The lost history of the electric car – and what it tells us about the future of transport

TruckElectric

Well-known member
First Name
Bryan
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
2,404
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Dodge Ram diesel
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
To every age dogged with pollution, accidents and congestion, the transport solution for the next generation seems obvious – but the same problems keep coming back

by Tom Standage



In the 1890s, the biggest cities of the western world faced a mounting problem. Horse-drawn vehicles had been in use for thousands of years, and it was hard to imagine life without them. But as the number of such vehicles increased during the 19th century, the drawbacks of using horses in densely populated cities were becoming ever more apparent.

In particular, the accumulation of horse manure on the streets, and the associated stench, were impossible to miss. By the 1890s, about 300,000 horses were working on the streets of London, and more than 150,000 in New York City. Each of these horses produced an average of 10kg of manure a day, plus about a litre of urine. Collecting and removing thousands of tonnes of waste from stables and streets proved increasingly difficult.

The problem had been building up for decades. A newspaper editor in New York City said in 1857 that “with the exception of a very few thoroughfares, all the streets are one mass of reeking, disgusting filth, which in some places is piled to such a height as to render them almost impassable to vehicles”. As well as filling the air with a terrible stench, the abundance of horse manure turned streets into muddy cesspools whenever it rained. An eyewitness account from London in the 1890s describes the “mud” (the accepted euphemism among prudish Victorians) that often flooded the Strand, one of the city’s main thoroughfares, as having the consistency of thick pea soup. Passing vehicles “would fling sheets of such soup – where not intercepted by trousers or skirts – completely across the pavement”, spattering and staining nearby houses and shop fronts. Manure collected from the streets was piled up at dumps dotted around major towns and cities. Huge piles of manure also built up next to stables and provided an attractive environment for flies.

All of this was bad for public health. The board of health’s statisticians in New York City found higher levels of infectious disease “in dwellings and schools within 50 feet of stables than in remoter locations”, the New York Times reported in 1894. According to one turn-of-the-century calculation, 20,000 New Yorkers died annually from “maladies that fly in the dust”, clear evidence of the dangers posed to health by reliance on horses. To make matters worse, horses were frequently overworked, and when they dropped dead, their bodies were often left rotting on the streets for several days before being dismembered and removed, posing a further health risk. By the 1880s, 15,000 dead horses were being removed from the streets of New York City each year.


Paradoxically, the advent of the steam locomotive and the construction of intercity railway links, starting in the 1830s, had helped make the problem worse. Faster and more efficient transport between cities increased the demand for rapid transport of people and goods within them, which required a greater number of horse-drawn vehicles. “Our dependence on the horse has grown almost pari passu [step for step] with our dependence on steam,” noted one observer in 1872. The result was more horses, more manure – and steadily worsening congestion. One observer in 1870 wrote that Broadway in Manhattan was “almost impassable” at some times of the day. And when the traffic did move, it was deafening, as metal horseshoes and iron-rimmed wheels clattered over uneven surfaces. Straw was sometimes strewn on roads outside hospitals, and some private houses, to reduce the din.

Pollution, congestion and noise were merely the most obvious manifestations of a deeper dependency. An outbreak of equine influenza in North America in October 1872 incapacitated all horses and mules for several weeks, providing a stark reminder of society’s reliance on animal power. The New York Times noted “the disappearance of trucks, drays, express-wagons and general vehicles” from the streets. “The present epidemic has brought us face to face with the startling fact that the sudden loss of horse labor would totally disorganize our industry and commerce,” noted the Nation. Horses and stables, the newspaper observed, “are wheels in our great social machine, the stoppage of which means injury to all classes and conditions of persons, injury to commerce, to agriculture, to trade, to social life”.

