Rules are made to be broken.....or extended .....
How many years ago were we all going to have "Real ID"
and then you can probably be an "essential driver" , there will be loopholes......
Rules are made to be broken.....or extended .....
How many years ago were we all going to have "Real ID"
and then you can probably be an "essential driver" , there will be loopholes......
bobzilla said:In reply to Vajingo :
Similar to tube-type TV's. You can't even give one away.
Ha, I did just that. A friend had an older Nintendo his kid wanted to use. This worked perfectly. Back on topic.
vwcorvette (Forum Supporter) said:bobzilla said:In reply to Vajingo :
Similar to tube-type TV's. You can't even give one away.
Ha, I did just that. A friend had an older Nintendo his kid wanted to use. This worked perfectly. Back on topic.
My first thought shows my age. I was not thinking the change from CRT to Flar screen's; I was thinking about when we were still using vacuum tubes in the chassis... and switched to all solid state!!
To keep it on topic - sorta - ... both of those changes were a relitivly slow changeover process, and fairly painless for most people.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Never heard of dIre straits?
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Government regulation has always been the stimulus for advancement. At at least, since 1966 when automotive emissions started to be regulated. (No more road draft tube, you need a PCV system to recycle the crankcase gases) Even electronic ignition was adopted because it was needed to meet emissions specs.
If it wasn't for the regulatory carrot, we'd still be driving cars with points and carbs that needed deep maintenance every few months, and were worn out garbage after two or three years.
Yes, there's something romantically lost about the automotive experience, but then, my daily driver is a 15 year old car with 240,000mi that runs high 13s, emits exhaust cleaner than the air it breathes in (barring CO2), gets decent fuel economy, regular maintenenance consists of an oil change every now and then, and I'd probably walk away from a high speed collision. And it's only getting better.
This is not the same thing as regulation, improving a current technology. This is banning a current technology with the hopes that another will become available to replace it. They tried to do this already, it the ‘90’s. It was law. Manufacturers were required to build cars with technology that didn’t exist yet. They couldn’t and wouldn’t, as the technology did not exist and could not be developed in time. EV’s at the time were vastly inferior to their ICE counterparts. We are closer now, and it may be possible this time- but the politicians making these decisions are far from experts in the field. Maybe technology will advance in enough by then. Maybe it won’t. Let’s say it doesn’t- and they push forward with the regulation anyway and ban all new ICE vehicle sales. It is 2035, and the EV’s are still expensive, range limited, and you still can’t plug one in curbside where you park. So instead of buying a new vehicle, you stick with your older, dirtier, ICE car. ICE cars could have been cleaner, but manufacturers stopped investing in ICE tech as they got closer to the mandate. People hold onto their old ICE cars longer, the overall pollution level increases Vs. what it would have been had there been no mandate. This is a very real possibility, and highlights the danger of a mandate.
A better solution would be to allow advancement to take it’s natural course. If EV’s become superior to ICE vehicles, there would be no need for a mandate. It’s not like manufactures aren’t investing in EV’s. They are working to improve both the ICE and the EV. The reality is that hybrids may be the answer barring huge advances in battery tech, but that’s not sexy enough for politicians.
One more thing to add- make no mistake, the mandate would require a new battery technology. Currently batteries are made of rare materials, and there is no where near enough supply to meet demand. I read an estimate that there will be significant shortages by 2025 at the current rate of increase, which is no where near a what the mandate would require.
Vajingo said:My concern is how this will affect my trade in of my used ICE in the future. Will everyone be like "sorry, we aren't accepting those" and you're stuck with an aging appliance that has no value? (And potentially a really expensive fuel source...)
That's the point.
I am not really a fan of cars I cannot dream of affording but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ops5qBV5GhQ
I love Lotus and I bet I would berkeleying LOVE to drive this.
I'll still keep my ICE cars thank you very much.
Government regulation has always been the stimulus for advancement. At at least, since 1966 when automotive emissions started to be regulated.
Yep started forcing crap systems on us way before they were effective. Only took about 25 years to get where the systems were not junk.
Even electronic ignition was adopted because it was needed to meet emissions specs.
I guess its supposed to be a good thing that the automakers forced horrible stop gap systems on us, while they learned how to build one that worked well, instead having the time to develop a good system before selling us junk.
If it wasn't for the regulatory carrot, we'd still be driving cars with points and carbs
Uh, no. absolutely not true. The thirst for improvements are always there, for some people.
