How did we convert from horse and buggy to automobiles

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:41 pm

Did the buggy manufacturers go willingly, leading the way into the automobile age, or did they drag their feet, fighting the automobile every step of the way?

Our next major transition is from ICE vehicles to electric, can we expect the major auto manufacturers to lead the way or will they continue to drag their feet every step of the way?

How many of the auto manufacturers, say in the 1920's and 30's started out as buggy manufacturers?
Do any of the current auto manufacturers have any history as a buggy manufacturer?
Will it be necessary to replace the auto industry with a new electric vehicle industry?

If you go into the details of EV conversions (Google search) you will find thousands of people have converted cars to EVs (electric vehicles), mostly neighborhood cars. Look here http://www.evalbum.com/ for example. If you look deeper, you will find that the big problem is electric motors, suitable electric motors don't exist, or aren't available. That is, a generally available 150 hp industrial motor weighs nearly a ton. And while batteries are weak and heavy, at least they exist.
My opinion is that the first manufacturer to make suitable sized electric motors available will make a killing, and will drive the electric vehicle industry.
What's your opinion?

Mike Holmes · Post by **Mike Holmes** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:27 pm

I wanted to agree at first, but I don't. The car companies are already half-heartedly working on electric cars, and would produce lots of them if it was economic to do so. It's not like GM didn't already have an electric car (the EV1). They scrapped the program because they couldn't make it economical.

That'll change if technology changes to make it economical. The key problem right now is simply that the batteries cost too much. To make a profit on the cars, they'd have to sell them for a price that most people are unwilling to pay. That is, you can make a car right now that works as a commuter car, but can't go long distances. And that limitation, along with the high price tag, would make the cars unsalable.

We can't all afford Teslas, basically.

Now, they could be investing more, trying to get to the electric car, sure. And in light of the current economic problems, if they had such an offering, having reached market by now might seem prescient to us. But they didn't.

So, yeah, if somebody invents something new that makes the electric car both affordable, and meets up with expectations of what a car can do... yes, that company will make a killing, sure. But I think it's more likely that the battery company that invents the technology will sell it to GM... if GM still exists then.

I do think that the economics are pushing the battery companies to invent the technology (along with a lot of university reasearch programs). And I think we'll have it sooner rather than later, whether or not Eestor per se pans out or not. If Eestor turns out to be real, then, yeah, Zenn motor cars becomes the little guy who will make that killing. But I think that it's more likely that the technology will come from an unknown sector.

What we will have, in the meanwhile, are affordable (if not cheap) commuter cars. These are already being made available, but will not make anything like a killing. They'll be purchased by people who want to avoid the fluctuations of gas prices who only use the vehicle to get back and forth to and from work. Oh, and who don't mind the issues of having a very small car.

Cars like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIEV
See also the Nissan Nuvu, and Toyota iQ.

Looks like Japan has the jump on US manufacturers like GM who intend to push gas-electric models like the Chevy Volt, which are going to be much more expensive in order to essentially have full car functionality. Again, assuming GM is still around to make it then, and doesn't cut it in the meanwhile.

There's also India's Reva, which you can buy if you live in India, and which will soon come to the US. And lots of other such manufacturers.

I don't think that it'll be the "big three" that'll deliver the first popular electric car. But it'll be a large auto company somewhere in the world.

I'm trying to decide which electric car I will buy. Price tags are still forthcoming, and will probably be decisive. Looks like 2010 is the year that we'll have real choices.

Mike

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:11 pm

> are affordable (if not cheap) commuter cars

I'd avoid the use of the word cheap myself, here in the UK a second hand electric car would cost you around $4,000, or double that new. (I'm looking at producing one in the $2,000 area, as the government offers a nice scheme where if you use it to go to work with, they pay half the cost up to $1,000)

> can make a car right now that works as a commuter car, but can't
> go long distances

Do we really need long distances for the majority of people ? (Maybe you do in the US, but in the UK, I think you might be able to sell a car that can only go a short distance.)

Being that where I am in London/UK it costs $1,000 a year for a bus pass, or $3,000 a year if you want to use the underground/tube/train.

With tax/insurance/petrol/gas prices if you ran an ordinary car for a year just travelling the same distance to work, it could easily cost you $2,000 as a minium.)

As such I reckon there could well be a market for a low cost electric commuter car that only costs you $1,000 to buy it, and virtually nothing in the way of tax/insurance, low running costs (Even nothing if its solar powered!) and low maintence costs. (Eg. bicycle components, a lot cheaper than car parts..)

