Remember that Rush song Red Barchetta? Feels like we are getting close to the "motor law". All the big 3 have pretty much said electrics are on the way soon. Planning to do a Tesla engine swap anyone??? LOL. I say within 10 years only millionaires will own classic cars in their private museums and probably wont be able to drive them on public roads.
I say at least another 50 years
Might not even be electric by then either is the power of choice
I am a farmer and can not see a battery powered tractor ever replacing what I have now to get the job done
After 50 years I will be 106 years old so will not really care by then :2thumbs:
Follow the money.
What industry stands to get richer by kicking classic cars off the road? I don't see one. Classics don't cut into modern car sales much. Detroit caters to its classic fan base rather than fighting it.
Environmental groups? Car guys are terrified of them but they don't have much real power. (Look at any pipeline or drilling or logging issue.) If they were capable of getting our cars off the road I think they would have done it already. They were lobbying against us and setting Humvee dealerships on fire 20 years ago.
I'm more worried about safety regulations and govt monitoring doing it. Even then, I suspect the "ban" will be economic rather than legal. You will be able to drive a classic on the road as long as you pay a crazy-high insurance rate. If you get in a wreck then you may be guilty by default. Your car isn't packed full of electronic driving aids and there's no onboard data recorder to prove your side of the story.
---------------------------------
I wish the truck guys would quit doing this shit on public roads.
It's begging for a legal crackdown on principle. This is why we can't have nice things.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.gqQc1YHUcAKWFTg_FrS38QHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
QuoteFollow the money.
What industry stands to get richer by kicking classic cars off the road? I don't see one. Classics don't cut into modern car sales much. Detroit caters to its classic fan base rather than fighting it.
Environmental groups? Car guys are terrified of them but they don't have much real power. (Look at any pipeline or drilling or logging issue.) If they were capable of getting our cars off the road I think they would have done it already. They were lobbying against us and setting Humvee dealerships on fire 20 years ago.
I'm more worried about safety regulations and govt monitoring doing it. Even then, I suspect the "ban" will be economic rather than legal. You will be able to drive a classic on the road as long as you pay a crazy-high insurance rate. If you get in a wreck then you may be guilty by default. Your car isn't packed full of electronic driving aids and there's no onboard data recorder to prove your side of the story.
I think you are close to spot-on. The coming revolution will be community computerized drive control where all the cars are functioning together. We will become like the steam car or Model T where technology makes operating our cars difficult with the other cars on the road. You'll be able to drive your classic on side roads or around the neighborhood but probably not the highway.... at least in urban areas.
Everyone says we are going electric, but reaching 100% is going to take a long time....if it even happens. GM's recent announcement to switch to 100% electric passenger cars and SUVs by 2035 is extremely optimistic. It won't happen, and if they do it they'll be missing out on a lot of fossil fuel car sales. Gas is plentiful and relatively inexpensive and so it will remain part of our transportation system for a long time to come yet.
I hate those Trucks blowing all that Black Smoke in your Face. What I want to know is how are they going to dispose of all those Dead Junk 6 foot long 3 feet wide 500 pound Toxic Batteries? Just dig a big hole & Bury them? Like they do with Radioactive Chemicals? That will be a huge Enviromental Danger. :slap: :brickwall: :RantExplode:
I agree on the stupidity of rolling coal. Sometimes you can't even see the cars in front of you anymore because they dissappear in the black smoke. Dangerous and stupid.
Here's a eDart.
https://chargedevs.com/features/the-edart-my-1974-dodge-dart-swinger-electric-conversion/
As long as you live, or decide to sell.
A short video worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
QuoteA short video worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
That video guy doesn't mention that EV batteries have a fair amount of potential for recycling. And in the broad discussion he entirely forgot about nuclear power, geothermal, hydro, tidal. Those are whole massive industries left out of the discussion. He also forgot about the non-battery methods of storing electricity (hydro, hydrogen, thermal, kinetic, flow batteries, etc). Is this some kind of selective amnesia?
Then he cheerfully presents hydrocarbons without mentioning what it's doing to the arctic, or the people living in fracking regions, or the long-term prospects for the current fossil fuel resources of all kinds. And it's cute how he brings up electrical resources being in hostile foreign regions, but he never even mentions that little issue with fossil fuel resources (middle eastern oil).
The omissions make more sense when you realize that PragerU's primary funding comes from two Texas billionaires in the natural gas fracking business.
Gas powered vehicles have been around for over 100 years. To think that everyone will be willing to switch to electric in just 15 years.......
The US power grid does not have the capacity the handle the increase in demand and there is no way to improve it that quickly given todays highly regulated and complex energy laws.
This goal will get pushed back once they realize that the US taxpayers won't be happy with all energy costs doubling, or worse.
Right now I'm more concerned about being taxed out of using my antique cars. Lawmakers are considering a VMT tax (vehicle miles traveled). Vehicles without current modern electronics can't be monitored so they might just assess an annual flat rate to any vehicle that they can't track.
You can't really answer the question without politics. The amount of time left really depends on which side has control.
QuoteRight now I'm more concerned about being taxed out of using my antique cars. Lawmakers are considering a VMT tax (vehicle miles traveled). Vehicles without current modern electronics can't be monitored so they might just assess an annual flat rate to any vehicle that they can't track.
The miles-driven tax is coming because EVs don't pay gasoline taxes.
Gasoline taxes have been the ideal way to tax miles driven up to now. It works, it's easy/practical to do, and it targets heavier vehicles that do more road damage.
Quote from: Mytur Binsdirti on January 31, 2021, 06:03:17 AM
A short video worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
Worth watching if you agree with their bias.
"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501(c)(3) non-profit media company that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics
from an American conservative perspective. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009."
As previously stated, it's hard to discuss this without politics entering the fray.
I think we'll feel a hit in the wallet for fuel long before they're banned. Furl cost go up in 2 years banned...2100
I don't think ICE vehicles will be banned in the more conservative states, but fuel will become harder to find and more expensive. So, I agree with AK that many people will be priced out before being legally required to sell. Classic ICE vehicles will likely, IMO, be outlawed in left-wing states in my lifetime. California is already pushing for no new ICE vehicle sales in 15 years.
We will also see more and more EV retrofit kits for our cars in the future. In maybe 50 years, I can envision most classic cars on the road being EV conversions.
Guys like us, we find a 318 car and we wanna put a 440 in it. We find the 440 and we wanna stroke it to 512 inches.
Gas prices are a thing for daily drivers. They don't have much power over weekend toys or preserved classics. It would take some big number like $20/gallon to wipe out our hobby and that would be impractical for other reasons. When the average American is driving an electric car to work there will still be lots of other demand for gasoline on this continent.
There's another big factor in this - when most of the country has switched to EVs, that doesn't increase all the pressures to get our cars off the road. It reduces them. EVs will drop the demand for gasoline, and that REDUCES the market price of gas. Lawmakers will be raising taxes on gasoline just to keep our pump prices from dropping. And when gasoline burners become rarer on the roads, that will reduce the urgent feelings (in the public, greenies, lawmakers, etc) to get rid of them.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on January 31, 2021, 08:26:51 AM
QuoteA short video worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
That video guy doesn't mention that EV batteries have a fair amount of potential for recycling. And in the broad discussion he entirely forgot about nuclear power, geothermal, hydro, tidal. Those are whole massive industries left out of the discussion. He also forgot about the non-battery methods of storing electricity (hydro, hydrogen, thermal, kinetic, flow batteries, etc). Is this some kind of selective amnesia?
Then he cheerfully presents hydrocarbons without mentioning what it's doing to the arctic, or the people living in fracking regions, or the long-term prospects for the current fossil fuel resources of all kinds. And it's cute how he brings up electrical resources being in hostile foreign regions, but he never even mentions that little issue with fossil fuel resources (middle eastern oil).
The omissions make more sense when you realize that PragerU's primary funding comes from two Texas billionaires in the natural gas fracking business.