Yet societies on both sides of the Atlantic continued to become steadily more dependent on horses. Between 1870 and 1900, the number of horses in American cities grew fourfold, while the human population merely doubled. By the turn of the century there was one horse for every 10 people in Britain, and one for every four in the US. Providing hay and oats for horses required vast areas of farmland, reducing the space available to grow food for people. Feeding the US’s 20 million horses required one-third of its total crop area, while Britain’s 3.5 million horses had long been reliant on imported fodder.

Horses had become both indispensable and unsustainable. To advocates of a newly emerging technology, the solution seemed obvious: get rid of horses and replace them with self-propelling motor vehicles, known at the time as horseless carriages. Today, we call them cars.

In recent years this transition has been cited as evidence of the power of innovation, and an example of how simple technological fixes to seemingly intractable problems will show up just when they are needed – so there is no need to worry about climate change, for instance. Yet it should instead be seen as a cautionary tale in the other direction: that what looks like a quick fix today may well end up having far-reaching and unintended consequences tomorrow. The switch from horses to cars was not the neat and timely technological solution that it might seem, because cars changed the world in all kinds of unanticipated ways – from the geography of cities to the geopolitics of oil – and created many problems of their own.

uch of the early enthusiasm for the automobile stemmed from its promise to solve the problems associated with horse-drawn vehicles, including noise, traffic congestion and accidents. That cars failed on each of these counts was tolerated because they offered so many other benefits, including eliminating the pollution – most notably, horse manure – that had dogged urban thoroughfares for centuries.

But in doing away with one set of environmental problems, cars introduced a whole set of new ones. The pollutants they emit are harder to see than horse manure, but are no less problematic. These include particulate matter, such as the soot in vehicle exhaust, which can penetrate deep into the lungs; volatile organic compounds that irritate the respiratory system and have been linked to several kinds of cancer; nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide; and greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that contribute to climate change. Cars, trucks and buses collectively produce around 17% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Reliance on fossil fuels such as petrol and diesel has also had far-reaching geopolitical ramifications, as much of the world became dependent on oil from the Middle East during the 20th century.

2996.jpg

Horse-drawn and motorised traffic in London in the 1930s. Photograph: Pictorial Press Ltd/Alamy


None of this could have been foreseen at the dawn of the automobile age. Or could it? Some people did raise concerns about the sustainability of powering cars using non-renewable fossil fuels, and the reliability of access to such fuels. Today, electric cars, charged using renewable energy, are seen as the logical way to address these concerns. But the debate about the merits of electric cars turns out to be as old as the automobile itself.

In 1897, the bestselling car in the US was an electric vehicle: the Pope Manufacturing Company’s Columbia Motor Carriage. Electric models were outselling steam- and petrol-powered ones. By 1900, sales of steam vehicles had taken a narrow lead: that year, 1,681 steam vehicles, 1,575 electric vehicles and 936 petrol-powered vehicles were sold. Only with the launch of the Olds Motor Works’ Curved Dash Oldsmobile in 1903 did petrol-powered vehicles take the lead for the first time.

Perhaps the most remarkable example, to modern eyes, of how things might have worked out differently for electric vehicles is the story of the Electrobat, an electric taxicab that briefly flourished in the late 1890s. The Electrobat had been created in Philadelphia in 1894 by Pedro Salom and Henry Morris, two scientist-inventors who were enthusiastic proponents of electric vehicles. In a speech in 1895, Salom derided “the marvelously complicated driving gear of a gasoline vehicle, with its innumerable chains, belts, pulleys, pipes, valves and stopcocks … Is it not reasonable to suppose, with so many things to get out of order, that one or another of them will always be out of order?”

The two men steadily refined their initial design, eventually producing a carriage-like vehicle that could be controlled by a driver on a high seat at the back, with a wider seat for passengers in the front. In 1897 Morris and Salom launched a taxi service in Manhattan with a dozen vehicles, serving 1,000 passengers in their first month of operation. But the cabs had limited range and their batteries took hours to recharge. So Morris and Salom merged with another firm, the Electric Battery Company. Its engineers had devised a clever battery-swapping system, based at a depot at 1684 Broadway, that could replace an empty battery with a fully charged one in seconds, allowing the Electrobats to operate all day.

In 1899 this promising business attracted the attention of William Whitney, a New York politician and financier, who had made a fortune investing in electric streetcars, or trams. He dreamed of establishing a monopoly on urban transport, and imagined fleets of electric cabs operating in major cities around the world, providing a cleaner, quieter alternative to horse-drawn vehicles. Instead of buying cars, which were still far beyond the means of most people, city dwellers would use electric taxis and streetcars to get around. But realising this vision would mean building Electrobats on a much larger scale. So Whitney and his friends teamed up with Pope, maker of the bestselling Columbia electric vehicle. They formed a new venture called the Electric Vehicle Company, and embarked on an ambitious expansion plan. EVC raised capital to build thousands of electric cabs and opened offices in Boston, Chicago, New Jersey and Newport. In 1899 it was briefly the largest automobile manufacturer in the US.


But its taxi operations outside New York were badly run and failed to make money. Repeated reorganisations and recapitalisations prompted accusations that EVC was an elaborate financial swindle. The industry journal the Horseless Age, a strong advocate of petrol-powered vehicles, attacked the firm as a would-be monopolist and said electric vehicles were doomed to fail. When news emerged that EVC had obtained a loan fraudulently, its share price plunged from $30 to $0.75, forcing the firm to start closing its regional offices. The Horseless Age savoured its collapse and cheered its failure to “force” electric vehicles on a “credulous world”.

In the years that followed, as more people bought private cars, electric vehicles took on a new connotation: they were women’s cars. This association arose because they were suitable for short, local trips, did not require hand cranking to start or gear shifting to operate, and were extremely reliable by virtue of their simple design. As an advertisement for Babcock Electric vehicles put it in 1910, “She who drives a Babcock Electric has nothing to fear”. The implication was that women, unable to cope with the complexities of driving and maintaining petrol vehicles, should buy electric vehicles instead. Men, by contrast, were assumed to be more capable mechanics, for whom greater complexity and lower reliability were prices worth paying for powerful, manly petrol vehicles with superior performance and range.

Two manufacturers, Detroit Electric and Waverley Electric, launched models in 1912 that were said to have been completely redesigned to cater to women. As well as being electric, they were operated from the back seat, with a rear-facing front seat, to allow the driver to face her passengers – but also making it difficult to see the road. For steering they provided an old-fashioned tiller, rather than a wheel, which was meant to be less strenuous but was less precise and more dangerous.
3240.jpg

A Detroit Electric automobile charging in 1919. Photograph: Granger Historical Picture Archive/Alamy
Advertisement

Henry Ford bought his wife, Clara, a Detroit Electric rather than one of his own Model Ts. Some men may have liked that electric cars’ limited range meant that the independence granted to their drivers was tightly constrained.
By focusing on women, who were a small minority of drivers – accounting for 15% of drivers in Los Angeles in 1914, for example, and 5% in Tucson – makers of electric cars were tacitly conceding their inability to compete with petrol-powered cars in the wider market.

That year, Henry Ford confirmed rumours that he was developing a low-cost electric car in conjunction with Thomas Edison. “The problem so far has been to build a storage battery of light weight which would operate for long distances without recharging,” he told the New York Times, putting his finger on the electric car’s primary weakness. But the car was repeatedly delayed, as Edison tried and failed to develop an alternative to the heavy, bulky lead-acid batteries used to power electric cars. Eventually, the entire project was quietly abandoned.

The failure of electric vehicles in the early 20th century, and the emergence of the internal combustion engine as the dominant form of propulsion, had a lot to do with liquid fuel providing far more energy per unit mass than a lead-acid battery can. But the explanation is not purely technical. It also has a psychological component. Buyers of private cars, then as now, did not want to feel limited by the range of an electric vehicle’s battery, and the uncertainty of being able to recharge it.

