If the support structure is stiff enough you could stretch to accommodate 3 and the drive-train. Think VW 1L, except with a wider front end. I'm not certain if you gain any aero advantage, and the extra length may mitigate the weight and complexity advantage you (potentially) get by losing a wheel.
As for the "box", perhaps I'm jaded by the North American drivers but it doesn't seem to matter much WHAT you drive here, some drivers are just going to be jerks. As an example just yesterday someone was passing me at 60 with maybe 6" between the mirrors of either car. I'm driving a Subaru Legacy wagon/estate, so it's not exactly a small car that's easily lost.
Hmmm...that will make things interesting. If you're shelling out cash for that 10' interface, and it's a separate install, it's going to have to compete on a more equal footing with all the other media centers that are available. Will this be the beginning of the end of WMC?
I'm not convinced that it's the beginning of the end: The 360/720 is a major piece in the strategy of "put windows everywhere". Making it easy to get to your own media is too useful to just toss.
That said, MS has often made missteps concerning their market in the past, and there's this idea of "all media should be streamed anyway" that may drive the displacement of the Media Center PC as well. So there's merit to the thought.
No. Its not.
from your link:
When the car reaches 70 mph the main motor spins too fast to be maximally efficient, and a clutch disengages the ring from the case. This allows the second electric motor to participate and both motors act in parallel to reach speeds of 101 mph with adequate power.
In charge sustaining mode, the gas engine goes on and clutches to the generator causing it to produce electricity to continue powering the main motor.
However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent."
Reread that last sentence a few times
At about 60 mph the Prius is powered almost exclusively by the ICE.
So, its not like the Prius.
You're talking semantics: The volt was pitched as a series-hybrid, and it's quite simply NOT. It's more like a Prius than this mythical 'series-hybrid'. Just because it does it differently doesn't escape the fact that the ICE still has a direct connection to the driveline (as indicated by the line you quoted "GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency", which is a mealy-mouthed way of saying "well, it KINDA is...") , unlike the advertising seems to indicate.
Metro is a mess because its nothing but widgets called "Tiles" and hyped as something groundbreaking and special. It sucked back when Sony Ericsson did it on the SE X1 mobile phone, and it sucks just as much now that Microsoft "borrowed" it.
I could drill down into specifics, but why would i do that? Its not like there aren't more than enough people inside Microsoft that hates the UI and has long lists of things they think should be changed.
So in your opinion, it doesn't work anywhere, or just not for the desktop?
As a tablet or smartphone UI, actually it's pretty good. I still prefer Android, but I can understand why people would like Metro. A lot of the texting, e-mail, etc. widgets that people use on Android would not be necessary on Metro, because of the way it presents the tile for an app. (basically, no icons, everything is a widget).
As a desktop UI, you have to ask what the hell they were smoking. Something designed for touchscreen input on a 4" device does *not* scale to a 24" screen with a keyboard/mouse. While it's usable, it would be very counter-productive to anybody who's comfortable with the mouse, because they would have to scroll through pages of tiles to find the one they want. I don't think it's going to be the unmitigated disaster that everybody says it's going to be, but I do think that "how to turn Metro off" will replace porn as the number 1 Google search for a while after it launches.
While I agree that contextually it doesn't work well with a mouse, on something like this it does make some sense. Perhaps someone at Microsoft thinks the mouse is a dead end UI wise?
This could be something that points to the fact that they think that Surface will start to make some inroads at some point as well. Metro makes some sense for it in the same manner it does for the HP piece above, and all the tablet stuff.
This then introduces the idea that Microsoft is embracing the tablet as the desktop replacement, which leads down to a whole different list of interesting conversations.
Except, that's not how it works. The only people who like the horrible UI mess that is Metro is the true believers. The Yesmen that would be happy with a brick with "Turn Over!" written on both sides, but only if it was a new game from Microsoft.
Why is Metro a "Horrible UI mess"? I see this posted a lot of places and have yet to see someone come back with something that doesn't boil down to "it's not my flavor".
Would it be fair to say that these two projects got a fair measure of their massive lifts from industry vets that had already been through the model that you are disparaging?
Ford has heard this gnashing of teeth that you are expressing: the new Fiesta is actually a pretty reasonable car to drive, not terribly expensive for what you get (it's small, but reports are it doesn't feel econo-box-y), and gets a rated 40mpg. I suspect that with a light foot it'd do pretty well. I'm still hoping that someone will get it through marketing's head that the diesel version of that car would sell over here, particularly as fuel prices rise. 60+ MPG from a car would be nice. I'd have to do the math on the premium on diesel vs gasoline tho.
They did, and said "this seems like it could make money, I'll work for them". Just because some don't agree with the method that it generates revenue doesn't mean it's not going to at all.
The magnitude of complexity of "Recording music" to "writing complex software" isn't exactly apples to apples.
It takes JC himself and time to make an album. Very seldom can one person see an entire current-generation AAA game from conception to workable, much less mostly finished. Art, music, sound, story, and the engine underneath, even if you're using a known quantity like the Unreal Engine to drive all of it, add layers of complexity that are non-trivial in my observation.
Not to say that recording music is EASY by any means: I've done a handful of studio sessions, and learned that I hate sitting in the studio. It's just significantly easier than producing a AAA title like Diablo 3, where music is just one aspect that needs to be addressed.
If someone can get enough people bought-in to work on an ambitious project and make it happen, more power to them. Minecraft/Mojang started out that way (and there could be some debate the "AAA" designation for Minecraft), but even that became a purchase product, and I don't think it's EVER been open source. There is a promise of that happening, but only after Notch says "I think we've made enough money on that".
I sincerely believe that Minecraft/Mojang is an exception rather than a rule. At the end of the day games are entertainment, and seldom world-changers on a grand scale like TED or Kahn Academy which will attract more talent due to the nature of the end product.
So computer programs appear out of thin air? They don't require programmers, artists or project managers?
Why don't they sell that service, instead of doing it entirely on spec and then, once it's totally complete, trying to recoup their costs by selling something demonstrably worthless, instead? Seems like kind of a broken business model.
Oh, wait, I know the answer: "BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE."
Could you explain how the service would work, because I can't envision it.
If life gives you scorching radiation, don't toast marshmallows, make life take the radiation back! Get MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN RADIATION!! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS!?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life rue the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON RADIATION! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's going to BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN. With RADIATION.
If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
I think RMS and ESR (among many others) would both take exception to that statement, and I would ask you 'who is the final arbiter of "too much"?'.
Those who have the drive and desire, but not the employment to be able to support themselves or their families. Basically, those who he's spitting on by saying he doesn't want this job because it's going to be attached to Microsoft.
And as a correction, I would replace "have a philosophy" with "throw a job away over your philosophy". That was the intent of my statement, and I realize I didn't fully define it. Any person with years of experience working with software develops a measure of a "philosophy" about what they use (or don't) and why. But when the boss overrides us, we move ahead as directed, because it's what we get paid to do.
What Timothy likely needs to do is start his own business. Free up that job for someone who would appreciate it. Work his ass off avoiding Microsoft software, generating business, paying his own insurance, his own overhead, dealing with all the nasty taxes. See how long he can hold his philosophy without bending it for that client that would set him up for months, if he would just use that one microsoft product.
In the first sentence, you're deriding his decision as "spitting on people who really want a job". I can't see how you draw that association. I see this another way: The submitter is wanting to get out of the way for someone who really wants this job, as opposed to himself. He's not spitting on anyone. He's following his beliefs, and someone else will be the beneficiary of him doing so, and (hopefully) he's going to be happier in whatever he moves on to.
If you're one of the ones who have been unsuccessful in finding a job, I have sympathy, but don't crucify someone who does have one and may not be completely happy with the terms that his employer has set up for him to stay there. Be happy that he's actively looking to vacate it so someone who can deal with the terms that the employer has in place.
And finally, saying that those "who have the drive and desire, but not the employment to be able to support themselves or their families" are the final arbiter of "enough" is, in my opinion, a massively dangerous thing to do: What stops them from interfering with you when you're the successful one that may not be completely happy?
