Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
rruff said:
The tech was certainly not there when Tesla started, and they "pushed the narrative" by investing a shitton of $$$ on development, and actually bringing the tech into viability. None of the big auto manufacturers wanted to risk it beyond token efforts. If it was up to them, EVs would still be primitive and fringe.

You may have very good reasons for disliking Musk, but this is a monumental achievement in engineering.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike musk, although I'm not a fan either. He's just a guy doing his thing.

Which Tesla tech are you referring to that the world needed in order to make an EV when they started back in the day?

Electric motors? Tech existed already.
Battery tech? Tech existed already.
Regenerative braking? Same.
Special aerodynamics? Same.

Packaging existing tech and managing the coordination of that tech is a feat. But it's a feat that didn't require Tesla to make something that everyone else needed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti Tesla or anti musk. But I will make sure narratives are correct. Many incorrect narratives have been made for and against Tesla. It bothers me coming from either side.

https://blog.evbox.com/electric-car... EVs emerged in the,2010 with the Nissan Leaf.
 
Happy Camper said:
Which Tesla tech are you referring to that the world needed in order to make an EV when they started back in the day?
Click to expand...
Everything you mentioned was crude and primitive compared to what exists today. Batteries and battery management, motors, software, aero, regen, etc. Huge improvements were necessary to produce a vehicle with enough range, performance, battery life, and low enough cost to compete with and beat ICE vehicles. The Leaf is nothing like a Tesla.
 
rruff said:
Everything you mentioned was crude and primitive compared to what exists today. Batteries and battery management, motors, software, aero, regen, etc. Huge improvements were necessary to produce a vehicle with enough range, performance, battery life, and low enough cost to compete with and beat ICE vehicles. The Leaf is nothing like a Tesla.
Click to expand...
Regenerative braking. Prius
Aero. Everyone that makes a sports car
Battery tech. Same chemistry as others but different form factor.

The area Tesla really made strides in was learning the best battery cell form factor for their cars, and getting the optimization software dialed in. Which in turn also lead to:

Their battery cooling tech is better than others and allowed for faster charging and more range. That's a win for Tesla.

I'm not saying they didn't put in real work and do good things. Taking existing tech and making it better is what should be done. And making tech if what's available isn't suitable is a progression of that.

A good example being the giga press. It's innovative and it seems to be working. And other manufacturers are looking into using they tech and improving on it for their needs as well.

The Nissan leaf is very much like a Tesla. If Tesla had wanted a more limited range electric vehicle with a smaller battery pack. I don't see that as an insult. It's just a fact.
 
 
Last edited:
Happy Camper said:
I'm not saying they didn't put in real work and do good things. Taking existing tech and making it better is what should be done. And making tech if what's available isn't suitable is a progression of that.
Click to expand...
It's a little like saying cars existed over 100 years ago with batteries and electric motors, so forever after "EV tech already existed". I'm not saying Tesla "invented" the electric motor, or lithium batteries, or regen, or all the other things, but they did bring these from a crude level of development and function to a much more efficient, sophisticated, and refined state (ie viable), in a short amount of time. You have to wonder with all the existing car manufacturers in the world with many decades of experience building cars, and with deep pockets... none of them were able to build an EV in the same league.

You should also wonder why no new car companies have been able to survive for long in the US. Having over 100 years of investment, development, infrastructure, and experience building cars, is a major advantage. Tesla had none of this. The amount of investment and risk was huge.

Plus you keep saying that it was Tesla's "hype" that made EVs popular. I've been paying attention to this for a long time, and it's been exactly the opposite. The popular press has been overwhelmingly negative. They've been expecting/predicting/wishing for Tesla's bankruptsy from the beginning. I thought this was likely too, because I couldn't believe they'd be able to pull it off.

Tesla started in 2005 with the Roadster. EVs back then were like golf carts, and very crude technologically. The Roadster was not as refined as current EVs, but it was definitely no golf cart... and as such the amount of new development needed was extreme. No one else in the world was pursuing EV development in a serious way. The battery cooling and control system in the Tesla not only allowed fast charging but greatly extended the battery life. Even the early Teslas still have 90% of their initial range after 200,000 miles.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15150030/2008-tesla-roadster-road-test/
"Based on the Lotus Elise, the Tesla is a high-performance sports car motivated by a completely electric powertrain—meaning, an electric motor juiced by a battery. For those who believe such a powertrain is only suitable for overgrown golf carts—the various Th!nk and GEM products, for example—the Tesla is a revelation."