In the words of the historian Gijs Mom, private cars in this period were primarily seen as “adventure machines” that granted freedom to their owners – and an electric vehicle granted less freedom than the petrol-powered alternative. “To possess a car is to become possessed of a desire to go far afield,” wrote one city-dwelling car enthusiast in 1903. Sales of electric cars peaked in the early 1910s. As internal combustion engines became more reliable, they left electric vehicles in the dust.

But as car ownership expanded dramatically during the 20th century, relying on oil turned out to have other costs. By the 1960s, American cars were, on average, three-quarters of a tonne heavier than those made in Europe and Japan, and their V8 engines had more than twice the engine capacity of the four-cylinder engines most prevalent elsewhere. As a result, they used a lot more fuel. An increasing proportion of that fuel came from imported oil. Imports, mostly from the Middle East, accounted for 27% of the US’s supply by 1973. In December that year the Middle Eastern members of Opec (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) cut off oil exports to the US in protest at its support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war. The price of oil surged, and the sudden reduction in supply resulted in higher petrol prices, the introduction of rationing, and long queues at gas stations. For the first time, American drivers realised they could not take the supply of petrol for granted. The oil shock led the government to introduce a national speed limit of 55mph, and fuel-economy standards that required US manufacturers to achieve an average fuel economy, across their entire product lines, of 18 miles per gallon by 1978, and 27.5 by 1985.


But American carmakers did little to change their products. By the late 70s, 80% of American-made cars still had V8 engines. In 1979, in a second oil shock, oil supplies from the Middle East were once again disrupted, this time as a result of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the outbreak the following year of the Iran-Iraq war. The actual production of oil barely fell, but prices soared and panic buying ensued. This second oil shock stimulated the demand for smaller cars.

Electric cars might have been expected to benefit from the concerns over the sustainability of gas-guzzlers. But electric-car technology had made little progress since the 1920s. The biggest problem remained the battery: lead-acid batteries were still heavy and bulky and could not store much energy per unit of weight. The most famous electric vehicles of the 1970s, the four-wheeled lunar rovers driven by American astronauts on the moon, were powered by non-rechargeable batteries because they only had to operate for a few hours.

On Earth, attempts to revive electric cars as commercial products failed to get off the ground – until the emergence in the 90s of the rechargeable lithium ion battery. By 2003, Alan Cocconi and Tom Gage, two electric-car enthusiasts, had built an electric roadster called the tzero, powered by 6,800 camcorder batteries, capable of 0-60mph in less than four seconds and with a range of 250 miles. Tesla was founded to commercialise that technology.


Lithium-ion batteries have made the switch to electric cars possible, but because of tightening regulation of combustion-powered vehicles in order to address climate change, that switch now seems inevitable.
The automobile, having been introduced in part to address one pollution problem, has contributed to another one: carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

To what extent will electrifying road vehicles help address the climate crisis? Globally, transport (including land, sea and air) accounts for 24% of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Emissions from road vehicles are responsible for 17% of the global total. Of those emissions, about one-third are produced by heavy-duty, mostly diesel-powered vehicles (such as trucks and buses), and two-thirds by light-duty, mostly petrol-powered vehicles (such as cars and vans).
Switching to electric cars would thus make a big dent in global emissions, though the challenges of switching large trucks, ships and planes away from fossil fuels would remain. But it would not address other problems associated with cars, such as traffic congestion, road deaths or the inherent inefficiency of using a one-tonne vehicle to move one person to the shops. And just as the rise of the automobile led to worries about the sustainability and geopolitical consequences of relying on oil, the electric car raises similar concerns. The supply of lithium and cobalt needed to make batteries, and of the “rare earth” elements need to make electric motors, are already raising environmental and geopolitical questions.

Lithium is quite abundant, but cobalt is not, and the main source of it is the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where around a quarter of production is done by hand, using shovels and torches. Conditions for miners are grim, and the industry is dogged by allegations of corruption and use of child labour. Once mined, cobalt is mostly refined in China, which also has the lion’s share of global lithium ion battery production capacity, and dominates production of rare-earth elements, too.

