds are also much stronger higher in the atmosphere.

    So try to be a bit realistic. People drive BEVs and they work. Larkin is in complete denial about them. Some of your concerns are real, but you exaggerate them quite a bit.

    I find it is the people who don't have BEVs that express the most concern about driving them.

    I was being realistic and quoted actual measured conditions - you did not. Cars are not airplanes, which are designed for the speeds at which they fly: higher car speeds DO effect power consumption and Tesla's software factors that in. You
    can drive at 55mph (which is necessary to get the listed range), but it will take you longer.

    Another factor that I didn't mention is that the cold in winter requires the Tesla's battery to use its heater, consuming 5-10% of the charge. Warming the car before leaving can use another 5%, so you are down 15% before even leaving the
    parking lot.
    Yes, you used numbers, erroneous numbers, made up numbers, irrelevant numbers. I've explained to you some of your errors. Do you not learn from your mistakes? You also failed to show your math. So you get a D-. Sorry, but you should pay
    better attention in class.

    You are just being silly about your statement of not being able to drive 100 miles between Superchargers. Please show some references that agree with you. Try talking about this in the Tesla forums. They will give you a good education.
    Who said anything about 100 miles? That is YOU putting words into my mouth! In fact, the average distance between superchargers is 150 miles and can be as much as 223 miles:
    https://ventricular.org/ItsElectric/2020/12/08/supercharging-on-a-road-trip/#:~:text=The%20average%20distance%20between%20supercharging,battery%20pack%20on%20this%20trip.
    In Canada I expect that it is worse, especially the further north you get.
    OMG! You totally misunderstood the data collected. He only reported the chargers he stopped at, NOT the chargers he PASSED!!! Your 223 number is how far he drove before he had to stop and charge. He didn't stop at every charger along the route!
    In fact, the first stop in Kettleman City, at 223 miles, was after passing no less than 3 other chargers before stopping!!!
    A 59% range degradation for the Model 3 would reduce the range from 320 miles to 131 miles, and that would be using the full charge, which isn't available if it has been in an unheated area overnight.
    I'm not watching a video with some guy rambling about his test. I don't know what he did and I don't care. The link you provided did not mention any details, so unless you want tp provide them, I'm not worried about some guy who can't provide his
    info.
    The point is that extreme cold degrades EV range - a lot.
    Yes, the key word there is "extreme".
    Hey Dude, that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about - can't you read?
    But much of what YOU posted is not relevant. I've already pointed out that the 80% charge limit is bogus.
    No, that is right out of Tesla's operating manual.
    Please quote it. Or, if you prefer, misquote it.
    https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation/faq#:~:text=off%20the%20battery.-,What%20percentage%20should%20I%20charge%20the%20battery%20to%3F,from%20the%20charge%20settings%20menu.
    Heating your car prior to a trip is not part of the drain of the battery, because you can do that while connected to shore power without using the battery at all.
    Not if you are in a parking lot, dude.
    Yes, if you start a trip in the middle of nowhere, you might be fucked. But virtually no one does that. If you drive where there are no chargers and leave your cable at home, you are also fucked. What other "extreme" cases do you wish to address?
    What if your "home" is an apartment, dude?
    So what other mistakes have you made?
    None.
    Other than the ones I've caught you in.
    That would be NONE!

    The biggest one is the BS about chargers being over 200 miles apart, which you seem to have gotten from a log of a trip where someone drove that far, skipping multiple chargers, before stopping to charge. Yeah, that's some serious range degradation.
    Oh, now it is 200 miles. I providede a reference that indicated the average distance is 150 miles (223 miles max). You have provided, as usual, NOTHING.

    You provided nothing to prove your claims. As I have said, that report talked about the chargers he stopped at, not the many chargers he passed. Do you understand that? So it says NOTHING about how close the chargers are together.


    Why can't you admit your errors?
    I haven't made any - but you HAVE!

    I've now explained this to you twice. Can you acknowledge what I've explained to you?

    --

    Rick C.

    ---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu May 5 08:41:23 2022
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    <snip>
    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    No it won't because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

    Getting the same battery warm again isn't using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about.

    Tesla batteries do this all the time.

    But the point I was making is that heating and cooling the battery without discharging it during the process doesn't make any difference to the energy available from the battery at any given temperature.

    The fact that Tesla batteries can use their own stored energy to warm themselves happens to be irrelevant to the point I was making.

    Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent), with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally
    reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that
    problem goes away.

    If you are using stored energy to warm the battery, as you just stated, this reduces range.

    If that is what you are doing, this does use up some of the stored energy, but it wasn't what I was talking about.

    The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn't. And this continues as you are driving.

    Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

    The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

    Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn't big.

    Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

    That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn't have anywhere to put it. I don't know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you
    either misunderstood when you first heard it, or now remembering incorrectly, but you've clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won't ever be able to realise it.

    Again, it is NOT a closed system - the car is exposed to an external climate that is pumping heat into and out of the battery.

    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too far gone
    ever to realise it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sat May 7 23:08:02 2022
    On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:19:05 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 5:27:52 AM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:39:52 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 4:36:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:19:08 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

    That's why so many were manipulated by Trmp.
    Wow, completely backwards train of thought on your part. The emotional ones are the lefties. Those who think with logic are right wing. You're the touchy feely type that think it's ok to steal my taxes to pay for your problems.