Their first mass produced car was the Model S is 2012. Yes the Leaf came out in 2011, but it was a crude, low powered, short range vehicle (<60 miles), and the batteries wore out after a few years. Here is a review of the 2011 Leaf: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15124059/2011-nissan-leaf-sl-long-term-road-test-review/

Review of the 2012 Model S: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15117388/2013-tesla-model-s-test-review/
"Optimized for high mileage ratings, current electric cars are small and slow. Even worse, none has sufficient range to be truly useful, unless your duty cycle consists of driving no farther than the nearest grocery store. It’s no surprise that electric cars are selling like stale cowpies. Then along comes the Tesla Model S from Elon Musk, he of PayPal and SpaceX, to change our perceptions about cars powered by electrons. For example, in one day, our photographer drove the fully charged Tesla for 30 to 40 miles—already half the range of a Nissan Leaf. Then I drove it 30 miles to dinner and to a friend’s home another 40 miles away before taking the long way back to Ann Arbor. After gallivanting all over Detroit’s sprawling metro area, I returned to Car and Driver headquarters to polish off the last few miles. Our measured range was 211 miles—not quite the EPA-predicted 265, but impressive, given our 75-to-80-mph highway speeds."

If not for Tesla, EV tech would be at least 10 years behind where it is now... maybe a lot more, since I suspect all the established manufacturers would still not have made a serious investment. They were dragged in kicking and screaming because Tesla proved it could be done.
 
rruff said:
It's a little like saying cars existed over 100 years ago with batteries and electric motors, so forever after "EV tech already existed". I'm not saying Tesla "invented" the electric motor, or lithium batteries, or regen, or all the other things, but they did bring these from a crude level of development and function to a much more efficient, sophisticated, and refined state (ie viable), in a short amount of time. You have to wonder with all the existing car manufacturers in the world with many decades of experience building cars, and with deep pockets... none of them were able to build an EV in the same league.
Click to expand...
None of them wanted to build electric vehicles that would bite into their main sales. Which is why electric was relegated to souped up golf carts and whatnot.
rruff said:
You should also wonder why no new car companies have been able to survive for long in the US. Having over 100 years of investment, development, infrastructure, and experience building cars, is a major advantage. Tesla had none of this. The amount of investment and risk was huge.
Click to expand...
Electric cars working is their entire business model. Of course you take risk to make it work. They took the risk and made it work.
rruff said:
Plus you keep saying that it was Tesla's "hype" that made EVs popular. I've been paying attention to this for a long time, and it's been exactly the opposite. The popular press has been overwhelmingly negative. They've been expecting/predicting/wishing for Tesla's bankruptsy from the beginning. I thought this was likely too, because I couldn't believe they'd be able to pull it off.
Click to expand...
Musk hyping EV, and himself, was the vehicle to creating a following of people that believed in the technology, and Musk himself, which was needed. (The second part is backfiring, predictably. But I was important at the time)

Every automotive media outlet has been working with manufacturers for decades. Whether it's getting access to new cars, getting loaner vehicles, scoops, etc. Their entire business is dependent on that access.

And as much as they might be interested in EV tech at that time, they adopted an overall stand in line with their benefactors. Which is why the hype of musk himself as a genuine mastermind, and him promoting EV tech, was crucial. Not only to pushing the EV narrative, but more importantly, keeping investment money coming in. Those billions invested came directly from those investors. Due to the hype.
rruff said:
If not for Tesla, EV tech would be at least 10 years behind where it is now... maybe a lot more, since I suspect all the established manufacturers would still not have made a serious investment. They were dragged in kicking and screaming because Tesla proved it could be done.
Click to expand...
Every business is in business for profit. Why would any established business promote competing tech that will require billions in investments for products with less margin? That's a poor ROI, and as I mentioned previously, shareholders don't care much about long term vision. They require results now.