Geopolitical tensions have already led to disputes between China and western countries over the supply of computer chips and related manufacturing tools. So it is not hard to imagine similar disagreements breaking out over the minerals and parts needed to build electric vehicles. (This explains why Tesla has struck a deal with Glencore, a mining giant, to guarantee its supply of cobalt, and also operates its own battery factories, inside and outside China. It also explains why some companies are looking to deep-sea mining as an alternative source of cobalt.)

Moreover, history suggests it would be naive to assume that switching from one form of propulsion to another would mean things would otherwise continue as they were; that is not what happened when cars replaced horse-drawn vehicles. Some people say it’s time to rethink not just the propulsion technology that powers cars, but the whole idea of car ownership.

he future of urban transport will not be based on a single technology, but on a diverse mixture of transport systems, knitted together by smartphone technology. Collectively, ride-hailing, micromobility and on-demand car rental offer new approaches to transport that provide the convenience of a private car without the need to own one, for a growing fraction of journeys. Horace Dediu, a technology analyst, calls this “unbundling the car”, as cheaper, quicker, cleaner and more convenient alternatives slowly chip away at the rationale for mass car ownership.

Its ability to connect up these different forms of transport, to form an “internet of motion”, means that the smartphone, rather than any particular means of transport, is the true heir to the car. The internet of motion provides a way to escape from the car-based transport monoculture that exists in many cities. That should be welcomed, because the experience of the 20th century suggests that it would be a mistake to replace one transport monoculture with another, as happened with the switch from horses to cars. A transport monoculture is less flexible, and its unintended consequences become more easily locked in and more difficult to address.

As combustion engines are phased out, and cars, trains and other forms of ground transport go electric, direct emissions should not be a problem. (Electric transport will only be truly emission-free when it is powered by renewable power from a zero-carbon grid.) But transport systems will produce another form of potentially problematic output: data. In particular, they will produce reams of data about who went where, and when, and how, and with whom. They already do.

5568.jpg

Discards from various bike-sharing services in Wuhan, China, in 2018.Photograph: VCG/VCG via Getty Images


In an infamous (and since deleted) blog post from 2012, entitled Rides of Glory, Uber analysed its riders’ behaviour to identify the cities and dates with the highest prevalence of one-night stands, for example. The post caused a furore, and was seen as symptomatic of the unrestrained “tech bro” culture that prevailed at Uber at the time. But it highlights a broader point. Shared bikes and e-scooters also track who went where, and when, for billing purposes.

The companies that operate mobility services are keen to keep this data to themselves: it helps them predict future demand, can be useful when preparing to launch new services, and can also be used to profile riders and target advertising. Cities want to track the position and usage of shared bicycles and e-scooters so they can adjust the provision of bike lanes, compare levels of usage in low-income and high-income neighbourhoods, check that vehicles are not being used in places where they should not be, and so forth. For this reason, dozens of cities around the world have adopted a system called the Mobility Data Specification (MDS). At present, MDS only covers bicycles and e-scooters, though it could be expanded to cover ride-hailing, car-sharing and autonomous taxi services in the future.

But mobility-service providers and privacy groups are concerned that MDS lets cities track individuals, and could, for example, allow the police to identify people who attend a demonstration or visit a particular location. They also worry that the foundation that oversees MDS will not store the data securely. It is not difficult to imagine the sort of things that an authoritarian regime might do with such data.

All of this suggests that personal-mobility data is likely to become a flashpoint in the future. This may seem like an esoteric concern, but the same could have been said of worries about carbon dioxide emissions, which are just as invisible, at the dawn of the automotive era. And unlike the people of that time, those building and using new mobility services today have the chance to address such concerns before it is too late.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/03/lost-history-electric-car-future-transport
Advertisement

 
Last edited:

Luke42

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
655
Reaction score
1,142
Location
Illinois, USA
Vehicles
GMC Sierra Hybrid (2-Mode)
Country flag
These kind of electric cars never really went away.

