Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | oakstendheim's commentslogin

I really wish these options would become more common, maybe even similar to the whole ecosystem around old American muscle cars. Pick and choose a (mostly) standardized drive train, standardized battery packs of different capacities and and your electronics to connect everything together.


I thought the issue is more the batteries and weight distribution. That is, EVs usually have the batteries along the length of the chassis to spread the load out, which is not practical to retrofit onto an ICE car.

And if you fill the engine bay on an ICE car with battery packs during the conversion, the weight distribution will be extremely uneven and cause trouble with the suspension and related components, poor handling, etc.


> etc.

That "etc." hides "moving the heaviest, most flammable and non-extinguishable part of the drivetrain into a primary crumple zone in front of you" pretty neatly. :D


On the opposite side of something that's long been called a "Firewall" for a reason.


However, lithium fires burn hotter and can't be contained as easily. So, that firewall may need an update, too.

Plus, as I noted in the weight part, an engine in a compartment is designed to detach and slide down to protect the cell. Can every retrofitter guarantee the same thing for their battery packs?


>I thought the issue is more the batteries and weight distribution

That's something spewed by people who don't know enough about cars to know they're chasing the wrong criteria. Battery placement is like a 2nd/3rd/4th order problem. You could fit a very respectably battery in the space where the fuel tank and exhaust go and if not there then the floor might just have to get a couple inches taller in the rear row. Not a big deal. Making battery cases to fit those locations is hard, but also not crazy. Just scan it like Weathertech and Uhaul do for mats and hitches.

The first order thing that's keeping all this from happening is that there's no money in it after all the expensive re-engineering and low volume manufacturing you'd need to do to integrate it into the vehicles you want to support.

This is why the industry is kind of stalled at the "supporting DIYers" level. It just don't work without free labor doing the vehicle specific bits.


> You could fit a very respectably battery in the space where the fuel tank and exhaust go

You can fit some battery there, but liquid fuels have a much higher energy density and so I wouldn't call it respectable. I have know people who converted a car to electric, and finding places to stuff batteries was the major challenge, they did the fuel tank of course, but then went looking for any other unused empty space. In the 1980s old trucks were favored because under the bed there was a lot of empty space to work with (even then those old lead-acid batteries didn't give much range)


Yeah, I don't believe even OEMs ever managed to make a very liked electric car on an ICE platform.


At least in the UK the Kia Niro comes in petrol, plug-in hybrid, and full EV versions of the same chassis. It seems like most Uber drivers in London have replaced their hybrid Prius with an EV Niro.


I think the latest Niro is kinda the opposite, an EV platform retrofitted for ICE for some models. I would say it is well liked (for its size and price point)


One of the use cases that stands out to me is dropping an API into a console application without having to use a different project. With ASP.NET I have to set up a new project, use a different SDK and then re-register all my services in its service collection. It looks like this one is bringing it closer to how it's done in Go which I personally really like.


You shouldn't have to change the SDK.

You can create a class library ASP.NET Core Server by using a FrameworkReference [1]. I can't remember the library, but there was one that had its own `IHostedService` with its own embedded ASP.NET Core Server startup within it.

If your `WebApplication` requires services, of course you're going to have to register its dependencies on its `IServiceCollection`. Though, you can use factory methods for service registration to use an external `IServiceProvider`.

For console applications, I would recommend using `Host.CreateEmptyApplicationBuilder` [2]. Makes it a lot easier to configure services for Console applications. It also handles `IHostApplicationLifetime`s.

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/t...

[2] https://gist.github.com/pethin/7e5edd7614ff2f51c06c086e1bc7c...


Wow I did not know that, I was always under the assumption that I needed to have a project using the Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web for anything Web as its base. Thanks for the info!


It used to be much more modular back in dotnet core 2.x. It was just too complex for most people to wire up everything themselves. You needed to install a lot of nuget packages, add a lot of middlewares. In the end 95% of the projects added everything anyway, but always with some little mistakes and weird errors.

Starting with 3.0 (or 5.0?) they ditched the Startup class and just added in everything by default. Much easier for the regular web application. The modular approach is still everywhere though. You can just pick the components you need, most of them also run without DI, it's just a bit of a hassle to manage all those dependencies manually.


FrameworkReference enables other cursed combinations, too. You can use WinForms/WPF in an ASP.NET project with a FrameworkReference to Microsoft.WindowsDesktop.App. Finding a use case for this is left as an exercise for the reader.


I think you can just pick the components you really need via nuget reference. And start/stop the web server as you like.

The full asp.net out-of-the-box experience is tailored to the most common use case, which is a plain web service.

I think you can even run the Kestrel HTTP server without all the asp.net pipelines, infrastructure and without dependency injection.

Also the common WebApplication.CreateBuilder() includes a lot of default configuration (batteries included), there is also CreateSlimBuilder() and CreateEmptyBuilder().


This is such a Google thing. I'm browsing from a German IP address, have my language set to English only and my region set to the US. This is still not enough for Google, and Youtube by extension, to not show me German search results. It is honestly incredibly frustrating. Same goes for the trending page on YT. This appears to only be based on your IP address.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: