WI: Model T was electric?

[Johnrankins]

So all the people, & more importantly all the companies, who found them exceedingly useful will just throw them over?

No, but they will start replacing their EC with IC ones when they wear out.

Where is the need (not desire, need) for the PO or phone company for an entire fleet of cars capable of range over 80mi?

People buy based on desires as well as needs. Do you NEED a TV or a radio or books or hundreds of other things? No, but most people have them anyways even though they would not die without them.

Some will. I've already allowed for that, by reducing the T's sales by more than half OTL.

It would fall far more than that.

You said it yourself: half the sales will be urban. That 7.5 million is half again what I presume, & over seven hundred times what you do. Allowing some potential customers will, indeed, want greater range, I'm putting sales at 5 million

The vast majority will want greater speed and range.

And why do you presume speeds are incapable of improvement? Too inconvenient for you?

Because batteries can store only so much energy. They aren't going to come up with lithium batteries decades before OTL as they are too high tech. You can get higher speed, at considerably lower range.

And there were companies like Pierce-Arrow and Colt & innumerable others who didn't change to assembly line as late as 1940. Assembly line manufacturing & heavy emphasis on standardization was nothing like as obvious as you made out.

And they went out of business. That's how it goes. Those companies that make dumb decisions go out of business , those that don't stay. Ford isn't going to get competition from the idiots but the ones that made good decisions.

Moreover, if the EC market is just so unattractive & improbable as you make out, who's going to be trying to take it from a company that so dominates it?

Some will, while it is still competitive but once EC can't compete they will make IC cars. They don't have to make EC if IC cars takes away its market share.

Also, Chevy was outselling Ford in part because Henry resisted changing the T. TTL, it would be less a problem, since the competition would probably be less stiff. (You seem to think "non-existent", but that's a bit too much to hope for.)

Why? People suddenly decide that they shouldn't go into the car business because Ford is making electric cars? Ford making EC doesn't suddenly make the car business unprofitable.

Really? The usefulness of ECs has disappeared? The T has made exactly no improvement in range, speed, comfort, or features in 25yr?

Not enough, it is an energy problem. Batteries store very little energy compared to gasoline or diesel oil. There is no way around it as that is the nature of batteries.

And there's no chance at all a successor model will offer improvements?

So the entirety of Ford management are idiots?

Not enough because of the nature of batteries.

So between 1900 & even 1920, Ford is completely incapable of making a car so much cheaper & easier to operate than every IC car in the world, only a few thousand would be sold?

Yes, hundreds of pounds of batteries are very expensive. Much more expensive than a gas tank!

You think a desire to drive across country will trump a desire to drive a cheaper car?

Why do I find that improbable?

You don't need to want to drive cross country. Wanting to drive from Milwaukee to Chicago is sufficient.

In your market that only allows customers who want to drive to Florida, no.

In the real world?

Not just from Milwaukee to Florida but also from Milwaukee to Chicago or Pittsburgh to Cleveland.

Oh, wait, you reject the very prospect of people who don't want to drive long distances. In spite of the number of people who don't every day of the week.

Even people who don't normally drive long distances will want the option to do so if something comes up or even just occasionally. Driving long distances just once a month is more than sufficient to get a car with long ranges and short refueling times.

Lovely for people with a burning desire to take long trips. Not so significant for the people who don't give a damn.

Like the phone company. Tell me again how phone company employees have a need to take emergency trips in company cars halfway across the country? Or even halfway across the state?

Very few people won't give a damn. You don't need to go across country. 30 miles will be enough.

Remarkable. Now it's 50mi! Range has doubled in less than a decade, with no effort from Ford at all.

Tell me again how people who only need to drive from home to work & back will prefer IC? My dad used to drive 26mi each way to work every day. Even he had no need for IC. Tell me he needed IC.

I was trying to demonstrate how impractical it would be to go more than about 25 miles or so. I take an IC engine car that is low on fuel 60 miles away. I run low so I go to a gas station and have the serviceman pump it for five minutes (we are talking about an era before self service) and I am on my way. Total refueling time: 5 minutes. I take my EC. I go 50 miles and recharge. Recharge time: 8 HOURS. So I twiddle my thumbs for 8 hours and then arrive at my destination. I use up ten of the miles completing the journey. I go back 40 miles and run out of juice. I figure I am going to be home in 20 miles so I don't juice it up all the way. I juice it up 1/3 to get home where I can recharge it when I sleep. That will take me a little over 2 1/2 hours. Total recharge time 10 1/2 HOURS as compared to 5 minutes.