You can buy one today with the same capabilities now from Club Car, Yamaha, or GEM.

We just call them golf carts now.

A new golf car costs like $9000 and can haul people, groceries, and other basics just fine.

These vehicles are really good at what they do.

The reasons we can't use them as city cars are legal reasons. My small-city is about 5-miles on a side, which puts most intra-city errands and commutes within the capabilities of a golf cart. Our residents could commute within the city with low-cost low-environmental-impact vehicles like these with the stroke of a pen.

The problem with that stroke-of-the-pen would involve lowering the speed limits within city limits, which would be opposed by a lot of commuters.

So, we're all driving around in more expensive highway-worthy cars instead, regardless of what we need that day.

It's kind-of a waste when you look at it that way. But, honestly, it's easier to spend $70k on a Tesla than to convince people to change -- even here.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
6,005
Reaction score
7,915
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Hopefully more cities will create paths for bicycles and these city-level autocycles (the technical name for golf-cart like vehicles).

If you think about it, it's no big deal for a highway capable car to take the long route around a neighborhood- but if you're walking, even taking the long route across the street is a huge difference in energy and time consumed.

-Crissa
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Messages
1,847
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
Hopefully more cities will create paths for bicycles and these city-level autocycles (the technical name for golf-cart like vehicles).

If you think about it, it's no big deal for a highway capable car to take the long route around a neighborhood- but if you're walking, even taking the long route across the street is a huge difference in energy and time consumed.

-Crissa
Lots of cities in Europe are making increasingly bigger areas where car traffic is greatly reduced.

Cities used to be pedestrian friendly and much.. nicer. They turned a block downtown into a walking / cycling/ skateboarding only district and it’s super nice. Outdoor eating is genuinely pleasant when you don’t have road noise 10 feet away.

As much as I want my Cybertruck, I also want a city where it’s welcome in fewer places. Big, heavy vehicles are not compatible with people. We need more places where the people come first.
 

Diehard

Well-known member
First Name
D
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
1,134
Reaction score
2,073
Location
U.S.A.
Vehicles
Olds Aurora V8, Saturn Sky redline, Frontier, CT2
Country flag
Lots of cities in Europe are making increasingly bigger areas where car traffic is greatly reduced.

Cities used to be pedestrian friendly and much.. nicer. They turned a block downtown into a walking / cycling/ skateboarding only district and it’s super nice. Outdoor eating is genuinely pleasant when you don’t have road noise 10 feet away.

As much as I want my Cybertruck, I also want a city where it’s welcome in fewer places. Big, heavy vehicles are not compatible with people. We need more places where the people come first.
I remember for 10 days I commuted only with bicycle and my feet in Ravenna Italy. You experience your surrounding differently at lower speed. Connect with your environment a bit more when you are not isolated by a moving metal box. Granted walking by a heavenly gelato shop or a mom and pop pizzeria everyday adds to the experience but I know people crave for that kind of experience in U.S. I have seen city planners take a stab at it with mixed results. When it doesn’t work it is usually because there is not a good enough public transportation and accommodating cars too much ruins the experience. But it Gives me hope when it does work.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,168
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
So, we're all driving around in more expensive highway-worthy cars instead, regardless of what we need that day.

It's kind-of a waste when you look at it that way. But, honestly, it's easier to spend $70k on a Tesla than to convince people to change -- even here.
Why would you spend $70K on a Tesla when the desire is simply for a highway capable EV?

The Tesla Model 3 (Standard Range Plus) is only $39K. Oh, and it has a range of 263 miles, a top speed of 140 mph and does 0-60 in only 5.3 seconds!
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,168
Location
Washington State
Vehicles
2010 Ford F-150, 2018 Tesla Model 3 Performance
Country flag
That's not what he said. He said we have highway capable vehicles when we don't need them.