    Lol. I guess that's why Trmp
    Why would you shorten a 5 letter word to a 4 letter word?

    I spell it as is appropriate.

    How can trmp be appropriate whether you hate him or not?

    I suppose I could just say "it".

    Stop embarrassing yourself by admitting you're a left wing thief. Robin Hood was not a good guy.

    has to use rallies to rile up his voters, to appeal to their intellect with rational and thoughtful discussions like, "Lock her up!" LOL You are a trip. But this is getting old. Bill likes to let people wind themselves up, but it's not terribly
    entertaining for me. I was just wondering what ridiculous arguments you might come up with and they are doozies! They don't take much effort to swat down though, so not really entertaining other than in an AFV way.
    Ah, so you're a left wing theiving liberal that thinks it's ok for my taxes to pay for your problems.

    Yes, that's what it's all about. YOUR TAXES. Ok, fine. Let's abolish taxes, all taxes. How can you say some tax spending is justified, but not others that YOU don't like? Taxes are decided by the method we in the USA have selected as our form of
    government. Are you anti-government?

    No tax is good. You spend your money on what you want to spend it on, not what others want.

    The fact that you are not aware of any of this, speaks volumes about your judgement.
    Repetition of the above ignored.

    Exactly! You love proving me right, don't you?
    Are you fucking stupid or what? All I said here is you're saying the same thing twice, therefore there's no point in me answering it again. That is all, stop reading anything else into it.

    LOL Ok, I'll stop. A friend worked for a government contractor. Another worker was briefing an Admiral, one on one, and at a point the Admiral got up and said he was leaving, but the guy should complete the briefing. The guy continued the briefing
    until it was complete.

    I'm leaving now. Please complete the briefing.
    Stop trying to sound smart, it doesn't befit you.

    And don't reply to everything then leave, that's the ultimate in childish behaviour.

    Ok, are you happy now?

    I do not concern myself with your lies.

    You aren't actually discussing anything. At this point I can't distinguish you from some sort of strange bot. Why would I want to continue to discuss something with a bot?

    Likewise, you're not coming close to a human. An American maybe.

    I actually got a spam call the other day where I was not sure if it was a bot or not? I guess at some point, the programs get so smart that they equal or surpass the apparent intelligence of the typical person who is hired to make such calls. They
    certainly have the language down better.

    Why would you answer such a call? Your phone does display the caller ID right? Your phone allows you to block numbers right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat May 7 21:45:09 2022
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    <snip>
    But you need to get the facts straight. The energy content of a battery is a function of temperature.

    But it is a weak and reversible function of temperature, at least for a lithium ion battery Get the same battery warm again without discharging it and it will still contain the original amount of stored energy.

    No it won't because they use energy from the battery to warm itself.

    Getting the same battery warm again isn't using its own stored energy to warm itself. You can do it that way, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about.

    Tesla batteries do this all the time.
    But the point I was making is that heating and cooling the battery without discharging it during the process doesn't make any difference to the energy available from the battery at any given temperature.

    The fact that Tesla batteries can use their own stored energy to warm themselves happens to be irrelevant to the point I was making.

    Flyguy seems to have confused the capacity of a battery to source current which can be heavily (if reversibly) temperature dependent), with the actual amount of energy stored in the battery, which is much less temperature dependent, and equally
    reversible. Pulling current out of a cold battery warms it up more than pulling the same amount of current out of a warm battery, so more the of the stored energy is used up in warming the battery, but again, once you have warmed up the battery that
    problem goes away.

    If you are using stored energy to warm the battery, as you just stated, this reduces range.
    If that is what you are doing, this does use up some of the stored energy, but it wasn't what I was talking about.
    The energy loss by the battery to warm itself doesn't. And this continues as you are driving.

    Not really, since the process of pulling current out the battery warms it anyway, and keeping the car warm enough to keep the driver alive is a useful way of using the stored energy.

    The Gibbs free energy is what you can get out of a battery, and it is given by ΔG = ΔH − TΔS.

    Delta S is the difference between the entropy of the initial and final states of the reactants. Granting that a battery is a solid state device, it isn't big.

    Gibbs free energy ONLY applies to a closed system - an EV is not closed, it must exist in its surrounding environment which imposes additional heat transfers.

    That is a totally moronic assertion. Gibbs free energy is all about the energy you can extract from a reacting system. With a closed system you wouldn't have anywhere to put it. I don't know which bit of your undergraduate thermodynamics class you
    either misunderstood when you first heard it, or now remembering incorrectly, but you've clearly got something very wrong - as usual - and won't ever be able to realise it.

    Again, it is NOT a closed system - the car is exposed to an external climate that is pumping heat into and out of the battery.
    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too far gone
    ever to realise it.

    Yes it is you fucking fool, SNIPPERMAN.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 7 22:26:28 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    <snip>

    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too far gone
    ever to realise it.

    Yes it is you fucking fool, Sloman.

    We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can't really expect him to get the facts right.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Tue May 10 23:12:58 2022
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    <snip>
    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too far
    gone ever to realise it.

    Yes it is you fucking fool, Sloman.

    We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can't really expect him to get the facts right.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    And we can rely on SNIPPERMAN for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed May 11 05:31:01 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:13:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    <snip>
    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too far
    gone ever to realise it.

    Yes it is you fucking fool, Sloman.

