100-Year-Old Electric Car Design Makes a Comeback

CNet's Green Tech Blog is reporting that Detroit Electric plans to release a small number of cars based around a car designed nearly 100 years ago. Detroit Electric is a joint venture between Santa Rosa, CA-based electric transportation specialist, Zap and China's Youngman motors. "Back in 1917, a Detroit Electric cost anywhere from $1,775 to $2,375--in other words, fit for the proletarian or plutocrat. The cars could go 65 miles to 100 miles on a battery charge, but only go at speeds ranging from 6 miles per hour to 25 mph."

Comments

Why no go back to horses sometime?

[CRCulver]

In the essay "Calvary in the Age of the Autarch" (collected in Castle of Days ) Gene Wolfe explains why in his far-future science-fiction epic The Book of the New Sun he had battles fought on horseback with some kind of genetically modified horse. They reproduce for you, they don't break down as stubbornly as machines (and can be used as dog chow), and they can graze instead of needing processed petrochemicals. I find that an intriguing notion, and I wonder when genetic engineering will get to the point that we can create new species to order.

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Interesting little factoid... If you look at the German Eastern front in WWII, and Poland and Russia, more troops rode on the back of a horse in WWII than rode in a vehicle!

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[knarf]

they don't break down as stubbornly as machines (and can be used as dog chow)

I can tell you're not living with a horse vet like I do... nor do you have horses yourself like we do... otherwise you'd see that horses are among the most fickle creatures ever to be kept by humans. Murphy is an optimist when it comes to horses: give a horse something to hurt itself on and it will. Keep some horses together and soon you'll see that some of them eat to much and develop laminitis (hoof wall shear) while others don't get to eat enough and soon resemble the Grim Reaper's skin-and-bone nag. Ride them and they'll need regular shoeing and/or hoof care otherwise you'll soon have more dog chow than you can chow. And when it comes to that, even if you were inclined to have your dogs eat your horses you'll probably find that those horses have been treated with some medicine one time in their lives which makes it illegal for them to be used for animal or human consumption - at least that's the way it is here in Europe. So if you plan to use genetically modified horses may I suggest crossing them with a wolverine or some other creature with better healing capacities?

Bicycles are a better alternative...

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[WillAdams]

But they also eat constantly and require a great deal of care / attention --- apparently you weren't paying attention when your teacher read you _Black Beauty_. There're also a number of regions in the country where it's well-nigh impossible to secure the services of a veterinarian (to attend to a horse).

They also have this charming habit of defecating and urinating w/ great regularity...

William
(who as a youth, would help a neighbor plow his field w/ a horse)

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many US troops in Afghanistan who are also riding on horses. When they get into trouble they call in airstrikes and helicopter gunships. I suppose that must look sort of bizarre in an anachronistic meets prochronistic sort of way.

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[Deadstick]

How does walking ankle-deep in liquefied horseshit grab you? That's a pretty good description of life in a major city at the turn of the twentieth century.

San Francisco installed cable cars in the 1870s, when they knew that electric trolleys were only a decade away -- because they simply couldn't wait. Their streets were getting hit with some 55,000 gallons of horse whiz, and the concomitant number of road apples, per day. Foot, wheel and hoof traffic stirred it up into a goo so slippery that the horses couldn't make it up the hills; they kept slipping on the cobblestones and breaking legs. At one point the city was shooting an average of one horse per day.

Then automobiles came along and the cities got all polluted.

rj

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[MBGMorden]

and then using a biological form of transportation would be more durable and economical than a machine. The problems (and cost) seen with machines are often proportional to their complexity. His bicycle notion represents a very simple machine that requires little maintenance and doesn't break down nearly as often as a car. You don't have to feed it at all, and there are no vet bills in case of injuries (no amount of genetic engineering is going to make a horse invincible). They're also not prone to getting into mischief or otherwise requiring supervision while you're going about your business.