Yes other manufacturers were dragged into it. And once they were, they made some good EVs, and some stinkers. Were they as polished as a Tesla? Not to begin with, no. Have they figured it out, mostly.

And some have had EV tech sitting around for decades and never did much with it. Take GM for example. They did what Musk promised, selling a $30k EV (Bolt). It was decent and sold as fast as they could make them. Did some have battery issues? Yes. That was more of a supplier problem that was solvable. Overall it was a very solid, well reviewed vehicle that most owners are happy with.

So the long and short of it is this:

Businesses do what's in their best interest. Tesla needed EV to work. No one else did. So they succeeded where no one else was trying. And in doing so, they forced everyone to play a bit of catch up. And now others are catching up fairly quickly.

And remember, hybrids are essentially an EV with a gas engine attached. So yeah, the tech has been around in one form or another for some time.
 
Happy Camper said:
Every automotive media outlet
Click to expand...

The industry has made it a point to denigrate Musk and Tesla, but not for good reasons. He has some serious issues, and the more time goes by the less I trust him in a leadership position outside of his technical guidance. However, his leadership did result in a successful Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink and now the Starship program. These programs have resulted in massive hiring of all skill levels, investing billions into the US economy. Is he or his products perfect? No, or course not, but at least he is trying to advance humanity in a techincal way while the old guard does everything in their power to hold back change.
 
Happy Camper said:
Musk hyping EV, and himself, was the vehicle to creating a following of people that believed in the technology, and Musk himself, which was needed. (The second part is backfiring, predictably. But I was important at the time)
Click to expand...
You make some good points, but this isn't one of them. The following came because he delivered. Hype doesn't get you very far when you're making real things and selling them to the general public.

I don't understand your remark that he *needed* to make EVs work, and this was an advantage... that only greatly increases the risk! They needed to draw enough capital to start from scratch, basically... and any serious setbacks would have bankrupted them. No other investing group or company in the world wanted a piece of that action, no matter what piles of cash they were sitting on.

The other manufacturers (of any company, not just cars) absolutely would have loved to do what Tesla did, but it was much easier to do what they had always done. There was a pretty huge push in the early 2000s for clean vehicle tech, but none of them took it seriously. So long as they were all twiddling their thumbs then there was nothing to worry about. They didn't expect Tesla to succeed.

I can't think of another example in tech, engineering, and manufacturing that is even close (except for maybe SpaceX?). To disrupt the world wide entrenched and massive ICE auto industry single-handedly, is a monumental achievement.
 
rruff said:
rruff said:
You make some good points, but this isn't one of them. The following came because he delivered. Hype doesn't get you very far when you're making real things and selling them to the general public.

II believe when he was developing the prototype he was prevented from building the batteries he needed by patents held by major car manufacturers so he bought large amounts of smaller batteries and developed a method to integrate those into his design.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rruff said:
You make some good points, but this isn't one of them. The following came because he delivered. Hype doesn't get you very far when you're making real things and selling them to the general public.
Click to expand...
You're making my points for me.
Hype and hope kept the investment dollars coming in. Musk was very good at building the hype to accomplish this.
rruff said:
I don't understand your remark that he *needed* to make EVs work, and this was an advantage... that only greatly increases the risk!
Click to expand...
If you only sell one product, you need to make that product work. You either survive and succeed, or you fail and don't. His business model was to sell electric cars and carbon credits. There was no other product at that point.

So yes, he needed to make Tesla EVs work. And to his and the companies credit, they did. Good on them.
rruff said:
They needed to draw enough capital to start from scratch, basically... and any serious setbacks would have bankrupted them. No other investing group or company in the world wanted a piece of that action, no matter what piles of cash they were sitting on.
Click to expand...
Which again brings me to: they needed the hype and excitement and belief in Musk being a genius who made all the right moves in other to secure enough investment funding.

The original point I made was that they didn't create anything out of thin air when they started. They improved on existing tech and succeeded.

For some reason you seen to think my saying that is slandering musk or Tesla. It's not. It's just facts. I'm not disputing anything they've accomplished. But to act like they invented EVs, and no one else could have is somewhat ridiculous. No one else wanted to do it. There's a difference.
Tesla made EVs a vehicle segment alongside other regular cars. Much like Toyota had done in the late 90s with hybrids. Very strong accomplishments.

