Whether you like 'em or not....they are definitely a wave of the future.
Not sure what I think about the whole idea myself.

Still have the rear luggage boot which is nice.

It's pretty slick the bolt in rear cradle that holds some of the batteries, Tesla motor, cooling, etc.

The "custom" look is pretty bad as to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJTNsH-SIqk

agree 100 percent

Already discussed in a couple of places:

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...45686&st=40

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...=360290&hl=

No quicker way to destroy a 914 than to put a ton of batteries in it.

Shame so few "drivers" value handling anymore. That used to be the whole point of what these funny little European cars were about.

Try pulling 0.5g turn or perform 0.5g braking. Most of your friends and family will wet themselves like little girls thinking they past the limit and about to die.

For me the manual transmission in the 914 is 50% of the fun. Taking that out for an electric motor seems such a loss.

Batteries will get lighter.

And you can put the electric on the transmission. It doesn't help with range but I would definitely do it for fun.

Wonder if the batteries in the frunk compensate for the engine, battery, coolant cage extending past the rear axles aft in balance?

No. Only further increases moment of inertia and degrades steering and handling.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. The promised land of battery technology is always 10 years away . . . as it has been for the last 20 year or more.

It's always a trade off between range and weight.

To keep the universe even, somebody now has to install air-cooled type 4 engines into two Teslas.

Just like we would never be able to watch video over a dial up modem or have a battery powered phone that last or more the 30min this will change. battery technology from 10 years ago is not even a discussion point. I work with companies that are automating manufacturing for these product and the problem is the technology is moving so fast that the technology is obsolete before it gets manufactured. I do not know what it will look like in 10 years but it will not be recognizable from today. Bigger problem is updating power infrastructure to not be just transferring pollution production.

john

What the heck are you talking about

Sure it's a compromise between range and weight, but the range batteries get for the same volume/weight today is many times more than just a decade ago. Maybe the weight of the battery hasn't changed so much, but the amount of juice inside it certainly has. Remember that 30 years ago these cars would have been crammed full of lead acid batteries that just "might" get you to the grocery store and back.



https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articl...m-ion-batteries

Where does one find these 450 whL batteries?

The SK innovation has batteries close to that. Ford is using them along with VW group.
The Ford module size is not the best for a 914. 24x15x5 in

412 wH per liter
259 wH per kilogram

The ID4 has battery modules a better size, they could be located very low on each side of the motor
Length 590mm
Width 225mm
Height 110mm

Agreed. Point being Lithium is the lightest metal (and 3rd lightest element) so not likely to find a new metal to replace it anytime “soon”.

Yes, battery energy density is increasing but it is still a long way from the energy density of gasoline.

Always fun to on the EV topic

My end point being that the weight of the batteries is what destroys the handling - especially with a 914 conversion. That’s OK if you only drive in a straight line to go get ice cream as your fun drive. I prefer something that handles better than that.

Well, let's consider these two examples. They said the rear battery pack plus Tesla drive train weighs about the same as a Six engine and trans. Okay, I've heard people argue even the extra weight of a six takes away some of the nimbleness of a four, but people seem to be pretty happy with the handling of their sixes.

Let's just consider that if they dropped the front battery pack, the weight has been held about the same. It's hard to know how the distribution of weight between battery pack and motors affects moment of inertia compared with a stock ICE. It looks like maybe it would be moved toward the axles a bit more, but seems it would be close(ish). Seems like you should be allowed at least a small battery pack in the fuel tank compartment to make up the weight of a full tank. Overall, some range would be lost but how much? The point being that even with current tech, you should be able to EV a 914 without destroying the handling if that were the priority.

It's all good because I know that you secretly fantasize about your own 914 EV

Thanks. So not available outside OEM?

Also it's not for a 914. I'm looking into doing a practical DD likely my old Nissan truck.

Is it just me or did cells nearly double in price this year?

Not exactly an air-cooled ICE, but this guy swapped an LS into a Tesla Model S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnrybJ2f50

Apparently a 4bt cummins swap into a model 3 is next; they're calling it a Tesla Model-D.