Depending on how oil consumption goes, I can see bicycles becoming MUCH more popular in the near future. Right now it's not feasible for me to ride one to work (I live 25 miles away), but I'm looking at moving to a location that's only 3 miles away from work and might certainly look into riding my bike each morning (though the savings wouldn't be huge - doesn't take much gas to go back and forth 3 miles to work each day).

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[TheGavster]

Horses (or any biological transport) are inefficient for most users since they don't turn off. For comparison, consider if you had to park your car in the garage on rollers and leave the cruise set to 25mph. That's exactly what happens when you "park" the horse by putting in a field: it continues burning fuel even though you're not driving.

The other issue is that that's going to need to be some pretty impressive genetic engineering; at the moment a horse can develop life-threatening injuries from potholes so small that you wouldn't feel them in a car, and need replacement parts (shoes) with startling regularity.

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[jandrese]

I don't know if it's true, but I heard awhile back that Horses generally can only put out about 3/4 of a horsepower. Turns out when they were defining the spec the farmer lied about his horse.

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bullshit. There is no evidence whatsoever that Polish cavalry ever attacked tanks. There was a battle where Polish cavalry were killed by tanks and machine guns, but that was only due to them dispersing an infantry group and then later surprised by an armored division (from which they immediately retreated).

The idea that Polish cavalry attacked tanks is Nazi propaganda. Stop repeating it. The Nazis made it up so that it made the Poles look stupid. Tanks always have infantry support and machine guns so that nobody (cavalry or infantry) can approach them and put bombs in their treads. You entire post is some sort of redeeming myth built upon Nazi propaganda.

Re:Why no go back to horses sometime?

[Savage-Rabbit]

here are many US troops in Afghanistan who are also riding on horses. When they get into trouble they call in airstrikes and helicopter gunships. A little before 9/11, back when the Taliban were still in charge in Afghanistan, I saw a news report on one the networks. The reporter was describing an engagement between a small unit of Taliban T-55 tanks and Northern Alliance cavalry and to his amazement the cavalry successfully engaged the tanks. Afterwards they interviewed the N-Alliance commander and asked him if he didn't think it was an uneven fight. He replied that it was certainly very dangerous but if you pick your ground, separate the tanks from their infantry and then move in really fast, horsemen can knock out tanks. Not that I'd recommend cavalry as a fantastic new anti-armor weapon, these were special circumstances, but the value of horses for operations in places like Afghanistan has definitely been underestimated by western armies. The German army for one reluctantly concluded in the post WWII period after testing numerous types of air and ground vehicles that nothing can quite replace mules for operations in rough and mountainous terrain.

I suppose that must look sort of bizarre in an anachronistic meets prochronistic sort of way. Yes, it is kind of weird to see mules carrying guided missiles.

Article doesn't have much to it.

[sgt.greywar]

"Back in 1917, a Detroit Electric cost anywhere from $1,775 to $2,375--in other words, fit for the proletarian or plutocrat."

This was my Father's era and he was a "prole". Working as a logger he earned somewhere around $200-300/year. The earliest data for per capita income I could find was 1929 here:

http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-33.pdf/

but even then it was ~$700/year.

So how does a car that cost 3-4 years salary qualify as being "fit for the proletariotarian"?

In today's terms that car would cost ~$120,000!

Aside from a announcing a publicity stunt by a company cashing in on a green fad in visible and public low-carbonism (believe me the replica cars will *not* be for the proles!) this article is shamefully low on any actual news or facts.

Just a bit of hype.

Re:Article doesn't have much to it.

[eebly]

I'm not certain you're doing your math right.

Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, $2375 1917 dollars have the same buying power as about $39000 2008 dollars. That inflation is based on the CPI.

Re:Article doesn't have much to it.

[sgt.greywar]

You are correct. Problem is that in 1917 the "proles" weren't making $2375 1917 dollars. They were making a few hundred.

Doing CPI, GDP, or per capita back that far is pretty difficult but there was no way this vehicle was even close to the proletarian price range. the article just used it to be cute without regard to the facts.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

[mysqlrocks]

If you haven't seen the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car? then I highly recommend you check it out. It explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of the electric car.

Re:Who Killed the Electric Car?

