Electric cars.

[michaelodonnell123]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

OK, this is a RANT.

There is a guy I (used to) follow on Youtube, a brilliant auto mechanic, who happens to be the most anti-EV person in the media. He just released a video about the terrible EVs (he does one every day). These are his points:

1. EVs never live up to their advertised range

NEWSFLASH: ICE vehicles never live up to their advertised MPG.

2. If you drive an EV faster, it will use up the battery faster and decrease the range

NEWSFLASH: If you drive an ICE vehicle faster you lower your MPG and decrease the range of your tank of gas.

3. EVs don’t work well in very cold weather until the battery can heat up.

NEWSFLASH: ICE Engines do not work efficiently in very cold weather until they reach operating temperature.

What a maroon.

1. NEWSFLASH: My ICE vehicle (Honda Civic) goes above it's advertised range.

2. NEWSFLASH: My ICE vehicle gets better mileage on the highway than in the city. In other words, if I drive faster it's better.

3. NEWSFLASH: My ICE vehicle work perfect the moment I turn it on in cold weather.

The auto mechanic was right.

[Vince M.]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

A conspiracy? Who benefits?

The chosen 1 billion. Everyone else is useless eaters.

Waiting for the individual/personal carbon tax. Maybe next year ?

[INC]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

To you people against EVs, I fully concede there are numerous issues and shortcomings, I believe these will be overcome, there are also some advantages but that is a topic this whole thread is going in to so I won’t contribute to that argument.

I think, what you state now is quite close to the root of the conflict between the parties. With my best respect, now I feel something I never felt:

The arguments agains the EVs are NOT against to EVs in theoretically, but mostly against to the current method. It's about how the politicians want to force the people to change for a technology which in the current stage is worse then the ICEs. Let me explain this: to build, maintain and refuel the ICEs are cheap, these don't need a huge amount of rare minerals, and most of these rare materials are recyclable.

This means, that the ONLY(!) real argument against to the ICEs could be the emission, which adds pollution to the air. However this disadvantage could be easily removed from the entire system by using only synthetic fuel, which could be generated from the air. In this case, the entire traffic system could go to null emission, and you don't need to harm the Earth just by killing the remaining natural places to mine out the remaining rare minerals for the EVs. And this is the ultimate ratio: The rare materials are rare because they are really rares, and these can't be manufactured. So this means, that this is a dead end, an unsustainable exploit of the Earth. Accordingly, the current EV ideology is not based on a sustainable idea.

Based on the above, currently the less problem is that we drive our cars by fossil fuels, or drive our cars by electricity which is produced from fossil fuels. It's just a fugazzi to hide the truth: some giants want to have a support for their destructive plan to exploit the Earth. To this need they such the EV ideology, to make their profit hunger acceptable and supportable by the people.

So, I never felt that if I want to use a sustainable technology, and something which will not expolit the Earth, then I have to argue agains the CURRENT model of the political EV ideology. This is why I can make a clear difference between the admirable people, who believes that this ideology is a green and sustainable one, because they faith is true and their goal is respectful. I don't want to take this away from them! In contrary, I want to make clear that we are standing on the same side. If we want to achive the same goal, a better, safer, cleaner and more beautiful planet for the humans and not for the apes then we have to look behind the political ideologies.

Thefore I intend to point out, that the current EV belief could lead to a sacrifized Earth.

[bondtoys]

Amazing!
Protect the earth by keeping on burning fossil because EVs are evil and our politicians are.

Why haven‘t I thought of that?

As for e-fuels, just research the amount of energy that is necessary to produce them and ask yourself, how many EV you could charge with that amount of electric power instead.

Even the Porsche boss gave our e-fuel missionary politicians a dressdown recently.
E-fuel may have applications in planes (where batteries are too heavy), other than that, it‘s just an illusion -if you are seriously concerned about where all the power comes from

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

Amazing!
Protect the earth by keeping on burning fossil because EVs are evil and our politicians are.

Why haven‘t I thought of that?

As for e-fuels, just research the amount of energy that is necessary to produce them and ask yourself, how many EV you could charge with that amount of electric power instead.

Even the Porsche boss gave our e-fuel missionary politicians a dressdown recently.
E-fuel may have applications in planes (where batteries are too heavy), other than that, it‘s just an illusion -if you are seriously concerned about where all the power comes from

You ignored the point. EV’s are not saving the earth. The EV lifecycle net is negative for EV technology in its current state. This technology does more harm than good.

Your arguments on this thread have all been based on propaganda, omissions of fact, and proselytization for the EV religion.

[Vince M.]

Originally Posted by INC

I think, what you state now is quite close to the root of the conflict between the parties. With my best respect, now I feel something I never felt:

The arguments agains the EVs are NOT against to EVs in theoretically, but mostly against to the current method. It's about how the politicians want to force the people to change for a technology which in the current stage is worse then the ICEs. Let me explain this: to build, maintain and refuel the ICEs are cheap, these don't need a huge amount of rare minerals, and most of these rare materials are recyclable.