Tell me how taxi companies need cars that can travel 100mi at a trip & refuel in 5min, when the cabs are only, maybe, driven that far in a day, & can spend hours charging?

Almost all of them. A taxi not going a hundred miles a day is a taxi company going broke. You want those taxis out on the street getting fares not spending time in a garage getting recharged.

Even allowing cab companies might be reaching, tell me how other fleet users will. You've been willfully ignoring them from the start.

Fleet users aren't the big problem. Joe six-pack is. Many more cars are bought by Joe Six-pack than the gas utility.

Millions of people did not have the option of an electric as cheap as a Model T, either.

They will. Ford wasn't a magician. Ford Corporation became number 2 in the late 20s.

And your proposition of only ever driving 80mi on one leg & stopping is not how most people drive most of the time. Not in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, or now.

They don't have to ALWAYS drive 40+ miles (putting at 20 MPH) . Even occasional drives of that distance would be enough.

What part of "changing driver behavior based on changed conditions" do you not understand?

The part where you don't change the conditions that much. Once cheap ICs come along (and they WILL) their overwhelming advantages will put Ford out of business unless he also changes to IC cars.

 

[MattII]

You're exaggerating, from what I recall Macadam's been in use for about 80 years in the US by this point and most cities are linked together with it, at least in the densely populated east, there's the dust issue with fast moving vehicles but that's about it

Hm, maybe you missed it, but weren't not talking 80 years ago, we're talking 1908, AKA ~100 years ago.

 

[Johnrankins]

Hm, maybe you missed it, but weren't not talking 80 years ago, we're talking 1908, AKA ~100 years ago.

He was talking 80 years BEFORE 1908 AKA 1828 or so and he is correct there.

 

[MattII]

I stand corrected.

 

[phx1138]

Because you are hand waving by saying Henry Ford can build an electric car as cheap as an IC....


The original model T did not benefit significantly more from mass production than the Detroit Electric (in fact you could argue the technology in the Detroit was more proven and therefore cheaper)at the start of its production life.

To begin with, the Detroit Electric wasn't aimed at the bottom of the market, & the T was, so pricing isn't a really reliable guide. Compare the Olds Runabout, at $650, which was the first really "mass-produced" car.

Second, the reason the T was cheaper, & got cheaper, was because Henry ruthlessly drove the cost of production down. Not the tech in the car: the production line cost. You know the T was famously black; do you know why? Because that kind of paint dried faster, so it spent less time in the paint booth, so cars could be built faster. Henry did that with everything.

So, yes, I think it's possible to drive down the cost of an electric T. Drive it down two $260 by end of production? IDK. If you're right, & the initial cost of things like motors is lower, then yes--& maybe lower still. OTOH, with only about a third as many built... Even so, $400 is cheaper than any electric in the world (AFAIK).

And it shows it's possible to do it.

Don't forget, there were hundreds of car companies in this period. How many of them would be building & selling electrics, & offering them cheaper than the T? IDK. How many might just survive? IDK.

You think? So no-one buys a car because of its performance

This is an era when nobody had owned, or been able to afford, a car. IMO, the "I want long range & high speed" arguments are nonsense.

Urban buyers who met all their needs with electrics, & got used to their simplicity & ease of use, would IMO not be happy with all the work necessary to keep an early IC car running: changing plugs, fixing the timing, adjusting the choke, & all manner of other tasks electrics don't ask. (It is assuredly not as easy as today.) And there's the unpleasant smell...

In 1900 3% of Americans had access to electricity, 16% in 1912, 20% in 1917 and 35% in 1920

How does that break down by urban/rural? By 1900, I'm betting most major cities had electric power.

From what I recall the electrical grid wasn't really reliable until after the big crash in summer of 1918 or 1917, not sure which, lit a fire under the government's ass to get things fixed

Which leads me to think the greater demand from electric cars would drive a change...

People buy based on desires as well as needs.

And corporate buyers on the basis of profit. It's not all about the individual customers.

And the desire for speed, as said, doesn't arise until after the initial market is saturated. By which time the electric T has sold millions.