What's a fair amount of potential? Potential means we're not there yet and also means it's all being trashed at this moment.
Hydro, tidal and geothermal are weak energy sources and still require fossil fuels to manufacture and produce.
Nuclear, the process for mining/refining uranium ore and making reactor fuel all require huge amounts of energy
and we're continuing to perfect this energy source and have been for a long time which is fine but we're still not there.
We can easily become energy independent in America with fossil fuels and will no longer need middle eastern oil.
I understand this energy source won't last forever but shutting it down now will have extreme consequence on national security
without a better alternative in place and as of now there isn't one.
The Arctic, wasn't that supposed to disappear decades ago? Since 2005 the polar bear population has
risen more then 30% that's the highest in 50 years. Every ten years we have 10 years left unless we address the "climate
crisis" and yet the cleanest air in the world is in the Antarctica.
Make no mistake I'm not against clean energy but every time it's bought up current energy prices skyrocket
because they require Government subsidies to sustain them. Just look at the prices rising at the pumps already, Here we go again!
Solar Energy companies come to your house, they've been to mine several times, and offer their product for close
to nothing because the Government will pick up the tab, but guess what? The Government don't make money they
spend yours. The solar companies like any other competitor assures you how great their product is until you
purchase it and the cost starts to rise and now it's as much if not more then your traditional electric and when
you cancel they'll charge to remove all that junk they put on your roof. Hopefully an electric trash truck will come
and haul it off to the landfill.
Is energy policy a team sport? Renewables vs fossil fuel?
QuoteWe can easily become energy independent in America with fossil fuels and will no longer need middle eastern oil.
It's nowhere near that simple. Having a ton of "producible" oil "in the ground" is not the same thing as being able to produce it quickly & affordably & consistently, over the long term. You might have a billion dollars in the bank but it won't make you very rich if your withdrawals are limited to $1000/year.
QuoteThe Arctic, wasn't that supposed to disappear decades ago? Since 2005 the polar bear population has
risen more then 30% that's the highest in 50 years. Every ten years we have 10 years left unless we address the "climate
crisis" and yet the cleanest air in the world is in the Antarctica.
Polar bears - IIRC that's a myth. There is no reliable data on their populations decades ago. Canada/Alaska also started giving them more protections from hunting/trapping a few decades ago too, which would logically help their numbers grow.
Antarctic air is clear because it's a desert. Everyone knows the place is butt-cold, but it's also butt-dry. The snow & ice took thousands of years to accumulate. It's also the farthest place on earth from modern human/industrial activity.
As for the 'every 10 years' thing, IMO neither side has a great record of predictions. The climate deniers' record is certainly no better than the scientists'. In past years/decades the deniers were mocking the idea that temps would rise and the arctic would be melting at all.
QuoteMake no mistake I'm not against clean energy but every time it's bought up current energy prices skyrocket
because they require Government subsidies to sustain them. Just look at the prices rising at the pumps already, Here we go again!
QuoteSolar Energy companies come to your house, they've been to mine several times, and offer their product for close
to nothing because the Government will pick up the tab, but guess what? The Government don't make money they
spend yours. The solar companies like any other competitor assures you how great their product is until you
purchase it and the cost starts to rise and now it's as much if not more then your traditional electric and when
you cancel they'll charge to remove all that junk they put on your roof. Hopefully an electric trash truck will come
and haul it off to the landfill.
We subsidize the living shit out of fossil fuels. Look at the indirect expenditures. It's the whole reason why we have ever cared about the middle east (and why they ever cared about us). The wars, the occupations, all of it.
How much do we spend to patrol/secure the oil shipping lanes around the world? Look at all the stupid-cheap deals that oil companies get for drilling on govt land. Pipelines get built & protected. Oil spills get cleaned up. People's land gets screwed up from fracking and there is no legal recourse. Etc. This stuff is
ALL fossil fuel subsidies.
All that, the multiple wars, and we haven't even covered the biggest one: Fossil fuels play at least some role in climate change. Probably a major role. If half of Florida goes underwater in the next century, what's the dollar cost of that? What about all the damage worldwide? It's too big to realistically calculate.
My original beef was that the PragerU video is propaganda piece. I never tried to argue that renewables should replace all fossil fuels tomorrow morning (because they can't). I'm in favor of whatever gets the job done with the least damage. Right now that appears to be a combination of many different methods.
Can anybody agree on anything anymore ?
I'm just trying to drive and enjoy mine as much as I can while I can. It sucks that covid has pretty much shut down most car related events though. I say by 2030 we are either priced out of it with gas prices, insurance and other regulations or they will just be outright banned in north america. Specifically cars over 25 years old. :rotz: I wont even be 60 then and I really feel like I'm gonna miss out on a lot of potential wheel time. :icon_smile_angry:
The cars can live on with gas or even different propulsion systems. Not like there are no steam locomotives anymore. How and who uses them will change as the costs keep going up. Which will probably result in most being garaged before being outlawed.
Model Ts are good example. Not many of those ever out due to a host of issues. I personally stopped driving my Charger until I upgraded the brakes because everyone else stopped so much different in 2000s than in 1993.
Quote from: ACUDANUT on February 02, 2021, 05:42:06 AM
Can anybody agree on anything anymore ?
I agree with Mike DC.
I don't think gas is really ever going away to power our classic cars but in the coming decades it might become more expensive. Instead of our cheap gas we still have maybe it will become the equivalent over time, in say 15 years, to $20/gallon in today's dollars. So maybe over that time we drive the cars less, but it's not like they will be sent to the crusher.
During the pandemic my whole world has been turned upside-down. I used to commute and drove about 15-18k miles a year. Since March 2020 I've maybe done 400 miles, just local stuff to the grocery store mostly. My office gave up their lease and we are all virtual, even post pandemic. I've come from waiting for things to return to the old 'normal' to liking working from home, not sure I could be bothered to commute any more. Not sure where my thinking will be in a year. On my block 3 of my neighbors have bought Teslas in the last 8 months and I'm thinking 'why?'. Their cars sit at home as much as mine do since they're not really driving much either.
I'm not really down on driving and cars as a hobby, really the opposite. Now that I'm not dumping money in to gas/maintenance on my DD I'm spending it all on the toys. I just spent around $5k on parts to restore my project cars. The last year has been a reset for me where driving is a fun luxury instead of a daily stress.
The future isn't something to be fearful about. We humans are very adaptable.
Polar bears - IIRC that's a myth. There is no reliable data on their populations decades ago. Canada/Alaska also started giving them more protections from hunting/trapping a few decades ago too, which would logically help their numbers grow.
If there's no reliable data then why where protections put in place? Within the same sentence we went from no reliable data
decades ago, too protections decades ago.
Antarctic air is clear because it's a desert. Everyone knows the place is butt-cold, but it's also butt-dry. The snow & ice took thousands of years to accumulate. It's also the farthest place on earth from modern human/industrial activity.
I believe it's part of the "Globe" or we going by area now?
As for the 'every 10 years' thing, IMO neither side has a great record of predictions. The climate deniers' record is certainly no better than the scientists'. In past years/decades the deniers were mocking the idea that temps would rise and the arctic would be melting
at all.
As previously stated it's still there and it's not supposed to be according to the science, also if it's the furthest place on earth
from modern human/industrial activity that would make any activity a natural occurrence and not caused by man, no money in
that way of thinking.
Reasonably speaking it's becoming tiresome that the biggest advocates for climate are the biggest offenders, whether it's
3 or 4 mansions, private jets, etc. while pricing the average American out of the market trying to combat such.
Quote from: ACUDANUT on February 02, 2021, 05:42:06 AM
Can anybody agree on anything anymore ?
Yes,
Chargers :cheers:
Could there be a better name for an electric car? :lol:
Well.....economics will most likely be the cause of the end of these "toys" (gasoline and possibly insurance) but environmental laws could very well be the death knell as well.