...15 year old car with 240,000mi that runs high 13s, emits exhaust cleaner than the air it breathes in...
If that was true, the air would be getting better and cleaner the more your car was driven. So improvements would be a detriment.
I think they're really going to need to clearly define what an "EV" is. In most current legislation, a Plug-In Hybrid is considered an EV, even though they still have an ICE on board. Personally, I think they're a better solution currently than full BEVs anyway, but it's going to be a whole lot easier for manufacturers to "electrify" their fleets if that includes PHEVs.
If PHEV's are allowed by the legislation:
1) fears about fuel or parts availability/costs for older ICEs are unfounded
2) It reduces environmental concerns about raw material supply, as well as logistical concerns about battery production capacity since you can use significantly less Lithium, Cobalt, etc in each vehicle while seeing most of the environmental gain in tailpipe emissions that a BEV would have.
3) It eliminates any concern from consumers about range anxiety, or those who park in a place without charging
03Panther said:Government regulation has always been the stimulus for advancement. At at least, since 1966 when automotive emissions started to be regulated.
Yep started forcing crap systems on us way before they were effective. Only took about 25 years to get where the systems were not junk.
Even electronic ignition was adopted because it was needed to meet emissions specs.
I guess its supposed to be a good thing that the automakers forced horrible stop gap systems on us, while they learned how to build one that worked well, instead having the time to develop a good system before selling us junk.
If it wasn't for the regulatory carrot, we'd still be driving cars with points and carbs
Uh, no. absolutely not true. The thirst for improvements are always there, for some people.
...15 year old car with 240,000mi that runs high 13s, emits exhaust cleaner than the air it breathes in...
If that was true, the air would be getting better and cleaner the more your car was driven. So improvements would be a detriment.
The money just isn't there for shareholder owned companies to spend decades on R&D perfecting every aspect of a technology when it's not contributing to the bottom line. Setting a mandate like this ensures that every company that will sell these things is working on it (or sharing development costs through partnerships), rather than one or two companies hemorrhaging R&D cash while everybody else rakes in profits with the status quo.
Massachusetts legislature has a history of passing this kind of feel goody stupidity, and then quickly backpedaling when law goes into effect and they realize they screwed up. A recent one comes to mind. Passed a regulation stating only high efficiency condensing furnaces. Yeah, that lasted a month, when they found out attic mounted furnaces will freeze up. Recommendation was to heat tape wrap everything before it dawned on them that that was wasting even more energy, and was still no guarantee it wouldn't freeze if power went out. Just this past year they put two women career bureaucrats in charge of the plumbing board. Neither knows anything about plumbing. Think about that. The state with the strictest plumbing codes in the country, has its plumbing board run by two women who know nothing about plumbing. The master plumber with 50 plus years experience retired but kept on doing the job for several years after officially retiring. Then the laws about how many hours you can legally work and still collect retirement kicked in. He is gone now. I don't know about you, but I sure feel good that these two higher paid women got an opportunity to do the job of one man.
03Panther said:...15 year old car with 240,000mi that runs high 13s, emits exhaust cleaner than the air it breathes in...
If that was true, the air would be getting better and cleaner the more your car was driven. So improvements would be a detriment.
I believe other than CO2 emissions this is true. The problem is that we have hit the lower hanging fruit and need to go after bulk CO2 emissions, which needs a different strategy.
For those that are negative on BEV, there is also fuel cell EV (FCEV) and although they have different problems (also infrastructure) it solves some of the battery material scarcity issues. Though to be honest I think that gets blown a bit out of proportion and the amount of global research going into battery technology is staggering. It's a big and growing sector...
Boost_Crazy said:One more thing to add- make no mistake, the mandate would require a new battery technology. Currently batteries are made of rare materials, and there is no where near enough supply to meet demand. I read an estimate that there will be significant shortages by 2025 at the current rate of increase, which is no where near a what the mandate would require.
Batteries are not made of rare materials. Lithium is quite common actually, and new deposits are being found regularly (there's a huge one in Nevada in fact). Cobalt is problematic due to where it's from, but many battery chemistries are moving away from that entirely. Solid state batteries are starting to be produced and eliminate both chemistries. No, by 2035 there will be more than enough batteries and power generation to deal with this.
And even now, battery electric cars are coming into price parity with ICE vehicles. And that's after only a few years of production. My 2020 Bolt was $25k out the door and provides performance better than a $25k GTI and over 330 miles of real world range.
03Panther said:Government regulation has always been the stimulus for advancement. At at least, since 1966 when automotive emissions started to be regulated.
Yep started forcing crap systems on us way before they were effective. Only took about 25 years to get where the systems were not junk.
Even electronic ignition was adopted because it was needed to meet emissions specs.
I guess its supposed to be a good thing that the automakers forced horrible stop gap systems on us, while they learned how to build one that worked well, instead having the time to develop a good system before selling us junk.
If it wasn't for the regulatory carrot, we'd still be driving cars with points and carbs
Uh, no. absolutely not true. The thirst for improvements are always there, for some people.
...15 year old car with 240,000mi that runs high 13s, emits exhaust cleaner than the air it breathes in...
If that was true, the air would be getting better and cleaner the more your car was driven. So improvements would be a detriment.
I've been doing automotive engineering for almost 30 years now, specifically focusing on emissions. Without a doubt, the narrowing of emissions regulations over the 30 years have done a MASSIVE amount of developments in engines. And given they all cost real money to develop, there would be no reason do have done that without regulations. Management argue over $10 changes in an engine.
Engines may have improved over hte last 50 years, but not nearly where they are now. Not even close.
BTW, new cars have to offset the old cars, so improvements are still needed.
Regulations have shown over the decades to accelerate developments. It forces companies to make investments that they would not have without them. And before we decry that it has increased the cost of cars- do a quick investigation of car prices- cars are cleaner, safer, more powerful, more economic, more comfortable,,,, and the price has barely gone up relative to inflation. It's actually hard to find a comparable old car.
So while it's a massive uphill battle to find batteries that are capable in 15 years, having someone force you to do it is not a bad thing.
Call that a fake opinion, if you want. But I'm just reporting what I have directly seen over the last 29 years.
In reply to Chris_V :
Batteries still need a massive improvement to make them workable for the entire fleet, for a real life of the car. I know many people don't believe it, but if they were as cheap and capable as people think, the available EV fleet right now would be at least an order of magnitude larger.
I do think it will happen, but don't know when.
Once again, if people have real ideas, you can make a literal mint and be comfortable for the rest of your life with the idea that displaces the current LiIon batteries (more capacity, lower cost).
STM317 said:3) It eliminates any concern from consumers about range anxiety, or those who park in a place without charging
And battery replacement anxiety. A typical hybrid battery is like $1500 (prius) A typical BEV battery is 5-10x that much.
My fear is that the above is going to result in cars ultimately being on the road for a significantly shorter period of time. BEVs may only have a 10-15 year life before batteries wear out and the replacement cost totals the vehicle. So the 14 year average age of a car mentioned earlier in this thread will not continue. This means a lot more waste, and a lot more strain on the average person's wallet.
Chris_V said:And even now, battery electric cars are coming into price parity with ICE vehicles. And that's after only a few years of production. My 2020 Bolt was $25k out the door and provides performance better than a $25k GTI and over 330 miles of real world range.
Are they though? Using your Bolt as an example, look what was selling right next to them at the Chevy dealers:
While EVs may be getting more affordable relative to average new vehicle prices, I'm not sure they're close to price parody with a comparable ICE in a lot of cases. I do think that they're trending in the right direction, and the time when they'll be nearly the same price as a comparable ICE is getting closer all the time, but it takes a long time for the economics to make sense with current pricing. And it takes a lot of miles driven for the environmental benefit of the Bolt to offset it's production and have less impact than the Sonic too.
If we want an even more direct comparison than two separate models from the same company, you could buy a VW E-Golf with an MSRP around $32k, and an ICE Golf model starts around $23k. The EV trim level of the same exact model has a 30% higher MSRP.
Hopefully in another 10 years they'll be a lot closer in price.
STM317 said:Chris_V said:And even now, battery electric cars are coming into price parity with ICE vehicles. And that's after only a few years of production. My 2020 Bolt was $25k out the door and provides performance better than a $25k GTI and over 330 miles of real world range.
Are they though? Using your Bolt as an example, look what was selling right next to them at the Chevy dealers:
While EVs may be getting more affordable relative to average new vehicle prices, I'm not sure they're close to price parody with a comparable ICE in a lot of cases. I do think that they're trending in the right direction, and the time when they'll be nearly the same price as a comparable ICE is getting closer all the time, but it takes a long time for the economics to make sense with current pricing. And it takes a lot of miles driven for the environmental benefit of the Bolt to offset it's production and have less impact than the Sonic too.
