Branch off the main line for the elevators. Like a pitstop. Then all you have to do is make sure there are no collisions coming out of the pitstop back onto the mainline. And that's technically trivial.
Innovation is very little about having completely new ideas. It's about execution. Many people might have fantasised about vacuum tube transport, but Musk is the one to actually get people started on doing it for real. That's the real achievement.
London is full of tunnels too. But it isn't stopping them from digging the Crossrail tunnel right across it. And the diameter of Crossrail tunnels is far larger than hyperloop. So that's not a problem.
Oh dear, you do seem to be getting hot under the collar.
You seem to think battery production is limited by availability of lithium. But it's not. And China is just as capable of buying it on the world market as any other country. As well as using their own not inconsiderable reserves.
The fact is there is no barrier on China producing lithium batteries.
You idiot. The USA has a deficit with China, not the other way around.
And even were that not the case, it wouldn't affect their ability to manufacture batteries, any more than any of the other products they mass produce on a massive scale.
Calling people trolls doesn't make you right either.
There is nothing whatsoever, standing in the way of China becoming the largest manufacturer of batteries. Just as they have done with many other consumer products before. Makes no difference how much you wish it wasn't so.
And there is precisely zero that you have posted, even once, to say otherwise.
It really doesn't matter how arrogantly you say it. Batteries are just another product and there is nothing stopping China ramping up to be the biggest producer, just as they have with most other consumer products.
Again, batteries are no different. Just another manufactured product.
We don't have a lot of visibility of what factories are being created in China. It doesn't mean that there aren't or won't be factories to supply such a big demand.
Yes, it's based on the Clio IV, which was a redesign, to the extent of a completely different wheelbase. It's a different car to the 1990 one, that's just got the same name.
The Clio IV was specifically designed to accommodate a battery powered version.
You have to follow the thread. There was a post that claimed that simply squeezing batteries into petrol car designs led to designs with low range. The post I answered was disputing that. That's where the "existing design" came from. That's "the purpose of the argument".
You may need to adjust your viewing parameters to see anonymous posts.
Yes, it's a constraint. Adapting an existing design is much quicker than creating a whole new design from scratch.
The Ioniq is not relevant, given that, as you say, it was designed from scratch to support a battery powered version.
The Renault Zoe is very much a case in point. Yes it's based on the Clio. But the Clio itself was designed to be the base of a battery EV.
"The core structure is based on the latest Renault Clio. So, you could think of the Zoe as simply a Clio with an electric motor and a fancy frock. But that's not entirely fair, since the latest Clio was always conceived with optional electric power in mind. That's allowed Renault to engineer the Zoe's 22kWh, 290kg lithium battery pack to be located flat, low and centrally in the chassis." http://www.techradar.com/news/...
China has an advantage in manufacturing most products. That's why most of the things we buy were either made in China, or at least have components or raw materials that were made in China.
Tesla and Bolt demonstrate that if you design a new car from scratch, you can create a great BEV with plenty of range. But if you are taking an existing design, you kinda have to fit the batteries in where you can. As you say there are spaces created by taking ICE components out. But they are a bit here and a bit there. There's not the space for a single large battery pack under the floor as there is for Tesla and bolt. So the battery will not be as big or have the range. Unless you can think of a BEV that's been adapted from an ICE vehicle with a big range. I can't.
Sure. But when you're not invested in trying to fight your own way along in the car, and you are reading a book, or browsing the internet, what do you care? You'll probably not even notice.
Do you think passengers in a bus care about the details of how the journey is going to the bus driver?
I'm not sure I'd call Audi's limited L3 as L3, as it still requires a human to take you in and out of the limited scenario of use.
If it didn't require that it'd be level 4.
Level 3 (âeyes offâ): The driver can safely turn their attention away from the driving tasks, e.g. the driver can text or watch a movie. The vehicle will handle situations that call for an immediate response, like emergency braking. The driver must still be prepared to intervene within some limited time, specified by the manufacturer, when called upon by the vehicle to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
LHC needs a complete vacuum. Hyperloop doesn't. It just needs low pressure. Pressure in the ballpark that a high flying passenger jet would encounter.
Branch off the main line for the elevators. Like a pitstop. Then all you have to do is make sure there are no collisions coming out of the pitstop back onto the mainline. And that's technically trivial.
Innovation is very little about having completely new ideas. It's about execution. Many people might have fantasised about vacuum tube transport, but Musk is the one to actually get people started on doing it for real. That's the real achievement.