This means, that the ONLY(!) real argument against to the ICEs could be the emission, which adds pollution to the air. However this disadvantage could be easily removed from the entire system by using only synthetic fuel, which could be generated from the air. In this case, the entire traffic system could go to null emission, and you don't need to harm the Earth just by killing the remaining natural places to mine out the remaining rare minerals for the EVs. And this is the ultimate ratio: The rare materials are rare because they are really rares, and these can't be manufactured. So this means, that this is a dead end, an unsustainable exploit of the Earth. Accordingly, the current EV ideology is not based on a sustainable idea.

Based on the above, currently the less problem is that we drive our cars by fossil fuels, or drive our cars by electricity which is produced from fossil fuels. It's just a fugazzi to hide the truth: some giants want to have a support for their destructive plan to exploit the Earth. To this need they such the EV ideology, to make their profit hunger acceptable and supportable by the people.

So, I never felt that if I want to use a sustainable technology, and something which will not expolit the Earth, then I have to argue agains the CURRENT model of the political EV ideology. This is why I can make a clear difference between the admirable people, who believes that this ideology is a green and sustainable one, because they faith is true and their goal is respectful. I don't want to take this away from them! In contrary, I want to make clear that we are standing on the same side. If we want to achive the same goal, a better, safer, cleaner and more beautiful planet for the humans and not for the apes then we have to look behind the political ideologies.

Thefore I intend to point out, that the current EV belief could lead to a sacrifized Earth.

Beautifully stated.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by michaelodonnell123

1. NEWSFLASH: My ICE vehicle (Honda Civic) goes above it's advertised range.

2. NEWSFLASH: My ICE vehicle gets better mileage on the highway than in the city. In other words, if I drive faster it's better.

3. NEWSFLASH: My ICE vehicle work perfect the moment I turn it on in cold weather.

The auto mechanic was right.

Really? The faster you go the better gas mileage you get huh? Congratulations! Your ICE breaks the laws of physics. So for example, you get 30 mpg at 30 MPH but at 60 mph you get 50 MPG? Get real

Oh, and my EV starts just fine cold or hot too and has gone above its rated range, it all depends on how you drive.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by INC

I think, what you state now is quite close to the root of the conflict between the parties. With my best respect, now I feel something I never felt:

The arguments agains the EVs are NOT against to EVs in theoretically, but mostly against to the current method. It's about how the politicians want to force the people to change for a technology which in the current stage is worse then the ICEs. Let me explain this: to build, maintain and refuel the ICEs are cheap, these don't need a huge amount of rare minerals, and most of these rare materials are recyclable.

This means, that the ONLY(!) real argument against to the ICEs could be the emission, which adds pollution to the air. However this disadvantage could be easily removed from the entire system by using only synthetic fuel, which could be generated from the air. In this case, the entire traffic system could go to null emission, and you don't need to harm the Earth just by killing the remaining natural places to mine out the remaining rare minerals for the EVs. And this is the ultimate ratio: The rare materials are rare because they are really rares, and these can't be manufactured. So this means, that this is a dead end, an unsustainable exploit of the Earth. Accordingly, the current EV ideology is not based on a sustainable idea.

Based on the above, currently the less problem is that we drive our cars by fossil fuels, or drive our cars by electricity which is produced from fossil fuels. It's just a fugazzi to hide the truth: some giants want to have a support for their destructive plan to exploit the Earth. To this need they such the EV ideology, to make their profit hunger acceptable and supportable by the people.

So, I never felt that if I want to use a sustainable technology, and something which will not expolit the Earth, then I have to argue agains the CURRENT model of the political EV ideology. This is why I can make a clear difference between the admirable people, who believes that this ideology is a green and sustainable one, because they faith is true and their goal is respectful. I don't want to take this away from them! In contrary, I want to make clear that we are standing on the same side. If we want to achive the same goal, a better, safer, cleaner and more beautiful planet for the humans and not for the apes then we have to look behind the political ideologies.

Thefore I intend to point out, that the current EV belief could lead to a sacrifized Earth.