Do you NEED a TV or a radio or books or hundreds of other things? No, but most people have them anyways even though they would not die without them.

It would fall far more than that.

Just because you say so?

The vast majority will want greater speed and range.

When the vast majority of T customers OTL had never owned a car before? And when a substantial fraction will see no need for "higher, stronger, faster"? And when the corporate buyers (who you continue to ignore, because they're too inconvenient to your "I want" argument) will be perfectly satisfied?

Because batteries can store only so much energy. ...You can get higher speed, at considerably lower range.

So there's absolutely no other way, is there? Axle gearing & wheel diameters make no difference? Weight is irrelevant? Rolling resistance has no impact?

And they went out of business.

And yet, you were the one saying Ford's efforts on assembly line production were obvious... I guess not.

Ford making EC doesn't suddenly make the car business unprofitable.

Where did I say that?

Not enough, it is an energy problem.

It is an energy problem if we accept people demand long range, high speed driving.

As I've been saying from the beginning, & you've been ignoring, I presume that market will be filled by IC cars, not electrics. I presume the T will be aimed mostly at a market not needing it. What is so hard to understand about that?

Yes, hundreds of pounds of batteries are very expensive. Much more expensive than a gas tank!

Not much more expensive than an IC engine. And it's not the cost of the technology that's the issue, here: it's the production costs, as already described. Explain to me why, TTL, Ford is an idiot incapable of driving costs down?

You don't need to want to drive cross country. Wanting to drive from Milwaukee to Chicago is sufficient.

Take the train. It's less headache.

Driving long distances just once a month is more than sufficient to get a car with long ranges and short refueling times.

Really? Somehow, I don't think so.

Even if it is, how many people who have never owned or driven a car will see a need, or desire, to drive even from Detroit to Chicago, or Chicago to Milwaukee? How many will foresee they can?

30 miles will be enough.

And that's half the driving radius I expect...on roads I imagine aren't good enough yet, in the main, to allow speeds much over the "putt-putt" you complain about. Moreover, if you've never driven 20mph, it's not going to seem remotely so slow as you appear to think.

I was trying to demonstrate how impractical it would be to go more than about 25 miles or so.

And we're back to the magic number, again. What is this, a mystical EC range limit?

Fleet users aren't the big problem. Joe six-pack is. Many more cars are bought by Joe Six-pack than the gas utility.

Fleet users are capable of keeping models afloat quite nicely, with steady demand & less insistence on fancy new features.

They will. Ford wasn't a magician. Ford Corporation became number 2 in the late 20s.

How much of that was Henry's refusal to change the T?

And now you're saying there will be ECs entering a market you predicted would never be above a few thousand. So there are large numbers of corporate executives who are morons? Or Ford is proving it really is possible to sell an EC profitably, & the market is bigger than you thought?

Once cheap ICs come along (and they WILL) their overwhelming advantages will put Ford out of business unless he also changes to IC cars.

See "fleet customer" and "market segregation" above. Then explain why someone who might drive across country once or twice a year puts up with all the headaches of IC for a "convenience" he can get with a train trip.

It's not now, & treating the conditions as if it is doesn't get it.

 

[Johnrankins]

To begin with, the Detroit Electric wasn't aimed at the bottom of the market, & the T was, so pricing isn't a really reliable guide. Compare the Olds Runabout, at $650, which was the first really "mass-produced" car.

Fair enough

Second, the reason the T was cheaper, & got cheaper, was because Henry ruthlessly drove the cost of production down. Not the tech in the car: the production line cost. You know the T was famously black; do you know why? Because that kind of paint dried faster, so it spent less time in the paint booth, so cars could be built faster. Henry did that with everything.

So, yes, I think it's possible to drive down the cost of an electric T. Drive it down two $260 by end of production? IDK. If you're right, & the initial cost of things like motors is lower, then yes--& maybe lower still. OTOH, with only about a third as many built... Even so, $400 is cheaper than any electric in the world (AFAIK).

So did others which is one of the reasons why GM passed Ford in 1927. They were able to sell cars for less money and with better financing and better looking. http://lip.hubpages.com/hub/Cars-in-the-1920s Ford was a good car maker but he wasn't the only one. Despite what you seem to think Ford wasn't God!