What flavor is the Kool-Aid?

We don't have to guess blindly at what the range might be with your proposal.

Let's presume that you are correct and that the powertrain approximates the mass and inertia of the /6.

So to preserve handling, now let's replace the fuel tank with batteries. Luckily we already know the volume of the 914 tank. 62 liters.

For simplicity let's assume we can package the batteries with perfect efficiency and use all 62 liters of space for the batteries.

Using 914e's specification of 412 Wh per liter we get 62 liters * 412 Wh/liter = 25,544 Wh. Likewise, 25,544 Wh / 259 Wh/Kg = 98.6 kg. This is extremely generous since 100% volumetric efficiency won't be achieved with packaging of the batteries in that "tank" space. Tesla model 3 battery packs are on the order of 300 Kg - 400 Kg depending on size so 98.6 Kg 914 battery is very generous indeed. Notice, in the video that the reality is that the 26 KWh battery they have occupies the entire Frunk in front of the gas tank. The reality is that you cannot package 26 KWh of battery in that gas tank package space. I'll ignore this for now.

So let's say gasoline weighs 6.0 lb/gallon, after conversions this is 0.719 kg/liter. So gasoline would weigh --> 62 liters * 0.719 kg/liter = 44.6 kg. Hmm . . . so those batteries are double the weight up there vs. gasoline. I can guarantee you that I can feel the degradation from an extra 44.6 kg of weight up in the gas tank area which is now increasing moment of inertia in a big way.

But wait, we don't even have the weight of the power electronics yet. I guess whatever they weigh - they would have to go in the Frunk and will continue to degrade handling even further since that added Frunk mass is no longer centralized. I'll ignore them for now to work in your favor.

Now how about range? That 62 liters of gas would normally get us 410 miles of range at 25 mpg. It can also be refueled in less than 5 minutes.

So what might we expect for range from a 25 kilowatt hour battery pack? Might be a bit harder to guesstimate. Let's work off a Tesla Model 3. The Model 3 gets about 165 miles off the 50KWh battery. Only about 40Kwh (of the 50 KWh) is usable since we can't discharge Li-ion to zero SOC (keeping 20% reserve - using 80%).

https://ev-database.uk/car/1060/Tesla-Model-3-Standard-Range

So let's do that with our 914 battery pack. 25 KWh * 0.8 = 20 KWh usable capacity.

So now let's scale and say that if the Tesla Model 3 gets 165 miles of real world range off that 40 KWh usable battery - simple scaling would give us 1/2 of that off the 914 20 Kwh (usable0 battery = 82.5 miles. I'll even grant you that the 914 is lighter than the Model 3 and will have less rolling resistance as a result. I'll guesstimate it might be 30% more efficient due to that weight delta (3600 lbs vs 2000 ish). So we'll call it 107 mile range which will be more than generous for that tiny 25 KWh battery.

So I guess I won't be road tripping in a 914 anytime soon. Sounding a lot more like an ice cream getter to me.

It's not that I am completely against EV's. What I do oppose is all the wishful thinking and boundless optimism that ignores the physics that degrades a conversion as well as the range assumptions that assume the conversion would still usable for real world purposes like a long road trip.

Would love to convert my 914 autocross car. I would be a rocket ship. I saw a WV Bug over the weekend at a show that used Tesla battery packs. see ...

Click to view attachment

I think you missed my point - or more likely chose to ignore it because, yes, I know how you are

There's no disagreement that batteries have not come close to the energy density of gasoline, so yes, any 914 EV conversion will be a compromise as the 914 (or any car) has been since first conception. I'm just saying it is now possible to match the weight distribution of a stock 914 with an EV package that gets a respectable amount of range, keeps the fantastic handling, gains a ton of torque and power, and sound damn cool while beating the pants off any stock 914. Yes, that's right, EVs sound cool That would not be easily accomplished just a decade ago.

