WI: Model T was electric?
- Thread starter phx1138
- Start date
That's true now. Had it been true then, no electric cars at all would have been sold.
None of the electric makers took the approach to production FoMoCo did, either.
Sooner or later someone WILL. It was just a matter of time. IC cars just have too many advantages over electric cars. You can't just hand-wave the advantages away. When it was a "rich man's toy" things like short range and long recharge times don't mean as much. Once the price falls so the average Joe can buy it he will want to do more with it outside taking it a few miles just to show off to his friends. Ford was a good car manufacturer but not an incomparable genius.
Devvy
Donor
Define "advantages". I admit that OTL IC cars have far more advantages, but if the Model T was electric? Might be more a close run thing, with city cars being electric as noted.
Back then were petrol/gasoline stations so widespread (honest question)? The ability to charge at home overnight would be quite a useful feature for many people. With the famed simple engineering, I could see the equivalent of petrol stations springing up, where depleted batteries are quickly swapped out for fully charged ones for a fee, where the depleted batteries are then charged for the next customer. Such a system would go a *huge* way to avoiding the pitfalls of electric cars, and if the battery system is standardised, you could maybe get the batteries swapped at such a station in just a few minutes. Such a fuel system would also probably be cheaper then petrol/gasoline due to the simplified and recyclable nature of the battery, and the delivery system being part of the normal electrical grid. IC cars would then be usually used for far longer trips.
Butterfly effects? Battery technology is far more advanced then OTL. Less wealth for OPEC countries. Probably more fossil fuel power stations, but equally maybe more investment into renewable alternatives considering the greater demand for electricity. Hydroelectric and nuclear power could both be better utilised.
The infrastructure was much less developed.Devvy said:
So were the roads, btw, so long cross-country trips, in most places, was pretty impractical, even if anybody wanted to try it. (Doctors needed to, so they'd buy IC cars. Most other people had no need.)
That sounds good on its face, & can imagine small fees for the work & an amount of "depreciation", for the cost of recharging.Devvy said:
However, by comparison with just adding fuel... More than that, in normal use, IMO it's not needed. As batteries become worn out (& they will), this becomes an issue, & then it's a comparison between replacing battery packs & rebuilding an engine.
That said, electrics are very much simpler & cheaper to operate, so they attract a larger customer base among the less-affluent (poor...), even compared to OTL.
Very probably.Devvy said:
Maybe not, with more powerplants. OTOH, in the U.S. anyhow, it's likely more coal is mined & used--which has negative implications to public health.Devvy said:
Agreed.Devvy said:
Some other things.
If most people recharge after 4PM, it increases demand for power at times that otherwise are lower demand OTL, which means they can build powerplants that are constant load instead of peaking, which means (generally speaking) more efficient & cheaper power.
More demand also means the power grid is likely to be better, so the chances of the '65 & '03 blackouts are reduced.
If electric car demand rises from 1903 through 1925 or so, it's possible you get the TVA, Hoover Dam, Bonneville Dam, & other major hydro projects in an era when we'd OTL be seeing massive speculation on stocks. Avoid the Crash? Avoid the Depression? Or just avoid it getting bad, as power demand drives building projects to feed the cars?
Other possible butterflies: if cars are absorbing more electric power, might companies start developing efficient light bulbs & fridges & things to make up for it?
Might rail companies develop better/faster interurban rail, since cars aren't taking the business (or not nearly so much as OTL)? Might the Interstate system be replaced by investment in rail?OTOH...does this mean even more car-dependent 'burbs even sooner?
Devvy
Donor
I guess it'll come down, like everything else, primarily to price which'll be based on:
- Refining/Production Costs - probably cheaper for electricity as it's the same technology as already in use
- Distribution Costs - probably cheaper for electricity as the network already exists
- Amount of "refill" stations - probably about the same?
- Engineering Costs - this I'm not sure about as I'm definitely not a mechanic. My head says that IC engines are probably more complex and thus more expensive to maintain, as an electric car will be little more then a battery, motor and a gearbox of some sort later in life.
- That said; an increased demand for electricity might then increase the cost of electricity.
SO MANY VARIABLES ARGHHHH
Maybe not, with more powerplants. OTOH, in the U.S. anyhow, it's likely more coal is mined & used--which has negative implications to public health.
Definitely; in the US you're far more focussed on coal still, so in the US it'll have a large impact on increased coal mining and consumption.
I do wonder if this might lead to earlier interest in micro-adoption and the technology for it; people putting small windmills / solar panels on their roofs to generate electricity as it'll have a much bigger impact on their monthly bills.
Combine with above about self-generation, and you might even out the demand considerably as solar panels will obviously delivery much better during day time
Other possible butterflies: if cars are absorbing more electric power, might companies start developing efficient light bulbs & fridges & things to make up for it?
OTOH...does this mean even more car-dependent 'burbs even sooner?
(As an obvious railfan for anyone whose seen my usual interests on this forum):
I don't think it'll make much difference to the US; people will still adopt cars for the same reason, and car companies will still push the rail companies out of business. I guess park and ride systems might be a minor butterfly, as rail companies could appeal to people for them to park and ride at train stations by offering charging facilities in the car park.
-----
EDIT:
As if the BBC knew this discussion was on: http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130726-high-voltage-in-vancouver
Last edited:
You can't hand-wave away the fact that gasoline has around 80 times the energy density of batteries. That is the difference right now. Back then it was around 300 times. Could batteries become more energy dense than they are at the moment? Almost certainly. Could they have done so within 10 or 20 years of the model T? Certainly not. Battery companies have spent lots of R&D money over the decades on battery research and this is the best they can up with. More research money could have gotten them farther but not better than now by the 1930s-1940s! Less energy density means much less range, less speed, more and longer taking recharge times or some combination of the three. Ford's manufacturing techniques were not quantum leaps ahead of everybody else. Sooner or later someone will use very similar manufacturing techniques as Ford to build IC engine cars. Once that happens EC leave the market.
Im sorry but Ford may have been a genius but his mission in the Model T was to produce a car for the average Joe, with the two choices before him Ford I believe wouldve went for the IC because it was easier to maintain at the time.
And considering how long it took to make a replacement the best anyone could hope for is that Edsel takes an interest and works with other business to remove trolleys and other threats.
This will lead to maybe an earlier Roger Rabbit type of book/movie.
Actually, that doesnt sound bad does it?
And considering how long it took to make a replacement the best anyone could hope for is that Edsel takes an interest and works with other business to remove trolleys and other threats.
This will lead to maybe an earlier Roger Rabbit type of book/movie.
Actually, that doesnt sound bad does it?
Archibald
Banned
Ford needs to invent these two things a century ahead. And of course they have to be viable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_station#Battery_swapping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
Otherwise the EC Ford T won't go very far (pun intended)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_station#Battery_swapping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
Otherwise the EC Ford T won't go very far (pun intended)
Agreed.Devvy said:
Possibly many, many more. The grid is in place: how hard is it to set up an "outlet station"?Devvy said:
Correct.Devvy said:
That's also why electrics are cheaper to operate: fewer moving parts, less breakage.Devvy said:
Possible, but I find it unlikely. Wind's too unreliable, especially in cities, & solar only makes sense in daytime; how likely is a car to be at home? Yes, for many people, it would, but I'm not sure there are enough. (Even into the '40s, I'm less sure PV was even possible.)Devvy said:
It seems more likely you get "industrial" power sites, at workplaces, schools, apartment buildings, & malls with some kind of windmill on the roof (until PV arrives).
That's depressingly likely.Devvy said:
Dalekiller said:
Electrics took virtually no maintenance at all. IC needed to be constantly tinkered with just to keep them running, never mind to keep them in running order.
Did you not see what I wrote about "simplicity"?
You think congestion, suburbs killing cities, & smog are good thingsDalekiller said:
And you keep ignoring the underlying fact: that only gives you an advantage if you want to go long distances between fills.Johnrankins said:
City cars have no need for it.
And why are battery swaps "mandatory"?
If I'm not driving past the limit of range on a single charge at any given time, or on any given day, what possible benefit do I get from changing batteries? What possible need do I have to change batteries?That's true for most users of city cars, & would thus be true for electrics. So where is the need?
I'm not, in any way, trying to say electrics would be used, or advantageous, for long hauls or cross-country trips. I never said so. In fact, I expressly said IC cars would dominate that market.
Why, then, do IC cars get an edge in local use, where the long range & higher energy density stop being important?
City cars have no need for it.
And why are battery swaps "mandatory"?
That's true for most users of city cars, & would thus be true for electrics. So where is the need?
I'm not, in any way, trying to say electrics would be used, or advantageous, for long hauls or cross-country trips. I never said so. In fact, I expressly said IC cars would dominate that market.
Why, then, do IC cars get an edge in local use, where the long range & higher energy density stop being important?
The problem is the vast majority of the population did and would want a car that goes for longer distances than just in the city. Your "city car" is of no use to visit your grandmother in Florida, or your buddy from work who lives 50 miles away on the other side of the city or for a vacation in the Grand Canyons or ... Range matters a lot. A "city car" is only useful if you never leave the city and most people do. If I can sell a car that will get you 300 miles away and takes 2 or 3 minutes to refill while someone else is selling a car that can get you only 50 miles away and takes 8 hours to recharge which car do you think most people will buy?. If you simply "swap batteries" at a filling station that would take quite a few minutes with a few guys doing the job. 3 KG of gasoline would have to be replaced by 240 KG of batteries with TODAY'S technology. Using the technology available back then you are talking 300 KG. So you are talking about paying maybe four of five men wages to change your batteries. Gasoline is a LOT cheaper than that.
Last edited:
This is pre 1910, most intercity transport at the time was by railroad, and the rest was by dirt tracks, so going by car isn't exactly going to be first choice for most people, especially as the train was probably faster.
I am talking about post-1910. My point was sooner or later IC cars will replace them. They will last at most until WWI or its equivalent. Once that happens the army will want IC trucks. Trucks are too obviously useful and the army will want range. The army will want them and want a lot of them. Once that happens the price of IC cars will go down and millions of men will see their usefulness. They will want IC cars after that. They are just too damn useful not to take off sooner or later. Of course they might well be diesel cars instead but EC won't last more than a decade or two.
You seem to think there's no difference between a niche market of ECs (as OTL) & an *Electric T which is the most common car in the world. (Even if its sales aren't as large as OTLs, it could be.)Johnrankins said:
As for the drastic drop in prices, that makes two-car households much more likely. It doesn't demand an end to electrics.
Besides which, electrics don't stop having benefits of simplicity & low-cost operation. Why do you presume people who have no need for long range suddenly develop a burning desire to drive to California? Or Alaska?
You think electrics disappear? Why does, frex, the Post Office switch? UPS? The power company? The phone company? Taxi companies? (I might even suggest, the police department, if I could be sure a high-performance electric would be developed.) The USPO, alone, is a bigger market than many electric makers had OTL.
Still think electrics just conveniently vanish? If so, kindly explain how "long range" is of benefit to organizations that never leave city limits, or which never exceed a known range limit. The local power company doesn't have a particular need to drive from Detroit to Dallas; I expect field service calls can be done within known limits. (If not, as already repeatedly said, ICs can be used.)
There's another reason electrics are attractive to fleet users: low cost of operation, in fuel & maintenance. It takes less manpower to keep them running (fewer repairs) & fewer spares. The issue of the battery packs wearing out is moot, since the cars will be replaced about every five years anyhow.
There's at least two other impacts. The *Electric T, because it's the cheapest, most reliable, & most common electric in the world drives a market for parts, including batteries, motors, controllers, everything, which make other electrics cheaper, more reliable, & more attractive, on a scale OTL can't dream of. They also create a pool of skills for maintaining electrics OTL never had.
In short, unlike OTL, where the T was driving down the cost & increasing the market share of IC, TTL, it's the electrics that are the 800pd gorilla.
Why is it so hard to believe IC & electrics co-exist?
Last edited:
You seem to think there's no difference between a niche market of ECs (as OTL) & an *Electric T which is the most common car in the world. (Even if its sales aren't as large as OTLs, it could be.)
As for the drastic drop in prices, that makes two-car households much more likely. It doesn't demand an end to electrics.
Besides which, electrics don't stop having benefits of simplicity & low-cost operation. Why do you presume people who have no need for long range suddenly develop a burning desire to drive to California? Or Alaska?
You think electrics disappear? Why does, frex, the Post Office switch? UPS? The power company? The phone company? Taxi companies? (I might even suggest, the police department, if I could be sure a high-performance electric would be developed.) The USPO, alone, is a bigger market than many electric makers had OTL.
Still think electrics just conveniently vanish? If so, kindly explain how "long range" is of benefit to organizations that never leave city limits, or which never exceed a known range limit. The local power company doesn't have a particular need to drive from Detroit to Dallas; I expect field service calls can be done within known limits. (If not, as already repeatedly said, ICs can be used.)
There's another reason electrics are attractive to fleet users: low cost of operation, in fuel & maintenance. It takes less manpower to keep them running (fewer repairs) & fewer spares. The issue of the battery packs wearing out is moot, since the cars will be replaced about every five years anyhow.
Why is it so hard to believe IC & electrics co-exist?
Because the advantages of IC are obvious? You don't have to drive to CA for the advantages to be obvious. Milwaukee to Chicago is a distance of 73 miles and there are a lot of reasons to go from Milwaukee to Chicago. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_is_it_from_Chicago_to_Milwaukee
From NYC to Trenton, NJ it is 61 miles. http://www.travelmath.com/drive-distance/from/Trenton,+NJ/to/New+York,+NY
The distance between San Francisco and Sacramento is 85 miles.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_distance_from_San_Francisco_to_Sacramento
There are a lot of places in the US where it is advantages to go farther away than 25 miles and a lot less than clear cross the country. The US is a BIG place and there are many places to go outside the city you live in.
You can refuel a car a couple of minutes or so. It takes 8 hours to recharge the batteries on an electric car. If my brother got into a traffic accident in the middle of the night and is dying in the hospital 40 miles away I can get into a car and be fairly quickly even if I am short on gas as it doesn't take more than 5 minutes or so to fill up a car and pay. If it is an electric car I will have to wait HOURS .
Unlikely, actually. Lead acid batteries have really strong limits on power density. Fancier chemistry will likely only come much later. And notice that the first generation of rechargeables for cameras or computers, NiCads, had severe problems for auto use, limited recharge life, memory effect, etc.
Basically, for mass produced cars, youre probably limited to lead acid until lithium ion cells are invented, which might be earlier than iotl, but not much, i dont suppose.
Where are you getting 25mi maximum from?
Why would fleet users need more?
And what part of "people who need more wouldn't buy electrics" do you refuse to understand?
The best modern electric has a range of around 250 miles or so RIGHT NOW (going by the EPA estimate which is more likely than what they claim). http://www.eperformance.com/car/electric_cars_range.html Batteries are around 4 times as efficient now as back then so that cuts it to around 60 miles. Considering electric motors are also more efficient right now than back then 50 miles is being generous. 50/2 is 25 miles. Considering that it takes about 8 hours to recharge I counted the distance as both ways. You aren't going to want to sit in a service station for 8 HOURS.
The problem is almost everyone will want more range if they can get it. There are relatively few people who will want to buy a car that just take them around town if they can buy one that gets them anywhere they want to go for the same or slightly higher price. Sooner or later someone is going to mass produce diesel or IC cars and once that happens the price will fall to around that of electric ones.
Last edited:
Most inter-city roads at the time were dirt tracks, a situation that wouldn't improve too hugely until the New Deal in the 30s, giving a period of perhaps 20-25 years to build up a market, and it will take until the rise of the suburbs for electrics to seem like a really bad choice, by which time I'd expect quite some development in battery technology (not up to modern levels, but much better than what they were).