I'm building one for myself at the moment, and then I'll build another one and see if it sells.. if it does, then I'll keep making them

Something simlar to this, only with a weatherproof body, electric motor and solar panels, and at a lower price.

www.2cancycle.co.uk

Mike Holmes · Post by **Mike Holmes** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:57 pm

While the American market for cars is becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the world market, what with the rise of demand in China and India, etc, I believe that we're still a stunningly large proportion of the market. You realize that the average American home has two automobiles.

I don't mean to trivialize the English contribution to the market, but when we're talking auto sales, what drives the market is what can be mass-produced for worldwide sales.

I'm quite sure that it's economical in England to own such a car. After all, I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin here in the USA, which is situated on a series of lakes that are larger than England. I regularly drive distances that would cross most of Europe to attend game conventions in my spare time.

So, yeah, for Americans a car that can't get you to Florida for your yearly vacation there, or to Minneaopolis to see your relatives, or whatever, just isn't the same. My wife once worked 50 miles away from home, and put more than 30,000 miles on her car that year commuting back and forth. Not uncommon.

We have certain expectations of cars here, as a tribe.

That's not to say that these expectations are reasonable, not at all. Yes, in fact 90% of Americans could get by with a car that goes only 40 miles a day if all they used it for was commuting. And, if you have two cars, you could keep one commuter, and one long-distance vehicle, right? That's still 50% of the market.

Again, the real trouble isn't so much convincing people that the short range of such a vehicle isn't a problem, but the price-tags involved at the moment. If I have to pay more for the car than I will have to pay for the gas to drive a cheaper car, then I'm going to purchase the gas car, no (petrol)? The electrical option has to save me money in the long-run in order for me to want to purchase it. The savings that come from using electricity - relatively cheap - have to be worthwhile.

Sure, some few will buy them because they're a better option environmentally (especially if your electricity is produced with nuclear power). And some will buy them for patriotic reasons - it's better for national security if you're paying somebody here for coal to burn than somebody funding terrorists for oil. But if you look at the number of Japanese cars (and other countries') on the roads in America, the fact is that what sells is what is economical.

No surprise there, right?

If I'm buying a tiny car, that can't go far, even if it's going to save some money on fuel costs in the long-run, is it really that attractive an option?

It'll become the slam-dunk seller the moment that it's truely economical. Which I don't think will be long now.

And, as I'm fond of pointing out, if we had cheap clean fusion power, well, that slam-dunk would be now. It's not just one technology we're waiting on, but a convergence of technologies.

Mike

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:12 pm

That's an example of exactly what I intended to point out. There is a huge demand for electric vehicles right now. Everybody and his brother is trying to make one, check the Internet. The demand is partly economic, but in large part it is from the the green movement, (and fun to do). Nanos can use a fork lift DC motor for his, but you can't use a small (15 hp) DC motor in a real car.
Families (Moms) need a real car to pack the kids off to school with, or take them to soccer practice or whatever. Moms don't need a lot of miles in range, so lead-acid batteries will work, but moms do need the capacity and feeling of security that comes with a real weather proof car.
Yes, battery technology is coming along quickly but it would be much quicker if were a suitable motor generally available to drive the market. They can be made, (Tesla, Ruff Autowerks, ect.), they are just not available at retail. Of course, the Tesla motor and controller cost about $25,000, so it doesn't really mater that they are not available, they are to expensive anyway.

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:49 pm

Perhaps what is also needed is a move towards less travel requirements, eg. building homes nearer to where you work.

In the UK over the years because of rising house prices, peoples homes have slowly moved further and further away from their places of work and the morning rush hour has mushroomed.

For long journies we are supposed to use the train

I would, but your not allowed to carry much on it, so its generally out for shopping for large items, and it costs a fortune! ($1,000 first class to travel by train 100 miles, $10 to travel by coach/bus..)

The coach/bus doesn't go many places, doesn't have much capacity, and your not gauranteed a place! (First come first served, even if you pay in advance, you know, overbooking..)

In the UK our law restricts us to a mear 250w for a tricycle (200w for 2 wheeler..), so whilst we won't be tearing around at 30mph on battery power, it will at least mean longer range. (Oh and we are limited to top speed of 15mph on battery power too.. and a weight limit of 60kg for a 3 wheeler, 40kg for 2 wheeler.)

Agreed, for a real car for parents, you need something more.