Don't forget, there were hundreds of car companies in this period. How many of them would be building & selling electrics, & offering them cheaper than the T? IDK. How many might just survive? IDK.

Probably a handful or so by the 1940s. How does this matter? The losers die and the others pick up the pieces. Ford won't be competing with some guy who has a garage somewhere hand-building cars but GM and the other big car companies.

This is an era when nobody had owned, or been able to afford, a car. IMO, the "I want long range & high speed" arguments are nonsense.

An era that won't last forever.

Urban buyers who met all their needs with electrics, & got used to their simplicity & ease of use, would IMO not be happy with all the work necessary to keep an early IC car running: changing plugs, fixing the timing, adjusting the choke, & all manner of other tasks electrics don't ask. (It is assuredly not as easy as today.) And there's the unpleasant smell...

What makes you think that an EC will be that easy to maintain? They were in their early stages too. A lot of men LIKE working on cars and those who don't there is service stations.

How does that break down by urban/rural? By 1900, I'm betting most major cities had electric power.

Which leads me to think the greater demand from electric cars would drive a change...

More electric use in the 1920s? Probably.

And corporate buyers on the basis of profit. It's not all about the individual customers.

Many more cars are bought by individuals than corporations and once mass IC cars come to market at around the same price as EC. .. More importantly time is money. Most corporations would rather spend the few extra dollars to be able to go 40 MPH rather than 20.

And the desire for speed, as said, doesn't arise until after the initial market is saturated. By which time the electric T has sold millions.

So? The desire for speed is innate in human beings. Have you known anyone buy something that goes slower (all other factors equal) than something faster? Time is money and people are not immortal. Selling something that goes faster is not difficult.

Just because you say so?

No, because history shows people prefer faster, more range, and more power in almost anything.

When the vast majority of T customers OTL had never owned a car before? And when a substantial fraction will see no need for "higher, stronger, faster"? And when the corporate buyers (who you continue to ignore, because they're too inconvenient to your "I want" argument) will be perfectly satisfied?

1) It won't be 1920 forever
2) Why would they remain satisfied when there is something better out there? Were people satisfied with early 1920s washers and dryers in the 1940s and 1950s? It was good enough for them in the 1920s but since the 1942 model was better in almost every way they went for that. What about computers or TVs or radios or a hundred other things? If the new version is better people will want it! Since when are people satisfied when they see something better?

So there's absolutely no other way, is there? Axle gearing & wheel diameters make no difference? Weight is irrelevant? Rolling resistance has no impact?

Since they impact IC cars as well, no they don't have an impact. If EC get better range due to better design then IC cars do as well. The thing to look at is the energy budget. The energy budget of an IC car is 300X that of an electric car. That means it can do virtually anything better than an EC without the tradeoffs. It will can go faster, farther and pull a bigger load all at the same time as it has 300 times as much to "spend" as an EC. THAT is the problem.

And yet, you were the one saying Ford's efforts on assembly line production were obvious... I guess not.

It is always easier to make stupid decisions that smart ones. That said there are millions of people out there so some get it right. GM and Chrysler got it right Pierce-Arrow didn't. If Ford makes dumb decisions it is Ford that goes under. Maybe Packard eventually becomes one of the "Big Three" instead.

Where did I say that?

This

Also, Chevy was outselling Ford in part because Henry resisted changing the T. TTL, it would be less a problem, since the competition would probably be less stiff

There is no reason to assume the competition is less stiff.

It is an energy problem if we accept people demand long range, high speed driving

History shows that people demand long range, high speed driving. Sorry but those are the facts!

As I've been saying from the beginning, & you've been ignoring, I presume that market will be filled by IC cars, not electrics. I presume the T will be aimed mostly at a market not needing it. What is so hard to understand about that?

Because people will NOT be satisfied if they can do better whether they live in country or the city.

Not much more expensive than an IC engine. And it's not the cost of the technology that's the issue, here: it's the production costs, as already described. Explain to me why, TTL, Ford is an idiot incapable of driving costs down?

Explain to me why everyone except Ford is an idiot and can't cut costs as well? Cutting costs are intrinsic to business. Almost all businesses strive to cut costs.

Take the train. It's less headache.

Trains go on THEIR schedule. You can take a car anytime. Also is where you want to go right on top of the train station?Because if it is not you will have to wait for buses as well.