Strive to be personally successful, make the business you work for successful, and opportunities for those who are as you describe will come if they are willing to search (maybe in a different field or zip code) and work hard enough (cross-training while sweeping floors and still searching) for them. "Business" as a whole is (usually) cyclical. It (usually) will come back around again, under the presumption that the environment that it's set in is conducive to fostering it.
Yes I'm already aware of the Fisker and Tesla. They actually prove my point.
Fisker and Tesla have proved a 'boutique' car manufacturer can produce a high performance luxury electric sports car, in low numbers (so the & of R&D cost per car is massive) and still sell it profitably for around $100k.
It just confirms my point that a mass-manufacturer such as Chevy or Toyota could and should be able to do better for cheaper han a Volt or Prius.
Since you've focused on the pure electric cars, I'll respond in kind.
Battery energy density (which is exceptionally poor compared to a tank of petrol/diesel/CNG/Propane) is the problem, not a lack of desire or engineering chops. EVERYONE who is involved with car design, engineering, or tinkering wants an electric car that can do everything the current gasoline/diesel powered car can because of all the advantages that it gets you over EVERY step of the process:
Design gets a break because they don't have to dedicate a solid cubic meter (or more) of space to an engine/transmission combination: Batteries can be spread out and manufactured in almost any shape you want. Very powerful electric motors are considerably smaller than most transmissions. Exhaust systems, which are always in the very least annoying because they usually run the length of the vehicle, go away. The air space under the car can be reclaimed for cabin space or dedicated to more power storage if needed. All of this allows the designer to think more about the art and functionality of the car, instead of "how am I going to cram an engine into this thing?" Sure, part of the tradeoff is "How do I cool the motor and battery?", but again you wind up with more flexibility because batteries can be flexibly designed and motors are small.
Engineering gets a break because they don't have to deal with all the compromises that tuning a motor for torque/horsepower and efficiency. The power delivery system is considerably simpler because all you have is some sort of regulator between the battery and the electric motor. The amount of stuff you have to monitor drops considerably because you don't need to know how much air is entering the engine, the pressure that the fuel pump is working at, emissions, etc. The parts bin count for the drivetrain drops by a significant amount.
Motorheads want all of that torque that a motor can provide as early as possible. It doesn't matter if you're rock crawling, racing, or even just driving around town. Having the power delivery be predictable and non-lumpy is a significant thing. There's a reason why most who advertise engine power crow about "we give you 90% of rated torque from [x] RPM!". Electric motors give it all to you from rev one. It also makes the entire vehicle easier to work on since the parts count is smaller.
Tesla and Fisker have dumped massive amounts of cash into their battery development and aren't exactly in a place where they can say "Hey guys, this is how we did it!" and still turn a profit. I'm certain that if one of the top tier auto makers gave the owners a large enough check, they'd sell the entire operation to them. Even if they did, I'm under the assumption that the way they're doing things isn't exactly cheap in either materials or assembly labor.
Even if Fisker or Tesla did sell out to a big manufacturer, and they worked out the entire "cheap battery" thing, the one thing that they haven't cracked for their cars is the "splash and go". There was a time in my past when driving 600 miles in a day wasn't uncommon. None of the manufacturers can do that on pure electric. We're back to a power density problem. In what most would consider flyover country in the states, 150 miles of range is "almost enough" for a day's work.
The problem, as I see it, isn't the manufacturers, or a lack of desire. The ALL want it. It's that science hasn't cracked the root problems of storing energy in as efficient manner than we already have discovered in current
Slashdot Mirror
As for the "box", perhaps I'm jaded by the North American drivers but it doesn't seem to matter much WHAT you drive here, some drivers are just going to be jerks. As an example just yesterday someone was passing me at 60 with maybe 6" between the mirrors of either car. I'm driving a Subaru Legacy wagon/estate, so it's not exactly a small car that's easily lost.
Hmmm...that will make things interesting. If you're shelling out cash for that 10' interface, and it's a separate install, it's going to have to compete on a more equal footing with all the other media centers that are available. Will this be the beginning of the end of WMC?
I'm not convinced that it's the beginning of the end: The 360/720 is a major piece in the strategy of "put windows everywhere". Making it easy to get to your own media is too useful to just toss.
That said, MS has often made missteps concerning their market in the past, and there's this idea of "all media should be streamed anyway" that may drive the displacement of the Media Center PC as well. So there's merit to the thought.
Does the XBox 360 see XBMC as an actual media center pc, or is it just a share?
No. Its not. from your link: When the car reaches 70 mph the main motor spins too fast to be maximally efficient, and a clutch disengages the ring from the case. This allows the second electric motor to participate and both motors act in parallel to reach speeds of 101 mph with adequate power.
In charge sustaining mode, the gas engine goes on and clutches to the generator causing it to produce electricity to continue powering the main motor.
However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent."
Reread that last sentence a few times At about 60 mph the Prius is powered almost exclusively by the ICE. So, its not like the Prius.
You're talking semantics: The volt was pitched as a series-hybrid, and it's quite simply NOT. It's more like a Prius than this mythical 'series-hybrid'. Just because it does it differently doesn't escape the fact that the ICE still has a direct connection to the driveline (as indicated by the line you quoted "GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency", which is a mealy-mouthed way of saying "well, it KINDA is...") , unlike the advertising seems to indicate.
Metro is a mess because its nothing but widgets called "Tiles" and hyped as something groundbreaking and special. It sucked back when Sony Ericsson did it on the SE X1 mobile phone, and it sucks just as much now that Microsoft "borrowed" it.
I could drill down into specifics, but why would i do that? Its not like there aren't more than enough people inside Microsoft that hates the UI and has long lists of things they think should be changed.
So in your opinion, it doesn't work anywhere, or just not for the desktop?
As a tablet or smartphone UI, actually it's pretty good. I still prefer Android, but I can understand why people would like Metro. A lot of the texting, e-mail, etc. widgets that people use on Android would not be necessary on Metro, because of the way it presents the tile for an app. (basically, no icons, everything is a widget).
As a desktop UI, you have to ask what the hell they were smoking. Something designed for touchscreen input on a 4" device does *not* scale to a 24" screen with a keyboard/mouse. While it's usable, it would be very counter-productive to anybody who's comfortable with the mouse, because they would have to scroll through pages of tiles to find the one they want. I don't think it's going to be the unmitigated disaster that everybody says it's going to be, but I do think that "how to turn Metro off" will replace porn as the number 1 Google search for a while after it launches.
While I agree that contextually it doesn't work well with a mouse, on something like this it does make some sense. Perhaps someone at Microsoft thinks the mouse is a dead end UI wise?
This could be something that points to the fact that they think that Surface will start to make some inroads at some point as well. Metro makes some sense for it in the same manner it does for the HP piece above, and all the tablet stuff.
This then introduces the idea that Microsoft is embracing the tablet as the desktop replacement, which leads down to a whole different list of interesting conversations.
I would be surprised if that passed any .gov safety standards, unless you can register it as a cycle.
I do appreciate what you're trying to do, tho. Have you considered any of the design inspiration offered by the old Morgan 3 wheelers?
That's called a serial hybrid (energy flows from engine to battery to wheels). It is not "different" or new, but was invented nearly 100 years ago.
And not what the volt is. The engine does offer mechanical assist to the driveline. Brought down to basics, it's just like a Prius. Just the first link I grabbed from google: http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/
Except, that's not how it works. The only people who like the horrible UI mess that is Metro is the true believers. The Yesmen that would be happy with a brick with "Turn Over!" written on both sides, but only if it was a new game from Microsoft.
Why is Metro a "Horrible UI mess"? I see this posted a lot of places and have yet to see someone come back with something that doesn't boil down to "it's not my flavor".
Would it be fair to say that these two projects got a fair measure of their massive lifts from industry vets that had already been through the model that you are disparaging?
