I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Comparing used to new is apples and oranges. 
      But if you want to continue to use ICE.  Please feel free.  
    However if you'd like to continue this discussion I'll be glad to attempt to convince you. 

He's responding to a post where you compare it to a 426 Hemi Cuda. Please show me where I can buy a new one of those. 
 

He compared it to a used few year old Honda, you compare it to a 50 year old muscle car, then tell him he's wrong, amazing. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Comparing used to new is apples and oranges. 
     

That's 100% not true. 

Total cost per mile absolutely must include the purchase price. Tom's example of a $7,000 used car getting 40 mpg compared to a $30,000 new EV and less fuel (ok electricity) cost is appropriate.

It's ridiculous to not factor in the total cost of ownership of each kind of propulsion (ICE vs. EV)

Edit: looks like Steve and I were typing at the same time.  Also, hello page #85

Only 15 more to go 

Indy - Guy said:

Only 15 more to go 

Well allow me to throw a cup of gasoline on the fire to do my part and move it along a few more pages.

So in today's paper there is a story about Lithium drilling taking place right next to a wildlife refuge (Ash Meadows) as in within 1000ft.

The main push for EVs was/is they are better for the planet......hmm drilling on a wildlife refuge doesn't sound so environmental friendly to me.

Tom1200 said:

Indy - Guy said:

Only 15 more to go 

Well allow me to throw a cup of gasoline on the fire to do my part and move it along a few more pages.

So in today's paper there is a story about Lithium drilling taking place right next to a wildlife refuge (Ash Meadows) as in within 1000ft.

The main push for EVs was/is they are better for the planet......hmm drilling on a wildlife refuge doesn't sound so environmental friendly to me.

 

You just described the vast majority of the mainstream green movement

Frenchyd, concern about range is not silly. Just because it is not important to you, doesn't mean that it is not important to other buyers. I know it sounds strange, but not everyone uses their cars the same way. You keep repeating the average amount someone drives in a day. To get that average, some are under, some are over. And the individual archiving that average has over and under days. Next to no one drives that same amount every day. And most people are not yet okay with dealing with the downsides of EV, be it once a week or once a month.
 

Every single car that I've ever owned could get 300 miles on a tank, most well over that mark. And all of them could be refilled in minutes. It appears that there are only a couple EV's on the market that could hit that highway range real world, and they are all very expensive cars. None can be recharged in minutes. While this may not be a problem for present day Frenchyd, this would not have been acceptable to Frenchyd of the past that drove a lot. You cannot see this? 
 

You are looking at EV's through rose colored glasses. You keep making statements like you have experience, but you don't. "Just recharge when you get to your destination." This ignores the present issues with the state of the non Tesla charging networks. Did you read Tom's posts on his trip in his new Lightning? Did you see all of the obstacles to charging that he experienced? It's an amazing truck, but those kinds of obstacles are going to turn off a lot of buyers until they are solved. Either through more reliable charging, longer range, or faster charging. 

Speaking of charging issues- Mercedes is now signing on with the Tesla NACS plug. All this from one government stimulus!

They'll move to it as of 2025. I can't see CCS as having a future for much longer in America.

Indy - Guy said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Comparing used to new is apples and oranges. 
     

That's 100% not true. 

 

Total cost per mile absolutely must include the purchase price. Tom's example of a $7,000 used car getting 40 mpg compared to a $30,000 new EV and less fuel (ok electricity) cost is appropriate.

It's ridiculous to not factor in the total cost of ownership of each kind of propulsion (ICE vs. EV)

 

Edit: looks like Steve and I were typing at the same time.  Also, hello page #85

Disposal and recycling costs should also be factored in to the equation but most aren't willing to consider that.

Tom1200 said:

Indy - Guy said:

Only 15 more to go 

Well allow me to throw a cup of gasoline on the fire to do my part and move it along a few more pages.

So in today's paper there is a story about Lithium drilling taking place right next to a wildlife refuge (Ash Meadows) as in within 1000ft.

The main push for EVs was/is they are better for the planet......hmm drilling on a wildlife refuge doesn't sound so environmental friendly to me.

 

As I've said all along this never was about saving the planet.  It's about what people want.  

frenchyd said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Comparing used to new is apples and oranges. 
      But if you want to continue to use ICE.  Please feel free.  
    However if you'd like to continue this discussion I'll be glad to attempt to convince you. 

Oranges and apples are fruits that grow on trees.  They are easy to compare.  This analogy has always been employed by people that can't defend their ideas logically.  They both make tasty  juice filled with good sugars, minerals and vitamins too.

My issue with your posts is they will never convince me.  You said a few pages back you are a gearhead but that for basic transportation you want what is most economical.  You then alluded to EVs.  The most economical and environmentally friendly thing you can do is drive what you already own.  You want an EV for your reasons.  That's fine but trying to justify it logically has been a 75+ page failure.  

racerfink said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Don't laugh too hard at that episode.  The current administration is talking about the possibility of blocking the Sun to cool down Earth.

When I took some college classes in the early 2000s along with discussing Peak Oil and that we would run out of economically useable oil well before 2020, there was also some very serious discussion of Global Dimming. Global dimming was going to kill us all by reducing photosynthesis and is caused by very fine particulate matter in the atmosphere. Want to reduce solar radiation on the earth's surface? Burn more coal and run your diesel without filters.

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

I'm older than you and was taught we'd be out of oil by the time you were taking those classes. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Tom1200 said:

Indy - Guy said:

Only 15 more to go 

Well allow me to throw a cup of gasoline on the fire to do my part and move it along a few more pages.

So in today's paper there is a story about Lithium drilling taking place right next to a wildlife refuge (Ash Meadows) as in within 1000ft.

The main push for EVs was/is they are better for the planet......hmm drilling on a wildlife refuge doesn't sound so environmental friendly to me.

 

As I've said all along this never was about saving the planet.  It's about what people WILL BE FORCED TO ACCEPT.  

Fixed that for you...

Here's a little nugget that should be good for a few more pages:  an Axios article about unsold EV's

Are you ready to pay much higher insurance premiums for ev's too?

racerfink said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Tom1200 said:

Indy - Guy said:

Only 15 more to go 

Well allow me to throw a cup of gasoline on the fire to do my part and move it along a few more pages.

So in today's paper there is a story about Lithium drilling taking place right next to a wildlife refuge (Ash Meadows) as in within 1000ft.

The main push for EVs was/is they are better for the planet......hmm drilling on a wildlife refuge doesn't sound so environmental friendly to me.

 

As I've said all along this never was about saving the planet.  It's about what people WILL BE FORCED TO ACCEPT.  

Fixed that for you...

It's pretty hard to force people to do things in the US.  That's why everyone resorts to peer pressure, silly incentives and trying to shame you into compliance.  I'm generally immune to that sort of BS.  Everyone should guard themselves and their family against it as well.

In reply to frenchyd :

Still doesn't change the fact that the most economical and environmentally friendly choices are to keep what you have now.  Thanks for proving yet again, this is about what you want.  
 

And again my main point all along has been EVs will win in the end, but how painful will the transition become.  Apparently it's going to be extremely painful because people will make any and all sorts of bogus arguments to justify what they want.  

AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:

racerfink said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Don't laugh too hard at that episode.  The current administration is talking about the possibility of blocking the Sun to cool down Earth.

When I took some college classes in the early 2000s along with discussing Peak Oil and that we would run out of economically useable oil well before 2020, there was also some very serious discussion of Global Dimming. Global dimming was going to kill us all by reducing photosynthesis and is caused by very fine particulate matter in the atmosphere. Want to reduce solar radiation on the earth's surface? Burn more coal and run your diesel without filters.

Nah small stuff- it'll drop to the dirt and there it'll just become dust. The BIG BRAIN maneuver, is to roll coal in the stratosphere to keep it high up in the clouds!

I'll take my check, government!

Before I forget: Boost_Crazy that article and comment from yesterday also has a serious issue I didn't realize about mileage what does your gas car mileage drop to doing 75MPH? Which car are we comparing it to? Most gas cars have worse aero than EVs and frankly, even my car with the best mileage I owned (a 2012 Subaru Legacy) would get 24-26 mpg doing 75mph for hour after hour when I drove interstate all the time for work; my other cars before my Tesla, an Rx 300 Lexus SUV (20MPG at best!) and my EVO X (LOL, LMAO) couldn't dream of it, so the "400 miles on a tank" argument has flaws.

In reply to racerfink :

I'm gonna say right away- I haven't watched this video and I'll likely forget to. I'm writing a response because I'm a paramedic with fire training and I have a big head for this crap .

For one, we already harvest the lithiums out of broken EVs and Hybrids. Here's BMW cells you can buy from Batteryhookup for example, and there's other sites like Greentec auto and Battery Clearing House that also deal with secondhand lithiums. There's a market, and with EVs only having been around for a decade it's just a new one that demands time to become established- safety is also a serious concern, there's dealerships near me that refuse to touch EVs on principle regardless of what's broken just because they're EVs.

The other issue is that people for some reason- maybe because of Tesla Autopilot and all Elons lies about it?- have this weird false dichotomy about crashes between gas cars and EVs, where they act like any impact with an EV is going to total the vehicle. An impact with a Tesla hurts the wallet more because of their sensors needing time-expensive recalibration and the company having poor parts supply; they bring up the frame now being these big castings and claiming it'll keep them from being repaired, which yeah sure except a 20mph impact bent the frame on my '09 EVO X and my insurance felt they'd rather pay me $15,500 on a 180K mile car instead of pulling it and "repairing" it. Frankly just from seeing this titlecard and working 911, this is something that's already been long occurring and I feel like they're trying to pin the "blame" on EVs for it.

Boost_Crazy said:

Frenchyd, concern about range is not silly. Just because it is not important to you, doesn't mean that it is not important to other buyers. I know it sounds strange, but not everyone uses their cars the same way. You keep repeating the average amount someone drives in a day. To get that average, some are under, some are over. And the individual archiving that average has over and under days. Next to no one drives that same amount every day. And most people are not yet okay with dealing with the downsides of EV, be it once a week or once a month.
 