[sgt.greywar]

I think this gets posted to every /. article that even tangentially refers to electric vehicles.

Conspiracies are interesting but in the end the Prius sort of proved that while there is a chunk of the relatively affluent who will buy electric cars the consumer gestalt as a whole was never waiting with baited breath only to have their hopes dashed by Big Oil or any other conspiracy faves.

Re:Who Killed the Electric Car?

[Rei]

1) The Prius isn't an electric car. It's a hybrid. It's just an efficient user of gasoline.

2) Priuses aren't largely driven by "the affluent". They're mostly a middle class car. And they've been a stunning success; Toyota has said not to expect any more increases in sales next year because they can't produce them any faster.

3) "In the end" is hardly applicable; the adoption of hybrids keeps expanding, and automakers are offering more and more options. GM, for example, plans to release a new hybrid modelevery three months for the next four years.

4) As for electric cars, there are a lot of myths. Here they are, all broken down for you.

5) Yes, you are correct that there was no conspiracy to kill the EV1. The EV1 was never designed to be profitable; like all of its competitors, it was solely a byproduct of the CARB mandate. It was produced in tiny numbers, with tech far worse than what is available nowadays, based on a design that shared no common infrastructure with other GM vehicles (a "one-off"), and so forth. The leases were heavily subsidized. GM wanted nothing to do with actually making EVs, and as soon as the CARB mandate was overturned, they were quite glad to be rid of them. So were the other manufacturers who also had similarly unprofitable EVs. It was a horrible PR move, and GM realizes that now, but it made sense on the books, especially since GM was bleeding money at the time. And as for the "liability" argument, GM was 100% correct; lawsuits add hundreds of dollars to the cost of every car made in the US, and an owner can't disclaim liability for *someone else's* lawsuits. And as for the battery argument, please -- if GM cared about the EV1, they wouldn't have *sold the batteries* in the first place. They had already shut down many other part lines before CARB was overturned anyways; even if they had the batteries, they still couldn't have made more. The conspiracy arguments get crazier and crazier from there (like GM destroying the EVs because they wanted to "hide" them, yet in a fit of insanity they donated them to museums, but then they put pressure on the museums to hide them...)

Re:Who Killed the Electric Car?

[Rei]

They mention that the Prius batteries are warrantied for eight years, but don't mention that they're only ever depleted to 40-60% of their total charge to preserve battery life

Yes, but they also go through more charge/discharge cycles; PHEV batteries are stressed more. I edited the wiki to reflect your criticism and this fact.

They talk about cheaper, longer-lasting batteries with high energy density.

Cheaper, not yet. Safe and long lasting, yes, you can get them. If you want low volume, your only option, really, is to buy DeWalt power packs and dissect them for the A123 cells, and that'll run you about $2/Wh. However, if you buy in bulk, you can get batteries from any of a dozen or so automotive battery makers for notably less (except for AltairNano, whos batteries in bulk still cost around $2/Wh).

Great! But they also have less than 10% the energy density of lead-acid batteries, and the cost is prohibitive.

Not necessarily. The EEStor supercapacitors due out this year are to have several times the energy density of *li-ion*. Several teams are working on nanotube supercapacitors with the energy density of li-ion. This is all covered on the page.

They then go on to talk about the cost of running a car based solely on the cost to charge, ignoring the cost of periodically replacing the battery.

Incorrect. Maintenance costs are also discussed on the page.

The cheapest car I've seen with a decent range is the Th!nk City

Th!nk isn't particularly cheap, and its stats are pretty lousy (~60mph top speed, for example). You mentioned Aptera; it's much better performing and cheaper. There's also the MiEV (minivan-styling) and MiEV sport (style like a cross between a Prius and a VW beetle) ($24-25k), the VentureOne (tandem two seater, automatically tilts into turns like a motorcycle) ($25k), and about a dozen more due-out-soon in the $20-35k range. The only thing that the $20-35k rangers don't have is >120 mi or so range unless they're PHEVs. The batteries, not yet being in mass production, are too expensive for that. In five years or so, that won't be the case, and you should easily get 200-250 miles range in that price range.