    We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can't really expect him to get the facts right.

    And we can rely on Sloman for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

    Actually, we can rely of Flyguy to make as ass of himself by claiming the existence of lies and misinformation about subjects that he can't be bothered to identify (and clearly doesn't know anything about).

    As soon as you start talking about Gibbs Free Energy you are into pedant territory. We got there because Flyguy posted this bit of nonsense

    "Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range). "

    where he confused the capacity of a lithium ion battery to source current at low temperature (which is reduced) with the amount of energy stored in he battery (which isn't, or at least not much)).

    He still doesn't seem to have got the point. The pedantic point is that the energy you can extract from a battery - its Gibbs Free Energy - is slightly (if reversibly) temperature dependent, but nothing like 25% reduction at -20C, or the roughly 50% at -
    40C that he was claiming.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Wed May 11 21:41:24 2022
    On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:08:11 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >
    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection.
    But there's a hundred of those protectors then.

    It's also not temperature-range rated,

    Yes, it sense temperature.

    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

    There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

    The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can't help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

    In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

    In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that cell
    will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.

    When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Wed May 11 15:33:04 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:41:34 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:08:11 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection.
    But there's a hundred of those protectors then.

    It's also not temperature-range rated,

    Yes, it sense temperature.

    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

    There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

    The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can't help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

    In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

    In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that
    cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
    When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve? Do you think this feature is free? Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car. That is why they aren't used.

    --

    Rick C.

    ---++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ---++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Wed May 11 23:42:27 2022
    On Wed, 11 May 2022 23:33:04 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:41:34 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:08:11 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Monday, 2 May 2022 at 21:12:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Mon, 02 May 2022 23:41:54 +0100, whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:58:17 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 22:45:50 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    We can only guess. Current Tesla battery is around 1/2 ton for vehicle weight of 3 to 4 tons. A fully loaded semi could weight 20 to 25 tons. I think it would be several tons of batteries.

    I'd love to see that short out.

    You know when you could buy Li Ion cells with protection? Whatever happened to that?

    The 'protection' for a four-volt cell is just an off switch (buckling mode of disk).
    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.
    For a few hundred volts of car battery, that's not good protection.
    But there's a hundred of those protectors then.

    It's also not temperature-range rated,

    Yes, it sense temperature.

    No, they're electronic and resettable. They prevent you charging them or discharging them too fast.

    There are no electronic protection devices directly in the series path of electric vehicle batteries.

    The temperature is definitely taken into account in the control algorithms but if there is a fault, such as a cable short at the output of the battery the electronics can't help apart from disengaging the main contactor.

    In Tesla vehicles there is also a pyrotechnic fuse to isolate the battery if the current gets to dangerous levels. In the higher performing versions that is set to 1500 Amps.

    In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that
    cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
    When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?

    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees
    was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    Do you think this feature is free?

    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.

    Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car.

    Still comes to 10%.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Wed May 11 18:46:24 2022
    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees
    was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.

    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.

    kw

    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car.
    Still comes to 10%.

    10% of $10-20,000 is still $1000-2000. A significant amount when it doesn't add any significant value. It wouldn't protect against the thermal runaway issues that have occasionally affected lithium-ion batteries. There is already protection against over-
    current and failure in other parts of the system. That can more effectively be provided at the battery, rather than the cell level.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Wed May 11 18:34:30 2022
    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 13:41:34 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that
    cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
    When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

    With the high current used during acceleration that would cause undesirable voltage drops as well as adding volume, cost and heat to the battery.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Thu May 12 03:28:08 2022
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:34:30 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 13:41:34 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    In addition to the battery level fusing there are individual fuses on each cell. One reason for that is that since there a 30 odd cells in parallel in each module there could be a big problem if one cell had a short. With the individual fuse that
    cell will isolate itself and the battery can still function, albeit with slightly reduced capacity. In the case of the Model S and Model X batteries the cell fuses are short pieces of wire that are used to connect to each cell.
    When you buy an 18650 cell, you can get ones with built in electronic protection. If you charge or discharge too fast, or try to run it too low, it will shut off, but reset itself later. Why are these not used in cars?

    With the high current used during acceleration that would cause undesirable voltage drops as well as adding volume, cost and heat to the battery.

    I thought you could get those with high current capabilities. Had a very quick look and found 25A unprotected and 15A protected. I'm sure there are others though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Thu May 12 03:34:32 2022
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand degrees
    was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.

    Something hot and liquid came out.

    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.

    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These batteries
    are a piece of shit.

    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    Multiply by the thousands of cells in a car.
    Still comes to 10%.

    10% of $10-20,000 is still $1000-2000.

    My point is you don't get percentages. Changing a $1 item to $1.10 is the same as changing a $10,000 car to $11,000.

    A significant amount when it doesn't add any significant value. It wouldn't protect against the thermal runaway issues that have occasionally affected lithium-ion batteries.

    Why on earth not?

    There is already protection against over-current and failure in other parts of the system. That can more effectively be provided at the battery, rather than the cell level.

    Until you crash and something shorts inbetween cells.

    Looks like the protection they have now isn't sufficient: https://youtu.be/-jiH3mE81zw?t=104

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Wed May 11 19:58:43 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand
    degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These batteries
    are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.

