WI: Model T was electric?

[phx1138]

Considering that most of the country west of the Mississippi and east of California is pretty empty a lot were sold in the country.

Care to demonstrate how many were bought for use by farmers on farms? Even allowing the U.S. was more rural then than now.

Moreover, use "in the country" in no way demonstrates a need or desire to travel long distances. How many cars bought by farmers were used to drive from the farm to the city & back? Where I live, even today, there are lots of farms within 70mi of a major city, & lots more within 70mi of some town. So even with farmers (or ranchers), a 50-80mi range could be plenty.

Furthermore, where is it said the success of an electric T makes IC cars disappear? I have said from the start there could be ICs (which you continue to ignore), and even the OTL Model T didn't make electrics disappear. How does its absence manage that?

Assuming that the average car owner had a wife(The vast majority of car buyers were men at the time) and at least one kid we are talking about 45 million having access to cars.

You've just made the argument for successful electric Ts. The majority of electric car buyers were women, because they didn't need to crank-start them. (That took quite a bit of strength.)

If you put in a small generator you might as well go IC as that generator runs on SOMETHING.

Yes. Batteries.

How much energy is saved in the system by not having to drill & refine oil & deliver & pump gasoline?

Absolutely correct. A long road trip in the 1920's was an adventure, not a way to get someplace. Also, the entire hospitality infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, etc) was entirely geared around proximity to rail lines.

If a cheap, mass produced, electric car was introduced in the early 1900's and marketed as sucessfully as the Model T, I think this could change how intercity and intracity transport evolved in the USA. Most urban areas already had paved or maintained roads, and the short range of an electric car is not an issue. IC engned autos would still be built, but would more likely be bought only by the wealthy for road adventures. Eventually, paved highways would develop, but less widely used. Road networks would be more limited and perhaps less optimized for high-speed travel than modern highway. Passenger rail would last longer as the main way for low-and middle-income people to travel between cities or destinations, with electric cars-for-hire a much more common way to get around at destinations.

This is pretty much exactly what I imagine happening.

Farmers needed a way to quickly and effciently get produce to market and mechanization of labor was also inevitable. Even if electric vehicles did well commercially in the cities, IC or diesel work vehicles (tractors, trucks, etc)would come to dominate rural landscapes. Public roads would be improved to assist in this essential commerce. These people are unlikely to want electric private transport vehicles when thgey already are running with gas. Also, family farmers in the early 20th century probably had access to far more disposable income and bank loans than the average urban worker. There is this eventual market for IC-powered private cars that many posters (myself included) tended to forget

Me, too.

I don't think it invalidates the rest of what you propose. It does mean the market for *ETs among farmers will be near zero. I was presuming the total market for *ETs would be much less than *ICTs for a variety of reasons; this is probably the best one.

About half the population was rural with many living far away from towns

"Far away"? How far from any town? I'll wager it's not many outside a 70-80mi window.

not everyone in the city owned cars.

Not everyone could afford the ongoing cost of IC cars, either.

We are also talking only about 1927 and car usage went up over time

No, we're talking about 1900 or 1905.

why is road construction hand-waved away? That was going to happen sooner or later anyways as more and more drivers would want roads.

Yes, eventually. It hadn't happened yet.

If the *ET is successful (presuming some use by farmers' wives), does that create a demand for increased rural electrification? Does it increase inclination to build hydro projects? Or does it just mean mining more coal?

 

[MattII]

Actually it's between 1905 and 1910, the time at which ICs are just starting to edge out electrics, and steam is still competitive in many applications (Britain was running steam trucks up until WW2).

 

[Johnrankins]

Care to demonstrate how many were bought for use by farmers on farms? Even allowing the U.S. was more rural then than now.

Moreover, use "in the country" in no way demonstrates a need or desire to travel long distances. How many cars bought by farmers were used to drive from the farm to the city & back? Where I live, even today, there are lots of farms within 70mi of a major city, & lots more within 70mi of some town. So even with farmers (or ranchers), a 50-80mi range could be plenty.

When close to half or more of families living in the US have cars and roughly half live in the country it is certain that there were a number of cars in the country. 70 miles? Try 25. The example given was went a mere 20 MPH and the 80 miles only got you there, not back again. It takes 8 HOURS to recharge so recharging on the road is not practical. You are talking at MOST 40 and that is if you are willing to putt around at 20 MPH when you can go much faster than that in an IC car.

Furthermore, where is it said the success of an electric T makes IC cars disappear? I have said from the start there could be ICs (which you continue to ignore), and even the OTL Model T didn't make electrics disappear. How does its absence manage that?

Disappear in the sense as anything other than a small niche market. There would still be electric cars sold but only a few hundred or at most less than ten thousand or so a year.

You've just made the argument for successful electric Ts. The majority of electric car buyers were women, because they didn't need to crank-start them. (That took quite a bit of strength.)

You read it wrong, most of the buyers were MEN. I was referring to the fact I said wife instead of spouse. Very few men allowed the "little woman" to concern herself with something as macho as cars!

Yes. Batteries.

How much energy is saved in the system by not having to drill & refine oil & deliver & pump gasoline?

Batteries STORE energy they don't make it. Running a generator on batteries is a waste. You would run the generator on batteries to put the energy back into the battery. Entropy guarantees that you would merely drain the battery faster.

Cars don't drill or refine oil or deliver and pump gasoline so it is irrelevant. All the driver cares is what gasoline can do not how it gets there!

This is pretty much exactly what I imagine happening.

Why? Because you like electric cars?

Me, too.

I don't think it invalidates the rest of what you propose. It does mean the market for *ETs among farmers will be near zero. I was presuming the total market for *ETs would be much less than *ICTs for a variety of reasons; this is probably the best one

.

And since around half the population lived in the country and people can use IC in the city as well as the country....

"Far away"? How far from any town? I'll wager it's not many outside a 70-80mi window

.

I'll bet you most were more than 25.

Not everyone could afford the ongoing cost of IC cars, either.

Nor electric cars either, particularly their numerous batteries which don't last forever.

No, we're talking about 1900 or 1905.

No, we are talking about the over 100 year period after the Model T was built. Which is why I used the terms "eventually" and "after WWI" If an electric model T were built its effect would go past 1905 or even 1927.

Yes, eventually. It hadn't happened yet.

If the *ET is successful (presuming some use by farmers' wives), does that create a demand for increased rural electrification? Does it increase inclination to build hydro projects? Or does it just mean mining more coal?

ET is simply not going to be successful in the country. People will want to go more than about 25 miles away.

 

[MattII]

You keep quoting 25 miles like some sort of mantra, but it's just not true, the Detroit Electric could do on the order of 80 miles on a charge (and this was the 'reliable' range, some individual vehicles are reported exceeding 100 miles, and in one case as high as 211 miles though I wouldn't call that a typical range), and at speeds of 20 mph. That gives a 'to town and back' range of 40 miles or more.

Also, even if an EC only sells in cities, that's still a potential market of millions, and one that's only going to get bigger as more and more people move to the cities. The biggest markets are of course going to be in the Northeast (wikipedia gives an 'urban' percentage of 66.1% in 1900 and 71.8% in 1910), with sales unlikely in the South (18% and 22.5% respectively).

 

[phx1138]

70 miles? Try 25.

And your 25mi maximum has been pretty well refuted, so continuing to stick to it isn't helping your case.

The example given was went a mere 20 MPH and the 80 miles only got you there, not back again.

What? 80mi range is 80mi range if you're going 20mph or 200.

Disappear in the sense as anything other than a small niche market. There would still be electric cars sold but only a few hundred or at most less than ten thousand or so a year.

You have yet to explain why the changed production power Ford offers makes that realistic.

Very few men allowed the "little woman" to concern herself with something as macho as cars!

And you read it wrong. Most of the operators of electrics were women, precisely because they were less "macho". So it's perfectly possible a cheap electric attracts buyers of second cars for wives, or for electrics that can also be driven by wives. Quite aside the richer customers who are women...

Batteries STORE energy they don't make it. Running a generator on batteries is a waste. You would run the generator on batteries to put the energy back into the battery. Entropy guarantees that you would merely drain the battery faster.

And the power is generated once, at the powerplant. Electric to electric makes vastly more sense than gasoline.

Cars don't drill or refine oil or deliver and pump gasoline so it is irrelevant. All the driver cares is what gasoline can do not how it gets there!

And, yet again, you're ignoring what I actually wrote. It's the waste in the system of providing that "300x density" fuel, not the cars themselves. Pay attention.

Why? Because you like electric cars?

I actually don't, as I said before.

I'll bet you most were more than 25.

Since your 25mi figure isn't credible, & since your grasp of range is faulty, suggesting most were less than 70 is pointless. (Where I live, it's pretty rural, & without studying it, I'd bet most farms are within 70mi.)

Nor electric cars either, particularly their numerous batteries which don't last forever.

That is a one-time cost, not a day-to-day operating cost. How much does that add up to in, say, 5yr? Enough to pay for replacing batteries?

If an electric model T were built its effect would go past 1905 or even 1927.

Once you get past 1920, yes. How much will have changed before you ever get there?

People will want to go more than about 25 miles away.

Another mantra.

 

[Johnrankins]

And your 25mi maximum has been pretty well refuted, so continuing to stick to it isn't helping your case.

No it's not

What? 80mi range is 80mi range if you're going 20mph or 200.

Not good at physics are you? The faster you go the more energy you use. The faster the energy is used the less range you got. I am being generous in assuming a car that can go 80 miles at 20MPH can go 50 miles at 60 MPH.

You have yet to explain why the changed production power Ford offers makes that realistic

.

Because Ford wasn't such a genius that no one else could have done it. He was merely first. Sooner or later SOMEBODY is going to mass produce IC cars. Mass producing cars is not exactly nuclear physics.

So it's perfectly possible a cheap electric attracts buyers of second cars for wives, or for electrics that can also be driven by wives. Quite aside the richer customers who are women...

Only the very rich had two cars in the 20's and 30's and women were perfectly able to crank the engine. This article destroys our assumptions. The model T was built as a "farmer's car" http://www.history.com/topics/automobiles and the Federal Aid Road Act was passed in 1916 and the Federal Highway Act in 1921. There goes your "bad roads argument".

And the power is generated once, at the powerplant. Electric to electric makes vastly more sense than gasoline

.
Except that doesn't help. You are draining the battery faster so you are reducing range. You must be really bad at physics. Using the batteries directly is far more efficient than using batteries to run a generator to recharge batteries that you are using to drive the car. You are merely increasing entropy.

And, yet again, you're ignoring what I actually wrote. It's the waste in the system of providing that "300x density" fuel, not the cars themselves. Pay attention.

Except that means little to the driver. What he cares about is that he can go a couple hundred miles or so and refill in about 5 minutes instead of going 25 miles and having to recharge 8 hours. What does he care about refining and drilling except as far as how much it costs? That is the oil company's problem not his!

I actually don't, as I said before

.
Then why are you pushing something so impractical. Although from your comments it might be that you have a problem with physics.

Since your 25mi figure isn't credible, & since your grasp of range is faulty, suggesting most were less than 70 is pointless. (Where I live, it's pretty rural, & without studying it, I'd bet most farms are within 70mi.)

Again is anyone going to wait 8 HOURS to recharge? What are they going to do in all that time? Take a nap? Fuel ranges for gas cars can be counted one way as it takes about 5 minutes or so to fill it up and pay. Ranges for electric cars have to be calculated two ways as it is impractical to recharge at the other end. You drive with half your charge there and half your charge back because you sure as hell not going to wait 8 hours for your car to recharge. You aren't going to go 80 miles on a charge unless you putt around at 20 MPH.