No, the car is not going to be a long hauler. If you want that, you have to pay the weight and handling penalty like you say. Can't deny that the energy density of liquid petrol has its perks. I'm just saying that if you constrain the conversion to matching the weight distribution of a stock ICE, you can still have a fun car. 100 mile range really isn't bad for a pleasure ride. You don't have to have "boundless optimism." Even if you are realistic about trade-offs and limitations, there is a lot to like about EVs and they just keep getting better.

Love the info card on that bug. Very cool!

@bbrock - i can see the point @Superhawk996 is making.
at least in relation to the EV conversion in question.

they have installed a battery pack in the nose forward of the front axle line.
which will change the low polar moment character of the 914 where all major weight was inboard.

also the battery pack in the engine bay is vertical so some weight is up at a higher centre of gravity?

it might not ruin the 914 but it will change it.
the front battery pack location means that things are more like a blend of 924 where major weight was right out to ends of car in line with axles or boxster where they have deliberately put weight out past the axle lines (ie radiators etc) to curb low polar moment snappiness. however in case of both examples porsche took care to have 50 50 weight distribution. if you could set up an ev to maintain that 50 50 weight dist and importantly balanced the right distance from axle lines you might end up with a very neutral handling car closer to a 924 or boxster.

but as superhawk says. it isn't a 914 anymore.

i think it would very tricky to do an ev conversion on a 914 and keep its particular handling character. ideally the battery packs need to go in the space where the fuel tank once was. and for the power unit and battery packs in engine area to have as low a centre of gravity as possible.

Oh, I get his point too. I'm just saying ditch the pack in the frunk, move what you can to the gas tank area, and take the hit on range and you are close to where you started on weight distribution. Not exact, but close. To say that an EV conversion ruins the handling of a 914 as a blanket statement is a bit of an overreach IMO.

As far as whether it is still a 914, I'd have to drive it before I would make that call. People transplant all sorts of exotic drive trains into these chassis without getting kicked out of the 914 club. Whatever they are, they look like hella fun cars.

yes thats right. i'd take the hit on range over handling too if was doing it.

given i drive a gutless 1.8, i treasure the feel of the car driving it.
thats the one thing i would not want to ruin.
if i was doing an ev i would want to somehow retain that.

the alternative would be to build an acceleration monster.
not a bad idea either. i quite like the idea of all those V-8 conversions you americans do.
but its a different car.

i think the greater challenge is the conversion that maintains the original weight distribution and mass. technically its a lot harder to do than a pragmatic approach that results in a different kind of overall chassis character.

It’s pretty easy to lighten a 914 by 200-250lbs and a 300lb weight savings isn’t impossible. So there is a lot of room to help make up for the batteries.
You also have to individualize the owners needs. I know a local member who uses his 914ev for a 5 mile work commute. He might be very happy with 40-50 miles of range. I realize we are talking Delaware and not the Midwest. For some people, electric might never satisfy their needs but that’s ok.

something like this might satisfy me.
looks like it goes around corners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96UjqDWGVns

If electric cars are the way of the future why does the Gov have to force them on us?
Why not let the free market innovate and develop ev things. Gas is expensive on purpose.

Group think is one brick throw away from mob rules.....

How about east coast and west coat can have only ev cars because of population density?
Rural areas need gas. I have a 20 miles one way drive for meds or food. We also have water running across the roads after rain. Take that ev throw 6inches of water and your fucked.

I think ev are cool. I don't think they are the future, they are 100 year old tech +.
Its like putting a GPS map on a horse and telling you that you can save money on gas.

That bug have enough money in his engine ($15385) to do a 356SC engine.

Matt

A bit of a complementary topic, this is the best explanation I've seen as to why electric cars are NOT the answer yet:

The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles

(14 minute TEDx talk)

And if you just watched the TED talk above - you will have learned that the horse is a CO2 emitter -- Bad Horsie


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5BrE1Pi5cU


The power of propaganda

The next big thing is sometimes a bust. But I am hoping it leads to the next big thing. Like going from incandescent to CFL to LED. We needed number two to get to number three. Is Hydrogen the next number three? I hated the CFL bulb, crap light, no dimming, they hummed, they were hot and did not last as long as advertised.

