I have strong doubts about both those claims. Depends on what you want your car for, of course, but how do batteries of the time stack up to ICE cars in terms of range and durability?
If memory serves, until very recently, most consumer rechargable batteries would basically stop holding charge after 2 or 3 years. Was that better for bigger batteries? I don't know ... but it would suck to have to buy a new car battery every 3 years since the lifespan of most [modern] cars is much longer than that.
As for racing being a harmful distraction: maybe. Depends on the type of racing. I like racing as a driver of what-can-this-technology-possibly-do. Bleeding edge engineering that trickles down to consumer devices. Racing is great for that.
As for the article's claim that electric cars even back then were better than ICE for city driving ... in the city nothing beats a bicycle, a brisk walk, or public transit. Cars were never a good fit for cities.
Battery durability has to do with the battery management system itself as much as it is about the chemistry. Consumer devices did and still do stop holding a usable charge because they batteries on portable devices are deep cycled 100%-0% (Or near zero) on a regular basis. This greatly reduces a battery's lifespan.
A properly managed car battery won't be kept at 100% charge level, and will definitely not be discharged down to 0%.
Car HV batteries are kept at 80-40% (Varies by chemistry) state of charge to prolong battery life. A Prius can go hundreds of thousands of miles on their original battery, and have been around for over 20 years.
Racing has led the development of more economical, lighter weight, and more powerful cars that handle better and stop faster. No other development method has made such rapid progress in automotive technology.
I'd have to agree with that. I'll add that "customized" cars, mostly built in small shops and home garages, have also had a huge influence in the evolution of automobiles.
For example, in the `50s custom car builders were "sectioning" the bodies and "Z-ing" the frames to make cars thinner and lower to the ground. By the `60s all the big manufactures were building cars styled like that.
But racers have had a huge influence on mass production cars and still do. One simple example of that is the coolant overflow tank. As I recall it was small circle track racer that made that mod to his race car and encouraged other car owners at the track to install them because when cars overheated and blew coolant on the track it caused delays in the races. If I recall the story right he had to sue the car companies to enforce his patent and collect a royalty.
the claim is dubious. article focus on the range, which is ok-ish as long as the claim is "see! only 20 miles less" but it's like two third of ICEs, and ICE at that time had shit fuel economy.
plus we focus on range because recharging is slow, not because range is a core value of the vehicles per se. and that point stands. sure you can commute, once, but then how long is the recharge? having two vehicles because you need to leave one at the office recharging for the next day commute is going to be inefficient.
and then there's all the stuff about battery self discharge, capacity depletion and burning everything down if shaken. it's not like battery tech then was that great.