That is a one-time cost, not a day-to-day operating cost. How much does that add up to in, say, 5yr? Enough to pay for replacing batteries?

Is electricity free? Not last time I checked. It will be somewhat cheaper than gas but hundreds of pounds of batteries is expensive!

Once you get past 1920, yes. How much will have changed before you ever get there?

If you are lucky you may be able to go 30 or 35 miles on a charge.

Another mantra .

You have a habit of ignoring important problems when they go against electrics. Power density can't be ignored , range can't be ignored, speed can't be ignored. These are fundamental qualities of transport equipment.

 

[phx1138]

No it's not

What was this, then? An illusion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Electric

http://www.detroitelectric.org/

20 mph and an 80 mile range (probably declining as the batteries faded)

You dismiss it as if 20mph was absurd. Not in 1900. Nor 1910. Nor, as repeatedly said, for cities. Nor, as suggested, for the awful tracks that passed as roads at the time.

Not good at physics are you? The faster you go the more energy you use.

No, I'm not good at paying attention to arguments from people that just ignore the inconvenient. You keep claiming it's 25mi, even when OTL examples are capable of 3x that.

Because Ford wasn't such a genius that no one else could have done it. He was merely first. Sooner or later SOMEBODY is going to mass produce IC cars.

And nobody was mass-producing electrics on the same scale. Nor was anybody mass-producing IC cars the way Ford was, despite over a decade of trying. If it's so easy, why did it take Ford? Why, even after Ford, did so many companies think they could succeed without it?

Only the very rich had two cars in the 20's and 30's

Conceded.

How long would it be before a $260 (or cheaper) electric T could change that? 20yr? 10?

women were perfectly able to crank the engine

Oh, so that's why so many electrics were preferred by women? Who didn't mind risking broken arms or dislocated shoulders?

Ignore anything inconvenient to your argument "electrics would never succeed", I guess.

Federal Aid Road Act was passed in 1916 and the Federal Highway Act in 1921.

1916 & 1921. And how long before these showed benefit? It wasn't 1922 when the roads magically became capable of allowing even IC cars to casually cruise to Florida or California. Or 1925. Or even 1930.

How long do you suppose it takes for Ford to respond to this? By 1930, Ford has the cheapest, best-selling electric in the world, & it's becoming possible to have two cars, whether you like it or not.

And the people who actually do need to cover more than 70 or 80mi will be buying IC cars anyhow. Which is what I've been saying from the very outset, & you persist in ignoring.

What he cares about is that he can go a couple hundred miles or so and refill in about 5 minutes

Which presupposes a need & desire to go "a couple hundred miles" to begin with, which remains unproven, since you have yet to mention why someone who isn't your mythical customer would ever need to. Like the mail carrier. Like the taxi company. Like the phone company.

Show me, just once, why any of these need more than 80mi range.

Show me, just once, that you've even noticed that.

My grasp of physics may not be excellent. It's better than your grasp of the blindingly obvious.

You aren't going to go 80 miles on a charge unless you putt around at 20 MPH.

Tell me, what's your local city speed limit? 50mph? I wager it's about 30. So, pray tell, how is doing 20mph going to be such a handicap? More to the point, the practical limit in 1910 was closer to 10, with no traffic lights & horse-drawn carts everywhere.

So where's the demand for screamingly fast speed?

If you are lucky you may be able to go 30 or 35 miles on a charge.

Which period cars could already exceed by double. But, I see, you're not clinging to the 25mi maximum any more. I suppose that's progress.

Power density can't be ignored , range can't be ignored, speed can't be ignored. These are fundamental qualities of transport equipment.

And none of that bears on uses that don't impinge on them. If I have no need for 100mph speed, & the Post Office in-town deliveries don't, what difference does it make? If I don't need 500mi range, what difference does it make?

Where is the benefit?

Where is the market demand?

It's for people that want it, & I've been saying from the very start, & you've been ignoring it--they are two completely separate markets.

 

[Johnrankins]

You dismiss it as if 20mph was absurd. Not in 1900. Nor 1910. Nor, as repeatedly said, for cities. Nor, as suggested, for the awful tracks that passed as roads at the time.
.

Not 1900 but 1920 or 1930. It isn't going to stay 1910 FOREVER. You might have a market before WWI and a short time afterwards. I never denied that but by 1940 at the very latest the mass EC market will be as dead as a dinosaur and probably well before that.

No, I'm not good at paying attention to arguments from people that just ignore the inconvenient. You keep claiming it's 25mi, even when OTL examples are capable of 3x that.

At putt-putt speeds. People will want to go more than 20 MPH

And nobody was mass-producing electrics on the same scale. Nor was anybody mass-producing IC cars the way Ford was, despite over a decade of trying. If it's so easy, why did it take Ford? Why, even after Ford, did so many companies think they could succeed without it?

They did follow. Chevy was outselling Ford by the late 1920s and it didn't get there overnight. He did a better job at it for a while but it wasn't magic.

Conceded.

How long would it be before a $260 (or cheaper) electric T could change that? 20yr? 10?

At which point EC are off the market.

Oh, so that's why so many electrics were preferred by women? Who didn't mind risking broken arms or dislocated shoulders?

The EC market was always almost invisible. Hand-cranking didn't last long either. That was gone sometime in the 20s I believe.

Ignore anything inconvenient to your argument "electrics would never succeed", I guess.

They may succeed short term. After 1920 or so no.

1916 & 1921. And how long before these showed benefit? It wasn't 1922 when the roads magically became capable of allowing even IC cars to casually cruise to Florida or California. Or 1925. Or even 1930.

How slow do you think they build roads? It isn't like they started in New York and LA and didn't make roads in between. I have no doubt they built one quickly from NY to Philly and another from NY to Trenton and Milwaukee to Chicago and Pittsburg to Cleveland all being built at more or less the same time. If you live in Milwaukee getting easier by car to Chicago and Cleveland is more helpful than going straight to CA. Is the only time an IC car is of any use is when you go from NYC to LA?

How long do you suppose it takes for Ford to respond to this? By 1930, Ford has the cheapest, best-selling electric in the world, & it's becoming possible to have two cars, whether you like it or not.

By which time Chevy has the cheapest IC car in the world and it is becoming possible to own two of them. While Ford is wasting its money on EC its competitors are building IC cars. Of course Ford might be making both in which case it drops the EC.

And the people who actually do need to cover more than 70 or 80mi will be buying IC cars anyhow. Which is what I've been saying from the very outset, & you persist in ignoring.

Because the ones in the city will want long distance cars too if they are available. If in one car you can go anywhere you want with only 5 min refueling stops and another you can go no more than 50 or so (assuming a long trip) without stopping and charging for 8 hours which do you think most people will choose? Do you think most people would want to be able to go more than 25 miles or so without winding up twiddling their thumbs for hours on end?

Which presupposes a need & desire to go "a couple hundred miles" to begin with, which remains unproven, since you have yet to mention why someone who isn't your mythical customer would ever need to. Like the mail carrier. Like the taxi company. Like the phone company.

Show me, just once, why any of these need more than 80mi range.

Show me, just once, that you've even noticed that.

My grasp of physics may not be excellent. It's better than your grasp of the blindingly obvious.

Because millions of people DID OTL. If you give people the option to go 200 miles they will take it. What I am saying is what people already DID OTL. I don't have to PROVE a need to go 200 miles when millions of people did in real history. You have to prove why people wouldn't do so merely because EC exist in large numbers. Once they have a reasonably cheap option to go further they will take it and again you ignore the recharge time. People are NOT going to go 80 miles and allow themselves to be stranded for 8 hours if they don't have to! You are talking at most 40 and that is if you putt around at 20 MPH.

Tell me, what's your local city speed limit? 50mph? I wager it's about 30. So, pray tell, how is doing 20mph going to be such a handicap? More to the point, the practical limit in 1910 was closer to 10, with no traffic lights & horse-drawn carts everywhere'

So where's the demand for screamingly fast speed?