Completely new ideas are very, very rare.
London is full of tunnels too. But it isn't stopping them from digging the Crossrail tunnel right across it.
And the diameter of Crossrail tunnels is far larger than hyperloop.
So that's not a problem.
Yes, probably he did ask Trump. And Trump probably did say yes. Because that's the kind of thing Trump does.
It's way too early to say SpaceX isn't going to Mars. They've changed their mind about one particular technology, that's all.
Oh dear, you do seem to be getting hot under the collar.
You seem to think battery production is limited by availability of lithium. But it's not. And China is just as capable of buying it on the world market as any other country. As well as using their own not inconsiderable reserves.
The fact is there is no barrier on China producing lithium batteries.
You idiot. The USA has a deficit with China, not the other way around.
And even were that not the case, it wouldn't affect their ability to manufacture batteries, any more than any of the other products they mass produce on a massive scale.
Calling people trolls doesn't make you right either.
There is nothing whatsoever, standing in the way of China becoming the largest manufacturer of batteries. Just as they have done with many other consumer products before. Makes no difference how much you wish it wasn't so.
And there is precisely zero that you have posted, even once, to say otherwise.
Being an asshole still won't make you right.
Batteries are no different to any other consumer product. There are no hurdles stopping China from becoming the biggest manufacturer.
It really doesn't matter how arrogantly you say it. Batteries are just another product and there is nothing stopping China ramping up to be the biggest producer, just as they have with most other consumer products.
No miracles needed.
Again, batteries are no different. Just another manufactured product.
We don't have a lot of visibility of what factories are being created in China. It doesn't mean that there aren't or won't be factories to supply such a big demand.
Early days. China may not be the first manufacturer of a product, but they do tend to be the biggest once it's mainstream.
Yes, it's based on the Clio IV, which was a redesign, to the extent of a completely different wheelbase. It's a different car to the 1990 one, that's just got the same name.
The Clio IV was specifically designed to accommodate a battery powered version.
Not just shitty ones. The most desirable ones too.
You have to follow the thread. There was a post that claimed that simply squeezing batteries into petrol car designs led to designs with low range. The post I answered was disputing that. That's where the "existing design" came from. That's "the purpose of the argument".
You may need to adjust your viewing parameters to see anonymous posts.
Yes, it's a constraint. Adapting an existing design is much quicker than creating a whole new design from scratch.
The Ioniq is not relevant, given that, as you say, it was designed from scratch to support a battery powered version.
You prove my point.
The Renault Zoe is very much a case in point. Yes it's based on the Clio. But the Clio itself was designed to be the base of a battery EV.
"The core structure is based on the latest Renault Clio. So, you could think of the Zoe as simply a Clio with an electric motor and a fancy frock.
But that's not entirely fair, since the latest Clio was always conceived with optional electric power in mind. That's allowed Renault to engineer the Zoe's 22kWh, 290kg lithium battery pack to be located flat, low and centrally in the chassis."
http://www.techradar.com/news/...
Batteries are no different. Just another manufactured product.
China has an advantage in manufacturing most products. That's why most of the things we buy were either made in China, or at least have components or raw materials that were made in China.
Tesla and Bolt demonstrate that if you design a new car from scratch, you can create a great BEV with plenty of range. But if you are taking an existing design, you kinda have to fit the batteries in where you can. As you say there are spaces created by taking ICE components out. But they are a bit here and a bit there. There's not the space for a single large battery pack under the floor as there is for Tesla and bolt. So the battery will not be as big or have the range. Unless you can think of a BEV that's been adapted from an ICE vehicle with a big range. I can't.
Doh! The AUSTIN Mini. I was careful to specify so you wouldn't think the modern BMW car.
This one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sure. But when you're not invested in trying to fight your own way along in the car, and you are reading a book, or browsing the internet, what do you care? You'll probably not even notice.
Do you think passengers in a bus care about the details of how the journey is going to the bus driver?
They used to be able to. The Austin Mini was cheap and very popular.
If it didn't require that it'd be level 4.
Level 3 (âeyes offâ): The driver can safely turn their attention away from the driving tasks, e.g. the driver can text or watch a movie. The vehicle will handle situations that call for an immediate response, like emergency braking. The driver must still be prepared to intervene within some limited time, specified by the manufacturer, when called upon by the vehicle to do so.
You'll be better off. An autonomous car is looking in all directions at all times. It will see you and act accordingly. A human driver often won't.