Thread: EV general discussion

Originally Posted by JDNSW

"Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors."

I have not heard anything about either of these for years, and I am not sure which one you are talking about. Maybe you are talking about the "white knight" who saved the company in 2004 with a cash injection? There has certainly been a lot of erratic comments and actions (as well as court cases etc) from him,but he was not the founder of the company.

Yes that is correct John - and who I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Narangga

Yes that is correct John - and who I am talking about.

That is what I guessed - but he is not the founder of the company.

Originally Posted by Narangga

Yes that is correct John - and who I am talking about.

See this is the thing. People are aware of EM of course. But Tesla has a whole board of management. And under that obviously an army of managers and engineers. I'm sure people like to credit EM for everything Tesla do. In reality the most likely outcome is EM is more likely to be someone who is informed at a board level. He probably has input into some very high level decisions with the rest of the board. He's also selling down his stake in the company.

I find it the hight of irrationality to dismiss the work of 80k people because one of them i lives publicly and you don't like their actions (which are largely taken in their private capacity and are not the actions of Tesla the company and the board). Can we not see that differentiation?

As I've noted before, without the actions of that 80k people (of which we only know one) we would still be looking at a Nissan Leaf and saying "that's a bit rubbish.. the batteries only last a few years. EV's are not the answer". The car industry has had electrification forced upon it by Tesla at gunpoint. Many will not survive.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

I hope not

2025 is my time limit putting up with the short range one and use of My Disco for the 4wd and towing. I do not like paying twice for rego and insurance! Solid state or hydrogen is my only hopes. It would be nice to actually know.

I am unable to buy a brand mentioned often for reasons I just could not lower myself to do it. My thoughts only of course, People can do as they please.

Ford is ramping up options. Landrover might pull a swifty. Korea is a possibility, Nikola went awol for the badger "Toyota has unveiled the 2022 bZ4X Concept SUV that provides an insight into the marque’s future that will see its electrified portfolio expand to 70 models globally by 2025."
just might surprise us


The Indian Kerfuffle going on might bite Landrovers plans.

Claims that "The Rivian R1T will arrive in Australia after Rivian launches in Europe in 2023" might give an option yet I am not in the plan for that myself.

Range and charge/ refueling is still a long way off in so much of our huge country.

Such is Life

So, the things I've learnt about EV's. Even the insanely big batteries they have only hold a tiny tiny amount of energy compared to fossil fuel. In EV's, everything is about efficiency. It's the biggest factor.

Some fun facts.

- Real Landrover Defender drag .59.
- New Discovery thing .40
- Rivian EV 4x4 .30 (although there is debate about the veracity of this claim).
- Most good EV's .23.

The aerodynamic properties of modern EV's are a revelation. There were cars at those numbers in the past, but certainly not large scale production cars that were essentially normal cars.

On top of aerodynamic efficiency, there are other factors like motor efficiency and weight but I don't think these are big players.

Anyway the upshot of that is that it's going to be very very difficult to make an EV 4x4 really efficient. So that means really big battery packs and expensive running. The batteries in the rivian are 105 kWh, 135 kWh, and 180 kWh. Compare this with a most of the normal EV's which are typically 60-80 for the ones with over 400k of range.

Anyway the upshot is it's going to be a few years before battery density and cost fall to a point where they are going to be in your budget. I'm certainly not saying never, but I feel confident to say it won't be 2025. You've just got to hope that Tesla keeps pushing things.

Article on the aerodynamics of rivian.

Rivian R1T Low Drag Coefficient Claims Analyzed In Virtual Wind Tunnel

Article on 4x4 aero efficiency.

Range and Aerodynamics in Converted EV's

Youtube on energy density which I think is pretty good.
Why Gas Engines Are Far From Dead - Biggest EV Problems - YouTube

While this might fit in Hydrogen as a car and truck where involved I think EV thread fits.
Known for years the Hindenburg was both tragic and often misused to blame hydrogen. Fire, the Crash and falling did kill people of course sadly

A Film "The Glass Onion" does the same to Hydrogen Like it despite the slag of at Hydrogen (Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery)



This is very cool. Headline is Truck carrying Hydrogen explodes! What it clearly shows is the controlled burn of Hydrogen as two jets and the uncontrolled burn of the crashed truck and car.

Had the truck been carrying LPG or Petrol the outcome would have been tragic. I think it a great example of hydrogen safety myself!

Truck carrying hydrogen fuel explodes after crash, shuts down US-23 in Delaware County

The claim "When the truck and the Toyota collided, the containers ignited and caused the truck to catch on fire. The Orange Township Fire Department said the flames melted traffic lights and caused damage to utility lines" is possibly upside down. Suspect the fire may have been car or truck which started the Hydrogen which is clearly the jets straight up in the air nice and safely!

No one died happily.

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

While this might fit in Hydrogen as a car and truck where involved I think EV thread fits.
Known for years the Hindenburg was both tragic and often misused to blame hydrogen. Fire, the Crash and falling did kill people of course sadly

A Film "The Glass Onion" does the same to Hydrogen Like it despite the slag of at Hydrogen (Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery)



This is very cool. Headline is Truck carrying Hydrogen explodes! What it clearly shows is the controlled burn of Hydrogen as two jets and the uncontrolled burn of the crashed truck and car.

Had the truck been carrying LPG or Petrol the outcome would have been tragic. I think it a great example of hydrogen safety myself!

Truck carrying hydrogen fuel explodes after crash, shuts down US-23 in Delaware County

The claim "When the truck and the Toyota collided, the containers ignited and caused the truck to catch on fire. The Orange Township Fire Department said the flames melted traffic lights and caused damage to utility lines" is possibly upside down. Suspect the fire may have been car or truck which started the Hydrogen which is clearly the jets straight up in the air nice and safely!

No one died happily.

Well there is two types of hydrogen fuelled vehicles.

First type burns the hydrogen in an adapted petrol engine. Downside with this is you need a lot of hydrogen and it is pretty low density and needs very strong tanks to hold it. So there would be little space left over for the occupants. There is also some debate about emissions from hydrogen engines, particularly NOX

The second type uses a hydrogen fuel cell. They are essentially EV's with a small battery. The fuel cell seems to make better use of the hydrogen so they don't need to store nearly as much. These are the hydrogen cars that are "available" now. The packaging is still not at all efficient compared to an ev or even a normal petrol car. The really big issue with these is that by the time you've generated the electricity to produce the hydrogen, compressed it, then sent it through a fuel cell to make power to run the motors.. all those steps result in a process that isn't very efficient. IE of the original electricity not much of it is actually used to drive the car. Unlike an EV where most of it does. Unless you have truly truly abundant green power this is a distraction.

The upside with hydrogen is that any leaks disappear up into the atmosphere very very quickly. Unlike liquid fuel which tends to form big puddles under the vehicle. I guess it's only an issue if one of the tanks explodes.. but they are supposed to be **very** strong. I think with the hindenberg the problem was the bags contained the hydrogen burned.

I see fire as one of the peripheral issues of hydrogen. There are a great many other far more significant reasons why it's a really silly idea though.

I think there will have to be a mix of battery and hydrogen EV’s going forward though. While I agree converting electricity to hydrogen and back again is inefficient it does have the advantage of being moved to areas where electrical infrastructure won’t allow much in the way of EV charging - think pretty much any rural town - their grids don’t have much spare capacity and as someone that works in the industry - they aren’t going to get upgraded either as the cost would push electricity prices up 10 fold then no one would be able to afford to charge their EV’s anyway.

There’s no perfect solution if we all want to keep driving around as much as we do. EV’s good for city and commuter work and hydrogen for longer distances or further out.

The Hindenburg disaster was in 1937. A lot can change in 85 years, including government regulations.

There are a lot of powerful, high profile companies in the business of transport, passenger and goods, and mining infrastructure who have definitely. not written off hydrogen ICEs.

This video discusses Cummins' approach. Is the presenter right in his assessment? Who knows at this point. Like I said, a lot can, and probably will, change.