In 1910 none, in 1930 on the other hand....

Which period cars could already exceed by double. But, I see, you're not clinging to the 25mi maximum any more. I suppose that's progress.

Actually I am. If you were extremely lucky maybe someone could have figured out how to go 30-35 miles for a lightweight car by spending a lot for R&D. My point is if you go the entire range in an EC you are stranded with a near dead battery and have to charge for 8 hours. If you go the entire range in an IC car you gas up for five minutes. People are not GOING TO WAIT HOURS to recharge. They are going to go at most half charge there and half charge back and recharge at night. That is why I divided it in half , what is so hard about that?

And none of that bears on uses that don't impinge on them. If I have no need for 100mph speed, & the Post Office in-town deliveries don't, what difference does it make? If I don't need 500mi range, what difference does it make?

Where is the benefit?

Because most people will want it if they can get it if they NEED it or not. There might be an emergency. They might change jobs. If speed and range is there for anything close to a reasonable price they will buy it.

It's for people that want it, & I've been saying from the very start, & you've been ignoring it--they are two completely separate markets.

The problem is they really aren't. They certainly weren't OTL and there isn't a real reason to suppose that would change just because Henry Ford decides that EC are the future. People in the city buy more or less the same cars as they do in the country.

 

[phx1138]

Not 1900 but 1920 or 1930. It isn't going to stay 1910 FOREVER. You might have a market before WWI and a short time afterwards. I never denied that but by 1940 at the very latest the mass EC market will be as dead as a dinosaur and probably well before that.

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

The problem is they really aren't.

Your problem is, they might as well be.

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 will want to go more than 20 MPH

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

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.

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

They did follow. Chevy was outselling Ford by the late 1920s and it didn't get there overnight. He did a better job at it for a while but it wasn't magic.

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.

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?

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.)

At which point EC are off the market.

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

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

So the entirety of Ford management are idiots?

Hand-cranking...was gone sometime in the 20s I believe.

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?

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

Why do I find that improbable?

They may succeed short term. After 1920 or so no.

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

In the real world?

Is the only time an IC car is of any use is when you go from NYC to LA?

Is the only time an EC of any use when you don't?

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.

By which time Chevy has the cheapest IC car in the world

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?

no more than 50 or so (assuming a long trip)

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.

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?

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

Because millions of people DID OTL.

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

People are NOT going to go 80 miles and allow themselves to be stranded for 8 hours

My point is if you go the entire range in an EC you are stranded with a near dead battery and have to charge for 8 hours.

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.

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

 

[Derek Pullem]

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

And it's practically impossiblefor Henry Ford to have built an E-T for the same cost as an IC-T as well.

You are faced with a choice between a vehicle that is restricted to towns (or at least where there is a reliable electric supply), is twice as expensive, half as fast and has half the range. E-T will have niche benefits to some users but alot of your arguments read more like a Greenpeace manifesto than a historical argument.

Cars were still a luxury item mostly bought by men and younger men at that. Speed, flexibility and immediate availability were important to this group

 

[MattII]

Speed and range don't mean much except to a farmer, and while I admit higher prices, costs will drop with mass-production. Oh, and there's still the issue of engine-knock for ICs to contend with.

 

[phx1138]

And it's practically impossible for Henry Ford to have built an E-T for the same cost as an IC-T as well.

Why, exactly? Mass produced parts are different, somehow?

twice as expensive

Twice as expensive as what? As a Pierce-Arrow? Or as a Colt Runabout?

And why were OTL electrics so expensive? Because they were built in tiny batches...?

Cars were still a luxury item mostly bought by men and younger men at that. Speed, flexibility and immediate availability were important to this group

Until Ford got into the act & started aiming them at everybody. Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Why, exactly? Mass produced parts are different, somehow?

Twice as expensive as what? As a Pierce-Arrow? Or as a Colt Runabout?

And why were OTL electrics so expensive? Because they were built in tiny batches...?