Every single car that I've ever owned could get 300 miles on a tank, most well over that mark. And all of them could be refilled in minutes. It appears that there are only a couple EV's on the market that could hit that highway range real world, and they are all very expensive cars. None can be recharged in minutes. While this may not be a problem for present day Frenchyd, this would not have been acceptable to Frenchyd of the past that drove a lot. You cannot see this? 
 

You are looking at EV's through rose colored glasses. You keep making statements like you have experience, but you don't. "Just recharge when you get to your destination." This ignores the present issues with the state of the non Tesla charging networks. Did you read Tom's posts on his trip in his new Lightning? Did you see all of the obstacles to charging that he experienced? It's an amazing truck, but those kinds of obstacles are going to turn off a lot of buyers until they are solved. Either through more reliable charging, longer range, or faster charging. 

 

 You make a good case  but I believe my case is better. 
  I used to be a traveling salesman. Covered Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Averaged 65-85,000 miles a year.   I could still do that with a Tesla.  The new model Y's  range is 340 miles.   If I needed 150-200 more miles per day it's a 15 minutes stop at a Tesla Super charger.   I'd spend the time filling out call sheets and order forms.  
         That's 149,000 miles per year!  
    Going 500 miles per day  is 9-10 hours of driving.   ( depending on where you are driving).  Add a couple of meals, and toilet breaks.  That's a full day. 
      So really range isn't an issue.
      You do understand you can recharge any time you have room in your battery? You don't have to drive to empty.   Just like a gas tank.  
         I do believe you need to  adjust your idea of an expensive car.  I too was shocked to learn the price of the average new car today is $48,000. 
   To me that's a lot of money. But that's also near what a Tesla Model Y sells for. 
     Then there is the cost of fuel.    I forget the price of recharging.   The editor has those numbers. 
  But as long as I stay under 340 miles I recharge at home.   
           Yeh! I have 220 in the garage.     
     If I stay under 88,000 miles annually I wouldn't need to pay for recharging on the road.    88,000 miles worth of gas would cost me. $12, 300  a year,   roughly speaking.   Electricity would be 1/3 of that so around $4000   That's assuming I don't have solar panels. 
     By the way you are right I don't have my Tesla yet.  But there are plenty of people who do  around me.   I just left a house where she drives the Leaf and he drives the model 3. 
    
  
         

Steve_Jones said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Comparing used to new is apples and oranges. 
      But if you want to continue to use ICE.  Please feel free.  
    However if you'd like to continue this discussion I'll be glad to attempt to convince you. 

He's responding to a post where you compare it to a 426 Hemi Cuda. Please show me where I can buy a new one of those. 
 

He compared it to a used few year old Honda, you compare it to a 50 year old muscle car, then tell him he's wrong, amazing. 

It's called out of context Steve.  
  My statement was about range.  When did we start judging cars based on driving range?   
  EV's are fast.  Faster than a Hemi Cuda.  
   Nobody seems to be disputing that.  
  Rather focusing on Range.  
 Yes some early ones had range issues   
  And if you fail to use a Tesla Supercharger  you could  sit there for hours.   Ask our Editor. Who just bought a Ford Lightening 
   But that's not all EV's. Tesla seems to be a major exception. But even that is being fixed. 
  Chevy , Ford,  Volvo,  Mercedes,  Rivian, Lucian, SAE    And others?  Are all adapting Tesla chargers. 

frenchyd said:

  I used to be a traveling salesman. Covered Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Averaged 65-85,000 miles a year.   I could still do that with a Tesla.  The new model Y's  range is 340 miles.   If I needed 150-200 more miles per day it's a 15 minutes stop at a Tesla Super charger.   I'd spend the time filling out call sheets and order forms.  
      
    Going 500 miles per day  is 9-10 hours of driving.   ( depending on where you are driving).  Add a couple of meals, and toilet breaks.  That's a full day. 
      So really range isn't an issue.
      You do understand you can recharge any time you have room in your battery? You don't have to drive to empty.   Just like a gas tank.  
 

No new Model Y has  340mile EPA rated range.

In the real world, under ideal conditions, the Long Range models are getting a bit under 320 miles.

If you wanted to drive faster to cover your sales region faster, the range drops. If it's cold out, the range drops. If you're using AC, Heat, or defrost the range drops. If it's rainy, the range drops. All of a sudden, that 320 mile range looks a lot more like 250-270 miles in the real world.

Charging rates vary by the charger, but also by the state of charge and temperature of the battery in the vehicle. It takes a very long time to charge a battery that's nearly empty or nearly full. So if you want to avoid lengthy charging stops, you'll need to charge before the battery gets below about 20%. 20% of 320 miles of range would be 64 miles. So, if it's really hot, cold, or wet out and your initial 320 range is reduced to 260 miles, and you really don't want to go below 65 miles of range remaining, you're stopping to fast charge every 200 miles, which is about every 2.5 - 3 hours at modern interstate speeds. And that assumes the chargers are located at the right spots for that, and they're functioning/available, and they're capable of delivering all of the juice the vehicle can take.

500 miles could be 9-10 hrs of driving, but it could also be 6-7 hours of driving at modern speeds.