6mph - 25mph????

[kellyb9]

Maybe, the electric car is making a comeback... but it's making a very, very, very slooooooooooooow comeback.

Re:And this is being brought back why?

[Ron Harwood]

Actually, they're just bringing the brand back... that should have been in the summary - but it does encourage one to read the article. ;)

interesting income comparisons...

[sdedeo]

The consumer price index says that $1,775 is about $30k today, a reasonable cost for a low-mid end car new -- try it here: http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/

But you are right that $700/year was the average annual income back in the 20s. On the other hand, the average annual income today is $26k, so things do work out roughly (i.e., the car is still a larger-than-unity fraction of a year's income.) I think the distinction here needed is not average income, but average income per household (today that is more like $48k.) Of course, there's the mean/median/mode distinction as well, but this isn't a statistics class so I'll spare us all.

Re:And they still work!

[director_mr]

Wow, Its cool how you know exactly what streets will be like in 50 years (They will be made out of dirt) AND that electricity will be readily available, yet no fuels to alternatively power vehicles. Particularly shocking to me is that they will not be able to use concrete to pave roads. They will HAVE to resort to dirt roads in the future.

I will predict you are 100% wrong. That in 50 years we will have roads paved with something and cars will be run on something other than pure electricity. Heck, even the ROMANS didn't use dirt roads when they could avoid it. And that was 19 centuries before asphalt.

Such a lovely place, that Eastern front

[wsanders]

More German troops froze to death and were killed by disease than were killed by bullets. They were riding on horses because Germany was having a hell of a time supplying them and they were getting their asses kicked by the Allies.

Let's move to the ecological paradise or the early 19th century, people in Europe and America weren't dying too much of disease and cold (at least if you could get clean water.) You were just walking though mud and horse shit up to you knees, or dying of cancer at 40 from a atmosphere constantly polluted by wood and coal smoke.

I'll take our media cluster-fuck-slash-ecological apocalypse anytime.

Re:Such a lovely place, that Eastern front

[Anonymous Coward]

more people died prior to the year 2000 than any other time in history

Re:Such a lovely place, that Eastern front

[Rob T Firefly]

And death continues to be our nation's #1 killer.

Re:Such a lovely place, that Eastern front

[Adambomb]

And yet Birth is the #1 cause of death.

Solution: End all births.

Porsche designed an earlier hybrid

[nickull]

Circa 1900, Ferry Porsche developed what has been regarded as the world's first hybrid car. See: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/11/09/070253.html. The issues with Diesel are the glow plugs have to be used in colder weather starts when the combustion chamber cools for a longer period (requires more energy) and the torque required to turn over the engine (due to the high compression ratios used in diesel engines) is greater. This eats more electricity form the battery in conditions where lots of starts, stops are done.

6 to 25 MPH

[PPH]

No problem. That seems to be about the same top speed as most of the Cadillacs weaving around my town.

Re:And this is being brought back why?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

it's a short, one page arcticle, drop the excuses and RTFA!

most of the arcticle is about the old detroit electric and the company that used to make it. the only paragraph of interest is this:

"To promote itself, Detroit Electric--a new joint venture between Zap and China's Youngman Automotive Group--plan to release a limited number of cars based around the Detroit Electric, an electric car produced by the Anderson Electric Car Co. in the early part of the 20th century."

my guess is that it's gonna be something like the P/T cruiser, prowler or new beetle. a modern design inspired by a (very) old one.

Re:Comparable Speed/Range?

[hyades1]

The speed and range of gasoline-powered cars was higher. It was hard to tell, though, because tire failure back then was so common people spent half their time patching or changing them.

I wonder what improvements could be made to the machine given modern materials and technology. A top speed of 40 mph and a range of 50 miles, for example, would make it a really good choice for a lot of basic city driving. My daily trip to work, all my shopping and a significant part of my social life...probably 90% of my transportation needs...would fall within those parameters. I'm sure a lot of people could say the same.