Until Ford got into the act & started aiming them at everybody. Why is that so hard to grasp?

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

Henry Ford can build cheaper cars.

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. The Model T started life as 1/3 cost of a Detroit Electric ($850 cf $2650) and fell in price to around $200 a decade or so later. I'm sure Henry Ford could have built a Model E-T for $600 with the same volumes but it would still be three times as expensive, half the range and half the speed of the Model T.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Speed and range don't mean much except to a farmer, and while I admit higher prices, costs will drop with mass-production. Oh, and there's still the issue of engine-knock for ICs to contend with.

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

 

[MattII]

No-one in 1910 (outside of maybe the Knoxville Raceway and similar, and the Bonneville Salt Flats), because the 'roads' outside of the cities are barely more than dirt tracks, cars are still too slow to get anywhere in a reasonable time, and trains are more comfortable anyway.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

No-one in 1910 (outside of maybe the Knoxville Raceway and similar, and the Bonneville Salt Flats), because the 'roads' outside of the cities are barely more than dirt tracks, cars are still too slow to get anywhere in a reasonable time, and trains are more comfortable anyway.

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

 

[Devvy]

The Model T started life as 1/3 cost of a Detroit Electric ($850 cf $2650).

First off, I don't want to get involved in a circular pointless argument. I agree that batteries are going to be more expensive. But they are only going to need replacing every 3-4 years maybe?

The "fuel" cost of electricity is surely going to be a lot cheaper thought. Current rates in OTL 2013, place electricity at about 1/4 of the cost of petrol per mile.

While petroleum itself might be cheaper to get hold off back then, the refining and distribution costs are likely to be a lot more then current OTL (due to non-existent distribution network, and low economies of scale in refining)

An IC car can go much further distances, at a greater speed.
An electric car can go shorter distances for a much cheaper price, with much more convenient refuelling (charge it overnight).

There's likely to be a market for BOTH in later years, just as there is a separate market in OTL for both diesel and petrol vehicles despite them having mutually exclusive fuel types.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

First off, I don't want to get involved in a circular pointless argument. I agree that batteries are going to be more expensive. But they are only going to need replacing every 3-4 years maybe?

The "fuel" cost of electricity is surely going to be a lot cheaper thought. Current rates in OTL 2013, place electricity at about 1/4 of the cost of petrol per mile.

While petroleum itself might be cheaper to get hold off back then, the refining and distribution costs are likely to be a lot more then current OTL (due to non-existent distribution network, and low economies of scale in refining)

Actually threre is already a refining and distribution network in place, gasoline was originally a byproduct of refining kerosene, every town in America has access to kerosene at this time and early IC cars like the OTL Model T could run on Kerosene and ethanol as well. At the time Gasoline was often dumped in rivers just to get rid of the stuff, so gasoline is effectively free, Oil companies are going to jump on this to make extra money for little extra costs

 

[Devvy]

Actually threre is already a refining and distribution network in place, gasoline was originally a byproduct of refining kerosene, every town in America has access to kerosene at this time and early IC cars like the OTL Model T could run on Kerosene and ethanol as well. At the time Gasoline was often dumped in rivers just to get rid of the stuff, so gasoline is effectively free, Oil companies are going to jump on this to make extra money for little extra costs

Was there a fuel station for every mile of road, and I wonder how much petrol cost against the price of electricity...

The convenience of never having to actively refuel your car overnight, rather then just plugging it in?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Was there a fuel station for every mile of road, and I wonder how much petrol cost against the price of electricity...

The convenience of never having to actively refuel your car overnight, rather then just plugging it in?

Not every mile of road but certainly in every town, unlike electricity at the time, got to have some place to buy kerosene for your lamps after all and if your selling kerosene why not sell gasoline too, the oil companies want to get rid of the stuff and they can piggyback off kerosene shipments

In 1900 3% of Americans had access to electricity, 16% in 1912, 20% in 1917 and 35% in 1920, or in short when introduced there are 6x as many potential customers for an IC car than an electric one

Edit: 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