100 years ago the distribution of power in an automobile was almost even, 1/3 gas, 1/3 steam and 1/3 electric. We have not come a long way baby.

I also question what happens to the tens of thousands of battery packs and solar panels in 5, 10 or 20 years when they are expired. Toxic waste?

I mentioned this EV conversion possibility for my fourteener to one of my sons after surfing the net on the topic and reading then piece about Frances and her 914 EV efforts in the latest Panorama. He looked sideways at me and said, so dad, you want to build this into a golf cart? Ha ha. I'm thinking awhile about that perspective.

One of my favorite parts of the 914 is the light weight. Batteries and light weight are not a fit.

The technology is at least a bunch of years away until EV's can compete with our time tested IC engines

Hmm, the last 8 Le Mans winners were EV hybrids using Lithium ion batteries. Seems they can compete in at least some respects.

And again, review the examples we are talking about here. Dump part of the front battery pack and move what you can into the fuel tank compartment and you have a lightweight 914 that weighs no more than a stock six with probably a little over 100 miles of range that will smoke most ICE configurations we've stuffed into these chassis.

I'm not an EV fanboy and think they have some improvements to make before an EV will be parked in my garage, but the technology has a lot to offer even today. These two cars in particular check a lot of boxes.

The frunk pack would actually be +100 miles as the rear pack/motor assm is 100 miles. 200 miles could get you out of town, though....

Vegas to Salt Lake, Red Rocks 2022, 430 miles. So 1 and a half charges to get there plus 2 and a half to get back, plus a charge a day to do the runs.
Using the Beetle as the example that's 16 hours of charging per stop. Let's say your batteries can do fast charging but not Tesla Supercharging, that's about 1 hour per stop right? Doable actually.

But realistically because the trip is over 200 miles one way I would flat tow, which would add noticeably to the trip as the tow pig gets about half the mpg of the 914n6.

Also... I will notice +280lbs in the frunk as I understeer thru the corners. My filled radiator with fans is only 20lbs. My v6 is 320lbs loaded with a/c comp, so between a -4 and -6. At $7k for a 26kw battery I could do 2 conversions. At $5.50/gal that's >30k miles just to break even with 1 pack cost. No reason to continue with the whole EV cost return.

On a positive note, that is a clean EV install and overall I dig the car, except the front turns.

@bbrock

I think you missed the part where I was super generous with my package assumptions and said let's ASSUME we can package 62L of battery with 100% package efficiency.

I made no allowance for Battery Management System, battery cooling loop plumbing, high voltage wiring, and power electronics.

You will get nowhere near that battery capacity I calculated in the that fuel tank compartment in REALITY

Take a look a the Beetle picture closely. You'd be lucky to fit 2 of those battery modules in the volume available for the fuel tank. So maybe 10 KWh of battery capacity with only 80% of that being usable You will get no where 100 miles of range on batteries that only take up the fuel tank compartment on current battery technology . Oh, and take a look at the weight of the Beetle battery pack -- I was also super generous with the weight estimate too

You will not keep the dynamic handling character of a 914 with an EV conversion.

You're reference to LeMans is an apples to oranges comparison. I don't deny that a purpose designed EV racer can do well w.r.t. handling given the batteries will be packaged for low Cg and centralized mass . . . a cobbled 914 EV conversion is another story and the handing WILL be degraded because of the physics and the realities of where we are w.r.t. battery technology.

Seems the boundless optimism is creeping in.

Watch the video again. These cars have 52KWh of batteries. Twenty-six KWh are in the frunk and 26 KWh in the engine bay. The drive train PLUS rear battery pack and cooling is roughly the weight of a six cylinder engine and transmission according to the vid. Just dump the front pack altogether and you are already close to, or exceeding 100 mile range by your calculations. Now let's add whatever batteries to the fuel compartment we can to equal the weight of a full fuel tank. Your calculations indicate you get about 12KWh in 44.6 Kg of batteries that would approximate the weight of a full gas tank. Let's knock that down to 10KWh to allow for the electronics that are already in the fuel compartment. That's an extra 42 miles of range by your calculation. So we would be looking at what, 120-150 miles of range without adding any weight? I could have some fun with that.

