Is it possible for Electric Cars to become the standard?
- Thread starter The Plainsman
- Start date
SsgtC
Banned
It's not the motors that would require much maintenance. It's the batteries. We don't think much about it anymore because we're all so used to maintenance free batteries, but early 20th century batteries were very maintenance intensive.
Well... At least with an IC you could refuel it quickly (put gasoline in a tank.)
In the long run you may be right that an electric car in that era would have needed less overall maintenance than an IC car but I suspect the constant battery charging and battery maintenance would have been off putting to many users.
SsgtC
Banned
The batteries themselves required quite a bit of maintenance. We're all used to maintenance free batteries. But batteries at the start of the 20th century were far from that.
Interesting re the 90 volt system. This makes me wonder if some degree of interoperation with a nominal 110VDC utility supply was expected ? (Ie simple charge systems ?)
I realize today such aystems would be unlikely to be allowed without a lot of safety features (if at all ?)
kernals12
Banned
I looked up why steam cars fell out of favor and one website I found is a perfect case study in lazy research.
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/why-does-nobody-make-a-steam-powered-car
"Due to the fact that steam provides constant pressure unlike the piston strokes of an internal combustion engine, steam-powered cars required no clutch, no gearbox and were overall extremely easy to drive. All you needed was a few minutes to let the boiler heat up.
Unfortunately, within the space of a few short years Henry Ford would almost single-handedly kill off the steam car. Although in the early 20th century steam engines were technically superior to old internal combustion engines, they couldn’t match the low cost of Ford’s mass-produced cars."
Henry Ford was a very savvy businessman. If the steam engine was better than internal combustion, we would've had steam powered Model Ts.
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/why-does-nobody-make-a-steam-powered-car
"Due to the fact that steam provides constant pressure unlike the piston strokes of an internal combustion engine, steam-powered cars required no clutch, no gearbox and were overall extremely easy to drive. All you needed was a few minutes to let the boiler heat up.
Unfortunately, within the space of a few short years Henry Ford would almost single-handedly kill off the steam car. Although in the early 20th century steam engines were technically superior to old internal combustion engines, they couldn’t match the low cost of Ford’s mass-produced cars."
Henry Ford was a very savvy businessman. If the steam engine was better than internal combustion, we would've had steam powered Model Ts.
SsgtC
Banned
At the time, the Steam Engine was better than Internal Combustion. It was also god awful expensive. Henry Ford chose internal combustion because it was cheap. It was also realativly easy to build with unskilled labor, while steam engines required highly skilled labor to build (boilermakers, steam fitters, pipe fiters, etc).
It also occurs to me that measuring / estimating the "state of charge" of a lead acid battery using 1920's tech was probably non trivial. (I'm thinking hydrometer readings of the electrolyte would likely have been needed.)
Technically, you can refuel an electric car fairly quickly as well, but it requires swapping out the drained batteries for refilled ones. However, it does require that the batteries and the car be designed for this.
SsgtC
Banned
And using turn of the century technology, this is highly doubtful. The size battery you need, is going to be quite large and not easily handled
How much more difficult would it be compared to, say, changing the tyres on those cars?
It also helps when you have an assembly line building dozens in not hundreds of cars per day, making them even cheaper.
Could it be possible this could also be applied to electric and steam cars, or would it not be as efficient.
In terms of building the overall structure of the vehicle, I suspect it could be just as efficient, if the assembly line is built in the right way, and with experienced workers, sure.
In terms of manufacturing each individual component - that depends on the part. Most of the car's body would be broadly the same, with only the engine and power source being substantively different.
Thomas Edison and Henry Ford decided to work together to make the electric car the main transportation in U.S.. Their goal was to have charging stations where people could "fill up" their cars. In 1914 Edsel Ford was given the task of looking into electric car production. He had two prototypes made with guidance from Edison, but the concept was not developed.
Henry would have done electric, if the sales would have been there, and the two men were on good very terms with each other.
Not as close as with Harvey Firestone, but nearly so.
SsgtC
Banned
Probably quite a bit more. A battery big enough to power a vehicle more than just a couple of miles, using the lead acid technology of the day, is going to be huge and weigh almost literally a ton
Pretty much this. Manufacturing the vehicle itself won't be too much different. The issue is, if you're using steam for instance, that you need highly skilled artificers to actually build the boiler and steam engine. Building a safe pressure vessel was not something that could be taught overnight
But maybe once it is taught they can build them without much difficulty.
kernals12
Banned
Inspired by this post, I did a post in the ASB section where someone from 2030 time travels to 1908 and gives Henry Ford the instructions on how to make lithium air batteries. The electric transportation revolution IOTL will have very disruptive impacts (cities will be quieter and have super clean air, we'll need fewer mechanics, we won't need gas stations etc.) but if it had happened in the early 20th century, it would've just been seen as a continuation of the electrification revolution that was hitting everything else.