Criteria for your Next EV?

[SpaceEVDriver]

LOL, OK. You got me there. I’m going to steal Bugs Bunny’s term then: Ultra-Maroons. ?? Prius drivers out here are that SPECIAL kind of special. ??

My metric is: Would I feel safe enough riding my motorcycle through the traffic for a convention for that vehicle?

Prius? Yes, definitely.
Most other vehicles? No.

But then, I know a lot of Prius drivers and I know lot of other drivers and I definitely trust the Prius drivers to drive with other people in mind more than most.

Sponsored

 

[Mach1E]

Disagree, but it was for sure about carbon footprint. Regardless of if the goal is achievable or not, I still think it’s good. You’re looking at this the wrong way. Manufacturers either meet the goal by shifting to greener alternatives (good) or they bare the cost of the negative externalities they create (also good, albeit not as good). Manufacturers who build only green options / EVs and create a positive externality in the process receive a benefit in the form of credits that they can sell (also good).

I mean you can continue to argue whether it was intentional or not, but it’s a pretty good system that uses a marketplace to efficiently address a major problem. I would actually suggest that if anything, the goals should be more aggressive.

Totally off topic at this point.

But again, the only reason I brought this up was to use it as an example of how people are overly optimistic when it comes to future car technology.

The fact that you think the already unattainable goals “should be more aggressive,” just further proves my point.

Not sure if you ever worked a sales job where your company or boss gave you an impossible quota. It’s discouraging not encouraging when people set unrealistic goals for you.

Unfortunately the “people at the top” tend to be narcissists who don’t understand what the word “realistic” or “no” mean.

 

[ctenidae]

Yeah we had one too... traded it for the MME. My BMW 5 series was faster and quieter but the Prius was better in most other ways. The hate for these is similar to the hate for EVs... mostly coming from ignorance.

I hate on them because they're easy targets. My mom had one my brother got when she died 14 years ago, and he still has it- they can and will last forever, they're perfectly capable, and are very economical. But they're goofy looking, they're driven by hippies, and they're easily accused of virtue signaling.

Still, I often can't decide whether to make fun of my brother for driving that car, or for the rustbucket Scout he occasionally manages to start. I usually default to the Scout, since my other brother Daryl has one, too.

People don't like change, which I think drives 90% of hate, no matter the target. An (odd shaped) econobox with batteries was weird, not having an engine is weird, charging leads to an entirely different set of driving habits than getting gas (like, not standing in freezing rain every few days), etc etc etc. As changes appear less massive, as more people make the change, and as pressure to make the change builds, the masses will change their behavior. They'll grumble, and threaten to secede, and will resist, but we all managed to stop wearing frilled collars, we gave up our horses, and I can't remember the last time I got a telegram. Yet, they were all critical bits of technology in their time, and there was resistance to all of them. Maybe not so much the frilled collars, but still.

 

[Mach1E]

A few things to consider -
the CAFE 54.5MPG goal would be reachable if everybody drove a Prius instead of a Silverado on our commutes. It's not even technically very challenging... it's just socially untenable. The approach Europe uses is sky high fuel taxes... it could happen here.

the west coast 2030 deadline will likely work because lots of places (i.e. most places between California and NY) will not go along. The cars sold in EV only places will be different than those sold elsewhere without too much imagination or stress on supply chain.

just some thoughts

I think the 2030 deadline won’t work because that’s way too short of a time to get supply chains and infrastructure ready.

If they hold to their 2030 date, the result will be simple: hardly anyone on the west coast will buy a new car that year. Why? Either they won’t want an electric car or there won’t be enough available.

Again, not to debate the law in particular, just another example of people being way too optimistic about the future when it comes to car tech.

 

[Ravensfan1996]

I really wanted to upgrade to the GT from the Premium 2021 i have now. But decided for me it’s not worth the extra money for just a few extra features. Im going to wait it out 5 years and see whats out there then.

My needs for my next EV would be 400+ mile range, heat pump for cold weather range, and faster L2 Charging 200kwh+. Not much else needed but better software then what ford has now, sentry mode, camera on dash when moving lanes.

 

[DustyShades]

Totally off topic at this point.

But again, the only reason I brought this up was to use it as an example of how people are overly optimistic when it comes to future car technology.

The fact that you think the already unattainable goals “should be more aggressive,” just further proves my point.

Not sure if you ever worked a sales job where your company or boss gave you an impossible quota. It’s discouraging not encouraging when people set unrealistic goals for you.

Unfortunately the “people at the top” tend to be narcissists who don’t understand what the word “realistic” or “no” mean.

We’re not talking about a sales bro job. The manufacturers aren’t a bunch of dudes trying to meet these goals to score on commission and chance for and all you can grab 2 mins in one of those air booths with a bunch of dollar bills (and a few hundreds!!!)

We’re talking about a public policy where the point isn’t to actually build a hypothetical car that gets 50 mpg. The goal is to penalize the biggest carbon footprint contributors and reward those who the biggest carbon footprint detractors.

Me saying we should raise the target more isn’t so that someone builds a 70 mpg car.

 

[Mach1E]

We’re not talking about a sales bro job. The manufacturers aren’t a bunch of dudes trying to meet these goals to score on commission and chance for and all you can grab 2 mins in one of those air booths with a bunch of dollar bills (and a few hundreds!!!)