Quote from: ACUDANUT on February 02, 2021, 05:42:06 AM
Can anybody agree on anything anymore ?
Not when people cherry-pick the info sources that suit their pre-conceived notions.
QuoteIf there's no reliable data then why where protections put in place? Within the same sentence we went from no reliable data
decades ago, too protections decades ago.
I'm not the one setting polar bear policies. Go ask the Canadian & Alaskan govts. I'm just pointing out the facts.
QuoteI believe it's part of the "Globe" or we going by area now?
There are measurable air quality differences within a few miles when a factory/city is polluting. It's not hard to fathom how the air might be clearer in the farthest place from human activity on the planet. Atmospheric/weather currents also play big roles in that stuff.
QuoteAs previously stated it's still there and it's not supposed to be according to the science, also if it's the furthest place on earth
from modern human/industrial activity that would make any activity a natural occurrence and not caused by man, no money in
that way of thinking.
You say that as if there's no money in defending the FF industry, or something. As if they haven't been actively funding research to say what they want for decades.
The greater warming in the Arctic is thought to be a combination of weather currents + a snowballing sunlight effect. Reduced ice cover --> less sunlight gets reflected by the ice --> the area warms more--> there is less ice cover.
The whole mess isn't understood very well IMO. The effect seems to be happening in the Arctic more than the Antarctic. But the poles have always had differing conditions. The Antarctic has a mile of ice piled on it but the Arctic has not had anything like that much (even before human climate damage). The Arctic is also water and it's closer to human civilizations. The Antartic is land and it's more isolated. Lots of complexities.
What is understood pretty well, is that atmospheric C02 levels track with higher & lower temperatures. More CO2 in the air = higher worldwide temps. The historical pattern is there (going back millions of years) and the mechanism is clear (greenhouse effect). IMO the case for this is not airtight but it's pretty strong.
QuoteReasonably speaking it's becoming tiresome that the biggest advocates for climate are the biggest offenders, whether it's
3 or 4 mansions, private jets, etc. while pricing the average American out of the market trying to combat such.
Having 3-4 mansions is basically a requirement before you get a voice in the MSM, period. Cable news & Hollywood award shows deal in the rich & famous. That doesn't mean there aren't working normal people who care about the environment.
If a news network wants to show a pro-gun-rights opinion, they will start by looking for a celebrity like Ted Nugent. But that doesn't prove that only rich/famous people care about gun rights. Same principle.
And realistically, I think working people have a gut-level understanding of how this stuff works. We can demand environmental protections but that's not how it will work. The govt will use it as leverage to milk the poor for a few more dollars while they continue to let the big industrial offenders pollute.
. . . . but that doesn't prove that the big industries aren't in the wrong. It doesn't prove that humans aren't causing climate damage. It just says that we need some functioning govt for a change.
Quote from: John_Kunkel on February 02, 2021, 02:07:53 PM
Quote from: ACUDANUT on February 02, 2021, 05:42:06 AM
Can anybody agree on anything anymore ?
Not when people cherry-pick the info sources that suit their pre-conceived notions.
Yup. and that's a two way street.
Problem today is no one seems to even want to hear the other sides point of view. And then from there it just escalates to the point of "I'm going to jam my opinion down your throat weather you like it or not".
This is the result of today's "keyboard society". Instead of a civil face to face discussion you can hide behind a keyboard with a cool nickname and be as rude and disrespectful as you want with minimum to no consequences.
The rest of the world is going electric.
As they say, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way. "
We wont go all electric until the earth is out of fossil fuel.
Todd
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone. Nor the bronze age, or the iron age.
In the 1800s our ships & trains used to burn coal. We switched to oil in the 1900s. It wasn't because we ran out of coal.
We change resources when the tech improves and/or the financial math changes. Natural resource industries always grab the cheapest/easiest supplies first. We started using the cheapest oil a century ago. Now we go to great lengths to get the same stuff.
Oil will never "run out". And I doubt we will ever stop using oil entirely (at least not in the foreseeable future, like the next 100 years). The tech and financial math will just continue to change.
My thoughts agree with Mike. Economics will be the factor that drives ICE cars off the road. How you get to those economics is the big question. Do we tax gas away or subsidize EV's till ICE cars can't complete. Personally I am putting my bet on technology. Batteries will keep getting better and better until they overwhelm any alternative. But how long to get there and at what cost??
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 07, 2021, 03:59:57 PM
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone. Nor the bronze age, or the iron age.
In the 1800s our ships & trains used to burn coal. We switched to oil in the 1900s. It wasn't because we ran out of coal.
We change resources when the tech improves and/or the financial math changes. Natural resource industries always grab the cheapest/easiest supplies first. We started using the cheapest oil a century ago. Now we go to great lengths to get the same stuff.
Quote from: green69rt on February 07, 2021, 05:42:48 PM
My thoughts agree with Mike.
X3
Battery technology is improving fast which is improving range and lowering the cost of EV's. Soon within 5 years or less EV's will be cheaper to produce than ICE vehicles. At that point its game over. Have you ever ridden in a Tesla? Have you seen the specs on a Model S Plaid Performance version. Zero to 60 in under 2 seconds and 1/4 mile time under 9 seconds. Under 9 seconds on a fully street able car you can not distinguish from any other car on the road. The fastest "Production car" ever built bar none. Look I am as big a fan of our cars as anybody & have been a muscle car enthusiast since I bought my first car in 1973. I'm not getting rid of them either. But times change and technology improves. EV's are not our old cars they are just drivers. Fast drivers however hence their appeal. There is no working on them swapping parts, restoring or modifying them. Cost of operation is however considerably lower than ICE vehicles. Fuel cost per mile comparison somewhere in the 140 mpg range. My brother has a Model 3 he ordered in March 2016 and took delivery of in August 2018. The first in our area. Its a blast to drive and at 27,000 on the odometer he has has to do nothing to it except charge it and add wiper fluid. For a year he did not show it to me because he knew what cars I loved. He did not think my reaction would be good. He could not have been more wrong. A lot of changes are coming in the next 10 years or so due to technology. We will see more and more of this coming because our generation will be driving the future less and less. The younger generations realize what we are doing & have done to this planet that they will inherit and are changing things slowly but they will pick up speed going forward. I frankly don't blame them I support them.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 07, 2021, 03:59:57 PM
...In the 1800s our ships & trains used to burn coal. We switched to oil in the 1900s. It wasn't because we ran out of coal...We change resources when the tech improves and/or the financial math changes....
Mike for the Win!!! :2thumbs:
now I'm wondering how boring will be the electric performance parts market!!!!
Quote from: b5blue on February 02, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
Could there be a better name for an electric car? :lol:
I guess our cars should be rebadged DISCHARGER ? :lol:
QuoteMike for the Win!!!
Thanks :cheers:
Quote from: Mytur Binsdirti on January 31, 2021, 06:03:17 AM
A short video worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
Winner winner
Whatever floats your boats. ::)
Tesla Charging Station, what could go wrong? :scratchchin: :shruggy:
I love that picture!
How long will we want them is the better question. Mike is spot on, the technology is changing even without government influence (a bipartisan statement) and subsidy, the demographic is changing and societal perception is changing. No matter what you feel personally, the interest in our cars is shrinking and although gasoline may be around for a long time yet (possibly 10-15 years or more), it is going to become increasingly expensive. The profit margin will shrink and costs to produce will go up and let us not forget taxation. Road taxes made from gasoline will need to be increased and the new carbon taxes are turning into an enormous windfall for the governments. Expect them to increase.
My point is that it is going to become exceedingly expensive to drive the old technology very soon. It isnt just that the new one is getting cheaper, ours is getting higher.
Quote from: ACUDANUT on February 09, 2021, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Mytur Binsdirti on January 31, 2021, 06:03:17 AM
A short video worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqppRC37OgI
Winner winner
Hilarious !