If we want an even more direct comparison than two separate models from the same company, you could buy a VW E-Golf with an MSRP around $32k, and an ICE Golf model starts around $23k. The EV trim level of the same exact model has a 30% higher MSRP.
Hopefully in another 10 years they'll be a lot closer in price.
As I posted, my Bolt LT with DC Fast Charging and heated seats/steering wheel was $25k, not $36k. In fact I didn't even get to take advantage of the additional $3k off that Costco members get. That's price parity with a GTI and the Bolt has 200 hp and 265 lb ft of torque, something that Sonic could only DREAM of. You're not talking about a car that is apples to apples, dude. And now, a year later, they are down to $20k starting price without any special incentives that you can't qualify for:
https://www.sportchevrolet.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&make=Chevrolet&model=Bolt%20EV
GM has another $3k off for GM cardholders now, too.
I bought the Bolt due to the performance and size (it's larger than a Sonic, too). 265lb ft delivered instantly at any speed. No waiting, just quick thrust. And a low CG for great handling (though saddled with LRR tires for crappy handling lol). It drives like a hot hatch.
I don't even care anymore. Build me a 250 hp electric Miata with a 400 mile range and I'm happy.
It will be interesting to see if manufacturers are able to offer price parity without the tax breaks. Especially on the low end of the market. I can go buy a brand new utility box for 17-18k (Fit, Soul, etc.) - will this be offerable once the tax breaks are gone?
In reply to Chris_V :
Well said. When I was looking at the Volt/Bolt I boiled it down to money.
Gasoline cost is about $1700 a year for me. And electric cost is $ 210 a year. I'm ignoring oil changes and everything else.
That's based on a 10 year average. Rather than today's price at the pump.
Chris_V said:As I posted, my Bolt LT with DC Fast Charging and heated seats/steering wheel was $25k, not $36k. In fact I didn't even get to take advantage of the additional $3k off that Costco members get. That's price parity with a GTI and the Bolt has 200 hp and 265 lb ft of torque, something that Sonic could only DREAM of. You're not talking about a car that is apples to apples, dude. And now, a year later, they are down to $20k starting price without any special incentives that you can't qualify for:
https://www.sportchevrolet.com/VehicleSearchResults?search=new&make=Chevrolet&model=Bolt%20EV
GM has another $3k off for GM cardholders now, too.
I bought the Bolt due to the performance and size (it's larger than a Sonic, too). 265lb ft delivered instantly at any speed. No waiting, just quick thrust. And a low CG for great handling (though saddled with LRR tires for crappy handling lol). It drives like a hot hatch.
I know what they routinely sell for, but that's impacted a great deal by things like manufacturer incentives and how long they've been sitting on a dealer lot. GM is likely to be losing money on every Bolt they sell for $25k, but they do it to satisfy regulators and offset their higher CAFE numbers. That's not sustainable for a fleet that's 100% EV. They're going to have to be profitable on their own, which means they'll have to sell closer to MSRP. ICE vehicles often sell for below MSRP too. Nobody is paying full price for that Sonic either.
I'm not saying the Bolt is a bad choice at all, just that EVs have higher production costs, and that often leads to higher selling prices than an ICE vehicle of similar packaging/dimensions. That's still current reality. As $/kwh continues to drop, EVs should continue to see prices fall relative to similar ICE models. With VW and GM spending tens of billions on EV batteries, it will hopefully be here pretty soon.
ProDarwin said:It will be interesting to see if manufacturers are able to offer price parity without the tax breaks. Especially on the low end of the market. I can go buy a brand new utility box for 17-18k (Fit, Soul, etc.) - will this be offerable once the tax breaks are gone?
There are no tax breaks on the Bolt. Haven't been for over a year and the price is under $25k for a 200hp, 265 lb ft hot hatch. Is that price parity enough for you?
In reply to STM317 :
Very good point. The advantage to GM/VW is they then would control the costs of motivation rather than give that to the oil companies.
Yes currently the local utilities have their fingers into that pot in a little way but with Wind and solar costs coming down significantly most suburban/ rural homeowners will soon control that. (Plus provide a control on electric costs )
MrFancypants said:I don't even care anymore. Build me a 250 hp electric Miata with a 400 mile range and I'm happy.
How much are you willing to pay for it? As that can be done today.
You'll need to log in to post.