And is one of the main issues I see with arguments with greens, they are for very small single seater vehicles, and we have a few of those already, but other than the fact they tend to be really expensive! (Apart from the Sinclair C5..) they are just for single people..

My 2 seater option goes that next step that I see us missing, and it would be nice to see a 4 seater, and an estate car/station wagon sized one able to take ones 5 kids and shopping.

I'm not sure the English contribution to the market actually exists much nowdays, everything seems to be made in China and we import it..

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mo ... 920421.ece

Oh wait, maybe we assemble a few vehicles here after all, though I wonder how many parts are actually made in the UK and how many are imported..

But, between us and europe we do manage a healthy few hundred million customers between us, but generally agreed if one can design for the world market, all the better.

A question there might be, that is the motorcar responsible in large part for the huge borrowing to prop up your econamys ?

To survive economically, and to go the sustainable route of living within your means resource wise, it might be wise to stop driving such long distances as we simply cannot really afford it!

It might be wise to look towards trains for long distance, and electric cars for short distances. (Which then brings up the whole issue of having to make the trains attractive, with low prices, lots of space and cops/police to keep crime down!)

With both the US and UK suffering rather a large national debt issue, I reckon the time might well be right to look towards using existing technology to solve our issues than always looking towards tomorrow to fix todays mess.

(Thats not to say that cheaper electric isn't a good thing, but I do reckon all of todays problems we could fix tomorrow if we decided we wanted to, but it would mean restrictions in what we could do, its just like telling the wife we cannot really afford a new car until we have saved up and to walk to the shops! (Believe me, mine wasn't happy giving up her car and walking, but without that saving, we couldn't afford a roof over our heads, so that day may well be upon us in our various nations.))

National security issues are also a concern we in the west are just appeairng as it seems waking up to, with our gas/gas supplies shortly to be increased in price again, its dawning on us that buying imports does actually put us at risk when we cannot produce stuff ourselves!

(As such, I'd like to move towards vehicles built in house, and not imported, even if its a bit more expensive to do so.)

apouliot · Post by **apouliot** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:18 pm

Well the electric car was made several time by different corporation.

One model who did solve a lot of problem was a electric car prototype made by Hydro-Quebec near 1998. It used wheel-motor for the propulsion each ~100hp so for a small car they did produce near 400hp making the 0-100km/h in about 4 or 5 second. They also developed a battery it was a lithium-polymer one. If i remember right it was better than the li-ion battery of that time.

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultima ... 729&t=3785

The project was shut down soon after 1998, after scientific show "Decouverte" talk about it in Quebec province in Canada.

The technology is still alive but resulted in 3 spinoff company. For the motor wheel it was a company named TM4.

Mike Holmes · Post by **Mike Holmes** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:31 pm

As I'm fond of pointing out, electric cars have been around since 1832, and predate the Internal Combustion Engine considerably.

The technology to build electric cars is not new. The technology to make an electric car have most of the performance characteristics of an ICE car is currently far more expensive than people can afford (though it does exist). What we're waiting for, to have the "boom" is that affordability for a comparable item.

Drive less for sustainability? No, you invent me a cheap electric car so I can continue my lifestyle sustainably.

Mike

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:03 pm

Studebaker made the transition from horse power to gas power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker

They had a nice innovation called "the hill holder" which locked the brakes when the auto was on an up hill slope that prevented rolling back when the driver took his foot off the brake to apply it to the gas while letting out the clutch.

===

BTW 150 HP continuous output is not necessary. Under most situations except mountain driving 150 HP peak for one minute and 30 HP avg ought to be adequate.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/

Has a nice package for a plug in hybrid conversion.

The Chevy Volt is coming out with an aprox 100 KW (hp) motor that can draw at least that much from a generator/battery combination with the generator rated at 50KW.

We are transitioning away from the ICE. It will be a 50 to 100 year process. Lots of infrastructure needs to be developed. First the vehicles. Then charging stations in parking lots. Then a "smart grid". Etc.

It ought to be done incrementally to get the best results. Battery tech is still evolving for one thing. Lots of things will have to be tried. Most of them will fail.

One way to lower the weight of the motors is to use higher frequencies. Sixty Hz is not optimum for autos. Something in the 10 KHz to 20 KHz range is probably the wave of the future. Which means a chopping frequency of 200 KHz to 400KHz for the electronics. Not a problem for the control electronics. We are not there with the power electronics - at least in volume. Which is one of the reasons the parallel hybrid is the design of choice.