A video that is MOST DEFINITELY worth watching..... so you understand where it came from and WHY.... thereby answering many questions around mis-information and
FAKE NEWS Propaganda !
"PragerU", short for Prager
University, and despite the name, PragerU is
NOT an academic institution, but rather is an American 501(c)(3)
NON PROFIT MEDIA COMPANY....
"PragerU" does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body....PragerU
merely creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics from an American conservative perspective
That said....
Gasoline powered classics aren't going anywhere anytime soon.... they will be around for literally many decades
Quote from: Ghoste on February 11, 2021, 05:46:05 AM
How long will we want them is the better question. Mike is spot on, the technology is changing even without government influence (a bipartisan statement) and subsidy, the demographic is changing and societal perception is changing. No matter what you feel personally, the interest in our cars is shrinking and although gasoline may be around for a long time yet (possibly 10-15 years or more), it is going to become increasingly expensive. The profit margin will shrink and costs to produce will go up and let us not forget taxation. Road taxes made from gasoline will need to be increased and the new carbon taxes are turning into an enormous windfall for the governments. Expect them to increase.
My point is that it is going to become exceedingly expensive to drive the old technology very soon. It isnt just that the new one is getting cheaper, ours is getting higher.
IMO, everything is going to get very expensive very soon.... not just driving our old classics ? Meaning that 'proportionally' Vrs the wider economy, there may be increases to those costs ? but not as dramatic or DIS-proportional as we may think.
Look at the price of a 2 X 4 of Lumber ? 4 X 8 Sheet of Plywood ? and not just lumber.... look into all commodities futures/asset classes/stocks ?
Unless anyone here has any ideas to explain
HOW Dow valuations are at 31,000 after a YEAR of COVID ?
That video - copper is NOT considered a rare earth metal.
I've seen reported that 1% control 80% of stock market. Up or down brokers profit. GM is already yammin to Washington about E.V. infrastructure for cars not built yet. Insurance mandates will end our ride now that they have convinced all for to be mandatory. (I can ride a 6 or 200HP motorcycle with no helmet but must be seat belted inside my 2 ton SUV to go 2 miles under 20MPH.) :shruggy:
We grow corn to inject fuel with it while some go hungry and are coating the planet with polymers. When is the last time you used something 50 years old?
Yet we persist!
Quote from: Challenger340 on February 11, 2021, 09:16:57 AM
Quote from: Ghoste on February 11, 2021, 05:46:05 AM
How long will we want them is the better question. Mike is spot on, the technology is changing even without government influence (a bipartisan statement) and subsidy, the demographic is changing and societal perception is changing. No matter what you feel personally, the interest in our cars is shrinking and although gasoline may be around for a long time yet (possibly 10-15 years or more), it is going to become increasingly expensive. The profit margin will shrink and costs to produce will go up and let us not forget taxation. Road taxes made from gasoline will need to be increased and the new carbon taxes are turning into an enormous windfall for the governments. Expect them to increase.
My point is that it is going to become exceedingly expensive to drive the old technology very soon. It isnt just that the new one is getting cheaper, ours is getting higher.
IMO, everything is going to get very expensive very soon.... not just driving our old classics ? Meaning that 'proportionally' Vrs the wider economy, there may be increases to those costs ? but not as dramatic or DIS-proportional as we may think.
Look at the price of a 2 X 4 of Lumber ? 4 X 8 Sheet of Plywood ? and not just lumber.... look into all commodities futures/asset classes/stocks ?
Unless anyone here has any ideas to explain HOW Dow valuations are at 31,000 after a YEAR of COVID ?
Well if a 16 y/o makes 15.00 a hour (if he chooses to work) everything else is going to go up too.
QuoteWell if a 16 y/o makes 15.00 a hour (if he chooses to work) everything else is going to go up too.
It's not 1965 anymore. Low wages aren't just for teenagers now. The whole world economy has changed and fewer high-paying jobs exist in the USA.
BTW, if min wage had even kept pace with US dollar inflation (which is arguably understated) it would be about $10-11 now. If min wage had kept pace with the USA's increasing productivity over the decades (if it had maintained the same slice of the pie, as the USA's pie got bigger) it would be $24 now.
Quote from: Challenger340 on February 11, 2021, 09:16:57 AM
Unless anyone here has any ideas to explain HOW Dow valuations are at 31,000 after a YEAR of COVID ?
That's the easy one. Interest rates are nothing. Where else is the money going to go?
Quote from: b5blue on February 12, 2021, 09:46:12 AM
GM is already yammin to Washington about E.V. infrastructure for cars not built yet.
Let GM build their own EV infrastructure or they can pay to use the infrastructure built by other EV manufacturers. Why does the government have to do it for them. GM still technically owes the American tax payer 10.6 billion from their last bailout.
Quote from: Davtona on February 13, 2021, 05:13:28 PM
Quote from: b5blue on February 12, 2021, 09:46:12 AM
GM is already yammin to Washington about E.V. infrastructure for cars not built yet.
Let GM build their own EV infrastructure or they can pay to use the infrastructure built by other EV manufacturers. Why does the government have to do it for them. GM still technically owes the American tax payer 10.6 billion from their last bailout.
:yesnod: :yesnod: :yesnod:
Do you guys like having electricity & water & mail in rural areas?
Infrastructure is what govt is for. When you leave this stuff to private industry, they only build in the dense (profitable) areas and skip the rest. They also charge more.
This is our past history. Utilities have been govt-controlled for the last couple generations because we figured out it was necessary.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 13, 2021, 07:28:41 PM
Do you guys like having electricity & water & mail in rural areas?
Infrastructure is what govt is for. When you leave this stuff to private industry, they only build in the dense (profitable) areas and skip the rest. They also charge more.
This is our past history. Utilities have been govt-controlled for the last couple generations because we figured out it was necessary.
Yes I have my own private water well I drilled and paid for. My power is supplied by MidAmerican Energy which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. There is a state regulatory board which oversees and regulates what they can charge however. My other water option would be a rural water coop which supplies water to the rural areas. Once again in no way built by the government.
Not sure what type of infrastructure we are talking about for EV's beyond charging stations. My point is other EV manufacturers I'll use Tesla as my example have invested heavily into charging stations to support the cars the sell. These were not built by the government. Over 20,000 charging stations world wide as of now. More being built all the time. This cost is part of the car manufacturers transition to EV's. How people charge their cars that they sell is up to them to solve. Either build your own network or work out a deal with the pioneers of the industry for them to allow you to use theirs. I personally think the convenience stores & truck stops at some point will get smart and provide the equipment for charging vehicles & tack on their upcharge for the electricity. Much the same as gas stations do now. The Midwest grocery chain Hy-Vee is already doing that. Think of the foot traffic these stores will get while cars are charging for a 1/2 hour. The government does not need to be involved in this and it's probably better if they aren't. Here is Tesla's current US network.
QuoteNot sure what type of infrastructure we are talking about for EV's beyond charging stations.
The whole power grid will need buildup for a widespread switch to EVs. And we will need EV recharging access in some places that aren't profitable to build it.
The govt doesn't need to build everything. But it will probably need to steer the pricing & coverage.
It took the rural electrification act in the 1930s to get the existing power grid where it is. It was a govt jobs program to build infrastructure in areas where the industry deemed it unprofitable.
In this century things might look a little different. Instead of rural areas, it might be run-down ghetto areas of cities that don't get adequate EV coverage.
We already have that problem with grocery stores leaving ghetto areas. The stores are individually just doing what keeps them in business. But when they all do it, society suffers.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 13, 2021, 09:31:37 PM
QuoteNot sure what type of infrastructure we are talking about for EV's beyond charging stations.
The whole power grid will need buildup for a widespread switch to EVs. And we will need EV recharging access in some places that aren't profitable to build it.
The govt doesn't need to build everything. But it will probably need to steer the pricing & coverage.
It took the rural electrification act in the 1930s to get the existing power grid where it is. It was a govt jobs program to build infrastructure in areas where the industry deemed it unprofitable.
In this century things might look a little different. Instead of rural areas, it might be run-down ghetto areas of cities that don't get adequate EV coverage.
We already have that problem with grocery stores leaving ghetto areas. The stores are individually just doing what keeps them in business. But when they all do it, society suffers.
And of course it's still around today costing taxpayers most likely billions a year...
Quote from an internet search
"Is the Rural Electrification Act still around?
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, enacted on May 20, 1936, provided federal loans for the installation of electrical distribution systems to serve isolated rural areas of the United States. The funding was channeled through cooperative electric power companies, most of which still exist today."
The REA made it possible for the federal government to deliver low-cost loans to farmers who had banded together to form non-profit collectives. The REA made brought electricity to rural America. Roosevelt began trying to get the bill passed on May 11, 1935. He created an executive order which established the REA.
The proposal called for an appropriation of $100 million per year for 10 years, amounting to $1 billion, and loans at an interest rate of three percent or less and repayable within 40 years. Only public cooperatives and municipalities would be eligible for REA loan
Quote:
And of it's still around today costing tax payers most likely billions a year...
These were low interest loans not grants and the REA was terminated on October 13, 1994, with the passage of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. Its functions were absorbed into the newly-created Rural Utilities Service [9].
:lol:
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXJn87rJ/6883-ABEC-D329-4840-8633-2-E17-FAF9-F39-E.png) (https://postimg.cc/k6dnjjMC)
Quote from: MoparMike68 on February 14, 2021, 04:29:13 PM
:lol:
All infrastructure can have issues at one time or another. I've never heard of a wind turbine dumping 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico however.
:lol:
The Deepwater Horizon rig produced some incredible footage/pics as it went down.
Our civilization has a talent for making industrial messes.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.science20.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fbp_oil_spill_deepwater_horizon.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Quote,
All infrastructure can have issues at one time or another. I've never heard of a wind turbine dumping 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil into the Gulf of Mexico however.
Fair enough but the disaster wasn't the point the assistance from fossil fuel was, therefore rendering the turbine
dependent.
EVs aren't the answer either we're building an infrastructure when the US doesn't even have the minerals too allow everyone
an EV, Strip mining is still happening and again we'll be dependent on foreign countries. We have enough natural gas and fossil fuel too be energy independent until we find a better source of energy, Nuclear perhaps, until then fossil fuels will coexist with electric. Other issues are EVs still aren't practical Subsidies are massive like a quarter of the cars worth in most occasions. Longevity in the battery life also an issue at upwards of five thousand for replacement that's problematic for the average American, But too think we're all electric in ten or twenty year's is a pipe dream. Speaking of pipes if the Keystone pipe line wasn't Shut down we probably could avoid some of those disasters in the future. :yesnod:
QuoteEVs aren't the answer either we're building an infrastructure when the US doesn't even have the minerals too allow everyone
an EV, Strip mining is still happening and again we'll be dependent on foreign countries.
The US doesn't have the rare-earth minerals to build our electronics, either. But nobody says that's an argument to avoid using electronics.
QuoteWe have enough natural gas and fossil fuel too be energy independent until we find a better source of energy, Nuclear perhaps, until then fossil fuels will coexist with electric.
FFs and "energy independence" don't go together. Whatever FFs come out of the ground in the US, it all goes to the worldwide market. The FFs that Americans buy & burn came from the worldwide market. That's why we could be producing enough oil for the US public but we would still be invading foreign countries just to keep the worldwide market stabilized.
Self-sufficient countries are not a thing in this century.
"The US doesn't have the rare-earth minerals to build our electronics, either. But nobody says that's an argument to avoid using electronics "We do, but it lays on the ocean floor. We are being robbed by other countries like China and Russia harvestings our 90 mile boarder at sea, which these rare items lie "
Fact check.
Quote"The US doesn't have the rare-earth minerals to build our electronics, either. But nobody says that's an argument to avoid using electronics "We do, but it lays on the ocean floor. We are being robbed by other countries like China and Russia harvestings our 90 mile boarder at sea, which these rare items lie "
Fact check.
"China and Russia"? Those are private companies, not the Chinese & Russian govts.
Just like when US companies grab resources from within 90 miles of other countries (or from inside other countries). We do it every day.
Then all these companies sell all these resources on the open market.
Quote from: MoparMike68 on February 14, 2021, 10:12:51 PM
EVs aren't the answer either we're building an infrastructure when the US doesn't even have the minerals too allow everyone
an EV, Strip mining is still happening and again we'll be dependent on foreign countries. We have enough natural gas and fossil fuel too be energy independent until we find a better source of energy, Nuclear perhaps, until then fossil fuels will coexist with electric. Other issues are EVs still aren't practical Subsidies are massive like a quarter of the cars worth in most occasions. Longevity in the battery life also an issue at upwards of five thousand for replacement that's problematic for the average American, But too think we're all electric in ten or twenty year's is a pipe dream. Speaking of pipes if the Keystone pipe line wasn't Shut down we probably could avoid some of those disasters in the future. :yesnod:
What minerals don't we have? I'm not 100% sure what all goes into a Lithium Ion battery and I have studied it somewhat. Lithium is fairly abundant. Nickel is the one in shortest supply believe.
As far as subsidies the first 200,000 vehicles by each auto maker were and are eligible are for a $7000 tax credit per a prior administration. General Motors and Tesla are the only two companies to so far have used that up. EV's are not subsidized nearly to the extent you are suggesting. The oil industry is subsidized as is the ethanol production industry. I'll let you look up their subsidies so you can find your own real numbers though.
Batteries (Tesla's anyway) are being touted now as having a 500k to a million mile service life with a 10 to 15% degradation in range at that time. Then they are recycled and it begins again. And yes they can be recycled. Fossil fuels cannot be. Todays batteries are not like the Toyota Prius batteries that needed replacing at 100k miles.
Quote,
FFs and "energy independence" don't go together. Whatever FFs come out of the ground in the US, it all goes to the worldwide market. The FFs that Americans buy & burn came from the worldwide market. That's why we could be producing enough oil for the US public but we would still be invading foreign countries just to keep the worldwide market stabilized.
"Energy independence" means in time of crisis and or war we can produce the energy needed without an outside source.
Quote,
Self-sufficient countries are not a thing in this century.
That's a problem look what happened when we outsourced are Pharmaceuticals by 95% then Covid hit.
I believe the previous administration changed that so we would have to make now at least 40% in the US.
Quote,
What minerals don't we have? I'm not 100% sure what all goes into a Lithium Ion battery and I have studied it somewhat. Lithium is fairly abundant. Nickel is the one in shortest supply believe.
Research from MIT suggests there's not enough ability to mine and process the material to meet demand. The research suggests that demand could reach 430,000 tonnes in the next decade, which is 1.6 times today's capacity. One solution could be finding an alternative to cobalt in EV batteries
See that "Strip Mining" just like coal not very eco friendly.
Quote,
As far as subsidies the first 200,000 vehicles by each auto maker were and are eligible are for a $7000 tax credit per a prior administration. General Motors and Tesla are the only two companies to so far have used that up. EV's are not subsidized nearly to the extent you are suggesting. The oil industry is subsidized as is the ethanol production industry. I'll let you look up their subsidies so you can find your own real numbers though.
A Tesla base model starts at 40,000 Without a credit people will continue to purchase Gas powered vehicles.
Also when I buy a gas powered vehicle nobody's giving me anything so how is ethanol even a factor.
QuoteA Tesla base model starts at 40,000 Without a credit people will continue to purchase Gas powered vehicles.
That's because people get an enormous 'credit' to buy IC vehicles & gas. Always have, for generations.
There is no big surcharge added to IC vehicles & gas to help cover the costs of the military/wars and climate damage. All taxpayers are getting stuck with those costs, no matter what they drive or how much they drive it.