Not quite, in the case of Chrysler, it would seem. At least it doesn't pass the sniff test. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/04/the-chrysler-coincidence-bailout-loan-shuffle-to-help-fund-fiat-takeover/
Ford has heard this gnashing of teeth that you are expressing: the new Fiesta is actually a pretty reasonable car to drive, not terribly expensive for what you get (it's small, but reports are it doesn't feel econo-box-y), and gets a rated 40mpg. I suspect that with a light foot it'd do pretty well. I'm still hoping that someone will get it through marketing's head that the diesel version of that car would sell over here, particularly as fuel prices rise. 60+ MPG from a car would be nice. I'd have to do the math on the premium on diesel vs gasoline tho.
Well played.
They did, and said "this seems like it could make money, I'll work for them". Just because some don't agree with the method that it generates revenue doesn't mean it's not going to at all.
The magnitude of complexity of "Recording music" to "writing complex software" isn't exactly apples to apples.
It takes JC himself and time to make an album. Very seldom can one person see an entire current-generation AAA game from conception to workable, much less mostly finished. Art, music, sound, story, and the engine underneath, even if you're using a known quantity like the Unreal Engine to drive all of it, add layers of complexity that are non-trivial in my observation.
Not to say that recording music is EASY by any means: I've done a handful of studio sessions, and learned that I hate sitting in the studio. It's just significantly easier than producing a AAA title like Diablo 3, where music is just one aspect that needs to be addressed.
If someone can get enough people bought-in to work on an ambitious project and make it happen, more power to them. Minecraft/Mojang started out that way (and there could be some debate the "AAA" designation for Minecraft), but even that became a purchase product, and I don't think it's EVER been open source. There is a promise of that happening, but only after Notch says "I think we've made enough money on that".
I sincerely believe that Minecraft/Mojang is an exception rather than a rule. At the end of the day games are entertainment, and seldom world-changers on a grand scale like TED or Kahn Academy which will attract more talent due to the nature of the end product.
So computer programs appear out of thin air? They don't require programmers, artists or project managers?
Why don't they sell that service, instead of doing it entirely on spec and then, once it's totally complete, trying to recoup their costs by selling something demonstrably worthless, instead? Seems like kind of a broken business model.
Oh, wait, I know the answer: "BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE."
Could you explain how the service would work, because I can't envision it.
So a Volt?
Or is its generator too big for you?
Except, yaknow..... it's not.
Is your code "clever"? Then its wrong.
No one ever thinks their own code is clever. Other people's code is clever.
No humble person thinks their code is clever.
Since you probably don't work in this space, I'll drop you a hint: https://squareup.com/
It's the year 3141?
If life gives you scorching radiation, don't toast marshmallows, make life take the radiation back! Get MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN RADIATION!! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS!?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life rue the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON RADIATION! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's going to BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN. With RADIATION.
snip...
If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
I think RMS and ESR (among many others) would both take exception to that statement, and I would ask you 'who is the final arbiter of "too much"?'.
Those who have the drive and desire, but not the employment to be able to support themselves or their families. Basically, those who he's spitting on by saying he doesn't want this job because it's going to be attached to Microsoft.
And as a correction, I would replace "have a philosophy" with "throw a job away over your philosophy". That was the intent of my statement, and I realize I didn't fully define it. Any person with years of experience working with software develops a measure of a "philosophy" about what they use (or don't) and why. But when the boss overrides us, we move ahead as directed, because it's what we get paid to do.
What Timothy likely needs to do is start his own business. Free up that job for someone who would appreciate it. Work his ass off avoiding Microsoft software, generating business, paying his own insurance, his own overhead, dealing with all the nasty taxes. See how long he can hold his philosophy without bending it for that client that would set him up for months, if he would just use that one microsoft product.
In the first sentence, you're deriding his decision as "spitting on people who really want a job". I can't see how you draw that association. I see this another way: The submitter is wanting to get out of the way for someone who really wants this job, as opposed to himself. He's not spitting on anyone. He's following his beliefs, and someone else will be the beneficiary of him doing so, and (hopefully) he's going to be happier in whatever he moves on to.
If you're one of the ones who have been unsuccessful in finding a job, I have sympathy, but don't crucify someone who does have one and may not be completely happy with the terms that his employer has set up for him to stay there. Be happy that he's actively looking to vacate it so someone who can deal with the terms that the employer has in place.
And finally, saying that those "who have the drive and desire, but not the employment to be able to support themselves or their families" are the final arbiter of "enough" is, in my opinion, a massively dangerous thing to do: What stops them from interfering with you when you're the successful one that may not be completely happy?
Strive to be personally successful, make the business you work for successful, and opportunities for those who are as you describe will come if they are willing to search (maybe in a different field or zip code) and work hard enough (cross-training while sweeping floors and still searching) for them. "Business" as a whole is (usually) cyclical. It (usually) will come back around again, under the presumption that the environment that it's set in is conducive to fostering it.
If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
I think RMS and ESR (among many others) would both take exception to that statement, and I would ask you 'who is the final arbiter of "too much"?'.
http://senorgif.memebase.com/2010/04/18/funny-animated-gifs-bravo-good-sir/?from=recMap1
Yes I'm already aware of the Fisker and Tesla. They actually prove my point.
Fisker and Tesla have proved a 'boutique' car manufacturer can produce a high performance luxury electric sports car, in low numbers (so the & of R&D cost per car is massive) and still sell it profitably for around $100k.
It just confirms my point that a mass-manufacturer such as Chevy or Toyota could and should be able to do better for cheaper han a Volt or Prius.
Since you've focused on the pure electric cars, I'll respond in kind.
Battery energy density (which is exceptionally poor compared to a tank of petrol/diesel/CNG/Propane) is the problem, not a lack of desire or engineering chops. EVERYONE who is involved with car design, engineering, or tinkering wants an electric car that can do everything the current gasoline/diesel powered car can because of all the advantages that it gets you over EVERY step of the process:
Design gets a break because they don't have to dedicate a solid cubic meter (or more) of space to an engine/transmission combination: Batteries can be spread out and manufactured in almost any shape you want. Very powerful electric motors are considerably smaller than most transmissions. Exhaust systems, which are always in the very least annoying because they usually run the length of the vehicle, go away. The air space under the car can be reclaimed for cabin space or dedicated to more power storage if needed. All of this allows the designer to think more about the art and functionality of the car, instead of "how am I going to cram an engine into this thing?" Sure, part of the tradeoff is "How do I cool the motor and battery?", but again you wind up with more flexibility because batteries can be flexibly designed and motors are small.
Engineering gets a break because they don't have to deal with all the compromises that tuning a motor for torque/horsepower and efficiency. The power delivery system is considerably simpler because all you have is some sort of regulator between the battery and the electric motor. The amount of stuff you have to monitor drops considerably because you don't need to know how much air is entering the engine, the pressure that the fuel pump is working at, emissions, etc. The parts bin count for the drivetrain drops by a significant amount.
Motorheads want all of that torque that a motor can provide as early as possible. It doesn't matter if you're rock crawling, racing, or even just driving around town. Having the power delivery be predictable and non-lumpy is a significant thing. There's a reason why most who advertise engine power crow about "we give you 90% of rated torque from [x] RPM!". Electric motors give it all to you from rev one. It also makes the entire vehicle easier to work on since the parts count is smaller.
Tesla and Fisker have dumped massive amounts of cash into their battery development and aren't exactly in a place where they can say "Hey guys, this is how we did it!" and still turn a profit. I'm certain that if one of the top tier auto makers gave the owners a large enough check, they'd sell the entire operation to them. Even if they did, I'm under the assumption that the way they're doing things isn't exactly cheap in either materials or assembly labor.
Even if Fisker or Tesla did sell out to a big manufacturer, and they worked out the entire "cheap battery" thing, the one thing that they haven't cracked for their cars is the "splash and go". There was a time in my past when driving 600 miles in a day wasn't uncommon. None of the manufacturers can do that on pure electric. We're back to a power density problem. In what most would consider flyover country in the states, 150 miles of range is "almost enough" for a day's work.
The problem, as I see it, isn't the manufacturers, or a lack of desire. The ALL want it. It's that science hasn't cracked the root problems of storing energy in as efficient manner than we already have discovered in current