-Crissa
Maybe I could have worded it a ittle better but @Luke42 commented that it's easier to spend $70K on a highway capable vehicle than it is to convince people to change (what is required to drive around a city). I would say it's easier to spend $40K than it is to bring about those changes.

ie, $70K is not the threshold to get around the problem, $40K (or less) is. But let's not debate such things.
 

firsttruck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
967
Location
mx
Vehicles
none
Country flag
These kind of electric cars never really went away.

You can buy one today with the same capabilities now from Club Car, Yamaha, or GEM.

We just call them golf carts now.

A new golf car costs like $9000 and can haul people, groceries, and other basics just fine.

These vehicles are really good at what they do.

The reasons we can't use them as city cars are legal reasons. My small-city is about 5-miles on a side, which puts most intra-city errands and commutes within the capabilities of a golf cart. Our residents could commute within the city with low-cost low-environmental-impact vehicles like these with the stroke of a pen.

The problem with that stroke-of-the-pen would involve lowering the speed limits within city limits, which would be opposed by a lot of commuters.

So, we're all driving around in more expensive highway-worthy cars instead, regardless of what we need that day.

It's kind-of a waste when you look at it that way. But, honestly, it's easier to spend $70k on a Tesla than to convince people to change -- even here.




Maybe I could have worded it a ittle better but @Luke42 commented that it's easier to spend $70K on a highway capable vehicle than it is to convince people to change (what is required to drive around a city). I would say it's easier to spend $40K than it is to bring about those changes.

ie, $70K is not the threshold to get around the problem, $40K (or less) is. But let's not debate such things.

Highway capable cars are not $70K. Can get them for $30-$35k before incentives and usually $25K - $30K after.

super golf cart type that would be legal on city streets would be much less than $17K before incentives.

The biggest problem is not government regulation. The biggest reason they are not available is legacy car companies want to make them because they want more profit. Larger more expensive cars are much more profitable.
The legacy car companies never ramp up production of small BEVs so they never get economy of scale.
The Chinese car companies will soon be filling that vacuum.

If manufactured at scale a completely enclosed large golf cart sized type car that would be legal on city streets with safety features could be priced at $12K-$15K before U.S. federal incentive ($10K-$14K after incentive).


------------------

Highway capable
Mini Cooper EV $31,000 (before federal & state incentives)
Nissan Leaf $34,000 (before federal & state incentives)
Chevy Bolt $32,000 (before federal & state incentives)

City cars
Freze Nikro (Wuling brand made in China) includes A/C 10,000 Euro in Europe (US $12,000)
Stellantis/Citroen's pint-sized Ami $15,000 (before federal & state incentives)


------------------

Driving Citroen's pint-sized Ami EV is as fun as it looks
Available to drivers as young as 14 years old, it was built for jaunts around the city.
by Steve Dent
June 16th, 2021
https://www.engadget.com/hands-on-citroen-ami-ev-133032057.html

Stellantis/Citroën’s Tiny EV Is Coming to the US
The Ami is coming as part of a new subscription service.
By Wes Raynal
May 6, 2021
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36351549/citroen-ev-coming/

------------------

China's most popular EV goes on sale in Europe!
Freze Nikro (Wuling) includes A/C 10,000 Euro in Europe $12,000
Aug 17, 2021
The Electric Viking

------------------
 

Luke42

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
655
Reaction score
1,142
Location
Illinois, USA
Vehicles
GMC Sierra Hybrid (2-Mode)
Country flag
Highway capable cars are not $70K. Can get them for $30-$35k before incentives and usually $25K - $30K after.

super golf cart type that would be legal on city streets would be much less than $17K before incentives.

The biggest problem is not government regulation. The biggest reason they are not available is legacy car companies want to make them because they want more profit. Larger more expensive cars are much more profitable.
The legacy car companies never ramp up production of small BEVs so they never get economy of scale.
The Chinese car companies will soon be filling that vacuum.

