[Hitstirrer]

An interesting, and thought-provoking video examining the situation if all cars going back 100 years were BEVs and someone was now trying to introduce a new car using a new-fangled propulsion system that used a new invention called an internal combustion engine. All of the benefits of that new engine are explained to try to promote all drivers conversion to ICE and dump the BEV. Would you change?

 

[freddym]

Well 100 years ago ICE cars were much better so folk soon dumped their BEVs.

Done!

 

[Hitstirrer]

Thanks for that contribution - that totally misses the point that the video is exploring.

 

[freddym]

Thanks for that contribution - that totally misses the point that the video is exploring.

Aye indeed. The entire proposition is pointless, that is exactly the point.

 

[dk6780]

[HARD HAT MODE ON]Given the move to SUVs in recent years it is clear that the majority of the public are too selfish when it comes to caring about the environment, and hence if they saw the advantages to them of things like increased range, decreased recharging times they would likely take them over current BEVs[/HARD HAT MODE OFF]

BEVs and steam ruled until the advent of the electric starter motor in 1912 and WW1 and the significant improvement in ICE that occurred then. Post WW1 there was a massive growth in ICE production due to mass manufacturing techniques reducing the costs to level significantly below what could be achieved with either BEVs or steam, and without the maintenance overheads of those types.

Strangely some things achieved by BEVs in recent years haven't transferred to ICE - for example universal refueling standards which could be automated to improve safety and reduce the unpleasantness of fuel pumps.

It is also an interesting proposition that ICE would be invented fully formed, rather than as they were originally. So rather than 100 - 200 BHP/litre outputs, 10 BHP/litre meaning either massive engines or dramatically less power. Service intervals of 3,000 miles or less, engine life of 30,000 miles or less before a major rebuild, manual gearboxes without synchromesh requiring user skill, manual adjustment of mixture strength to account for a cold engine or atmospheric conditions and of ignition timing to account for engine speed, the list goes on.

 

[Scrooge]

Oh it would be amazing, huge range, loads of working fuel stations, warm in winter, seconds to fill up, more choice of body styles and fuel cheaper than bottled water. BEVs would be killed off overnight.

Why do I have a bev again, we must stop this nonsense!

Lol!

 

[First Draft]

[HARD HAT MODE ON]Given the move to SUVs in recent years it is clear that the majority of the public are too selfish when it comes to caring about the environment, and hence if they saw the advantages to them of things like increased range, decreased recharging times they would likely take them over current BEVs[/HARD HAT MODE OFF]

No need for a hard hat, everything done to date by humanity shows that we will pick the path of least resistance.

 

[EdH]

And, with no tax on petrol.

 

[dk6780]

And additional tax on electricity when used for transport!

 

[richardglover]

I stopped the video at 3,05 because, why the gearbox (manual or automatic)?
You already have an established drive train, the internal combustion engine needs only to convert the petrol into electricity to keep the battery at a sufficient capacity to allow for the fluctuations on the power demand of the electric motor. Therefore no need to develop a gearbox.
This is something I bang on about here on speakev, the first step in the transition to us all driving electric is accepting that an electric motor will be the only thing turning the wheels. What fills the battery be it a plug, a hydrogen fuel cell, ice generator or whatever is the second step.

 

[mad_rich]

You can't fill up with this 'petrol' stuff at home, so commuters will have to make special trips once a week to refuel. And have you seen the price they charge?! £3 per kWh equivalent! Suddenly that cheap purchase price doesn't seem so cheap any more.

You're sitting on a tank of volatile liquid, with thousands of explosions going on right in front of your nose.

75% of what you put in the tank is wasted.

And what about the noise these things make? It will deafen children and frighten horses!

What if everyone gets one overnight? We don't have the infrastructure. There will be queues at these 'filling stations' and it will take you hours to do your '5 minute' refuel. You can't even go off and get a coffee, as you have to babysit the car while it refuels.

What if one leaks? Petrol everywhere and streets bursting into flames!

I can see impressive benefits in range, but that's it. Is it really worth all these downsides?

 

[dk6780]

£3 per kWh equivalent!

What ICE are you driving? Even my 1925 Renault NN gives 20p/KWh equivalent - from what I gather an e-Tron has to be on Agile's best daily rate to achieve that 95 years later. Mind you its' 1930 supercar equivalent is closer to 40p/KWh - about the same as a Rapid.

 

[TomH]

And, of course, the ICE would actually be much more expensive than the BEVs due to it's mechanical complexity and low volume production.

 

[dk6780]

And you'd be plagued by questions like how far does it go before the petrol runs out? Or "What happens when the engine gives up after three years?"

 

[mad_rich]

What ICE are you driving?

To be honest, I plucked it out of thin air but with a bit of creative maths, taking absurd, extreme examples, I've managed to get north of £2.50!

I once had a Saab 9-3 that got ~20mpg. I once paid €1.80/ litre on an Italian motorway. And once upon a time, €1 was £1.05 if you changed your cash at the wrong place.

You could make a case that that adds up to 43p / mile.

Then you pick a nice, efficient EV and imagine that it could get 6 mpkWh if driven like a monk.

6 miles - 1kWh - in the Saab would then cost £2.58.

All bull, I know, but it's the sort of maths people do when they want to kill of an idea!

 

[Gt6k]

I don't understand the maths in the earlier posts.

20mpg equates to roughly 40p per mile, 30mpg, about 30p per mile and 60mpg about 13 p per mile which I can calculate and also happen to have a car in each class. My Tesla Model 3, doing the same commute is using about 250Wh per mile. Since I can't get a meter fitted during lockdown I am paying full price for electricity which is 16p per kWh or 4p per mile. That's one fifth of the cost of my most efficient ICE car (Citigo 1.0 green tech)

 

[Neilew]

Yeah, my MG is fuelled with either 5p/kW or free. I haven't thought about the cost of a journey since owning an EV. It just makes it that more fun and relaxing to drive.

There'd have to be something terrible happen to get me to own another ICE. It's bad enough having one for a courtesy car.

 

[WithEthyl]

The crucial issue is the network effects of which technology the bulk of people use - the better technology is determined not just by the features of the technology, but by what everyone else is using and what support infrastructure and services exists to support it.

If we were all using EVs already then that would imply a huge range of models, lots of second hand vehicles at affordable prices, garages which could maintain them easily, EV charging everywhere you need it, so away goes any range anxiety. There would be huge hurdles and limited benefits for a car manufacturer or driver switching to ICE because the benefits are limited and outweighed by the additional difficulties and costs.

Remarkably similar to the situation which EVs find themselves in today, the technology is reasonable but it lacks the network effects to support its uptake.

 

[richardglover]

The crucial issue is the network effects of which technology the bulk of people use - the better technology is determined not just by the features of the technology, but by what everyone else is using and what support infrastructure and services exists to support it.

If we were all using EVs already then that would imply a huge range of models, lots of second hand vehicles at affordable prices, garages which could maintain them easily, EV charging everywhere you need it, so away goes any range anxiety. There would be huge hurdles and limited benefits for a car manufacturer or driver switching to ICE because the benefits are limited and outweighed by the additional difficulties and costs.

Remarkably similar to the situation which EVs find themselves in today, the technology is reasonable but it lacks the network effects to support its uptake.

Yes and no to your main point.
If BEVs had progressed in the early days of horseless carriages such that all those associated services were in place and then someone said "if we used one of those newfangled petrol burning devices as an onboard generator, we could go to the South Pole or anywhere that had no grid". So the internal combustion engine could have found a place simply as an add on extra.
However the situation we find now is largely because the auto industry had hoped to be in control of any changes coming their way but they failed to appreciate the advantages of driving electric and completely under estimated Tesla.
What should have happened is an evolution from pure ice to parallel hybrid to series hybrid to bev and all the services would have come into being to match customers need as the evolution moved forward.
Doing things in the right order is so much easier.

 

[Neilew]

the better technology is determined not just by the features of the technology, but by what everyone else is using and what support infrastructure and services exists to support it.

Not necessarily. Betamax and VHS2000 were far better systems for picture quality, but VHS had more push behind it and so drowned out the competition. Popularity doesn't always lead to the best. It just shows who shouts the loudest or sometimes is the cheapest.