Al Thompson wrote to Bj”rn Felten <=-

The people I know who own and drive EV cars say that a 15 minute charge from near empty to full is a pipe dream.

If you're going to use the car just to drive a few miles to the grocery and back, an EV car may make sense. But any serious use is still not realistic.

Funny. That's the same thing that they said about electric cars back in the 1800's.


... I have a dirty mind, I mud wrestle with my conscience.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

On 18 Mar 2022, Ron L. said the following...

If you're going to use the car just to drive a few miles to the groce and back, an EV car may make sense. But any serious use is still not realistic.

Funny. That's the same thing that they said about electric cars back in the 1800's.

That was true also of horses. In the 1800s, any serious long-distance travel that didn't involve a wagon caravan was done by train.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 18 Mar 2022, Jeff Thiele said the following...

Funny. That's the same thing that they said about electric cars back the 1800's.

That was true also of horses. In the 1800s, any serious long-distance travel that didn't involve a wagon caravan was done by train.

By that, I meant overland travel. Water travel was a different matter altogether (not surprisingly, it involved ships). Also, remember that there were no highways in the 1800s and for gasoline-powered vehicles it was quite common for the hired driver to also be the mechanic.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

That was true also of horses. In the 1800s, any serious long-distance travel that didn't involve a wagon caravan was done by train.

Which would have been coal, oil, or wood powered... likely coal or oil if
they were for long-distance travel.


* SLMR 2.1a * I type softly and carry a *BIG* electromagnet
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 18 Mar 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

That was true also of horses. In the 1800s, any serious long-distance tr that didn't involve a wagon caravan was done by train.

Which would have been coal, oil, or wood powered... likely coal or oil if they were for long-distance travel.

True, but the point was that if personal vehicles couldn't make the journey, people relied on commercial mass transit. Just as electric vehicles have a limited range today, gasoline-powered vehicles in the late 19th century were similarly limited in range. They were also quite expensive for the time.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Hello Jeff,

Funny. That's the same thing that they said about electric cars

back

the 1800's.

That was true also of horses. In the 1800s, any serious long-distance
travel that didn't involve a wagon caravan was done by train.

By that, I meant overland travel. Water travel was a different matter altogether (not surprisingly, it involved ships). Also, remember that there
were no highways in the 1800s and for gasoline-powered vehicles it was quite
common for the hired driver to also be the mechanic.

Rivers were our interstate highways before railroads came along.

Horses were expensive, and wagon caravans were also very costly.
It is not just people who needed to move, but also food and supplies.

Rubber was in short supply until WWII, when sythetic rubber was
manufactured in bulk. After the war came the American love affair
with cars ...

--Lee

--
I won't fan the flames of hate, ~Joe Biden

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Which would have been coal, oil, or wood powered... likely coal or oil if
they were for long-distance travel.

True, but the point was that if personal vehicles couldn't make the journey, people relied on commercial mass transit. Just as electric vehicles have a limited range today, gasoline-powered vehicles in the late 19th century were similarly limited in range. They were also quite expensive for the time.

Taveling by most commercial mass transit we have today restricts you on where you can travel. It is also often equally, or much more(!), expensive to
travel to the places you can go by mass transit vs. driving (well, it
was last Summer anyway).

Back then, you were restricted by where the train or stage would go to.
Now it is the train (which grew and then shrunk to probably fewer places
you can ride to now than in the 1800s), air (expensive and you don't get to
see much), and what few bus routes are left.

The most beautiful places I have been in North America are only accessible
by car and foot. Commercial mass transit would not have taken me to any of those places... only (some of!) the larger cities I drove through in
between destinations are reachable by mass transit.


* SLMR 2.1a * Sturgeon's Law: 98% of everything is crap
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 19 Mar 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Which would have been coal, oil, or wood powered... likely coal or if
they were for long-distance travel.

True, but the point was that if personal vehicles couldn't make the jour people relied on commercial mass transit. Just as electric vehicles have limited range today, gasoline-powered vehicles in the late 19th century similarly limited in range. They were also quite expensive for the time.

Taveling by most commercial mass transit we have today restricts you on where you can travel. It is also often equally, or much more(!), expensive to travel to the places you can go by mass transit vs. driving (well, it was last Summer anyway).

Which is why almost all major airports have co-located rental car services.

Back then, you were restricted by where the train or stage would go to. Now it is the train (which grew and then shrunk to probably fewer places you can ride to now than in the 1800s), air (expensive and you don't get to see much), and what few bus routes are left.

Then, as now. Transportation once you arrived at the mass transit destination was up to the passenger, and I'm guessing it was not difficult to come by.

The most beautiful places I have been in North America are only
accessible by car and foot. Commercial mass transit would not have
taken me to any of those places... only (some of!) the larger cities I drove through in between destinations are reachable by mass transit.

Not directly, no. But it can get you within electric vehicle range of a lot
of places.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Taveling by most commercial mass transit we have today restricts you on where you can travel. It is also often equally, or much more(!), expensive to travel to the places you can go by mass transit vs. driving (well, it was last Summer anyway).

I miss Greyhound. Used to be, you could take a bus clear across the continent for about half the cost of a plane ticket...of course, a plane takes 4.5
hours, and a bus takes 4.5 *days*...

McDoob
SysOp, PiBBS
pibbs.sytes.net

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: PiBBS (1:229/110)

Back then, you were restricted by where the train or stage would go to. Now it is the train (which grew and then shrunk to probably fewer places you can ride to now than in the 1800s), air (expensive and you don't get to see much), and what few bus routes are left.

Then, as now. Transportation once you arrived at the mass transit destination was up to the passenger, and I'm guessing it was not difficult to come by.

If I took mass transit to most of the destinations offered, I would have to drive, often back towards home, a long ways to get to what I actually want to see. It is/was cheaper to drive the whole distance.

Not directly, no. But it can get you within electric vehicle range of a lot of places.

Not really, see above. Air fare and Amtrack are prohibitively expensive
when you have to tack on how much driving I would have to do after taking
them to whatever out of the way destination they go to.

For someone who travels to *urban* areas, they would be great options potentially (especially if you are one that is going by convenience and not cost), but I the areas I travel to, and why, they most certainly are not.


* SLMR 2.1a * Art is I; Science is We.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Taveling by most commercial mass transit we have today restricts you on where you can travel. It is also often equally, or much more(!), expensive to travel to the places you can go by mass transit vs. driving (well, it was last Summer anyway).

I miss Greyhound. Used to be, you could take a bus clear across the continent for about half the cost of a plane ticket...of course, a plane takes 4.5 hours, and a bus takes 4.5 *days*...

I used to travel some by Greyhound. It, and other bus lines, did used to
have many more routes, and many of those routes did serve non-urban areas.
The travel time was comparable to driving on one's own. My recollection is that the cost was also reasonable.

Trains used to have routes that went more places, but that was before my
time. I think I would have enjoyed that also.


* SLMR 2.1a * Risking moderation again!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I used to travel some by Greyhound. It, and other bus lines, did used to have many more routes, and many of those routes did serve non-urban
areas. The travel time was comparable to driving on one's own. My recollection is that the cost was also reasonable.

I would say it's significantly faster than driving it yourself. After all,
the bus is stll rolling while you're asleep!

I've done the coast-to-coast trip more than once, both ways. By bus, from Vancouver to Toronto (okay, not quite '-to-coast')is an average of between 4 and 5 days. By car, with just one driver, it's more than a full week. Erm,
one way, of course.

Trains used to have routes that went more places, but that was before my time. I think I would have enjoyed that also.

Via Rail currently offers first-class tickets for the same run. It costs
north of $6k, but it's still there! No smoking, except when stopped at a
train station, but 'free' meals and an open bar...

McDoob
SysOp, PiBBS
pibbs.sytes.net

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: PiBBS (1:229/110)

Shaun Buzza wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-

Isn't that a minus for EVs, though? A gas tank has none of these restrictions. I mean, it's not really good for the pumps and filters to completely drain the tank, but there's no need to keep that tank in the 'butter zone'. It won't harm it to fill it up to the point gas is
spilling out, and there's no major, long-term harm in draining it completely. The same can't be said for any lithium-tech battery.

Battery technology is still the same as it was in the 1800's: a chemical process that produces electricity. The only real difference today is that we have better chemicals.

This means:
1. When it's very cold, the chemical reaction is slower, producing less electricity - so electric cars don't work as well in cold weather environments. 2. Recharging the battery means adding electricity and reversing the chemical reaction. This will never be 100%. So the batteries will wear out and as time goes on, will hold less and less electricity - reducing the available travel time between charges.

But these are items that the ignorant Left convienently forget.


... Women were meant to be loved, not understood.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)