Very clearly stated

For the record, I never said believed EVs would save the climate change or the planet or anything, I just argue that the transition WILL occur, someday the majority of vehicles on the road will be EV. Whether that benefits or hurts the environment over-all I guess we will find out. I think it will benefit,
but that’s just MHO, I don’t know enough to support that theory, but I believe the people who do. Anyway that is getting off track, I just state that in 15,25,40,50? Years EVs (or hydrogen, why doesn’t anyone talk about those?) will be the dominant type vehicle. Well stated Inc

[rlj676]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Very clearly stated

For the record, I never said believed EVs would save the climate change or the planet or anything, I just argue that the transition WILL occur, someday the majority of vehicles on the road will be EV. Whether that benefits or hurts the environment over-all I guess we will find out. I think it will benefit,
but that’s just MHO, I don’t know enough to support that theory, but I believe the people who do. Anyway that is getting off track, I just state that in 15,25,40,50? Years EVs (or hydrogen, why doesn’t anyone talk about those?) will be the dominant type vehicle. Well stated Inc

You’re probably right that something different will be mainstream, but I still wouldn’t count out ICE with continued emissions improvements and fuel tech. The OEMs are all in on EV as it’s the in push right now from politicians, using very suspect if not all together insane reasoning.

These are the same people that develop CAFE to try and push people into cars they didn’t want, which just made people buy more trucks and SUVs as that’s all the full size powerful vehicles that could be made due to regulations. If EVs are to really be the solution the market would decide, not the govt. But I guess if you think more govt is the answer to problems sincerely this is a ideology gap that can’t be closed lol.

[Vince M.]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Really? The faster you go the better gas mileage you get huh? Congratulations! Your ICE breaks the laws of physics. So for example, you get 30 mpg at 30 MPH but at 60 mph you get 50 MPG? Get real

I pray you are joking. You do realize he is comparing city ( stop and go ) and highway speed cruising mileage.

My 22' diesel 1500 ram gets 22mpg city / 32 ( 36 highest recorded ) mpg hwy.

I can confirm the science. Laws of physics are broken ! LMAO

[Vince M.]

Also, EV's get less range the faster you cruise them. The polar opposite of normal cars.

[JoeJoeBobo]

Originally Posted by rlj676

You’re probably right that something different will be mainstream, but I still wouldn’t count out ICE with continued emissions improvements and fuel tech. The OEMs are all in on EV as it’s the in push right now from politicians, using very suspect if not all together insane reasoning.

These are the same people that develop CAFE to try and push people into cars they didn’t want, which just made people buy more trucks and SUVs as that’s all the full size powerful vehicles that could be made due to regulations. If EVs are to really be the solution the market would decide, not the govt. But I guess if you think more govt is the answer to problems sincerely this is a ideology gap that can’t be closed lol.

But billions and billions dollars and hundreds of scientists was a steady argument in earlier stages of this thread.

[bondtoys]

TheVTCGuy, Paul have you ever shown us your new Polestar?
How happy are you with it?

Are you having an EV Evangelist bible in the glovebox?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

TheVTCGuy, Paul have you ever shown us your new Polestar?
How happy are you with it?

Are you having an EV Evangelist bible in the glovebox?

Be glad to! I’ll get pics. It is a very enjoyable car to drive

And I don’t even want to ask what you have in your glovebox

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Vince M.

I pray you are joking. You do realize he is comparing city ( stop and go ) and highway speed cruising mileage.

My 22' diesel 1500 ram gets 22mpg city / 32 ( 36 highest recorded ) mpg hwy.

I can confirm the science. Laws of physics are broken ! LMAO

Of course, ICE gets better in the highway. You will have to watch the video I was referring to, the mechanic stated as you went faster in an EV your range decreases. Well, as you go faster in an ICE your MPG and range decreases. I.e. they are the same and no disadvantage to EV. Go faster = Less range

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by rlj676

You’re probably right that something different will be mainstream, but I still wouldn’t count out ICE with continued emissions improvements and fuel tech. The OEMs are all in on EV as it’s the in push right now from politicians, using very suspect if not all together insane reasoning.

These are the same people that develop CAFE to try and push people into cars they didn’t want, which just made people buy more trucks and SUVs as that’s all the full size powerful vehicles that could be made due to regulations. If EVs are to really be the solution the market would decide, not the govt. But I guess if you think more govt is the answer to problems sincerely this is a ideology gap that can’t be closed lol.

If there is a fuel, that can power an ICE, that does not add CO2 or pollution, I think you are right. I know there are studies under way, I hope one is discovered. Gasoline is much less polluting now than 20 or 30 years ago, maybe it will happen.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Vince M.

Also, EV's get less range the faster you cruise them. The polar opposite of normal cars.

You can’t be serious, polar opposite? Try and understand this.

Two vehicles going down the highway. Both are going 30 MPH. With me so far?

At this speed the EV has a range of 100 miles. The ICE is getting 30MPG and with 3 1/3 (or whatever) gallons in the tank will also travel 100 miles.

The EV speeds up to 60 MPH and it’s range falls to 50 miles

The ICE speeds up to 60MPH and you are telling me it will get BETTER then 30MPG and be able to go FARTHER then 100 miles now? What will the MPG increase to? 50MPG? Try and speak in reality

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Of course, ICE gets better in the highway. You will have to watch the video I was referring to, the mechanic stated as you went faster in an EV your range decreases. Well, as you go faster in an ICE your MPG and range decreases. I.e. they are the same and no disadvantage to EV. Go faster = Less range

Not true Paul.

