Allpar Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
"The maker of Jeep and Ram has five years to absorb the roughly 40% increase in costs that electrified vehicles represent before Stellantis NV could face restructuring and job cuts, CEO Carlos Tavares said Wednesday."

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,401 Posts
Guess Moore’s law better applies to battery technology….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Guess Moore’s law better applies to battery technology….
It never did.
"There is no Moore’s Law for batteries. The reason there is a Moore’s Law for computer processors is that electrons are small and they do not take up space on a chip. Chip performance is limited by the lithography technology used to fabricate the chips; as lithography improves ever smaller features can be made on processors. Batteries are not like this. Ions, which transfer charge in batteries, are large, and they take up space, as do anodes, cathodes, and electrolytes. A D-cell battery stores more energy than an AA-cell. Potentials in a battery are dictated by the relevant chemical reactions, thus limiting eventual battery performance. Significant improvement in battery capacity can only be made by changing to a different chemistry."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
Solid-state batteries show promise...but as you said, cost reductions will require large scale production and innovation in the production processes to lower costs. The good news is Toyota is leading the way here so costs hopefully will end up being close to Li-Ion batteries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Solid-state batteries show promise...but as you said, cost reductions will require large scale production and innovation in the production processes to lower costs. The good news is Toyota is leading the way here so costs hopefully will end up being close to Li-Ion batteries.
From a 2013 article, and still true today, because there is no Moore's law for batteries:

"Cars require a portable fuel, preferably one that is widely available, low in cost, and with a high energy density. Gasoline is nature’s ideal fuel."

"If only we had batteries that could store enough energy to power a car several hundred kilometers and that were not too heavy and would not cost a fortune. Sadly, such batteries do not exist."

"A good example of improved energy efficiency is hybrid cars, which can be considerably more energy efficient than traditional cars. We must take this pragmatic direction while awaiting that terrific breakthrough in battery technology we all so desire."

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Cut non-profitable vehicles, get an Electric Jeep and Ram. That would do it purely based on the volume that would be produced. Fiats failures are funded by the Ram 1500 and Jeep Wranglers profits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Cut non-profitable vehicles, get an Electric Jeep and Ram. That would do it purely based on the volume that would be produced. Fiats failures are funded by the Ram 1500 and Jeep Wranglers profits.
At the present state of technology the Electric Jeep and Ram are the non profitable vehicles. No profits when your margins are negative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Guess Moore’s law better applies to battery technology….
  1. "Moore’s law is a consequence of fundamental physics. Clean technology cost declines are not.
  2. Moore’s law is a prediction about innovation as a function of time. Clean technology cost declines are a function of experience, or production.
  3. Moore’s law provided a basis to expect dramatic performance improvements that shrank mainframes to mobile phones. Clean technology cost declines do not imply a similar revolution in energy."


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
There is no magic path to higher energy density and lower cost in batteries. That's why I think the quickest way to electrification in automobiles is through morphological change. The majority of automotive use, that is, the statistical mode, is by a single person on the daily commute. This comparatively trivial task doesn't require a two-ton vehicle, and can be accomplished by a narrow, two in-line, three wheel, enclosed "motorcycle," resulting in lower weight, less frontal area, better aerodynamics, and thus, less battery storage needed. With today's technology, such a vehicle could be made as safe as a car. Conversion from combustion to electric power will occur very slowly if the new vehicle cost is over $30,000. It needs to be half that, and that can only be accomplished through a change in morphology.
 

·
Registered
2014 Jeep Compass
Joined
·
619 Posts
"The maker of Jeep and Ram has five years to absorb the roughly 40% increase in costs that electrified vehicles represent before Stellantis NV could face restructuring and job cuts, CEO Carlos Tavares said Wednesday."
Where's the article link though?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,157 Posts
There is no magic path to higher energy density and lower cost in batteries. That's why I think the quickest way to electrification in automobiles is through morphological change. The majority of automotive use, that is, the statistical mode, is by a single person on the daily commute. This comparatively trivial task doesn't require a two-ton vehicle, and can be accomplished by a narrow, two in-line, three wheel, enclosed "motorcycle," resulting in lower weight, less frontal area, better aerodynamics, and thus, less battery storage needed. With today's technology, such a vehicle could be made as safe as a car. Conversion from combustion to electric power will occur very slowly if the new vehicle cost is over $30,000. It needs to be half that, and that can only be accomplished through a change in morphology.
You're correct, but while city dwellers might adapt here in the states, the rest will not. As an auto company, the following years here in the states are going to be rough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
There is no magic path to higher energy density and lower cost in batteries. That's why I think the quickest way to electrification in automobiles is through morphological change. The majority of automotive use, that is, the statistical mode, is by a single person on the daily commute. This comparatively trivial task doesn't require a two-ton vehicle, and can be accomplished by a narrow, two in-line, three wheel, enclosed "motorcycle," resulting in lower weight, less frontal area, better aerodynamics, and thus, less battery storage needed. With today's technology, such a vehicle could be made as safe as a car. Conversion from combustion to electric power will occur very slowly if the new vehicle cost is over $30,000. It needs to be half that, and that can only be accomplished through a change in morphology.
I've thought about this for many many years and agree. I imagined a commuter car class that would have your basic amenities (heat, AC) and enough storage to be able to use for usual tasks like grocery shopping. A nice big simple screen with all the usual connectivity and a 2 seater option. 3 wheels makes sense as you can get away with motorcycle status but that wouldn't attract enough buyers. It would have to be on 4 and have the same or similar safety ratings. Slick through the air as a land speed vehicle and as light as possible. A vehicle like this with hundreds of miles of range is easily possible with current tech but it's always about what will people buy. Stick a very small ICE in it and the range can be made to go hilariously long distances.

Hell that basic setup with a hybrid or ICE engine in it would destroy all MPG numbers. I daily drive a car that got 55.9 mpg doing 5 over through the Smokies for 340 miles and it weighs 3300lbs...
 

·
Defender of Reality
Joined
·
2,967 Posts
"The maker of Jeep and Ram has five years to absorb the roughly 40% increase in costs that electrified vehicles represent before Stellantis NV could face restructuring and job cuts, CEO Carlos Tavares said Wednesday."
The hilarious part of this supposition is that it ignores completely the revenue side and government interference (read: subsidies). Yes, costs today are higher. They’ll drop as production volumes ramp and materials breakthroughs continue. Will they drop to parity with today’s systems? Doubtful. In 5 years will it still be 40% more? Hell no.

on the revenue side, prices for vehicles will have to rise. Nobody can produce and sell vehicles at a loss in the long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tlc and valiant67

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,317 Posts
The hilarious part of this supposition is that it ignores completely the revenue side and government interference (read: subsidies). Yes, costs today are higher. They’ll drop as production volumes ramp and materials breakthroughs continue. Will they drop to parity with today’s systems? Doubtful. In 5 years will it still be 40% more? Hell no.

on the revenue side, prices for vehicles will have to rise. Nobody can produce and sell vehicles at a loss in the long term.
It also ignores the fact the same pressures will be faced by every manufacturer.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,734 Posts
There is no magic path to higher energy density and lower cost in batteries. That's why I think the quickest way to electrification in automobiles is through morphological change. The majority of automotive use, that is, the statistical mode, is by a single person on the daily commute. This comparatively trivial task doesn't require a two-ton vehicle, and can be accomplished by a narrow, two in-line, three wheel, enclosed "motorcycle," resulting in lower weight, less frontal area, better aerodynamics, and thus, less battery storage needed. With today's technology, such a vehicle could be made as safe as a car. Conversion from combustion to electric power will occur very slowly if the new vehicle cost is over $30,000. It needs to be half that, and that can only be accomplished through a change in morphology.
You clearly do not read the articles in arstechnica.com, because there are many technological paths... which is how we got to the point we are there today. I do agree with you that the ideal woudl be people buying cars sized to their 90%-of-the-year needs, not ego needs or “once a year I need to move a 4x8” needs. There will still be people who need larger vehicles but we all know that in the 1930s through the 1970s, darned few people needed anything with more interior and luggage space than a 2014 Dodge Dart... and for most of those people, a 1984 minivan, with the external footprint of a Plymouth Reliant (and eight passenger seating), would have been enough.

Today people buy a Chevy Suburban because “we have two kids.” You know what we had with two kids? A Neon and a PT Cruiser. The PT was for vacations—it's amazing what you could pack in—and it was far smaller outside than a Reliant, much less a Pacifica.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,051 Posts
Today people buy a Chevy Suburban because “we have two kids.” You know what we had with two kids? A Neon and a PT Cruiser. The PT was for vacations—it's amazing what you could pack in—and it was far smaller outside than a Reliant, much less a Pacifica.
Agree 100%. The PT Cruiser was an amazing vehicle that met the needs of most people. I still have mine and drive it much more than my Ram 1500 which I need to pull my camper and to haul the occasional item required for my rural home.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top