    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Wed May 11 21:38:42 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand
    degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25

    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    The fact that a halfwit like Commander Kinsey is scared silly about the prospect of a lithium ion battery will catch on fire means that he will pay loads of money so that he can be less anxious about it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 21:32:34 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:31:06 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:13:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    <snip>
    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too
    far gone ever to realise it.

    Yes it is you fucking fool, SNIPPERMAN.

    We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can't really expect him to get the facts right.

    And we can rely on SNIPPERMAN for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

    Actually, we can rely of Flyguy to make as ass of himself by claiming the existence of lies and misinformation about subjects that he can't be bothered to identify (and clearly doesn't know anything about).

    As soon as you start talking about Gibbs Free Energy you are into pedant territory. We got there because Flyguy posted this bit of nonsense

    "Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range). "

    where he confused the capacity of a lithium ion battery to source current at low temperature (which is reduced) with the amount of energy stored in he battery (which isn't, or at least not much)).

    He still doesn't seem to have got the point. The pedantic point is that the energy you can extract from a battery - its Gibbs Free Energy - is slightly (if reversibly) temperature dependent, but nothing like 25% reduction at -20C, or the roughly 50% at
    -40C that he was claiming.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    SNIPPERMAN provides exactly ZERO references for his pedantic ramblings - PAR FOR THE COURSE!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed May 11 22:36:25 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:31:06 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:13:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:26:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:45:13 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:41:27 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 2:51:58 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 12:14:16 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 10:07:17 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 2:54:11 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 11:25:13 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 2, 2022 at 8:45:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:51:11 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 1:10:30 AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 2:32:38 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 3:11:05 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

    <snip>
    The point I was making is that Gibbs Free Energy isn't a concept that is in any way restricted to a closed system.That you can imagine that it might be does illustrate the point that you don't know what you are talking about and are much too
    far gone ever to realise it.

    Yes it is you fucking fool, SNIPPERMAN.

    We can rely on Flyguy for clear and specific rebuttals. We can't really expect him to get the facts right.

    And we can rely on SNIPPERMAN for LIES, MISINFORMATION and PENDANTIC RAMBLINGS.

    Actually, we can rely of Flyguy to make as ass of himself by claiming the existence of lies and misinformation about subjects that he can't be bothered to identify (and clearly doesn't know anything about).

    As soon as you start talking about Gibbs Free Energy you are into pedant territory. We got there because Flyguy posted this bit of nonsense

    "Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250
    miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range). "

    where he confused the capacity of a lithium ion battery to source current at low temperature (which is reduced) with the amount of energy stored in he battery (which isn't, or at least not much)).

    He still doesn't seem to have got the point. The pedantic point is that the energy you can extract from a battery - its Gibbs Free Energy - is slightly (if reversibly) temperature dependent, but nothing like 25% reduction at -20C, or the roughly 50%
    at -40C that he was claiming.

    Sloman provides exactly ZERO references for his pedantic ramblings - PAR FOR THE COURSE!

    None that Flyguy's decaying brain can recall. Here's one such reference from way back in thread.

    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=80512

    and here's another

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

    Neither of them is all that specific. What Flyguy seems to need is a detailed course on the subject from the first principles (which he doesn't seem to know about) right through to the practical applications that he barely understands. Granting his
    rather selective comprehension of what he condescends to read, he probably didn't process either of them and has persuaded himself that he can blame me for that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 23:32:34 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand
    degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Thu May 12 16:38:09 2022
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> > > > ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand
    degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Thu May 12 20:28:23 2022
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> > > On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Sat May 14 03:36:05 2022
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:18:40 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 08:38:18 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> >> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >> > > On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100,...> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.
    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    For some of portions of the car market the price is already competitive and the other features are similar or better. For example the Tesla Model 3 vs a BMW 3 series - https://www.motor1.com/reviews/378302/bmw-3-series-tesla-model-3-comparison/.

    A BMW is not a sensible car. Now please look at cars that cost what they're worth. The cheapest petrol car brand new and the cheapest electric car brand new that go a decent mileage (a few hundred miles), are 6K and 25K. Electric is a nice idea, but
    it's nowhere near ready for the public to use. Lithium Ion is not suitable for such a massive amount of power storage.

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.

    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.

    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.

    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that.

    The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.

    Ignore the manual. Take the car to the garage when it goes wrong.

    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    Then I will wait another 10 years.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Fri May 13 19:43:47 2022
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri May 13 19:18:40 2022
    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 08:38:18 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> > > On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100,...> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.
    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    For some of portions of the car market the price is already competitive and the other features are similar or better. For example the Tesla Model 3 vs a BMW 3 series - https://www.motor1.com/reviews/378302/bmw-3-series-tesla-model-3-comparison/.

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.

    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.

    The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.

    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sat May 14 03:52:53 2022
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:43:47 +0100, Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.

    Nothing made by Tesla is a sensible price, I'm sure Musk is related to Jobs. It's the same Apple tactics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 14 04:57:37 2022
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 04:43:37 +0100, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> > >> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Sorry, SNIPPERMAN, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wain. And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.

    All of it actually. Since all the "green" juice is already being used, additional usage from more cars wil come from burning coal/oil/gas faster. So no change to the environment, apart from Lithium problems. So actually worse for the environment.
    Electric golf carts yes, electric cars don't be daft. Batteries are for phones and cordless drills and are wholly unsuitable for something that uses 100kW.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri May 13 20:43:37 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Sorry, SNIPPERMAN, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wain. And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rbowman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri May 13 22:02:41 2022
    On 05/13/2022 09:43 PM, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>>>>> ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few thousand
    degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop. >>>>>>>>
    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Sorry, SNIPPERMAN, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wain. And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.