If manufactured at scale a completely enclosed large golf cart sized type car that would be legal on city streets with safety features could be priced at $12K-$15K before U.S. federal incentive ($10K-$14K after incentive).


------------------

Highway capable
Mini Cooper EV $31,000 (before federal & state incentives)
Nissan Leaf $34,000 (before federal & state incentives)
Chevy Bolt $32,000 (before federal & state incentives)

City cars
Freze Nikro (Wuling brand made in China) includes A/C 10,000 Euro in Europe (US $12,000)
Stellantis/Citroen's pint-sized Ami $15,000 (before federal & state incentives)


------------------

Driving Citroen's pint-sized Ami EV is as fun as it looks
Available to drivers as young as 14 years old, it was built for jaunts around the city.
by Steve Dent
June 16th, 2021
https://www.engadget.com/hands-on-citroen-ami-ev-133032057.html

Stellantis/Citroën’s Tiny EV Is Coming to the US
The Ami is coming as part of a new subscription service.
By Wes Raynal
May 6, 2021
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36351549/citroen-ev-coming/

------------------

China's most popular EV goes on sale in Europe!
Freze Nikro (Wuling) includes A/C 10,000 Euro in Europe $12,000
Aug 17, 2021
The Electric Viking

------------------
I mistakenly put down the price of the highway-capable future-proof EV I want. I'm not willing to pay more than about $20k (new or used) for a highway-capable ICE vehicle, and highway-capable EVs are about $40k+ (new).

There was a movement for "neighborhood electric vehicles" a few years ago, which is basically the "super golf cart" that you mention.

Many of them have been made, but they are primarily used in "off road" applications. Their legality varies by state, by city (in my state), and by road (based on the speed limit in my city/state). But the rules vary throughout the United States.

Writeup of the issues/history:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle

They list several communities where the rules allow these things as daily transportation.

These vehicles are a really good value,l in terms of utility, dollars, and environmentally. They're also easy to fix and modify. But we, as a society, have decided to forgo most of the utility these vehicles provide -- in favor of higher speed vehicles.

A few small changes to the rules (dropping speed limits on certain roads in my town) would greatly improve an NEV's appeal and utility, while saving everyone lots of money and environmental impact. I live in a super-liberal college town, so you'd think the people in my town would be up for this kind of change, but nobody got anywhere with this -- even during peak concerns over peak oil prior to 2010.

It's easier to buy a Tesla than it is to convince the townspeople that dropping the speed limit to 25mph/35mph within city limits is a good idea.

The rules could change with the stroke of a pen. The attitudes of The People, though, will not change until most people think this is a good idea -- end the attitudes of The People will ultimately determine driving an NEV on city streets becomes an everyday thing. I'm just going to buy a Tesla instead of fight this fight, even though I believe changing the rules would be better outcome for the community.

As long as WFH continues, an NEV + a CT3 would cover my family's transportation needs, without any life-style compromise whatsoever. But only if the speed limit on the road to my kid's preschool were dropped by 10mph, and that's not going to happen any time soon. So, it's two highwayworthy vehicles for us, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
6,005
Reaction score
7,915
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
The NEV and moped (sorry for the US lingo) should have a place on our roads. They're much better suited than the weird enclosed-wheelchair pedestrian mower that seems to be propagating in some areas now.

But for BEVs, there also seems to be another split, where the vehicle is highway capable - but not long range. See also the Nissan Leaf, most e-motorcycles. They're capable of the speed and safety of their long-range siblings but are short the $10k-20k extra batteries and high level DC fast charging.

Of course, some will fall into the long-range 'you could do it, but would you want to' range, like the Bolt or the Lightning.

But NEVs are really built for streets and if we could get away from Stroads connecting our neighborhoods (high speed high access suburban roads) they'd be much safer, filling that need when a bike or pedestrian access is out of our reach or comfort.

-Crissa
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top