We’re talking about a public policy where the point isn’t to actually build a hypothetical car that gets 50 mpg. The goal is to penalize the biggest carbon footprint contributors and reward those who the biggest carbon footprint detractors.

Me saying we should raise the target more isn’t so that someone builds a 70 mpg car.

Cool, then let’s just mandate 100 mpg average.

Or, while we are at it, let’s make it illegal to drive a gas powered car more than 2,000 miles per year, mandate that people live within 5 miles of where they work, make it illegal to drive alone to work (force carpools), oh and mandate 80 degree minimum settings for A/C and no homes larger than 1500 sq feet.

All of the above accomplish the same goals, except they don’t require “yet to be discovered“ technology. And they actually would have a bigger impact in “punishing the biggest carbon footprint contributors.”

 

[DustyShades]

Cool, then let’s just mandate 100 mpg average.

Or, while we are at it, let’s make it illegal to drive a gas powered car more than 2,000 miles per year, mandate that people live within 5 miles of where they work, make it illegal to drive alone to work (force carpools), oh and mandate 80 degree minimum settings for A/C and no homes larger than 1500 sq feet.

All of the above accomplish the same goals, except they don’t require “yet to be discovered“ technology. And they actually would have a bigger impact in “punishing the biggest carbon footprint contributors.”

It’s cool - you don’t get it. The last two examples are dumb because they’re unnecessary mandates. The example we’re talking about uses market principals so that the costs of carbon are carried by those who create the pollution. It doesn’t stop anyone from doing or making anything. It just makes it so if you want to do something that negatively effects everyone else, you at least are considering the cost everyone else has to bare. And to that point, yeah, raising the standards to 100 mpg is cool too.

 

[HuntingPudel]

I really wanted to upgrade to the GT from the Premium 2021 i have now. But decided for me it’s not worth the extra money for just a few extra features. Im going to wait it out 5 years and see whats out there then.

My needs for my next EV would be 400+ mile range, heat pump for cold weather range, and faster L2 Charging 200kwh+. Not much else needed but better software then what ford has now, sentry mode, camera on dash when moving lanes.

There is really not much difference from the Premium to the GT, feature-wise. The min differences are performance-related: Springs, shocks, anti-sway bars, bigger front motor, wider wheels and tires, different front seats. The GT-PE adds bigger front brakes and Magneride, along with a yet different set of front seats. ?‍?

 

[Mach1E]

It’s cool - you don’t get it. The last two examples are dumb because they’re unnecessary mandates. The example we’re talking about uses market principals so that the costs of carbon are carried by those who create the pollution. It doesn’t stop anyone from doing or making anything. It just makes it so if you want to do something that negatively effects everyone else, you at least are considering the cost everyone else has to bare. And to that point, yeah, raising the standards to 100 mpg is cool too.

You mean like a tax on gasoline? Yeah we already have that. Gas tax is more fair anyways. It’s based on consumption. So if you drive a Prius 50k miles/yr you pay more than a Suburban driving 5k.

But outlawing ICE sales? Yup, that totally “stops people from doing or making“ stuff.

The A/C and house size examples (well all of them) were meant to be dumb. But outlawing building large houses isn’t much different philosophically than outlawing gas powered cars. Both are bad for carbon output.

And hopefully for the last time I can explain the whole point again:
People are too optimistic about future tech. I had no intentions on debating the value of the 2025 CAFE or 2030 ICE mandate. They were just examples of unrealistic targets based on hypothetical future technology improving at an impossible to reach rate.

 

[DustyShades]

You mean like a tax on gasoline? Yeah we already have that. Gas tax is more fair anyways. It’s based on consumption. So if you drive a Prius 50k miles/yr you pay more than a Suburban driving 5k.

But outlawing ICE sales? Yup, that totally “stops people from doing or making“ stuff.

The A/C and house size examples (well all of them) were meant to be dumb. But outlawing building large houses isn’t much different philosophically than outlawing gas powered cars. Both are bad for carbon output.

And hopefully for the last time I can explain the whole point again:
People are too optimistic about future tech. I had no intentions on debating the value of the 2025 CAFE or 2030 ICE mandate. They were just examples of unrealistic targets based on hypothetical future technology improving at an impossible to reach rate.

Our gasoline tax in the states is basically nothing, but I agree with you that it should be more. Also I’m not talking about outlawing ICE sales. Or any of that other stuff you said, but keep beating down all those strawmen if it makes you feel better, I guess….

 

[ctenidae]

They were just examples of unrealistic targets based on hypothetical future technology improving at an impossible to reach rate.

But nothing drives innovation better than unrealistic expectations. It got us into space, at least.

 

[Mirak]

@DustyShades and @Mach1E need to take this debate to Davos or some other global gathering where the elites all arrive in their private jets to make their top-down plans for the betterment of mankind. I just want an EV within the next 10 years that checks my expanded list of boxes, and I think that's attainable. Tech does improve, and the folks who bet against it often look a bit silly (except for the folks who scoffed at the predictions we'd have flying cars and moon tourism by the turn of the century - give credit where it's due).

 

[ctenidae]

Lightship L1: A Camper Trailer Designed for EVs | GearJunkie

For those wanting more towing range, this is a really good idea.

 

[Billyk24]

Forcing everyone into a Prius? I am guessing you have never sat in a Prius. Passenger space is similar to the MME.

​

​

Height! Too bad your not older and dont understand.

Sponsored