    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics/lithium-mining-energy-climate/index.html

    There aren't many trees to hug in Thacker Pass but the war has begun.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to rbowman on Fri May 13 21:45:23 2022
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:02:49 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
    On 05/13/2022 09:43 PM, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve? >>>>>>>>> The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Sorry, SNIPPERMAN, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wain. And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics/lithium-mining-energy-climate/index.html

    There aren't many trees to hug in Thacker Pass but the war has begun.

    The bottom line is that so-called Progressives are far TOO STUPID to think anything through.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri May 13 21:43:37 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 12:36:15 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:18:40 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 08:38:18 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100,...> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.
    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    For some of portions of the car market the price is already competitive and the other features are similar or better. For example the Tesla Model 3 vs a BMW 3 series - https://www.motor1.com/reviews/378302/bmw-3-series-tesla-model-3-comparison/.
    A BMW is not a sensible car.

    Neither is a Tesla.

    Now please look at cars that cost what they're worth. The cheapest petrol car brand new and the cheapest electric car brand new that go a decent mileage (a few hundred miles), are £6K and £25K. Electric is a nice idea, but it's nowhere near ready for
    the public to use.

    Apples and pears.

    Lithium Ion is not suitable for such a massive amount of power storage.

    It works just fine. You want to redefine "suitable" to mean "agreeable with Commander Kinsey's prejudices".

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.

    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.

    Electric care batteries are ageing a lot more slowly than they used to. Commander Kinsey is behind the game. as usual.

    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.

    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that.

    And would be silly enough to do it.

    The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.

    Ignore the manual. Take the car to the garage when it goes wrong.

    Commander Kinsey does take the ignorant half-wit approach to car maintenance.

    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    Then I will wait another 10 years.

    Probably not a wise choice, but Commander Kinsey clearly isn't wise.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri May 13 21:50:22 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 12:53:02 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:43:47 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.
    Nothing made by Tesla is a sensible price, I'm sure Musk is related to Jobs. It's the same Apple tactics.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence

    went into that tactic. Back in 1982, IBM and Hewlett-Packard were the leading exponents. If you had a reputation of for quality you could sell your stuff for three times the cost of production, rather than twice the cost which was less reputable
    producers had to settle for.

    These days Apple and Tesla are relying on their prestige to sell good products at an inflated price in the same way.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri May 13 22:02:57 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 1:43:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve? >> > > >> The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted.
    These batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    Sorry, Sloman, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

    So people are starting new lithium mines all over. The mining pages of Australian newspapers are crawling with local lithium nine start-ups, sojme of them even in Australia. This is exactly how supply and demand economics works, even if you don't
    understand it.

    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wane.

    There are a variety of source of lithium. Mining is a pretty localised activity, and there are places where tree-huggers (not a huge proportion of the population anyway) are thin on the ground.

    And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.

    But solar farms produce it more cheaply, and car batteries don't much care when the get recharged, so long as they are fully charged when they set out. Car's spend 95% of their time parked, and as electric cars become even more popular you will be able
    to recharge them almost anywhere where you are allowed to park them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

    made the point back in 2008, but your senile dementia will have been pretty advanced even back then, so you will have missed it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 14 06:10:34 2022
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 05:45:23 +0100, Flyguy <soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:02:49 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
    On 05/13/2022 09:43 PM, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>
    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Sorry, SNIPPERMAN, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wain. And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics/lithium-mining-energy-climate/index.html

    There aren't many trees to hug in Thacker Pass but the war has begun.

    The bottom line is that so-called Progressives are far TOO STUPID to think anything through.

    Yip, it's called gut instinct, they behave like animals. They can't actually make sensible decisions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri May 13 22:31:55 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 3:10:45 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 05:45:23 +0100, Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:02:49 PM UTC-7, rbowman wrote:
    On 05/13/2022 09:43 PM, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >> >> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    Sorry, Sloman, but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wane. And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from?

    The simple economics which Flygug is ignoring here is motivating a lot of lithium mine start-ups.

    Much of it is by burning coal.

    But progressively less of it. Solar cells and windmills both produce electricity more cheaply than you can get it by burning coal or gas.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/politics/lithium-mining-energy-climate/index.html

    There aren't many trees to hug in Thacker Pass but the war has begun.

    The bottom line is that so-called Progressives are far TOO STUPID to think anything through.

    Granting what Flyguy and Commander Kinsey have posted here, they are aren't the only people with that problem.

    Tree-huggers are a fairly extreme end of the "progressive" spectrum, and the ones that feature largely in climate change denial propaganda seem to be more invented than real.

    Yip, it's called gut instinct, they behave like animals. They can't actually make sensible decisions.

    Since they pretty much only exist in climate change denial propaganda, the decisions that they are claimed to be making are those invented by the climate change denial propaganda machine for its own convenience. It you are going to invent strawmen, you
    do invent the strawmen who suit your argument, no matter how implausible their behavior would be in real life.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Fri May 13 22:17:00 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 1:57:47 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 04:43:37 +0100, Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:28:27 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:38:18 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.

