Edit: post archive.is link in thread.
The article is focused more on the design specialists involved with ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) motors and related parts. They probably do need retraining, and it would be a better service to all in the economy if such training were part of a government lead plan for all workers in need of a new field, though still paid for by industries that are in sunset.
Perhaps Tesla's poor build quality can keep these folks employed?
Tesla's have no gas tank, fuel pump, turbo, engine, transmission, catalytic converter, or exhaust. Even differentials are decreasing in number.
Tesla is pushing for other simplifications as well. Things like touch screens instead of a complex dashboard. Air vectoring instead of a bunch of valves/grills for airflow. Even door handles seem to be on the way out.
> Engine and transmission plants accounted for about 44% of all automotive factories globally in 2018, according to data from research firm IHS Markit. A Morgan Stanley report in 2019 estimated that a full transition to electric vehicles could lead to three million lost automotive jobs and cost auto makers tens of billions of dollars in restructuring costs.
The regenerative braking is done in the electric motor, not the calliper/disc. Nothing has changed there.
If by 'Motors to wheels' you mean hub motors, I don't see those being a thing. That's a huge amount of unsprung mass (which affects handling and ride comfort more than 10x sprung mass). Broken wheels are also already massively expensive and increasingly common due to poorly maintained roads and automakers obsession with giant wheels and no tire sidewall. Having to replace a motor along with a wheel would be awful.
I do think we'll see plenty of one motor per wheel designs. Rivian has the pattern I think will be common: motors inboard and use small axles and CV joints. Not a very expensive setup and way fewer downsides than hub motors.
Current 4x4 designs with transfer cases, locking differentials and long, heavy driveshafts will certainly be going away. Jeep's 4xe PHEV Wranger has comically awful consumption since it retains the exact same driveline as any other Wrangler. The fact it's as aerodynamic as a brick doesn't help at highway speeds, but all the losses through the mechanical couplings hurts all the time.
In case you're thinking the hydraulics would have to account for regen braking, I'm not so sure that's true. In my Tesla the brake pedal only controls the brakes. Regen braking is done by letting off the accelerator.
You can't always use regen either btw even if it was powerful enough. If the battery is too cold or is fully charged it can't be used much if at all—that energy has to go somewhere.
Tesla is riding hard for brake pedal == friction braking, which is certainly conceptually simple. Lift off accelerator and you get regen braking. Press brake and you get friction braking. Tesla did take away the options about regen strength (at least on my model 3) and now it's only highest. I bought my tesla this winter and it was extremely noticeable how much regen was affected by a cold battery. I had to be very careful not to assume too much regen and after a whole spring/summer/fall cycle of consistency I'm slightly worried about being too one pedal complacent.
Hyundai/Kia has repurposed steering wheel paddles to add or remove regen strength on the fly and now ionic 5 will dynamically adjust the regen using the front facing cameras to slow you down as smoothly as possible.
Most of the euro brands are all embracing D/B modes on the shifter, with D being limited or no regen and B turning it on (and often with strength settings from there).
Porsche has gone full blend, with the ability to freewheel the rear axle and only the brake pedal being used to slow down. The first amount of travel is regen only, then they slowly blend in friction brakes.
I'm sure there are other patterns out there. It's been a long time since something so fundamental to driving has been open for new concepts, so it'll be interesting to see what wins.
I haven't tried the other methods, they sound worse to me but perhaps I'm just used to the Tesla approach.
In snow, if sliding starts due to braking, the best solution to regain control is to stop braking. Completely.
With manual transmission this is simple, deploy the clutch. With an classic automatic, no gas = mild drag due to engine.
But to add regen braking automatically, hmm. It means that in some circumstances, you have zero control, and the car is essentially actively working to mess up your day.
There are ways to detect slide, I wonder, does regen cease if slide is detected... just as with normal brakes and ABS studder (which doesn't reduce braking distance, but provides for steering when slide + braking)?
Are you sure about that? I have a hybrid that has paddles to adjust the deceleration resulting from letting off the gas, but using that or the brake pedal I'm pretty certain uses the regen the same way. The only difference I think is when exactly the brake lights go on.
I'm surprised if EVs are different, because it kind of applies an arbitrary semantic distinction between gas and brake pedals.
If the brake pedal only applies the friction brakes, then does that mean that moderate to heavy regen braking doesn't make your brake lights go on? That seems like a questionable design.
Once you stop thinking of the right pedal as 'gas' and start thinking of it as the 'accelerator' it makes perfect sense. You press down to accelerate, hold steady to maintain a speed (zero acceleration), and lift off to decelerate. The amount you press or lift off determines how much positive or negative acceleration you get. Then the brake is just there for a rare time regen isn't enough (and I go weeks without touching the brake).
The energy can easily go somewhere. You can just put it through larger resistors or UltraCaps.
I said the brakes are the same, not the accelerator.
It's like having a conversation and someone keeps mispronouncing a word. Do you just imitate what they are saying and avoid correcting them or do you tell them they are wrong?
It could be because the people who hire at some businesses believe older workers are out of touch or get sick or maybe want to (or should) retire. But it's quite obvious there is a definite bias against older people wanting skilled work. Maybe not so bad if you were in the same field and try for a new job of the same but to re-train from assembly line worker to networking...no. I think it would be fine but many hiring for companies do not.
Like I said I'm 52 I went back to school and work in IT. I've been a technician all my life in electronics and computers. I've had many jobs but mainly as a technician so for me it's not too bad.
Here is a recent study about people over age 45 trying to land a job and the obstacles they face.
Study quote, "Canada, Singapore, Spain, and the United States, 45+ and 50+ individuals have consistently made up 40 to 70 percent of the long-term unemployed since 2015."
Meeting the World’s MidCareer Moment https://www.generation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Meetin...
Is it sensible to retire instead of re-train at 59? Maybe. But if they chose not to, or weren't able to, there should be resources available to learn new skills.