The IC/FF subsidy situation feels completely normal to people today. We've never lived any other way. But that doesn't change what it is.
:lol:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/texas-electric-grid-operator-says-frozen-wind-turbines-are-hampering-states-power-output-report
Quote from: MoparMike68 on February 15, 2021, 06:36:18 PM
Quote,
One solution could be finding an alternative to cobalt in EV batteries.
A Tesla base model starts at 40,000 Without a credit people will continue to purchase Gas powered vehicles.
Also when I buy a gas powered vehicle nobody's giving me anything so how is ethanol even a factor.
Tesla is doing away the Cobalt in their batteries. The you tube link is to Tesla's Battery Day event that was held on September 22, 2020. Somewhere in this 2 hour & 11 minute presentation Elon discusses this and how they are doing it. It gets a bit dry later on but I accept that I'm not on the same level as Elon on this. Good watch if you want to learn and have the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6T9xIeZTds
Here is cost of the cheapest Model 3 Tesla from their web site tonight. 37k initially then followed with a cost of ownership reducing it to $33,690 when compared against a ICE vehicle's fuel costs. 84% of your estimate.
The Government's Ethanol subsidy is reflected in the price you pay at the pump. Without the subsidy your fuel cost goes up. Same with oil. Which makes the EV fuel saving even bigger. Remember EV's are in the 140 MPG range by comparison in price.
Quote from: MoparMike68 on February 15, 2021, 09:31:35 PM
:lol:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/texas-electric-grid-operator-says-frozen-wind-turbines-are-hampering-states-power-output-report
"Due to the severe weather and freezing temperatures across our state, many power companies have been unable to generate power,
whether it's from coal, natural gas, or wind power," Abbott said
From your article. Sounds like more than just the wind turbines are having problems in this storm. I do commend Texas on the % of their power they produce with wind power and that they are one of the leading states in renewable energy. That's the best part of the article.
Rolling blackouts from ND to TX have turned into lengthy power outages in freezing conditions
oil and gas are still reliable energy sources and renewables were just proven unsustainable and clearly unreliable.
When your the leader in renewables that means coal and natural gas are not their focus :lol:
Last post on this topic.
QuoteRolling blackouts from ND to TX have turned into lengthy power outages in freezing conditions
oil and gas are still reliable energy sources and renewables were just proven unsustainable and clearly unreliable.
Last post on this topic.
You say that as if renewables are some half-baked new experimental program. Like it never occurred to anyone that weather exists and power output would vary. As if wind turbines & solar cells haven't been used (successfully) for decades all over the world.
Extended rolling blackouts are a sign that our electrical grid needs infrastructure help in a bigger way. Sticking to coal or nuclear sources won't fix a shitty grid.
Energy is not a team sport. The US "wins" by making the best use of all available resources.
Quote from: MoparMike68 on February 15, 2021, 10:16:06 PM
Last post on this topic.
As was posted earlier:
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way. " :leaving: :leaving: :leaving:
Before I "get out of the way" do either of you own EVs ? If so are you ready too give up your FF vehicles? Yeah me either :lol:
How about Solar...anyone?
I'll bet Mike will be the first too respond :lol:
Gonna just wait then? Ok maybe later :lol:
My brother has a Tesla model 3 which after a ride in it I was sold. I have a reservation in on a Tesla Cyber Truck. I'm not in the market for car so I'm waiting for the truck. Production on them starts in late 2021. I will be getting rid of my Dodge Ram and replacing it with the EV. So no I don't but its in the works. Got to start somewhere or you will never get there. No I'm not getting rid of my old Mopars. :yesnod:
QuoteBefore I "get out of the way" do either of you own EVs ? If so are you ready too give up your FF vehicles? Yeah me either lol
How about Solar...anyone?
Why does buying an EV mean giving up FF cars? Is there a law against owning both?
A combination of both floats my boat. I think they should push hybrid tech a little farther. Install a two or three cyl engine that makes 50 hp to power a generator that only turns on when battery pack gets below 25 percent. Might have a range of 1,000 miles depending on the battery and the gas tank on the generator
Quote from: JB400 on February 16, 2021, 10:03:20 AM
A combination of both floats my boat. I think they should push hybrid tech a little farther. Install a two or three cyl engine that makes 50 hp to power a generator that only turns on when battery pack gets below 25 percent. Might have a range of 1,000 miles depending on the battery and the gas tank on the generator
Seems like the best of two worlds, but manufacturers do not want the expense of the dual powertrain.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 16, 2021, 09:50:42 AM
Why does buying an EV mean giving up FF cars? Is there a law against owning both?
Some people will want or need both. You want to go hunting in a remote area for a weekend? Better bring that gas generator. We won't talk about range or keeping the cabin warm in winter.
You want to pull a car trailer to Carlisle with your EV? Good luck with that.
You want to travel long distance and put down the miles quickly? Your ICE gets 400 miles of "charge" in five minutes. With the EV, even with short charging to get the fastest bang for the time, you're still looking at what, 20-25 min?
Where does an EV fit in? For me, it would be a work commuter. Could I justify the investment? NFW.
QuoteA combination of both floats my boat. I think they should push hybrid tech a little farther. Install a two or three cyl engine that makes 50 hp to power a generator that only turns on when battery pack gets below 25 percent. Might have a range of 1,000 miles depending on the battery and the gas tank on the generator
My thoughts too.
They could probably do a half-size battery and a small IC engine. I dunno about 1000 miles but the range could be significant.
That engine could be motorcycle-size. No pushrods, dual cams, etc. Just a really simple deal that spins at one low RPM, going on/off like a body shop air compressor.
The engine deal would add weight but the reduced battery pack size could offset most of it. It would probably cost storage space though. I'm picturing a vehicle's trunk with a motorcycle engine and a 5-gallon gas tank inside.
QuoteSome people will want or need both. You want to go hunting in a remote area for a weekend? Better bring that gas generator. We won't talk about range or keeping the cabin warm in winter.
You want to pull a car trailer to Carlisle with your EV? Good luck with that.
You want to travel long distance and put down the miles quickly? Your ICE gets 400 miles of "charge" in five minutes. With the EV, even with short charging to get the fastest bang for the time, you're still looking at what, 20-25 min?
Where does an EV fit in? For me, it would be a work commuter. Could I justify the investment? NFW.
This.
Texas and power sources -
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-wind-turbines-frozen/
Michael Webber, an energy resources professor at the University of Texas:
"Texas is a gas state," While Webber said all of Texas' energy sources share blame for the power crisis, the natural gas industry is most notably producing significantly less power than normal. "Gas is failing in the most spectacular fashion right now," Webber said.
Dan Woodfin, a senior director at ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas):
"It appears that a lot of the generation that has gone offline today has been primarily due to issues on the natural gas system. ERCOT planned on 67GW from natural gas/coal, but could only get 43GW of it online. We didn't run out of natural gas, but we ran out of the ability to get natural gas. Pipelines in Texas don't use cold insulation —so things were freezing."
There's always a politician with an opposing view. His take is shorter on facts/evidence but it serves his party donors:
U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston:
"This is what happens when you force the grid to rely in part on wind as a power source," "When weather conditions get bad as they did this week, intermittent renewable energy like wind isn't there when you need it."
Does she look cold?
Quote from: Aero426 on February 16, 2021, 06:38:16 PM
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 16, 2021, 09:50:42 AM
Why does buying an EV mean giving up FF cars? Is there a law against owning both?
You want to go hunting in a remote area for a weekend? Better bring that gas generator. We won't talk about range or keeping the cabin warm in winter.
You want to pull a car trailer to Carlisle with your EV? Good luck with that.
You want to travel long distance and put down the miles quickly? Your ICE gets 400 miles of "charge" in five minutes. With the EV, even with short charging to get the fastest bang for the time, you're still looking at what, 20-25 min?
Where does an EV fit in? For me, it would be a work commuter. Could I justify the investment? NFW.