    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.
    There's nothing magic about economies of scale. The rule of thumb is that manufacturing in ten times the volume halves the price. It has worked a couple of times now for solar cells.

    In 2020 electric cars were 4% of car sales. Get that close to 100% and they would cost about the same a petrol car (even if your factor of three were right, which seems improbable). They also happen to be cheaper to run. The "shit range" claim is
    nonsense. It may be that one of the economies of scale may involve developing a better battery (which does seem to be a popular sport at the moment), but my long distance driving regime involves taking a break every two hour or so and having a cup of
    coffee while the car recharged would fit that perfectly.

    Sorry, Slomna but you are not considering simple supply and demand economics; the price of lithium has skyrocketed with the large increase in demand:
    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium
    And lithium mining is very environmentally unfriendly - when the tree huggers find this out their love affair with electric cars will wane.

    It's Flyguy who doesn't understand supply and demand economics. The current rise in the price of lithium is motivating lots of people to start digging new lithium mines. The mining pages of Australian newspapers are full of start=ups doing just that.

    And, then, there is the issue of WHERE does the electricity come from? Much of it is by burning coal.
    All of it actually. Since all the "green" juice is already being used, additional usage from more cars wil come from burning coal/oil/gas faster. So no change to the environment, apart from Lithium problems. So actually worse for the environment.
    Electric golf carts yes, electric cars don't be daft. Batteries are for phones and cordless drills and are wholly unsuitable for something that uses 100kW.

    Commander Kinsey hasn't notice how fast the electrical supply industry is switching to renewable sources, which happen to generate electricity more cheaply you can get it by burning coal. Electric car batteries are their ideal customer - they can charge
    the batteries when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and power is particularly cheap. This was pointed out back in 2008, but not anywhere where Commander Kinsey would have noticed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rbowman@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sat May 14 12:30:35 2022
    On 05/13/2022 11:31 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    Granting what Flyguy and Commander Kinsey have posted here, they are aren't the only people with that problem.

    Tree-huggers are a fairly extreme end of the "progressive" spectrum, and the ones that feature largely in climate change denial propaganda seem to be more invented than real.

    https://deepgreenresistance.org/ https://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/ https://fs.blog/intellectual-giants/garrett-hardin/

    Real environmentalists aren't even on the progressive spectrum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat May 14 17:12:21 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 12:50:26 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 12:53:02 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:43:47 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.
    Nothing made by Tesla is a sensible price, I'm sure Musk is related to Jobs. It's the same Apple tactics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence

    went into that tactic. Back in 1982, IBM and Hewlett-Packard were the leading exponents. If you had a reputation of for quality you could sell your stuff for three times the cost of production, rather than twice the cost which was less reputable
    producers had to settle for.

    These days Apple and Tesla are relying on their prestige to sell good products at an inflated price in the same way.

    That's not so much what is happening, as much as it is simply optimizing for the market. In electronics there are always early adopters who can justify a more expensive unit. Tesla was selling a $35,000 car they made virtually no money on. Then they
    stopped selling that version. As the market heated up they stopped selling the next lower priced version. I think there was a third version they stopped selling.

    It is a well known fact that there is more profit in the luxury cars sold at higher prices. This is what Tesla is doing, rather than simply raising prices to make more money. It only costs a bit more to add the various features, but these features
    bring a lot higher price.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Sat May 14 17:06:28 2022
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:36:15 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:18:40 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 08:38:18 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100,...> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted. These
    batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.
    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    For some of portions of the car market the price is already competitive and the other features are similar or better. For example the Tesla Model 3 vs a BMW 3 series - https://www.motor1.com/reviews/378302/bmw-3-series-tesla-model-3-comparison/.
    A BMW is not a sensible car. Now please look at cars that cost what they're worth. The cheapest petrol car brand new and the cheapest electric car brand new that go a decent mileage (a few hundred miles), are £6K and £25K. Electric is a nice idea,
    but it's nowhere near ready for the public to use. Lithium Ion is not suitable for such a massive amount of power storage.

    What is your "sensible" car at £6K? Does it have four wheels? Three? Two? There are electric cars at lower prices than £25K. You do have to be willing to look for them though. I expect that's not going to happen since it is you we are talking to.


    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.
    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.

    This is the silly talk we typically get from this poster.


    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.
    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that.
    The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.
    Ignore the manual. Take the car to the garage when it goes wrong.
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.
    Then I will wait another 10 years.

    No, you should wait another hundred years. I want to see your grip on the steering wheel fossilized.

    It is hard to find a more ignorant person, even in this group.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sat May 14 17:46:22 2022
    On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 19:43:51 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.
    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.

    Probably not but the battery costs are declining and like likely to go further (albeit with blips caused by current world problems)

    https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134307_report-ev-battery-costs-might-rise-in-2022

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Sat May 14 17:42:53 2022
    On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 19:36:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    A BMW is not a sensible car. Now please look at cars that cost what they're worth. The cheapest petrol car brand new and the cheapest electric car brand new that go a decent mileage (a few hundred miles), are £6K and £25K. Electric is a nice idea,
    but it's nowhere near ready for the public to use. Lithium Ion is not suitable for such a massive amount of power storage.

    According to this the cheapest car in the UK is about £11.5k.

