Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like to add to the safety aspects of an EV, and how well they will be able to protect occupants in case of a crash
With multiple large batteries underneath of them, I can’t imagine what kind of harm they will cause in a serious accident. Possibly an explosive hazard? Battery acid hazard? Fire hazard?
Depending on battery location, even the most minor fender benders could turn deadly fast especially if the vehicle is hit where the batteries are directly located.
The added expense to make EV’s safer can be a serious derailment towards owning one unless automakers can find ways to lower their cost. Even stronger frames and or unibodies must be developed, thus adding more High Strength Steel and other forms of metals that can truly protect drivers from becoming melted flesh.
Its harsh, but a reality that could happen if car companies don’t focus enough on high safety standards for EV’s . I mean look at how many Tesla’s have caught on fire from a crash. Too many to count.
I would like to add to the safety aspects of an EV, and how well they will be able to protect occupants in case of a crash
With multiple large batteries underneath of them, I can’t imagine what kind of harm they will cause in a serious accident. Possibly an explosive hazard? Battery acid hazard? Fire hazard?
Depending on battery location, even the most minor fender benders could turn deadly fast especially if the vehicle is hit where the batteries are directly located.
The added expense to make EV’s safer can be a serious derailment towards owning one unless automakers can find ways to lower their cost. Even stronger frames and or unibodies must be developed, thus adding more High Strength Steel and other forms of metals that can truly protect drivers from becoming melted flesh.
Its harsh, but a reality that could happen if car companies don’t focus enough on high safety standards for EV’s . I mean look at how many Tesla’s have caught on fire from a crash. Too many to count.
How many? IIHS calls the Model 3 safest. Where is your data?
I would like to add to the safety aspects of an EV, and how well they will be able to protect occupants in case of a crash
With multiple large batteries underneath of them, I can’t imagine what kind of harm they will cause in a serious accident. Possibly an explosive hazard? Battery acid hazard? Fire hazard?
Depending on battery location, even the most minor fender benders could turn deadly fast especially if the vehicle is hit where the batteries are directly located.
The added expense to make EV’s safer can be a serious derailment towards owning one unless automakers can find ways to lower their cost. Even stronger frames and or unibodies must be developed, thus adding more High Strength Steel and other forms of metals that can truly protect drivers from becoming melted flesh.
Its harsh, but a reality that could happen if car companies don’t focus enough on high safety standards for EV’s . I mean look at how many Tesla’s have caught on fire from a crash. Too many to count.
That reminds me of the good, clean, and totally safe fun liquid fuel is:
There’s no need to try and explain energy density or attempt to discredit my explanation of it. Regen braking doesn’t make energy, it just attempts to recapture the inefficiency or braking. In long range highway driving regen braking is essentially useless.
Bottom line is that if I want to double a Model 3’s range, I need another 1000 lbs of battery. View that as you will.
You didn’t make an explanation. You just cited faulty numbers and then didn’t actually think through what you’re applying those numbers to. I don’t know what you’re referring to as “make energy”, but what regenerative braking allows EVs to extend their range by using motors aa generators while decelerating and recapture some of that kinetic energy as charge. Yea, it doesn’t do much for long distance driving if you seldom decelerate or stop, but an ICE vehicle isn’t recouping any fuel by stopping either in city or highway driving. For city driving, EVs also benefit from having negligible idle loss compared to ICE vehicles.
What’s generally happened is that range has been added mostly through advancements in energy density. The Nissan Leaf’s base trims did that from first to second gen as did the Renault Zoe. Tesla does something weird though where they don’t do official refreshes. Bottom line is that despite a large difference in energy density between gasoline and current mass production batteries suited for EV use, the effective range difference is pretty much in the same ballpark where they’re in the same order of magnitude with a difference that’s pretty easy to bridge. What’s more, and going back to a point we both agree is true, is that for most drivers and most usage patterns, the range for current production EVs is already sufficient.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-03-2019 at 07:42 AM..
Post #181 was right on the money. Btw I didn’t bother to read your post.
yeah, its interesting how people want to intentionally ignore the truth. does general wesley clark talking about his own personal experience count as a conspiracy theory? you dont want to realize that a lot of "conspiracy theories" arent even that. you can find very good support from legitimate sources for a lot of stuff that you label a "conspiracy theory" because you just dont want to do any research and you want to believe whatever you want to believe.
i fully realize that someone like you isnt going to bother with things that we havent yet been provided enough solid data yet on (even though they may be true). i just posted things that are known facts and you still want to pretend that they are some kind of crazy conspiracy theory (as if that alone makes them untrue).
Autonomous vehicles cannot come too soon. It is clear humans cannot handle driving cars. Between texting, drunk driving, emotional driving, vindictive driving, and just plain stupidity, most people have no business driving at least at times. Sure we can maintain parks or tracks for people who want to develop driving skills and test them against themselves or against others, but get the idiot out form behind the controls of automobiles.
Yes. Computers do a better job.
Computers do not text or play on Facebook while driving.
Computers do not stare at an accident alongside the road while driving forwards.
Computers do not get ticked off and use a car as a tool to express their emotions.
Computers do not slam a car into gear and pull into traffic without looking because they are mad at their kids.
Computers do not cut people off, tailgate, or intentionally hit other cars to prove a point, or just because they are in a bad mood, or dislike the look of a person or their choice of vehicle, etc.
Yes, computers will fail at times, but no where near as often as humans fail in driving and they will never fail intentionally due ot emotions or intoxication, or mental imbalance, etc. .
there are many things computers cannot do better than humans but driving is not one of them. As a species, we completely suck at driving.
how come you never hear about waymo? arent they operating a taxi service in phoenix? i wonder if it really is possible to do fully automatic driving without changes to the roads we use (and still im not sure how they can handle rain and snow).
i definitely think it would be great if we didnt have to drive anymore.
yeah, its interesting how people want to intentionally ignore the truth. does general wesley clark talking about his own personal experience count as a conspiracy theory? you dont want to realize that a lot of "conspiracy theories" arent even that. you can find very good support from legitimate sources for a lot of stuff that you label a "conspiracy theory" because you just dont want to do any research and you want to believe whatever you want to believe.
i fully realize that someone like you isnt going to bother with things that we havent yet been provided enough solid data yet on (even though they may be true). i just posted things that are known facts and you still want to pretend that they are some kind of crazy conspiracy theory (as if that alone makes them untrue).
It’s an automotive forum so nobody cares.
If you’re hunting for alternative history on the internet, you’re going to find alternative history links. I bet you find someone recollecting being probed by aliens on the internet if you look hard enough.
It’s an automotive forum so nobody cares.
If you’re hunting for alternative history on the internet, you’re going to find alternative history links. I bet you find someone recollecting being probed by aliens on the internet if you look hard enough.
You're really sticking by this whole WMD as the real basis for invading Iraq, eh? I didn't think true believers still existed. Would you at least believe that the importance of taking down a nation that can potentially disrupt oil markets at least has some bearing on the decision to invade Iraq?
And yea, it is an automotive forum and the question was why a hard push for EVs. There's at least a reasonable ancillary argument that intersects with the topic in that EVs can help bring the price of oil down which has large ramifications in terms of countries that are not friendly or bad friends to the US and its allies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
