The reason gas engines use multispeed gearboxes is they have a limited rpm range. Gears aren't magic, they don't allow a 50cc moped to reach 200mph or pull a stuck 4x4 out of the mud. Multispeeds allow the engine to operate in it's sweet spot over the whole operating range of the vehicle. Electric motors don't have that limited sweet spot.
You downshift an ICE to get up into the power band, there's no torque at that nice low cruising rpm. An electric motor makes great torque at low rpm, there's no need to downshift. You shift up with an ICE when you've gone past the power peak. A Tesla will spin something like 23k rpm at 200mph. Is that it's max power rpm? I have no idea but how much more power do you need, you're already going 200mph. You also upshift an ICE to drop down to a more efficient rpm. Does a Tesla drain a battery faster if it's spinning 10,000rpm than it does at 5000rpm if it's pulling the same kW at both? Is a lower rpm more efficient for an electric motor?
I don't know. But I'm guessing the people who are designing electric vehicles do know, and I'll bet dollars to donuts the reason they don't use transmissions has nothing to do with an imagined refusal to use some technology and everything to do with the technology does nothing for them.
Lithium batteries - the tech is already leading away from lithium. Sodium-ion tech is one of the latest ones I've read about. Sodium as in salt. No, it doesn't beat lithium right now. Give it time, no technology springs out of the box 100% ready for prine time.
Yes it require resources to build/run electric vehicles. Just like it requires resources to build/run gas vehicles.
As someone who spent pretty much his entire career working with ICE engines (exhaust development) I have a pretty healthy attraction towards gas engines. But I think electric vehicles are fooking sweet. My lawnmower is battery powered now, as are my trimmer and chain saw. Good riddance to gas - for my needs batteries work so much better.
I didn't go electric with my lawn equipment to save the world. I did it because it is SO much nicer to me to slip a battery into something than fill it with gas. It is also much nicer to mow the lawn and not walk around in a mower's exhaust for an hour and a half. No oil changes. No pull starts. Less noise.
With electric vehicles it's the tech that interests me. How a motorhead can ignore the awesome performance of electric vehicles is beyond me.
There will always be a reason not to buy something, and always situations where a specific vehicle won't work. Horses for courses. I wouldn't buy an electric bike if I had to ride 700 miles per day. I had a 996 for 17 years. It had 7500 miles on it when I sold it. How many 200 mile days do you think I did on it? I don't regret buying it for a second and still regret selling it once in a while.
The politics behind impelementing them is a different subject. People who think that gas vehicles will be gone in 20 years are delusional. No amount of legislation in the world can solve the logistical issues with doing that. I think those people simply have no comprehension of how entrenched gas powered vehicles are. There are millions upon millions of gas powered vehicles registered in the USA right now. No way possible to replace them all in 20 years. People can't afford new cars, manufacturers can't make them anyway, and cities couldn't charge them if they did.
On the other side of the coin, the tech is changing rapidly. Many of the objections are overblown to begin with. They still shouldn't be forced on people but just because it "won't work" for you doesn't mean it's a worthless tech.
I understand what you're saying, but there must be more to the equation.
My cordless drill has a high and low gear. If I run it in high gear while using too large of a bit it'll get hot and the drill will start cutting out to protect itself. Shifting to a low gear produces much more power and the drill will run much longer.
Torque multiplication isn't magic, but it is indeed useful. It's a box of levers and leverage is the technology we've used to build just about everything.
The fact is, torque is literally the only measurable force that propels a vehicle down the road. Gearbox aside, you can change the gearing on a chain driven bike and feel huge, immediate differences in power- even with the same powerplant in place. If you can multiply torque, then you don't need as much of it at you think.
Less torque= smaller motor.
Smaller motor= less energy consumption.
Less energy consumption= more range.
As far as EV tech changing rapidly and any objections to it being overblown...
don't think is changing rapidly at all, regardless of what they claim.
- They're still underpowered and lack range.
- The minerals required for production relt heavily on child/slave labor.
-They're a fire hazard that we don't have a solution for. ( Firefighters are being trained to submerge them in water? When? After they're hauled away as a blazing inferno on the back of a rollback spitting flames and toxic fumes through towns? Or do we now build large aquariums on every street corner, "just in case"?
- We still don't know how to dispose of them when we're finished with one.
The only thing about the technology that we've nailed down is that they can exist. That's not saying much. We had electric cars 100 years ago. They just weren't practical so they got ditched. The only thing that has really changed is the battery/storage ...but the modern "solution" to that is quite literally a humanitarian issue. I don't think it's fair for us to sit on a "clean" high horse of EV, while it has a hoof firmly planted the face of Congolese slaves living in a environment ruined by cobalt mining. They're yard, not ours?
The only upside to EV's are simpler maintenance for the owner and new toys are fun. Well, there's the upside of it supporting one's current climate ideology and giving them the warm and fuzzies inside, but still the plight of the Congolese people and their countryside absolutely must be ignored in order for that to work. And that's straight up bullshit.