    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars-vans/351901/top-10-cheapest-cars-sale-2022

    A couple million people a year buy BMWs that you describe as "not a sensible car" so Im sure many would disagree with you.

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.
    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.
    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.
    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that.

    You could not buy 6 new cars for $47k. And most people don't just buy the bare minimum car as can be seen from the average price. You also can't meaningfully compare radically dissimilar cars as much of the cost is not just in the propulsion system.

    The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.
    Ignore the manual. Take the car to the garage when it goes wrong.

    No oil changes? No brake checking. What about mandatory smog or MOT tests - do you ignore those as well?

    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.
    Then I will wait another 10 years.
    That's your privilege.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Sat May 14 17:46:55 2022
    On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 19:53:02 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:43:47 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.
    Nothing made by Tesla is a sensible price, I'm sure Musk is related to Jobs. It's the same Apple tactics.

    Nobody is forcing you to buy one.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat May 14 17:54:31 2022
    On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 21:50:26 UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    ...

    These days Apple and Tesla are relying on their prestige to sell good products at an inflated price in the same way.
    ...

    They are actually not that inflated - Apple's prices are competitive with similar offerings from top tier vendors such as Samsung. In general Apple chooses not to sell the lower cost products in any market so their average prices may seem to be higher.

    Similarly Tesla's prices are comparable with other top tier car makers. People buy Tesla cars because they meet their needs better than most others and they avoid some of the issues with pricing that other makers suffer from such as predatory markups
    from their car dealer network. There have been articles about $50,000 dealer markups for some popular but difficult to obtain models.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to rbowman on Sat May 14 20:33:36 2022
    On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 4:30:42 AM UTC+10, rbowman wrote:
    On 05/13/2022 11:31 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    Granting what Flyguy and Commander Kinsey have posted here, they are aren't the only people with that problem.

    Tree-huggers are a fairly extreme end of the "progressive" spectrum, and the ones that feature largely in climate change denial propaganda seem to be more invented than real.

    https://deepgreenresistance.org/ https://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/ https://fs.blog/intellectual-giants/garrett-hardin/

    Real environmentalists aren't even on the progressive spectrum.

    Websites are cheap. Even I've got one. The climate change denial propaganda movement is well funded, and could afford a few. Recruiting a few nutters who were silly enough to take the invented tree-huggers seriously wouldn't be all that expensive either.
    The environmental equivalents of Cursitor Doom and John Doe must exists, and they will be just as willing to believe in bogus nonsense as those two are. Different bogus nonsense, but equally bogus.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 15 04:59:09 2022
    On Sun, 15 May 2022 01:06:28 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:36:15 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:18:40 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 08:38:18 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100,...> wrote:

    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    Why are they needed? What problem are you trying to solve?
    The problem frequently in the news where people's houses catch fire due to a fault in a charger/torch/etc. Nickel batteries get very hot, Lithium ones explode in a fireball, setting everything around it alight. Liquid lithium at a few
    thousand degrees was once fired through someone's hands while typing on a laptop.

    I seriously doubt there was any liquid lithium ejected from the burning battery. The lithium does not exist separately it is bound in the electrodes and there is less than a gram per 18650 cell.
    Something hot and liquid came out.
    The electrolyte is highly flammable and liquid or a paste that could cause burns.
    Could have been it, the point is people get burnt and surrounding things catch fire. I've even seen a video of someone falling down some concrete stairs outdoors in an icy winter, with his mobile phone in his back pocket, which erupted.
    These batteries are a piece of shit.
    Do you think this feature is free?
    The cost only adds 10% to the battery approximately.
    I doubt it.

    https://www.sanwulasers.com/product/18650

    Unprotected: $15
    Protected: $25
    The difference in retail price hasn't got much to do with the cost of the extra hardware, and everything to do with what the customer will pay for it.

    Of course nobody is paying $15 per cell, or it would cost $100,000 for each Tesla. I would think that Tesla's cost of production is around $5 and protection circuit would be more like 30% to 40% in addition cost.
    Unless it magically gets cheaper, Lithium batteries are not economically viable for a car. You either have shit range, or the car costs triple what a petrol one would.

    For some of portions of the car market the price is already competitive and the other features are similar or better. For example the Tesla Model 3 vs a BMW 3 series - https://www.motor1.com/reviews/378302/bmw-3-series-tesla-model-3-comparison/.
    A BMW is not a sensible car. Now please look at cars that cost what they're worth. The cheapest petrol car brand new and the cheapest electric car brand new that go a decent mileage (a few hundred miles), are 6K and 25K. Electric is a nice idea, but
    it's nowhere near ready for the public to use. Lithium Ion is not suitable for such a massive amount of power storage.

    What is your "sensible" car at 6K? Does it have four wheels? Three? Two? There are electric cars at lower prices than 25K. You do have to be willing to look for them though. I expect that's not going to happen since it is you we are talking to.

    A Dacia Sandero is a basic petrol car. The electric cars under 25K have a shorter range than that.

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.
    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.

    This is the silly talk we typically get from this poster.

    What's silly about what I said? Most people will drive a long distance to commute, go on holiday, etc. And I assume you realise batteries don't retain the range they had at manufacture.

    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.
    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that. >> > The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.
    Ignore the manual. Take the car to the garage when it goes wrong.
    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.
    Then I will wait another 10 years.