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:32 pm

> performance characteristics

Are not really an issue when it comes to a going to work car, with traffic congestion so bad, all that performance is going to waste.

(So I think the idea put forward earlier that people would be looking to get 2 cars, one for daily to and from work and one weekend for long trips, though in the UK where you park your car is becoming an issue! (Hence why I want mine light enough to lift up and carrying for parking purposes.))

> Drive less for sustainability? No, you invent me a cheap electric
> car so I can continue my lifestyle sustainably.

I hate to say it, but its that kind of attitude which annoys the greens the most, an unwilliness to meet half way at least.

They say no cars at all, you say no change..

I suggest electric cars and everyone hates me...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:42 pm

I hate to say it, but its that kind of attitude which annoys the greens the most, an unwilliness to meet half way at least.

I'd be more than happy to meet the Greens half way. They buy me a car out of their own funds and if it is any good I will drive it.

That seems fair.

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:08 am

Simon, that's ridiculous and you know it. As a moderator of this forum you have some level of responsibility to keep things on a professional, moderately serious, or at least a non-antagonistic level !!!
I'm thread herding again.

rj40 · Post by **rj40** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:33 am

Tom Friedman addresses this situation in his latest book. He uses the example of the cell phone. When they first came out they were very expensive, but they would allow the user to do something they couldn’t do before, make a call while on the road, no need for a phone booth; so a few buyers who had the money were found. As time went on and the market grew, the cell phone makers had more and more money to innovate and grow the business. And prices came down. With fossil fuels (cars, or whatever) it is not the same situation. Electric cars don’t offer something immediate to most consumers that they don’t already have, and they cost more. Most green companies (cars, solar, etc.) cannot find enough people willing to spend enough extra money to do the same thing the cell makers did. Friedman goes on to mention that the price of gasoline for cars doesn’t reflect the true price of the fuel – funding terrorists and dictatorships, troops in the middle east, and global warming. He suggests we level the playing field by taxing fossil fuels to better reflect their true costs and have incentives for green tech.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:22 am

Aero wrote:Simon, that's ridiculous and you know it. As a moderator of this forum you have some level of responsibility to keep things on a professional, moderately serious, or at least a non-antagonistic level !!!
I'm thread herding again. :shock:

But I am serious. My money. I spend it as I see fit. Their money - they can do likewise.

Now evidently you are not very familiar with the libertarian strain of American politics which accounts for about 15% of the electorate.

You may not be familiar with one of our early flags. It has a rattle snake on it and the motto "Don't tread on me".

http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html

Some of us in the USA still take that seriously. And you know what? I have run the gamut from Democrat to Communist to Libertarian to libertarian-Republican. I am familiar with all the arguments.

If the Greens want something I'm not adverse. Let them pay for it.

I'm not being unreasonable. Just true to my politics.

It is way early in the technological cycle for an electric car as anything but an indulgence for the rich. In fact I'd like more folks to join that demographic. And I'm all for the rich indulging. It will help bring the cost down over time. When the technology is right and the costs come down and the infrastructure is in place everyone will go electric. In the mean time I'm content to let the system evolve naturally.

If the Greens don't want cars there is nothing stopping them from not buying them.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:30 am

rj40 wrote:Tom Friedman addresses this situation in his latest book. He uses the example of the cell phone. When they first came out they were very expensive, but they would allow the user to do something they couldn’t do before, make a call while on the road, no need for a phone booth; so a few buyers who had the money were found. As time went on and the market grew, the cell phone makers had more and more money to innovate and grow the business. And prices came down. With fossil fuels (cars, or whatever) it is not the same situation. Electric cars don’t offer something immediate to most consumers that they don’t already have, and they cost more. Most green companies (cars, solar, etc.) cannot find enough people willing to spend enough extra money to do the same thing the cell makers did. Friedman goes on to mention that the price of gasoline for cars doesn’t reflect the true price of the fuel – funding terrorists and dictatorships, troops in the middle east, and global warming. He suggests we level the playing field by taxing fossil fuels to better reflect their true costs and have incentives for green tech.

Man made global warming is a hoax. A wallet extraction scheme. Less than 1/2 of Americans are convinced. I have actually studied extensively the technical arguments in favor of AGW and they are shoddy at best and quite possibly a fraud.

If we want to make a dent in the regimes that support terrorism America could drill for oil. Fortunately the market is doing a good job of that:

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

The Saudis need $40 a bbl oil to make their budget. Iran on the order of $90. With oil edging to $40 or below even the Saudis may soon be in trouble.