That sounds like the designs in F-Zero, which is 24th century
Volkswagen to Try and Get the Nürburgring Record for an Electric Vehicle with the I.D. R
- Thread starter Davide Nativo
- Start date
I was aware of that technology. I am just kidding with the classic snes game and its timeline setting.
Niels_at_home
Reiza Studios
These days there are so many cool tech projects that you may think nothing is impossible.
However, some things might simply be impossible, or a very long way off, or too impractical for many reasons.
Sometimes the idea of the tech is so cool that anyone challenging it gets virtual rotten tomatoes thrown at him/her.. That is a bit scary sometimes because science and progress happens *because* of critical thinking and analysis, not from falling for hype or marketing.
Plenty of kickstarter projects have taken lots of money from the 'less critically thinking', only to indeed fail miserably as could have been predicted by anyone with a highschool science degree. They pop up again and again, like solar roads and getting water from the air, to take millions of dollars from people and governments while it is completely known to any critical highschool student that they will fail.
An very powerful racing car would need to be fed with 500kW of energy. It can carry that with it in a battery, fuel tank, or by a football field worth of solar panels, or a portable coal plant or whatever.
Or you do it externally with a very long extension cord or fuel hose..
Sure you can use induction or some technology to charge a car driving over such a strip in the road but:
- Does this work when there is a layer of tarmac between car and charging strip?
- What about efficiency?
- cost of making most of the road out of basically copper coils (which I think is what you need for induction)
- can you actually get a continuous few hundred kilowatt from the ground to the cars?
- what if efficiency is 50%, you're going to melt the road and waste huge amounts of power, isn't that the opposite of why you'd have electric cars?
Now I don't know this all exactly and I am rambling on... But just because there is a video of some early tech where a car receives some power from an induction 'lane' does not mean it will work in practise, let alone for racing.
But I'm really dragging on now, a waste of energy in itself!
However, some things might simply be impossible, or a very long way off, or too impractical for many reasons.
Sometimes the idea of the tech is so cool that anyone challenging it gets virtual rotten tomatoes thrown at him/her..
That is a bit scary sometimes because science and progress happens *because* of critical thinking and analysis, not from falling for hype or marketing. Plenty of kickstarter projects have taken lots of money from the 'less critically thinking', only to indeed fail miserably as could have been predicted by anyone with a highschool science degree. They pop up again and again, like solar roads and getting water from the air, to take millions of dollars from people and governments while it is completely known to any critical highschool student that they will fail.
An very powerful racing car would need to be fed with 500kW of energy. It can carry that with it in a battery, fuel tank, or by a football field worth of solar panels, or a portable coal plant or whatever.
Or you do it externally with a very long extension cord or fuel hose..
Sure you can use induction or some technology to charge a car driving over such a strip in the road but:
- Does this work when there is a layer of tarmac between car and charging strip?
- What about efficiency?
- cost of making most of the road out of basically copper coils (which I think is what you need for induction)
- can you actually get a continuous few hundred kilowatt from the ground to the cars?
- what if efficiency is 50%, you're going to melt the road and waste huge amounts of power, isn't that the opposite of why you'd have electric cars?
Now I don't know this all exactly and I am rambling on... But just because there is a video of some early tech where a car receives some power from an induction 'lane' does not mean it will work in practise, let alone for racing.
But I'm really dragging on now, a waste of energy in itself!
Don't worries mate, in the future the race cars will use a 15kg battery pack because the track itself will provide energy to the battery constantly or just in certain straights, is something that can be done "easy" and is not a 2040 tech is here and now. that will solve all your issues with battery weights.
What about rallying? Or Dakar type rally raids? Circuit is not the only motorsport out there..
Davide Nativo
Premium
Yep, everybody knows that petrol is what fireman uses to extinguish a fire, they do that, don't let them cheat you telling is water...
The risk of a fire is something we have in all type of vehicles.
What @Niels_at_home meant is that fire caused by batteries is much more dangerous than that caused by petrol for a number of reasons:
- There's usually more 'fuel' to burn in an electric vehicle compared to an ICE;
- Firefighters do not have, at the moment, the proper gear and means to effectively put out a fire caused by batteries as they do with one caused by petrol;
- A burning battery is a much more vicious opponent to fight than a burning petrol tank;
- A battery that caught fire can spontaneously re-ignite up to 24 hours after the fire has been effectively put out, whereas a fire caused by petrol once it has been put out is no longer a threat.
Lots of good articles about the subject
google it!
Last edited:
Lol. You're conveniently forgetting all that is involved in getting the electricity to the battery. Battery material mining, burning of coal and other sources to produce electricity, etc.
Lol. Another pipe dream. But, keep dreaming. Now, when you're ready to finance the trillions of dollars it will cost to but these strips in roads everywhere, please let us know. Lol. Ridiculous
Davide Nativo
Premium
He is talking about another kind of efficiency. He means that out of all the petrol you burn in your car, only 20% of it produces power that actually moves the car, all the rest is just wasted in heat. In EVs that efficiency goes up to 80-90%. So yes, electric is much more efficient in that regard than fossil fuel.
On rallies they can change battery between stages, and Dakar?, What's Dakkar?, ah! yes the legendary race from Paris to Dakkar that doesn't exist anymore?, I think it has been already a Ev on Dakkar. Not great performance I recall https://electrek.co/2017/01/16/all-electric-car-dakar-rally-acciona/,
but we can keep the trucks! , they have a lot of space for a ton of batteries!
What @Niels_at_home meant is that fire caused by batteries is much more dangerous than that caused by petrol for a number of reasons:
- There's usually more 'fuel' to burn in an electric vehicle compared to an ICE;
- Firefighters do not have, at the moment, the proper gear and means to effectively put out a fire caused by batteries as they do with one caused by petrol;
- A burning battery is a much more vicious opponent to fight than a burning petrol tank;
- A battery that caught fire can spontaneously re-ignite up to 24 hours after the fire has been effectively put out, whereas a fire caused by petrol once it has been put out is no longer a threat.
Lots of good articles about the subject
"There's usually more 'fuel' to burn in an electric vehicle compared to an ICE"
Is there? 1 liter of gasoline contains about 9.5kWh of energy. 30 liters of gasoline would amount to 285kWh of energy, almost 3 times as much as in the largest batteries put into consumer EVs.
Not to mention that gasoline spills everywhere, the fire spreads faster and is more likely to catch on fire in the first place.
Sure, batteries can catch on fire long after the fire has been extinguished, but the car can be easily contained by then. And If I found myself in an accident, I'd much rather the energy was released in small doses, rather than all at once.
Yes, whatever, do you think the gasoline you uses arrives to the gas station by magic?, If I charge my car with 100% renewable energy I'm with the 75-90% of efficiency yes or yes.
BTW, the VW I.D.R. will brake all the records at the ring!, for sure the team is working to get even a better version, remember they had less than a year to make the car for Pikes Peak!, and is VW, they have a ton of money to get this done!
Doesn't matter. In the end, it's less efficient. Just because you don't see the inefficiency at your end doesn't mean it's not the case. But honestly, regarding electric I don't think a lot of people care. Ignorance is bliss and electric cars are the bandwagon everyone wants to get on to make themselves seem like good caring world saving people. It's quite funny to watch really.
Electric is less efficient in the end.Yes, whatever, do you think the gasoline you uses arrives to the gas station by magic?, If I charge my car with 100% renewable energy I'm with the 75-90% of efficiency yes or yes.
BTW, the VW I.D.R. will brake all the records at the ring!, for sure the team is working to get even a better version, remember they had less than a year to make the car for Pikes Peak!, and is VW, they have a ton of money to get this done!
Please just answer this question, If all vehicles on the road where EV, do we get this on our cities?
Sure there's a thousand things they are worst than cars (energy plants f.e.), but in the city what is destroying the air are cars no matter what.
Well it's not like you provided any evidence to support your claims...
Davide Nativo
Premium
Behave guys, @Kenny Paton is already busy as he is
When they originally announced this few days ago they said themselves that they doesn't have chance to break Porsche 919 Evo's record, but (of course) they should be ready to easily break electric record(okay, they didn't said that they'll easily break it, but come on, it's obvious that they'll do it).
This appears to be that you are doing one of two things:Yep, everybody knows that petrol is what fireman uses to extinguish a fire, they do that, don't let them cheat you telling is water...
1. Being purposely disingenuous by utilizing a strawman, or
2. You really do not understand.
Let me elaborate: I was a firefighter for over 20 years, the last 12 it was my profession. The "Hollywood" myth is that fuel explodes or even catches on fire easily, (or as you infer: spontaneously like batteries, especially lithium ion batteries, will do). It does not. It takes a lot of heat and an unvented vessel to cause the types of explosions seen on tv and in the movies.
Does it burn vigorously? Yes. Fuel is one of the most efficient means of combustion we use today, if not the most efficient. The reason for this efficiency is due to its ability to not only burn readily in proper conditions, but the amount of power derived from burning fuel.
Proper conditions is the watch word here: Normal unleaded gas does not readily ignite without the proper fuel-air mix, which is a very narrow window. Too much fuel or too much air prevents fuel from igniting. Proper containment, such as vented tanks and such, does not allow for combustion unless certain factors are in play: Containment has to be breached in one manner or another. Enough oxygen, but not too much, is introduced in such a manner that we get a proper fuel/oxygen ratio. A method of combustion must be introduced at the right time and for the right amount of time (allowing for conditions), that will not only ignite the fuel but allow ignition to sustain for any period of time.
It is very rare that you get those conditions in normal driving or even when the car is parked or being re-fueled. Even sparks will not readily ignite fuel or cause it to explode unless those conditions are present.
Vehicle fires involving fuel are not from fuel spontaneously igniting and spreading, but from other parts of the vehicle igniting and the fuel system becoming involved. Yes, you can get fuel on a header and it can ignite, but that is not due to the volatility of the fuel but rather due to a mechanical malfunction that caused the fuel to ignite.
Diesel is even harder to burn.
You, again, infer that gasoline has a propensity to spontaneously ignite like batteries do. It does not. When I responded to vehicle fires I was not worried about the fuel, that was easy to handle, I worried about tires exploding (not too much danger but they are loud and tend to startle, try working next to a tire when it goes off. My ears rang for three days.) and batteries exploding. Those two parts of a vehicle were the ones that exploded the most. I never had a vehicle fire that could be directly attributed to fuel spontaneously igniting, nor did I ever have a vehicle vigorously combust (explode) due to fire or other influences.