And now you'll see EV tech evolve faster and mature at a better rate. Much like everyone can make a good hybrid these days. Toyota doesn't have the market on those anymore. But they still sell the most. And I suspect the same will happen with Tesla.
 
Happy Camper said:
Which again brings me to: they needed the hype and excitement and belief in Musk being a genius who made all the right moves in other to secure enough investment funding.

The original point I made was that they didn't create anything out of thin air when they started. They improved on existing tech and succeeded.
Click to expand...
"Hype" implies that it was a lot of hot air, and... and I still don't know what you mean by "improved on existing technology". To me that would mean taking an existing design and tweaking it slightly. If that was all it took, I assure you other companies would have been doing it. I suspect you have little idea what engineering, design, and development entail when you are building a product that far exceeds anything that has been done before. Thousands of bits of brand new tech... which they hold patents on... and they've also made freely available so other companies can use them.

Just one one small example:
The battery produces a lot of DC current, and at high voltage, because the motor can be driven at over 200 kilowatts. But the induction motor uses alternating current. To turn 200 kilowatts of DC into 200 kilowatts of AC is not easy, and would seem to demand a huge, heavy inverter, perhaps even bigger than the battery itself. And if any part of the battery were to fail, the car would be dead.

Their breakthrough was realizing they put the inversion task in the motor itself by breaking the rotation into many phases and assigning each phase to a different subset of the battery pack. Not only did this make everything much smaller and lighter (and cheaper), it also made it fail-safe to battery subset failures. The independent "slices" in the battery organization could fail completely and you would only lose a few percent of the motor power, that's it. Sort of like having a gasoline engine with 30 cylinders, and one of them fails. You'd barely notice.

If you think that sort of innovation is just "improving on existing technology" then I wonder what you'd put in the "created" category where vehicles are concerned... warp drive?

"Tesla began production of the Roadster in 2008 inside the service bays of a former Chevrolet dealership in Menlo Park. By January 2009, Tesla had raised $187 million and delivered 147 cars. Musk had contributed $70 million of his own money to the company."

Note: he made $100M selling paypal... so he dumped most of his own chips in on this venture. And he had something to show, the Roadster itself. It's ridiculous to say this was hype driven, when literally no one else in the world was doing it... because they deemed it too risky. Big investors only go in for hype when they believe they can ride a hype-wave for awhile before it crashes. Recent AI would be a good example, or even EVs a couple years ago.
 
rruff said:
"Hype" implies that it was a lot of hot air, and... and I still don't know what you mean by "improved on existing technology". To me that would mean taking an existing design and tweaking it slightly. If that was all it took, I assure you other companies would have been doing it.
Click to expand...
I never said they slightly tweaked existing tech. I pointed out that the tech previously existed. And they improved on it.
rruff said:
I suspect you have little idea what engineering, design, and development entail when you are building a product that far exceeds anything that has been done before.
Click to expand...
You seem to be taking this personally. I acknowledged they succeeded in creating a vehicle segment like Toyota did with the hybrid. And yes, every new thing requires innovative thinking and different perspectives.
rruff said:
Thousands of bits of brand new tech... which they hold patents on... and they've also made freely available so other companies can use them.
Click to expand...
I agree that's great. You do understand parents can be had for improvements on existing tech. Which was the point I was making.
rruff said:
Just one one small example:
The battery produces a lot of DC current, and at high voltage, because the motor can be driven at over 200 kilowatts. But the induction motor uses alternating current. To turn 200 kilowatts of DC into 200 kilowatts of AC is not easy, and would seem to demand a huge, heavy inverter, perhaps even bigger than the battery itself. And if any part of the battery were to fail, the car would be dead.

Their breakthrough was realizing they put the inversion task in the motor itself by breaking the rotation into many phases and assigning each phase to a different subset of the battery pack. Not only did this make everything much smaller and lighter (and cheaper), it also made it fail-safe to battery subset failures. The independent "slices" in the battery organization could fail completely and you would only lose a few percent of the motor power, that's it. Sort of like having a gasoline engine with 30 cylinders, and one of them fails. You'd barely notice.
Click to expand...
So they looked at the current tech for electric motors, inverters, batteries, and improved on it. Got it.
rruff said:
If you think that sort of innovation is just "improving on existing technology" then I wonder what you'd put in the "created" category where vehicles are concerned... warp drive?
Click to expand...
I would say hybrid drivetrains were pretty transformative as well. But they also improved on existing tech. All new tech is generally an improvement of previous tech. From rolling things on a few logs to the wheel and axle, to current vehicles. Huge improvements, no denying.

I would say airplanes were creating something that that hadn't been done before.

Electricity generation and transmission.

There are others, but building an EV isn't one of them. Changing the market? Yes. Making EVs out of ideas and air with no base to work with? No.
rruff said:
"Tesla began production of the Roadster in 2008 inside the service bays of a former Chevrolet dealership in Menlo Park. By January 2009, Tesla had raised $187 million and delivered 147 cars. Musk had contributed $70 million of his own money to the company."

Note: he made $100M selling paypal... so he dumped most of his own chips in on this venture. And he had something to show, the Roadster itself. It's ridiculous to say this was hype driven, when literally no one else in the world was doing it... because they deemed it too risky. Big investors only go in for hype when they believe they can ride a hype-wave for awhile before it crashes. Recent AI would be a good example, or even EVs a couple years ago.
Click to expand...
Read the above post on hype.
 
rruff said:
"Hype" implies... a lot of hot air, and...I assure you...hype driven... ride a hype-wave...
Click to expand...
.
a)
That's it!
Perfect!
I'm changing my name to "HYPE!"!
.
From now on, I can be a Person Of Capitalization!
Thanks!
.
And 'yes', I get my exclamation points by the case!
Cheaper that way, and I can pass the savings on to you!
.
.
b)
One of my favorite YouTuber channels is 'CandE Adventures'.
Wife and husband Chris and Elisabeth boondock exclusively, full-time live-aboard their truck-camper, tow a boat, and ride e-bikes.
.
In addition to both being former LawEnforcementOfficials, they are highly-educated world travelers, sharing biology, history, and geology of their camping area.
Plus they have a second channel focusing on e-bikes and reviews.
.
Within hours after the interview with Bob Wells, zuck de-monetized all their six years of videos.
.
On top of that travesty, zuck is stealing all the donations from viewers using the 'Thanks' button.

.
I am furious.
 
Happy Camper said:
I watched part of the video. And the fact that the algorithm flagged them wrongly sucks.

But for clarity, Google owns YouTube, not Facebook/Zuckerberg.
Click to expand...
.
1)
Nerd fight!
Clear the study-hall!
.
2)
Point goes to HC.
I use the word 'zuck' as a generic descriptor for hollow-moon grub-zucking lizards.
.
But, for clarity, the WorldWideWeb alleges off-shore shell-corporation 'Alphabet Inc. holding company' owns YouTube.
.
That is, if you can believe anything on the WorldWideWeb these days.
.
3)
Volley in your court...
 
Interesting. For some reason I thought I saw it had been closed. Go figure.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/0...eryone-working-on-superchargers-new-vehicles/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-pulling-supercharger-leases-firing-141228830.html

It's going from bad to sad. I'm truly bummed by this. Very reactive and not forward thinking. I'm not anti Tesla. Or anti EV. I think it's a great idea that still needs to mature over time. Along with the infrastructure for them.

Yes he led the charge and it got EV into the mainstream. But his hubris might make him a quirky footnote in the larger scheme of things in the years to come.

Thankfully the powers that be won't let this affect space x.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dhuff
RAM Unveils Promaster EV
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
wanderlust
wanderlust
U
Computer Programming in Vehicles
Replies
19
Views
788
Happy Camper
H
H
  • Locked
Inflation, real income, and politics Moved from: Interesting Articles Relating to EVs
10 11 12
Replies
233
Views
7K
rvwandering
rvwandering
Cy_5th
Lithium Battery question
Replies
13
Views
1K
Cy_5th
Cy_5th
J
Barn door weatherstripping
Replies
12
Views
967
maki2
M

Latest posts

Top