Excellent, you have now conceded that correlation exists on all those points, and are merely disputing is it's causal or not.

I will simply point out that it's irrelevant in context of this discussion if it's causal or not, because as far as consumption goes, that is the clear cut correlation.

Pecunia non olet.

I'm not sure what kind of evidence you're talking about that isn't already obvious.

1. Sales of early EVs and modern their analogues vs current EVs.
2. Sales of Tesla Model 3 (something like 25% failure rate on passing national inspection 4 years after purchase as new due to certain parts of suspension being insufficiently strong).
3. State of used EV market.

Decided to try if mainline (not image) search would do better, and it got me results like this:

https://www.pistonheads.com/ga...

Seems to mostly confirm automatic chokes being very temperamental and needing adjustments/maintenance even in 1990s with general recommendation being "just switch to manual to eliminate problems". But that could be from a European or Japanese model.

So I tried and apparently I enshittified my own google search, since it's now feeding me diagrams and conversion kit images and there's maybe one image of an actual car in total.

FML.

Latest I recall was of some kind of a Korean car from the late 1980s. Most were from 1970s and 1980s.

I'm not so sure. Here in developed countries, we got a lot of IPv4 address space. But we're a minority in the world.

Most people actually live in a developing world, which got very little. They're the ones getting CGNAT issues, because their carriers have to put them on the same IP as hundreds and thousands of other subscribers.

So this may actually be needed for "most folks". Or at least desired. It's just that this is the majority that doesn't really matter for those who are deciding.

It is by far the most important criterion, because the primary limitation on EVs is range. And primary obstacle consistently mentioned by potential buyers is once again, range.

So in case of EVs, range is critical, price is important and everything else is an afterthought. I.e. reliability issues due to weight? Afterthought.

I live in a place that is really cold in winters, so we have oil heating/battery charging/interior heating outlets for cars to make them start better in winter (and be more comfortable to get into in the first place). Those with money even get remote coolant heaters that burn fuel for a few minutes pre-ignition to heat the engine coolant up.

Early automatic chokes were a very common point of failure. To the point where those cars were just shipped out to warmer climates when sold as used, because no one wanted them.

But we didn't have the laws you claim existed in US. That's why I'm confused, because I went to look at images of cars from 70s and 80s being sold in US, and quite a few had the manual choke pusher.

If this was an acceptable energy to weight ratio, we wouldn't so any solid chemistry. We'd do vanadium.

You could literally refuel your battery using pretty much current gasoline/diesel infrastructure with minor changes. Specifically you'd need two nozzles, one pumps out discharged liquid, other pumps in charged liquid.

We don't do it because that weight ratio isn't acceptable.

You misunderstand the LFP recommendations. It's recommended to charge it to 100% about once every 20-30 cycles because of the way LFP voltage goes as it discharges.

Essentially, it changes so little that controller has to constantly try to track energy in/out rather than battery voltages to determine remaining capacity. Which is inherently inaccurate, and results in controller going very much out of sync with actual charge. Hence recommendation to charge it to 100% every so often to recalibrate. In automotive, if you don't recalibrate, you can get stranded with LFPs because controller thinks you still have decent amount of charge left even though battery is actually empty.

You still don't want to charge LFP batteries beyond 75-80% for exact same reason you don't want to charge NMC beyond that. Lithium inventory loss.

There was a very conclusive paper on LFP failure modes by the man himself, Eniko S. Zsoldos (the man behind pretty much entire Tesla's original battery research). You can find it here:
https://iopscience.iop.org/art...

At this rate, it's going to be by the end of 2090s.

(To be fair, my latest ISP switch early this year finally resulted in proper ISP level IPv6 support. So weird, having firewall popups with IPv6 addresses.

LFPs are objectively worse than NMCs for automotive due to being about a fifth heavier for any given capacity (and automotive is weight limited). The rest is "we really hope it will work eventually" stuff. Could be tomorrow, could be in a century, could be we never find a proper way to make things like solid state electrolyte chemistry that doesn't crack, shatter or burn.

The main reason for LFP switch in automotive is the extreme spontaneous fire hazard caused by lithium batteries. LFP has a significantly higher thermal runaway temperature.

If you're living in a warm area, thermostatics work fine.

If you live in a place where it actually gets cold, thermostatics are utterly awful. "Engine won't start to go to work after a cold night" level of awful. Their purpose was to make a gradual choke closing mechanism as engine warms up to level off the curve of the choke closing rather than manual which was usually "on/off" in spite of it being a full analogue push stick in most cases. And so they had a nasty tendency to get ice crystals form after engine shutdown and get them stuck partially closed until reheated. Meaning good luck starting that engine in the morning.

This is a partial reason as to why it took a switch to electrically actuated solenoids to make automatic chokes popular in colder areas. And that lasted barely a decade.

We seem to be talking about different things then, because I can find images of new cars sold in US, and they clearly have manual chokes in late 1980s.

If this was banned by regulation, these shouldn't exist.

We have no idea what will work in the end. If anything will work at all.

All we know is nothing we tried so far works for solid state electrolyte, and we have a good understanding that if we can manage to get it to work, it should be significantly better than what we have with liquid electrolyte.

This is the materials science where you just have to keep trying different compounds for different elements and see if anything sticks. I.e. see how blue LED was developed. Problem here though is that there are way, way more factors involved in lithium batteries compared to blue LEDs. And that means way more possible permutations, and therefore way more testing.

So as far as we know, we could hit a correct chemistry tomorrow. Or in a day. Or in a month. Or in a decade. Or in a century. Or never, because working chemistry for this doesn't exist.

That's how inventing new things works. This isn't a game of Civilization, where you go through a certain amount of research points and you're guaranteed to get a new working invention as an outcome.

You can take a horse to water. You cannot make it drink.