I should take delivery of my Tesla Cyber Truck in 2022 so I let you know if the advertised claims are true. The higher end model is advertised to have a range in excess of 500 miles. Payload capacity of 3500 lbs. and a towing capacity of 14,000 lbs. and God knows how much torque.
A lot. Will have a on board air compressor and 110 volt outlet for power tools. I guess you could get remote enough that the 500 miles range could be a problem. At 500 miles however the ICE vehicle would be in a similar situation if not for the 80 plus years of infrastructure that has been built for it. I hardly see towing as an issue for three electric motors (AKA trains). Sure the range will drop depending on what you tow. But I'm not to impressed with the mileage I get with my Dodge Ram towing either. In fact I'm sick of it which is reason I want to try something different. Mileage on ICE vehicles has not improved in a real way in 40 years. Sure we add overdrives and more gears but that's useless towing and the cost to tow sucks. And after 500 miles of driving in a day 15 to 20 minutes to take a piss and walk a bit does not seem like a big deal to me.
That Cyber Truck looks like a middle school science project designed and constructed by idiots.
Quote from: Kern Dog on February 17, 2021, 05:41:25 PM
That Cyber Truck looks like a middle school science project designed and constructed by idiots.
Tell me how you really feel. So does a 3 year old rusted out Silverado, Ram or Super Duty. They have had 60 years of designing behind them. Haven't figured that out yet have they.
Quote from: Kern Dog on February 17, 2021, 04:27:30 PM
Does she look cold?
She looks like she bought those. Fake.
So? THAT is a rockin body. Athletic, tan and sweaty are three of my favorite things in a woman.
My first wife was just sweaty.
QuoteI should take delivery of my Tesla Cyber Truck in 2022 so I let you know if the advertised claims are true. The higher end model is advertised to have a range in excess of 500 miles. Payload capacity of 3500 lbs. and a towing capacity of 14,000 lbs. and God knows how much torque. A lot. Will have a on board air compressor and 110 volt outlet for power tools. I guess you could get remote enough that the 500 miles range could be a problem. At 500 miles however the ICE vehicle would be in a similar situation if not for the 80 plus years of infrastructure that has been built for it. I hardly see towing as an issue for three electric motors (AKA trains). Sure the range will drop depending on what you tow. But I'm not to impressed with the mileage I get with my Dodge Ram towing either. In fact I'm sick of it which is reason I want to try something different. Mileage on ICE vehicles has not improved in a real way in 40 years. Sure we add overdrives and more gears but that's useless towing and the cost to tow sucks. And after 500 miles of driving in a day 15 to 20 minutes to take a piss and walk a bit does not seem like a big deal to me.
Do you know what the curb weight is on that thing? I wonder how much battery it has to carry to advertise a 500-mile range.
Offhand guess: the range will be pretty good when it's unloaded. With loads/towing the range is liable to drop dramatically.
As for the "15-20 minutes to take a walk" - totally agree. I barely want to go 200 miles between stops, never mind 500.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 17, 2021, 09:40:40 PM
Do you know what the curb weight is on that thing? I wonder how much battery it has to carry to advertise a 500-mile range.
Offhand guess: the range will be pretty good when it's unloaded. With loads/towing the range is liable to drop dramatically.
As for the "15-20 minutes to take a walk" - totally agree. I barely want to go 200 miles between stops, never mind 500.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ1365fBhVk
Best specs (speculation ;)) I have seen so far in this video. He says 500 mile tri motor has 168KWH to 200KWH of batteries. It will use the new 46MM x 80MM batteries. Same as what is planned for the Tesla semi. Battery power efficiently as high as 88%. So 88% of the battery power goes to the road and pushes the vehicle. As compared to his Subaru ICE vehicle which has a efficiency of only 23%. Only 23% of your fuel cost actually moves the vehicle. I knew flywheel horsepower vs at the wheel horsepower but I learned something here. I never realized a ICE vehicle was that inefficient in this day and age. In 1940 yes I would believe that but this is 2021. In the video he is saying a weight of 2362KG (5196 lbs.)
Tesla isn't releasing a lot of that info at this point as final production design is not done. I have heard they have reduced the overall size by 3% from the prototype.
An old-school light bulb is basically an electric heater that also happens to produce some visible light in the process. Most of the power goes into the heat.
The same is true for internal combustion. The process mainly produces heat. The gas pressure against the pistons is distant second.
EVs have a significant power draw when they need to heat the passenger cabin. In fact the OEMs have been looking at heating more of the surfaces people feel (seats, steering wheel, armrests, etc) so they can get away without heating up the air so much. Whereas with IC engines it's totally different. They produce so much excess heat that you're doing the system a favor when you run the cabin heater full blast.
I actually thought you would have more comments on the weight as that is pretty up in the air. May not be that far off if you do away with a trucks frame, motor, trans and related items then add batteries. I guess we'll find out. Yes damm inefficient system we are using in our current vehicles. I guess I never thought it was that bad though. No wonder mileage sucks. Archaic system we have.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 17, 2021, 11:35:38 PM
EVs have a significant power draw when they need to heat the passenger cabin. In fact the OEMs have been looking at heating more of the surfaces people feel (seats, steering wheel, armrests, etc) so they can get away without heating up the air so much. Whereas with IC engines it's totally different. They produce so much excess heat that you're doing the system a favor when you run the cabin heater full blast.
Have to study that more. Ok we are using say 10% of our ICE vehicle's 77% energy loss to heat our car. We are still only at 33% efficiently in cold weather only. Air Conditioning is definitely
Not a plus on a ICE vehicle either as it costs mileage. So are heat and cool just a trade off on said vehicle and we are still at 23%? Bottom line nothing is free and I'm sure it affects range on the EV too. But per dollar of energy its not taking as high of a % to do the same thing.
The guy in the video made valiant efforts to calculate specs, but IMO he's working with too many assumptions to trust it. The 5100-lb weight figure seems pretty low for carrying a heavy load that far. And the larger battery cells, how does that actually save a lot of space/weight over smaller ones? That's not how the physics of round objects work in different scales.
I'm curious about the weight of the battery pack & motors, specifically. That is a tip-off about how much the vehicle was compromised to keep the weight manageable. Tesla is using a different drivetrain than Detroit but they still have to build the rest of the vehicle with the same materials.
I haven't thought a lot about the whole truck because it all seems kind of gimmicky, to be honest. Stainless body panels, no perimeter frame, no side mirrors, etc. IMO it's trying a bit too hard.
Not to say the Tesla truck cannot work today. It may work pretty well and satisfy a lot of buyers.
The stainless body panels may be less of a problem today than in the DeLorean era. Modern vehicles are treated so carefully in general. And that was before "paintless" dent removal; minor damage wasn't easy to fix. By the later 1980s some DeLorean owners had actually painted them for various reasons.
The lack of a perimeter frame won't be a problem in light or moderate usage, assuming the unibody structure is strong/rigid enough (it looks like it will be). But the vehicle still seems better suited to the SUV market than the pickup truck market IMO.
Don't forget that EV batteries are charged by butterflies and unicorns.
Quote,
There's always a politician with an opposing view. His take is shorter on facts/evidence but it serves his party donors
Apparently there's one on this forum as well rather then stating the final comment this disclaimer was imposed.
Quote,
Why does buying an EV mean giving up FF cars?
Why wait do the right thing for the planet the technology is there according to your research, or is it FF vehicles for me
but not for thee or maybe you don't want to give up reliability.
Quote,
Is there a law against owning both?
I'll leave it at that.
QuoteQuote,
There's always a politician with an opposing view. His take is shorter on facts/evidence but it serves his party donors
Apparently there's one on this forum as well rather then stating the final comment this disclaimer was imposed.
You introduced Texas blackouts into the conversation. You basically voiced the right/GOP spin on the situation. It does not match the facts very well.
I'm not the one trying to politicize this thread. I just pushed back.