It isn't optimism. It's just doing some math on what has already been built.

Nope. Because I didn't make that comparison, you did. The statement I was responding to was that EV technology is years away from being able to compete with ICE. That said, I know what @930cabman was saying and generally agree. Until we are able to conveniently get 200 miles+ range on a 15 minute charge, I don't think EVs will compete with ICE for the full spectrum of use cases for cars. We need a LOT of improvement in charging infrastructure and some improvement in battery/charging tech. However, I think it is fair to say EV is already out-competing ICE in many areas of what we expect cars to do and already satisfy some use cases nicely.

One example, we are in need of a new truck and are eyeing the Ford F150 Lightening carefully. Why? Because we only use pickup trucks for hauling crap in the bed, and 200 miles of range is more than enough for us for that purpose. We could charge it with our solar power at home AND the truck could be used as battery backup for our house. A Youtuber did the math and figured out it is actually cheaper to by an F150 than to buy the equivalent number of Tesla Powerwalls to match the energy storage of the truck. Of course, that is an insane amount of storage for backup of most homes, but funny to think about.

@bbrock & @Superhawk996

achtung.

don't even bother argueing.
the future is here.
i posted it above.
check the youtube link.
a 4 wheel motorcycle that is the closest thing to a 21st century 914 just blew doors at goodwood hill climb this year.

just get access to an apricot orchard and grow biofuel to have a strategy to preserve 914s or power your house off your ford (and those numbers are correct bbrock ).

but you would not bother with an ev conversion when you see what just went down - days ago.

ev. fan powered downdraft. its here. and its not a replacement, or a conversion,
its a whole new idea (the new is made of the old remixed with some spices). which is what the future is meant to be.

and its compelling.

914s are fabulous. the best museum piece you could have. a high point.

and now there is a hint of whats next.

try a tiny car. with a 0- 186 mph in under 9 seconds.
like fu%k 0-60 mph. lets have a whole new measure.

hit the link in my post above.
are you guys all asleep or something.

Yes and I enjoy my sleep

Excuse my ignorance as I had no knowledge of the past 8 Lemans winners running EV hybrids.

New technology is great and we need it, but converting a finely tuned machine with batteries is not for me.

Being an old stubborn guy, I enjoy the simplicity of my fleet of 914's as the drivability has similarities to my first car in 1969, a '63 bug. I run carbs too

@bbrock

You know I can't resist a good debate.

I think we are all over the map. I'm not debating that you can get 100 miles of range out of a 914 with a 26 KWh battery. That is agreed.

What I want to focus on is the falsehood that the EV conversion doesn't destroy the 914 dynamic handling character. I get people will do conversions - that's fine if they want to spend a whole lot of money to build a less capable 914 (less range than gasoline, degraded handling vs. a stock 914, and shitty range as compared to purpose designed EV).

I call that the power pack unit in the video is roughly the weight of a six:

From information I can find on-line

Tesla rear motor unit: 290 lbs
26Kwh batteries (let's use the Beetle numbers) -- 280 lbs
Two cooling tanks with lets say 4 gallon of water - 32 lbs
Cradle with sufficient structure to support all the weight - 75 lbs (estimated)
Radiators -- 2 @ 4 lbs each = 8 lbs
Fans --4 @ 1 lb each = 4 lbs
Total = 689 lbs.

I'm a little unclear on where the power electronics are - are they in the front battery module or the rear? How much do they weigh (guessing about 10 lbs based on weight of Tesla SiC MOSFET inverter)? That looks like it may be the inverter DC to DC converter on the side of the rear battery pack?

Now lets talk moments of inertia

Look at this picture - that is A LOT of mass siting up at the TOP of the engine compartment. Not only the coolant but probably also the power electronics (inverter, DC/DC converter, some of the batteries, etc.) that are sitting up high in the engine compartment. This is unlike a boxer engine that puts most of that mass low in the vehicle. That is going to lead to increased propensity for the vehicle body roll as well as fore/aft pitch when braking and accelerating.

Click to view attachment

Now let's look this one

Click to view attachment

So the motor is well behind the rear axle. This is a 290 lb mass that is going to seriously degrade the handling by adding moment of inertia to the vehicle. Not only because of the mass and it's rearward placement, but also because it's running (and its gyroscopic rotation) laterially across the car. This is unlike the gas powertrain where the crankshaft, transmission gears, and differential, are centralized and rotating along the central axis of the vehicle.

Then of course we have the radiators stuck out at the farthest end. At least they are relatively light.

My main bitch with all this are the flippant remarks by those that do these conversions and gloss over them with remarks that it's about the same weight The burden of proof is not on me to prove that the vehicle has been degraded. It's PHYSICS. Those doing conversions don't get a pass on physics and math just because it's an EV.


I'm not saying my mass numbers or engineering analysis are 100% correct - I'm working with what I can find on-line. However, I am tired of having to be the one to dig out the numbers while those doing the conversions just spin a fairy tale about how good the vehicle is while driving a straight line down the motorway.

If these conversions are so good, then post numbers (mass, range, moments of inertia). Moments of inertia could easily be modeled with some basic CAD work. The onus is not on me . . . they have the components, they can measure where they are packaged, they can determine with a high degree of precision what the degradation is instead of me doing napkin math. Yet they never tell you that information . . . I wonder why?

I propose the following challenge for those that want to do an experiment to see how mass and its placement degrade vehicle handling.

Go to Home Depot, buy some 50 lb bags of pea gravel. They only cost about $4 a bag. Buy 6 bags (300 lbs). This will cost you all of $30 to learn a very important lesson in Physics. Go have a field day -- move that mass around between the Frunk, the passenger compartment, and the Trunk and see how it changes the vehicle handling. Arrange the mass longitudinally vs. laterally and note the change. If by chance you can't tell the difference . . . an EV conversion won't bother you a bit.

Love the optimism. You will get no where near 200 miles of range hauling heavy cargo or towing.

Before I left the industry, I was in discussions with the major RV manufacturers. They are very concerned about their business model given the coming mandates. As in, if EV's are mandated as currently planned, the RV industry ceases to exist.

Think towing ranges of 90 miles.

https://www.motor1.com/news/590117/f150-lig...-towing-camper/
"Before Schmidt connected the trailer to the truck, the range was 85 miles (137 kilometers). After entering the measurements of the trailer onto the system, the Lightning automatically recalculated the range to 54 mi (87 km). As for efficiency, he said that he's seeing 0.8 mi/kWh when the trailer's connected – around half of the usual 1.5-1.8 mi/kWh he's getting sans the Airstream camper."

Good thing you're towing the camper with an EV truck. You'll basically be living out of the camper while you're waiting for the next charge so you can move down the road another 100 miles.

I know . . . we'll just put an electric platform under the trailer so that it can provide it's own motive power, reducing parasitic load on the EV tow vehicle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQEztxVGEbI


Have you ever actually used a fast charger?

Now imagine:
1) Trying to find one with enough space for a truck and the trailer
2) A situation where you can charge both the truck and the trailer simultaneously
3) Having to disconnect the trailer to charge the truck. Then move the trailer to be charged - but putting the truck elsewhere while the trailer charges.
4) Not being murdered while napping in the camper by those lined up behind you waiting for their chance to charge.

wonkipop your dreaming. That car is the equivalent of a Top Fuel Dragster. Completely useless on the street for human needs.

WHO is training the local fire departments to handle these wonderful batteries? Oh yeah, isn't disposal on the same level as toxic waste. Are you going to put them with nuclear waste?

Goodness. That sure is a lot of extrapolating and speculation about my pickup use case. The farthest I've ever driven our pickup in the last 20 years is 40 miles one way. Truck is always empty on one direction. Ninety percent of loads hauled are lightweight building materials. The rest are loads of soil/gravel/etc. usually hauled only 20 miles. Trust me, 200 miles of range is PLENTY for our pickup needs even accounting for actual hauling range and I will probably never have to use a public charger. If I did, who said anything about a trailer? Did I mention a trailer?

Yes, I can read and understand what the truck can and cannot do. It fits our needs rather nicely. I get that it isn't the ticket for a lot of pickup owner's needs, but it would work well for us. BTW, another perk of this truck is that will make it easy to use power tools for projects on the "back 10" remote from the house. Can't say that about ICE.

@bbrock

Yeah . . . I get that it it will work for your use case to haul an occasional sheet of plywood or to haul your ICE engine to the landfill

I was just having fun . . . like all other EV hype, I've been severely disappointed that the OEM's won't answer the heavy cargo and/or towing range question head on and have left it to 3rd party review like the one I posted. Instead, they are hoping that the public only remembers the 200 mile number and they are pretending an EV truck is just as capable as a ICE truck. Yet, simultaneously, they are already in discussion with the RV industry about the range deficiency.

They've been trained. . . . to let em' burn.

Click to view attachment

http://www.ev-institute.com/images/first_r...nder_poster.pdf

Agreed, and like I said before, we have a way to go before EVs are ready for critical mass in the overall market. I also think that a 100% phase out of ICE is highly unlikely, impractical, and unnecessary, but have little doubt that EVs will be a majority of the personal vehicle market before long without any mandates.

The EV fanboys on Youtube drive me nuts acting like spending hours on trips in dimly lit deserted back parking lots waiting for the batteries to charge is just part of the fun. It's ridiculous. I get equally annoyed by all the naysayers, like ICE is somehow perfect. Yeah, climate change and constant wars over oil is a real hoot. Not to mention that all the lead we've breathed from gasoline for nearly a century has made each of us on average 6 IQ points dumber. At least we finally fixed that one (almost) but not without a lot of complaining from many people about how horrible life would be without leaded gas.

Things are advancing rapidly though and we are on the verge of transformation. Two weeks ago I took a trip from Jackson Hole to Bozeman and was shocked at the number of Teslas I saw all along the trip. I expected to see them in Jackson which is in the richest county in the nation, but they were abundant even way out in the boonies. EV is rapidly changing technology that will continue to present challenges, but on the whole, it offers more advantages than disadvantages, and not just from a tree hugger standpoint. One of the coolest features (pun intended) is that you can leave the AC on to keep the dogs nice and comfy while parked on a hot day.

not a top fuel dragster at all - a t. f. d. does not go around corners.
or they didn't the last time i saw one.

the mcmurty is a circuit track car.
the design engineer is a young guy ex Williams F1/Mercedes F1
in a way - closest comparison would be the idea of the old lotus clubman?
except it is way faster in a straight line or in a corner.
i believe its designed to run flat out on a race track for around 40 minutes.
at the speeds being demonstrated at goodwood for that 40 minutes.

the fan powered downforce is the fantastic bit.
downforce without drag.
the old brabham F1 car or the chaparrel fan car?

they stuck an additional rear downforce wing on it for goodwood to go for the record.
they had the fans going as well.
watching the vid i thought it was on the verge of dangerous.
not much to protect the crowds if it had some kind of downforce failure?

there are vids around of it starting up.
makes a sound out of the fans that is a reasonable surrogate for an ICE engine.
ie a threatening sound.

yes its expensive. very. and its very small with one seat. etc.
but as is the way its usually a car like this that is first pointing the way?
what its telling you is what a stripped out pure sports car in the electric era will really be like. -- not a fricken mobile loungeroom with no dashboard stinking of toxic glue that drives itself and occasionally decides to end it all with you on board .....tesla.

trouble is i doubt i will live long enough to be able to park my backside in a mass market version of one.


gets me excited.
more excited than screwing around with electrifying an old beetle or a 914 and upsetting the character of an older car.

i look at that beetle for instance and all i can think is its now a front engined car.
no more swapping ends on a dirt road and having it go arse first into a ditch.
which is something i managed to do when i was about 18 years old.
scared the crap out of myself and forced me to learn to drive.
electric conversions of old cars are just cruisers? or am i wrong?