    No, you should wait another hundred years. I want to see your grip on the steering wheel fossilized.

    You don't seriously want self driving cars where you just act as a bored passenger do you?

    It is hard to find a more ignorant person, even in this group.

    It's amazing you just insult me without any information explaining why you think your viewpoint is correct. But then you are a religious fuckwit of the third degree. Hang on, won't you go to hell for being nasty to me? You'd better go say hail Marys
    or give the priest a blowjob or whatever nonsense goes on in there.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 15 05:58:44 2022
    On Sun, 15 May 2022 01:12:21 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 12:50:26 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 12:53:02 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:43:47 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:18:45 PM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote: >> > >> The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.

    I don't think the Tesla (50kWh) battery cost below $5000.
    Nothing made by Tesla is a sensible price, I'm sure Musk is related to Jobs. It's the same Apple tactics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_Excellence

    went into that tactic. Back in 1982, IBM and Hewlett-Packard were the leading exponents. If you had a reputation of for quality you could sell your stuff for three times the cost of production, rather than twice the cost which was less reputable
    producers had to settle for.

    These days Apple and Tesla are relying on their prestige to sell good products at an inflated price in the same way.

    That's not so much what is happening, as much as it is simply optimizing for the market. In electronics there are always early adopters who can justify a more expensive unit. Tesla was selling a $35,000 car they made virtually no money on. Then they
    stopped selling that version. As the market heated up they stopped selling the next lower priced version. I think there was a third version they stopped selling.

    It is a well known fact that there is more profit in the luxury cars sold at higher prices. This is what Tesla is doing, rather than simply raising prices to make more money. It only costs a bit more to add the various features, but these features
    bring a lot higher price.

    Especially when they can sell them multiple times, once to each owner. They're fucking criminals.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Commander Kinsey on Sat May 14 21:47:54 2022
    On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sun, 15 May 2022 01:06:28 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:36:15 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Sat, 14 May 2022 03:18:40 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <ke...@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, 12 May 2022 at 08:38:18 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:32:34 +0100, Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 9:38:46 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 12:58:47 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 7:34:43 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 02:46:24 +0100,...> wrote:
    On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 15:42:36 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

    <snip>

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.
    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.

    This is the silly talk we typically get from this poster.

    What's silly about what I said? Most people will drive a long distance to commute, go on holiday, etc. And I assume you realise batteries don't retain the range they had at manufacture.

    Battery life has improved rapidly in the past few years.

    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.

    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that.

    Except that it looks as if you couldn't by 6 new cars for that.

    The absence of regular servicing is very convenient - I have had mine for just about 4 years and it hasn't been to the dealer once. Whereas my Prius has required 8 services in that time according to the manual.

    Ignore the manual. Take the car to the garage when it goes wrong.

    More idiot advice from the wanker.

    The cost and energy requirement to manufacture the batteries continues to drop - it is below $100 per kWh now from many times that ten years ago.
    Then I will wait another 10 years.

    No, you should wait another hundred years. I want to see your grip on the steering wheel fossilized.

    You don't seriously want self driving cars where you just act as a bored passenger do you?

    Bore drivers don't pay enough attention either.

    It is hard to find a more ignorant person, even in this group.

    It's amazing you just insult me without any information explaining why you think your viewpoint is correct.

    You've been spelling out your ignorance here for weeks. It has been noticeable.

    But then you are a religious fuckwit of the third degree. Hang on, won't you go to hell for being nasty to me?

    Probably not. Warning other people about dangerous lunatics is a virtuous action.

    You'd better go say hail Marys or give the priest a blowjob or whatever nonsense goes on in there.

    More bad advice.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Commander Kinsey@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Sun May 15 06:02:22 2022
    On Sun, 15 May 2022 01:42:53 +0100, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:

    On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 19:36:15 UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
    ...
    A BMW is not a sensible car. Now please look at cars that cost what they're worth. The cheapest petrol car brand new and the cheapest electric car brand new that go a decent mileage (a few hundred miles), are 6K and 25K. Electric is a nice idea, but
    it's nowhere near ready for the public to use. Lithium Ion is not suitable for such a massive amount of power storage.

    According to this the cheapest car in the UK is about 11.5k.

    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars-vans/351901/top-10-cheapest-cars-sale-2022

    Bullshit. I used to own a Dacia Sandero. It was 6K. The 4WD version my father still owns, the Duster, that was 10K.

    A couple million people a year buy BMWs that you describe as "not a sensible car" so Im sure many would disagree with you.

    They're morons. BMW hasn't even invented FWD yet. And they're no better than a VW, at a fraction of the price.

    Range is just not an issue for most drivers although it does take a different mindset from the traditional don't fill up until empty approach of conventional vehicles.
    It's a problem for every single driver. Most people do not drive 2 miles to the post office. By the way that range drops like a stone as the battery ages. My petrol tank doesn't age.
    When the fuel cost is included electric cars competitive on price even with average cars like a Toyota Camry. The average new car cost in the US has risen to about $47,000. The cost of a base Tesla Model 3 is $46,990.
    WTF are you doing paying $47K for a petrol car? I could buy 6 cars for that.

    You could not buy 6 new cars for $47k. And most people don't just buy the bare minimum car as can be seen from the average price. You also can't meaningfully compare radically dissimilar cars as much of the cost is not just in the propulsion system.

    I'm comparing the cheapest car I can