I'm still skeptical on the whole "EV takeover"

>>15988118
I don't think that Motorsports will just roll over. Cars could be confined to certain areas maybe but I doubt a total recall would happen.

>>15988118
I'm not all too concerned. Despite what lobbyists and invested interest groups (and Teslafags) say, most outlooks on energy predict electric cars won't make too much of a dent. Even by 2040 they predict that EVs will make up only 1% of annual car sales and plug-in hybrids making up about 9%. However they do mention that conventional hybrids will make up around 40% and conventional fully-gas making up the rest. Plus pretty much every past prediction about electric cars from estimates on how well they'd sell by (x) date (I actually just read an old article that said that by 2015 EVs would make up 9% of car sales...they don't even make up 1% now) to predictions about massive battery improvements have failed. And there will certainly be those that fail in the future.

So for now I'd play it safe and say that EVs are very much a WIP. It's all up in the air, and there's a lot of money to be made in making headlines about EVs.

You guys should read up about formula-e apparently big time companies like Mercedes, Jag, etc. are all buying up team slots for the coming years

>>15988257
That's just to try to hype their road going electric cars.
That's not because f1 is getting abandoned.

>>15988257
I've read up about it, and I've even watched a couple of races. The fanbase surrounding it is eerily similar to the rest of the EV fanbase. They believe their precious cars are infallible and that all other types of motorsports are dead now. They essentially make up for the fact that nobody watches Formula E by screaming about it as loud as possible. TIME Magazine did a pretty good article on this EV fanboy mindset:
http://business.time.com/2013/02/25/are-electric-car-enthusiasts-a-little-too-enthusiastic/

As for the automakers, yeah, it's a neat little thing to buy into for public brownie points. But it's not *ALL* marketing (most of it is, sure, but not all) - there is actually some good that can come out of it. This series is actually a way to find and develop better EV tech to be used in consumer cars.

>>15988265
>>15988277
this
(er, these...?)

Battery technology still needs to massively improve and politicians need to stop falling for the solar or wind meme and build more nuclear plants in non coastal, non-faultline areas.

>>15988303
this
And Moore's Law apparently doesn't apply for batteries.
http://ecomento.com/2015/07/29/electric-car-battery-progress-slower-then-expected/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-world-vexed-by-slow-progress-on-batteries-1412552377

>>15988324

Well no shit it doesn't apply because it never was about batteries.

>>15988324
>Moore's law
>batteries

>>15988353
>>15988365
That's the point. Many EV advocates use Moore's Law as a way to boost confidence for future EV battery improvements even if it doesn't apply.

>>15988398

Also it's not really a law, just an observation/forecast.

>>15988600
But it's heavily supported. Either way, the point is that it's incorrectly used by EV fanboys.

as with all things, it will be a messy, even, strange transition with some groups "taking the lead" and other sticking to tradition

there's already a formula EV, problem is it's kinda boring now

>>15988720
>messy, uneven*