QuoteWhy wait do the right thing for the planet the technology is there according to your research, or is it FF vehicles for me
but not for thee or maybe you don't want to give up reliability.
Is there a law against owning both?
I'll leave it at that.
Sorry but I still don't view this as a war between IC and EV.
Each one has some pros & cons. EVs are not perfect by any means. They have mechanical drawbacks. Batteries are heavy AF for a sports car. There aren't enough charging stations yet and it takes some time to recharge. They have new variables & less familiarity for the rescue crews after an accident. Etc.
IMO electrics do offer some environmental gains but they tend to get overstated/oversimplified. A lot depends on how your local powerplant generates the electricity, how much of the car's electric gear gets recycled when it wears out, etc.
Quote,
You introduced Texas blackouts into the conversation. You basically voiced the right/GOP spin on the situation. It does not match the facts very well.
The article didn't defend anything right/GOP and either did I in fact it was more condemning the Governor for his poor
choices of accepting a ridiculous green energy program that failed. I have heat and it's really cold here.
Remember you're only entitled too your own opinions not your own facts. :2thumbs:
This one looks hot.
Quote from: MoparMike68 on February 18, 2021, 04:15:13 PM
Quote,
You introduced Texas blackouts into the conversation. You basically voiced the right/GOP spin on the situation. It does not match the facts very well.
The article didn't defend anything right/GOP and either did I in fact it was more condemning the Governor for his poor
choices of accepting a ridiculous green energy program that failed. I have heat and it's really cold here.
Remember you're only entitled too your own opinions not your own facts. :2thumbs:
Texas Governor has basically been caught lying about the wind turbines to cover his butt. His comments made national news last night. They basically called him out that the wind turbines only contribute 15% of Texas power and they are not responsible for Texas's current electric problem. Fox news is promoting the same lie. Truth is Texas utility grid was not built for such temperatures understandably so. I'm surrounded by wind turbines here and temps last weekend were -29º over night. They never missed a beat. But times are a changing and the weather seems to be having more extremes. But yes you posted the first picture of a wind turbine in this thread that I have seen.
I like that “truth is” blah blah blah and Fox News is promoting the same lie but “WHAT IM SAYING IS FACT” :lol:
This is no politics I’m trying to stay with the theme I didn’t realize a wind turbine was political, I’m talking energy
although it can be perceived as political that’s not my intention. I simply posted an article it just happened too be Fox News.
Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 18, 2021, 04:17:04 AM
The guy in the video made valiant efforts to calculate specs, but IMO he's working with too many assumptions to trust it.
Ok I'm going back to the truck discussion now. :cheers:
It's not so much trying too hard as it is starting with a blank sheet of paper. Its throwing everything away about today's trucks and asking why. A blank sheet of paper. Mirrors may come as they are the law in the US. Cameras were what was intended. And the reason for camera's I believe was aerodynamics which played a big part in the overall design of this truck.
On the battery weight think of grains of sand. The bigger the grains the more room there is between them. The video shows the size comparison of the old and new cells. Like AA compared to D cells as a example. Hence less weight?? Now the new 46 x 80 battery is 10MM taller than the old ones so how much of that is lost?? But new battery is supposed to be able to store 6X the power and improve range 16% over the old battery. So it requires less batteries to do same thing. September 22 battery day presentation goes into a lot more detail. Tesla has done a lot to improve their batteries over what they were.
Electric motor weight is out there somewhere as they have a lot of them in use. Just have to up size them by a % I suppose. I have no numbers or information on them however.
Yes he has a lot of assumptions and unknowns in his calculations. Not saying he is right at all. All this is speculation until Tesla announces the real known specs. But maybe gives us somewhat of an idea.
Stainless body I think is to do away with the rust problems. The stainless door and a F250 door were bashed with a plastic sledge during trucks roll out last year. Stainless door was un damaged. Ford door not so much. Would be interesting to hear what gage of stainless this is. Appears pretty tough. I don't think you will see small dents without a lot of impact force. They actually did a demo at the rollout and the stainless would stop a 9MM bullet. Crazy huh we need that??
I think the body is way stronger than many are giving it credit for. We are just to so accustomed to having a separate frame, body & box. 5200 lbs. does seem light to me also. I have no idea what the batteries weigh though.
QuoteIt's not so much trying too hard as it is starting with a blank sheet of paper. Its throwing everything away about today's trucks and asking why. A blank sheet of paper. Mirrors may come as they are the law in the US. Cameras were what was intended. And the reason for camera's I believe was aerodynamics which played a big part in the overall design of this truck.
Yeah, I wonder if the lack of mirrors will really make production or not.
QuoteOn the battery weight think of grains of sand. The bigger the grains the more room there is between them. The video shows the size comparison of the old and new cells. Like AA compared to D cells as a example. Hence less weight?? Now the new 46 x 80 battery is 10MM taller than the old ones so how much of that is lost?? But new battery is supposed to be able to store 6X the power and improve range 16% over the old battery. So it requires less batteries to do same thing. September 22 battery day presentation goes into a lot more detail. Tesla has done a lot to improve their batteries over what they were.
That's my point though. IIRC a box full of marbles has about the same ratio of marble volume to empty space volume, even if the marble size is changed. It's one of those quirky facts in a physics textbook.
I'm not rejecting Tesla's claim that the newer batteries are better. That's a directly measurable stat. I just don't think they explained it very well.
QuoteElectric motor weight is out there somewhere as they have a lot of them in use. Just have to up size them by a % I suppose. I have no numbers or information on them however.
Yes he has a lot of assumptions and unknowns in his calculations. Not saying he is right at all. All this is speculation until Tesla announces the real known specs. But maybe gives us somewhat of an idea.
Whatever it is, we'll find out at some point.
QuoteStainless body I think is to do away with the rust problems. The stainless door and a F250 door were bashed with a plastic sledge during trucks roll out last year. Stainless door was un damaged. Ford door not so much. Would be interesting to hear what gage of stainless this is. Appears pretty tough. I don't think you will see small dents without a lot of impact force. They actually did a demo at the rollout and the stainless would stop a 9MM bullet. Crazy huh we need that??
I think the body is way stronger than many are giving it credit for. We are just to so accustomed to having a separate frame, body & box. 5200 lbs. does seem light to me also. I have no idea what the batteries weigh though.
Stainless is not stronger than mild steel per se. That issue still boils down to the panel's thickness & alloy. My guess is Tesla figured it looked cool + they could avoid the costs of exterior paint + rust resistance is a selling point.
I wonder how much of the Tesla's whole unibody & battery structure is stainless. We classic Mopar guys, of all people, are aware that rusting can go beyond a cosmetic exterior problem.
I'm surprised Tesla didn't use a bunch of aluminum panels to save weight. The whole industry has been gradually switching to aluminum on the 'swing panels' (hood, doors, trunklid/gate). Those panels are just along for the ride so long-term metal fatiguing is not a big issue.
But whatever. Aluminum swing panels would probably not save more than 200 lbs. It takes a whole aluminum body to make a big dramatic difference.
Tesla price reduction, The Tesla model 3 is now a thousand dollars less at 36,990
244 miles per charge at 10 hours per charge :scratchchin:
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/tesla-lowers-model-3-and-y-price
Quoted from the first comment in the article,
I'm going to wait until the price is under $30k, the range is closer to 400 miles, and there are enough dc fast chargers to support the number of cars out there. I think I'll be waiting for a long time
Quote from: hemi-hampton on January 30, 2021, 12:43:14 PM
I hate those Trucks blowing all that Black Smoke in your Face. What I want to know is how are they going to dispose of all those Dead Junk 6 foot long 3 feet wide 500 pound Toxic Batteries? Just dig a big hole & Bury them? Like they do with Radioactive Chemicals? That will be a huge Enviromental Danger. :slap: :brickwall: :RantExplode:
Isn't it funny how conservatives suddenly become environmentalists, and concerned about pollution only when you bring up electric cars?