Really? Somehow, I don't think so.

Even if it is, how many people who have never owned or driven a car will see a need, or desire, to drive even from Detroit to Chicago, or Chicago to Milwaukee? How many will foresee they can?

By the 1930s most people will have owned or driven a car and most will see a need to go more than 25 miles out of town!

And that's half the driving radius I expect...on roads I imagine aren't good enough yet, in the main, to allow speeds much over the "putt-putt" you complain about. Moreover, if you've never driven 20mph, it's not going to seem remotely so slow as you appear to think.

Why wouldn't roads be improved in the 20s-60s in your TL?

And we're back to the magic number, again. What is this, a mystical EC range limit?

Lead batteries can give you only so much range and speed, sorry.

Fleet users are capable of keeping models afloat quite nicely, with steady demand & less insistence on fancy new features

Except it won't be the MILLIONS Joe Sixpack will buy and it is millions you are counting on for mass production.

How much of that was Henry's refusal to change the T?

Why would he be more willing to change with an EC? You only changed the tech not his personality.

And now you're saying there will be ECs entering a market you predicted would never be above a few thousand. So there are large numbers of corporate executives who are morons? Or Ford is proving it really is possible to sell an EC profitably, & the market is bigger than you thought?

Different time periods. Before WWI or so you might have a large electric market even a few million. AFTER WWI or so it starts dying fast. VHS was a huge market before DVDs came along.

See "fleet customer" and "market segregation" above. Then explain why someone who might drive across country once or twice a year puts up with all the headaches of IC for a "convenience" he can get with a train trip.

Because it won't REMAIN segregated. When people can get something that goes faster, goes farther and pulls more weight they WILL. It isn't just cars the history of almost any machine shows this!

 

[Archibald]

The sticky point is:
- electric cars may have a major breakthrough early on because, for all their flaws they are a major advance over horses, and people didn't knew what cars where before
- unfortunately this won't last because lead-acid batteries are the only technology available for a very long time
- and they don't stand a chance against even the most primitive IC engines
It's the hare and turtle, with EC as the hare and IC the turtle

 

[RamscoopRaider]

In 1900 EC cars had 38% of the US market, that share was dropping even before Ford came along, Ford might give them a second wind, but the writing was on the wall even by 1908

Lead Acid batteries last 500-800 charge cycles, a motor lasts much longer than that, and batteries start losing power capacity unlike motors so your range will start dropping fast

 

[MattII]

- unfortunately this won't last because lead-acid batteries are the only technology available for a very long time

Guess again, Ni-Cad, Nickel-Iron and Mickel-Zinc batteries were all around at the time, and while they all have their faults, they do offer other avenues.

Mind you, I can't see an electric T ever really working, although I consider an electric N to be something of a possibility (that the N, 7,000 vehicles in all, was considered a success says something about markets at the time).

 

[Johnrankins]

Guess again, Ni-Cad, Nickel-Iron and Mickel-Zinc batteries were all around at the time, and while they all have their faults, they do offer other avenues.

Mind you, I can't see an electric T ever really working, although I consider an electric N to be something of a possibility (that the N, 7,000 vehicles in all, was considered a success says something about markets at the time).

All of which have the power density problems that lead batteries have. Even today they can't make a purely electric car that truly competes with IC cars due to price and long recharge times. The Telsa, which is probably the best of the bunch, costs almost $80,000 and has a battery recharge speed of almost 5 hours. http://www.eperformance.com/car/electric_cars_range.html If they can lower the price of the car they can change batteries quickly using this technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place and it may well be viable NOW. They need to sell more Telsas and to build more Better Places to do that though. I hope they do. I am NOT against EC if they are practical! 50+ years ago? Not a chance as the tech didn't exist.

 

[MattII]

All of which have the power density problems that lead batteries have.

Yes, but better power-density than Lead-Acid.

I am NOT against EC if they are practical! 50+ years ago? Not a chance as the tech didn't exist.

Yeah, but look at the market, 7,000 vehicles in 2 years was considered a success, so the market for any vehicle doesn't have to be big, if you can sell 50,000 between say 1907 and the US entry into WW1 you have a 'successful' vehicle (though far less than the T).

 

[Henriksson]

Well, a quite interesting fact about the old electric cars is that despite having worse batteries than today's ones, they had basically the same range or better. How in the world is it possible? Well, range has to be sacrificed to make up for increased weight, comfort, speed and performance. We have to remember just how they looked like:

Any attempts at improving these factors means sacrificing range. The ICE, on the other hand, has no problem accommodating these due to the immense energy density of gasoline - the electric car will be less competitive over time, not more, especially due to the limited room for improvement available for lead-acid batteries. There were really only two factors that lead to a brief dominance for electric vehicles; ICEs had to be cranked up to start and there were relatively few paved roads outside cities. Without those factors, there really wasn't much that stopped the electric car from going obsolete.

Sure, Ford didn't work his magic on electric cars, and early manufacturers made a mistake in not standardizing batteries. However, there were many tricks available that still didn't help iota: Fast-charged batteries (to 80% capacity in 10 minutes), automated battery swapping stations, public charging poles, load balancing, the entire business plan of Better Place, in-wheel motors, regenerative braking: it was all there in the late 1800s or the early 1900s. It did not help.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Here is a thought, service stations have equipent for changing batteries. U turn up, they chekc the power on your battery you swap it for one fully charged and pay the difference.

 

[Johnrankins]

Here is a thought, service stations have equipent for changing batteries. U turn up, they chekc the power on your battery you swap it for one fully charged and pay the difference.

They tried that, it was too expensive. It is fairly time consuming heavy labor and labor in the US wasn't cheap while gasoline was.

 

[phx1138]

Detroit Electric was US$2600. Riker started at US$900, which is about where the IC Model T started.

Tell me again how the Electric T would be too costly.

 

[ManintheField]

Trains would be massively faster, way more comfortable, and probably easier, so no, I wouldn't expect cars to make too much difference until the New Deal roads come along, and even then, trains are still faster, and take no effort on the part of the traveller.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that inter-town or inter-city roads of decent quality didn't exist until the New Deal.

Pressure for higher quality country roads began in the 19th century and had achieved real success by the 20th, hitting stride in the 1910's and continuing into the 1920's.

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

While large parts of the country still didn't have well surfaced roads into the 1930's, to be sure, large parts did, and they supported huge amounts of inter-town and inter-city travel.

Seriously, this whole topic is a non-starter. As was mentioned very early on, IF Ford actually goes with an electric car, he eventually switches to an IC one once the advantages become clear or his company just dies. The switch to internal combustion wasn't an accident or a coincidence.

Detroit Electric was US$2600. Riker started at US$900, which is about where the IC Model T started.

Tell me again how the Electric T would be too costly.

The prize the vehicle won in a race was $900. I don't see anything about the cost of the vehicle in that article.

 

[1940LaSalle]

I think the original premise was an Edison-Ford collaboration very early in the 20th century: that is about 1902-1903, when IOTL Ford began production of his own IC vehicles. Given that, at the time, lead/acid batteries represented state-of-the-art storage battery technology. One either needed (1) a fairly high amperage circuit for charging, if the local power system were DC; (2) a means of rectification of AC, in the instance of an existing AC system, or (3) a clandestine way of tapping the overhead and return (usually the rail closest to the curb) of a streetcar line (and by the way, many garages did this into the '20s to charge batteries for IC autos ).

Thus, even with a starting premise of a minimal-frills electric vehicle like the Riker (as opposed to Detroit, Baker, or Rauch and Lang) and presuming Ford stakes Edison in battery research, about the best you're going to do is stem the decline of the electric car. As IC technology improved and those vehicles became more reliable, several of the key advantages of electrics faded. I suspect that by 1920, Ford would have tired of pumping money into a fading technology and gotten out of the passenger car business in favor of something he knew well: farm implements. Today Ford would be known for combines, threshers, etc., and would probably be a somewhat cheaper (in all respects) competitor to John Deere using me-too, knockoff technology (which Ford did IOTL). Ford automobiles would be museum pieces or the odd curiosity in the brass radiator classes in large antique/classic car shows.

 

[Devvy]

Finally; an interesting post rather then just "electric cars can survive!" or "no, the IC car must conquer all!".

Thank you

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Quickly replaceable battery paks gets around part of the recharging problem, tho there are still several technical issues like incompatible models. I think the problems of hybrid vehicles in 1903 or even 1915 have been covered here as well?