My bother in law has a Juiced Rip Current S, with the performance upgrade it does 30mph on throttle, it'll probably go faster with pedal assist. I can test it later if you want.
I'll need to check what model it is, but it's probably the highest power one.
Technically not street legal, but nobody is going enforce that. Probably.
To guarantee the range you'd probably need a spare battery.
You can also put a rack on it to carry stuff and the spare battery.
The average car age is 12.5 years, so many of them are likely approaching 20
Yeah and that's why I'm not advocating for 100 year cars.
I'd be pretty happy with 20 years to, but 10 just feels like planned obsolescence.
I also messed around with the math very loosly, and only accounting for crashes that total a car, they could be expected to go 20 years or more on average.
And that's now with all the terrible driving that happens, especially at night. With slight deacrease in accident frequncy that number can increase a lot.
So maybe 30 is a bit much for now, but I'd still like an ev that would claim to last 20 yeara.
So far most ev batteries do much better than cell phones, as long as they have cooling.
But you still have it backwards.
We could very easily design and build a car that lasts 30 years. But we don't, because manufacturers don't want them to last that long.
Evs don't have transmissions, or complicated engines, and the wear on brakes is much less with regenerative braking.
Other things like air conditioning and interior coverings could be easily servicable
Why should the life of an ev by limited by its battery?
Because lemmy search sucks. Its very specific, and usually the most relavant stuff is buried by tangetially related things.
In the Netherlands they use bike lanes.
A two way bike lane is wide enough for emergency vehicles like an ambulance, and bikers get out of the way.
Do really need need 4?
If you cant get by on 2, you might have less power, but you can get better efficiency. With better efficiency you can have a smaller battery for the same range and reduce some of your increased cost that way.
If you're gonna go through all this trouble, why not put motors directly into the wheels? Then you can bypass the drivetrain all together and directly power the wheels.
The newer technology at that time was cars and roads, and many European countries did try the American system of roads and suburbs.
Its just that most of them realized it wad a bad idea around 20 years ago and started rethinking their cities.
Many city centers were even turned into parking lots like American ones.
Again cities arent supposed to be static, and normally they grow denser, rather than sprawling.
The problem with American cities is partly zoning, and partly nimbyism, where people don't want their places to change.
And sprawl sucks for pretty much everyone. Less arable land for farming, poorer anmeties, longer travel times, and finally huge transportation costs. Cars are by far the most costly method of travel, both personally and for governments.
The stupid thing is that fixing it isn't even that hard.
Step one Get rid stupid zoning laws like single family housing and reduce parking minimums.
Step 2 Modify existing roads piece by piece to include alternative transit methods. Add bike lanes, if you can't slow down roads and people will bike.
Actually run decent buses where peoole want to go, not oversized 50 person buses on 3 routes that nobody uses becasue it doesn't go anywhere, and has an hour between the next bus.
That's it, the market will build more housing in areas that need it if its profitable, then use that new tax money to drive transit infrastructure.
There's a lot of fine details, but we're bankrupting cities with cars right now.
I hate it cause its lethal, wasteful, and stupid.