On a highway, you’re getting better gas mileage. So every gallon of gas you use you get x more miles when driving on the highway.

Let’s say you have a 23 gallon tank and you get 21city/29highway

In the city (stop and go traffic with speed normally under 45) you’d get 483miles out of a tank.

On the highway where speeds are higher and theoretically less stop and go the same vehicle would get 667miles before empty.

You may be using more fuel but you’re exponentially increasing the miles you’re spending those gallons on.


Sent from my Apple privacy invasion product

[TheDude]

Originally Posted by Vince M.

Also, EV's get less range the faster you cruise them. The polar opposite of normal cars.

Not exactly. All vehicles are most efficient at a certain speed. That’s never the fastest in either case. The confusion here stems from the fact that stop and go is bad for ICE and good for EV. The fallacy is that highway speeds are the best for ICE but it’s actually that -not- stopping and accelerating back to cruising speed is where the efficiency is found.

In both cases, wind resistance ramps up a lot as speed builds and impacts efficiency regardless of chosen propulsion technology.

https://narpro.com/blog/why-do-we-drive-55mph/


EV hypermilers have done 606 miles in a Model 3 by cruising at 20-30mph.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cartesian Product]

No range.
No patience to wait for charge.
No charging infrastructure.
No interest.

[JoeJoeBobo]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

No range.
No patience to wait for charge.
No charging infrastructure.
No interest.

On more then one occasion when my wife has tried to us the charging stations around town. They were either not functioning or those that were had someone using it. With several just left charging unattended while presumably running errands.
Not the case for me at any local petrol station!

Range anxiety is also a thing for many EV owners and a reason not to buy another.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by MrGoat

Not true Paul.

On a highway, you’re getting better gas mileage. So every gallon of gas you use you get x more miles when driving on the highway.

Let’s say you have a 23 gallon tank and you get 21city/29highway

In the city (stop and go traffic with speed normally under 45) you’d get 483miles out of a tank.

On the highway where speeds are higher and theoretically less stop and go the same vehicle would get 667miles before empty.

You may be using more fuel but you’re exponentially increasing the miles you’re spending those gallons on.


Sent from my Apple privacy invasion product

You’re right… I think.

First, let’s leave city driving completely out of this. When you have to accelerate over and over it will take more power than operating at a steady speed; no one can deny this.

So, strictly steady highway driving.

My EV is supposed to have 250 mile range. If I drive 60, steady, I might reach that. If I drive 80, no way, probably around 200, maybe even less.

If I drive my ICE, with a 10 gallon tank, and drive it 60, I will get 40MPG, for a range of 400 miles.

If I drive it at 80, I get 30MPG, for a range of 300 miles.

The rule is the same for both. Go faster = less range. What am I missing?

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

No range.
No patience to wait for charge.
No charging infrastructure.
No interest.

Understand. I think/hope EVs (or hydrogen) will someday solve all these; time will tell.

[daveathall]

I am of the opinion that ICE are as near as they can be to be the pinnacle of their evolution. EV on the other hand is at the beginning of the cycle.

That's my opinion, nothing that has been said on this discussion has convinced me otherwise.

In 5,10 or 20 years the conversation will be completely different.

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

You’re right… I think.

First, let’s leave city driving completely out of this. When you have to accelerate over and over it will take more power than operating at a steady speed; no one can deny this.

So, strictly steady highway driving.

My EV is supposed to have 250 mile range. If I drive 60, steady, I might reach that. If I drive 80, no way, probably around 200, maybe even less.

If I drive my ICE, with a 10 gallon tank, and drive it 60, I will get 40MPG, for a range of 400 miles.

If I drive it at 80, I get 30MPG, for a range of 300 miles.

The rule is the same for both. Go faster = less range. What am I missing?

Depends on what you consider faster. Also, it depends on the vehicle if 80 would be uneconomical or not. I figured it in the regulated speed limit sense. Which is actually the sweet spot of my 1997 f250 diesel and I get almost 20mpg in between 65-75.


Sent from my Apple privacy invasion product

[Cliffnopus]

Originally Posted by cartesian product

no range.
No patience to wait for charge.
No charging infrastructure.
No interest.

a big +1

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by cartesian Product

No range.
No patience to wait for charge.
No charging infrastructure.
No interest.

Let‘s continue burning oil and gas!

[JoeJoeBobo]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

Let‘s continue burning oil and gas!

Yes, hooray!

[Krash]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

Let‘s continue burning oil and gas!

Great, now that we have it settled, we can move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krash]

But seriously, there is middle ground. If we can get to the point where EVs capture 50% of the market, then that’s a huge win for everyone. It doesn’t need to be a zero sum game. We definitely don’t need or want government bans. That’s for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk