If the Slate PU came only as an ICE, I would buy one.

[E90400K]

Movement causes friction, which causes wear. I don't think anyone needs to pretend like that isn't a thing.

Hence the invention of... motor oil.

 

[Dorbiman]

Hence the invention of... motor oil.

Yes, a method of reducing friction, not eliminating it. Why are people acting like this is a foreign or strange concept? Reducing moving parts is like Engineering 101

 

[E90400K]

Yes, a method of reducing friction, not eliminating it. Why are people acting like this is a foreign or strange concept? Reducing moving parts is like Engineering 101

But if the one part of the EV motor that does rotate locks up, well it's the same difference. The forces in the drivetrain required to move the vehicle are spread over 25 moving parts rather than 2,000 parts. Think of it that way.

 

[Letas]

Yes, a method of reducing friction, not eliminating it. Why are people acting like this is a foreign or strange concept? Reducing moving parts is like Engineering 101

You are removing one complexity, and adding a different one.

Less moving parts does not automatically equal more reliable. They are entirely different assemblies. Different reactions even.


An internal combustion engine (ICE) converts chemical potential energy in fuel into kinetic energy through combustion , which drives mechanical motion through moving parts (and a lot of them)!


An electric vehicle (EV) converts chemical potential energy stored in a battery into electrical energy, which is then converted into kinetic energy by an electric motor.

Less moving parts, but another conversion of energy. And there are a significant amount of failure points in the "non moving" parts, all of which lead to a hefty repair bill.

 

[Dorbiman]

But if the one part of the EV motor that does rotate locks up, well it's the same difference. The forces in the drivetrain required to move the vehicle are spread over 25 moving parts rather than 2,000 parts. Think of it that way.

No, I don't think I will. That's not how probability works. If each of the moving parts has the same probability of failure (for fun, let's say 0.05%) then the one with 25 parts has a 1.24% chance of experiencing a failure, where the one with 2000 has a 63.22% chance of experiencing a failure

 

[Letas]

No, I don't think I will. That's not how probability works. If each of the moving parts has the same probability of failure (for fun, let's say 0.05%) then the one with 25 parts has a 1.24% chance of experiencing a failure, where the one with 2000 has a 63.22% chance of experiencing a failure

Well, if you make that assumption, sure.

But, that’s not a correct assumption, at all. Like, even in the slightest.

 

[Dorbiman]

An internal combustion engine (ICE) converts chemical potential energy in fuel into kinetic energy through combustion , which drives mechanical motion through moving parts (and a lot of them)!


An electric vehicle (EV) converts chemical potential energy stored in a battery into electrical energy, which is then converted into kinetic energy by an electric motor.

This, also, is wrong. You're missing the intermediary energy conversion from chemical potential to thermal energy. Heat causes gas expansion which is what pushes the pistons, which pushes the crank, etc. etc. You almost had it when you said "through combustion".

Let's not bring up the inefficiencies in the otto or diesel cycles.

 

[Letas]

This, also, is wrong. You're missing the intermediary energy conversion from chemical potential to thermal energy. Heat causes gas expansion which is what pushes the pistons, which pushes the crank, etc. etc. You almost had it when you said "through combustion".

Let's not bring up the inefficiencies in the otto or diesel cycles.

Yeah.... Through combustion covers that in my book.....

I apologize my semantics weren't up to your standards.

My entire point still stands.

 

[Dorbiman]

Yeah.... Through combustion covers that in my book.....

I apologize my semantics weren't up to your standards.

My entire point still stands.

Your point was that EVs have an additional conversion compared to ICE. I don't seem to follow that then, if they each have 3.

 

[Letas]

Your point was that EVs have an additional conversion compared to ICE. I don't seem to follow that then, if they each have 3.

They are different. And each have their own complexities.

If you'd like to grasp at this straw, the EV has an additional conversion not mentioned- the conversion of both chemical potential energy as well as kinetic energy into thermal energy as waste.

If I had two ICEs next to each other, all manufactured with the same tolerances, and all else equal- one with less parts would likely be more reliable.

But this comparison is apples to oranges. EV complexities do not equate to ICE complexities, and vice versa.

 

[Dorbiman]

They are different. And each have their own complexities.

If you'd like to grasp at this straw, the EV has an additional conversion not mentioned- the conversion of both chemical potential energy as well as kinetic energy into thermal energy as waste.

If I had two ICEs next to each other, all manufactured with the same tolerances, and all else equal- one with less parts would likely be more reliable.

But this comparison is apples to oranges. EV complexities do not equate to ICE complexities, and vice versa.

Listen, I get what you're saying about ICEs and EVs being fundamentally different systems. Of course they are, that's the whole point! But saying they can't be directly compared oversimplifies things. Engineering is full of comparisons between different systems to evaluate trade offs, and EV vs ICE is no exception.

You mentioned waste heat as a downside of EVs, but that’s a misleading. Waste heat is a downside of any energy conversion system, and ICEs are notoriously inefficient because of it. The Otto and Diesel cycles lose a massive amount of energy as heat due to friction, exhaust, and cooling requirements. In fact, most ICEs operate at around 25–30% thermal efficiency, meaning 70–75% of the fuel’s energy is wasted as heat.

EVs, on the other hand, typically achieve 85–90% efficiency from battery to wheels. Yes, they still produce waste heat, especially in the battery and power electronics, but it’s significantly less, and often easier to manage. So if waste heat is part of the reliability or efficiency argument, ICEs are at a clear disadvantage.

 

[E90400K]

No, I don't think I will. That's not how probability works. If each of the moving parts has the same probability of failure (for fun, let's say 0.05%) then the one with 25 parts has a 1.24% chance of experiencing a failure, where the one with 2000 has a 63.22% chance of experiencing a failure

Except the same amount of work is spread over 2,000 parts vs. 25. So there is more work load per part with an EV.

 

[E90400K]

This, also, is wrong. You're missing the intermediary energy conversion from chemical potential to thermal energy. Heat causes gas expansion which is what pushes the pistons, which pushes the crank, etc. etc. You almost had it when you said "through combustion".

Let's not bring up the inefficiencies in the otto or diesel cycles.

Electrical energy generation at the plant is not much more thermally efficient than Otto or Diesel. Once the electrons get stored in the battery, yes the conversion to kinetic is very efficient. There is heat loss also in transmission of electricity over the grid and at voltage stepping to get ions into the battery.

 

[Dorbiman]

Except the same a.ount of work is spread out over 2,000 parts vs. 25. So there is more work load per part with an EV.

Except they're not. The oil pump does not share the same load as a piston.

 

[Dorbiman]

Electrical energy generation at the plant is not much more thermally efficient than Otto or Diesel. Once the electrons get stored in the battery, yes the conversion to kinetic is very efficient. There is heat loss also in transmission of electricity over the grid and at voltage stepping to get ions into the battery.

Even assuming dirty energy production, because those power plants do not have to be portable, there can be much more refining in the energy production cycle that increases the efficiency beyond an ICE in an automobile. This means that energy generated for the grid (and therefore EVs) is more efficient, and then is used efficiently in an EV.

Your statement also doesn't account for renewable energy, conveniently.