What EV would you consider?

gixxeropa said:

In reply to amg_rx7 (Forum Supporter) :

I know someone has made a prototype for an electric Formula 600 car. The wide side pods seem like a good match for stashing batteries

The Entropy Racing EVSR project has been shut down because their home track and the SCCA have banned EVs - for the time being anyhow, we discussed that at the time :) It's a real shame, they'd managed to complete two Thunderhill 25 races using battery swaps. Hopefully that will eventually be reversed and we'll start seeing some interesting solutions show up.

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

I'd like one of these......

That is ridiculously cool. Is there a build thread on it that you know of? I'm really, really, really interested in doing an EV conversion and would love to learn about it.

Chris_V said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm constantly evaluating it.  I know in the end EVs win.  Think back 10 years.  The reality of the dream is getting closer everyday.  I just wish progress could occur more organically with less outside input.  Let the innovators and customers decide. 

Less outside input on BOTH sides of the aisle? Remember back in the mid 2000s when the Chevy Volt was being developed by Bob Lutz as an American answer to the Prius, while being even more technologically advanced? It was the ONLY new program from before the bailout that was retained. Remember how badly the oil companies and RW outlets slammed that car? Look at social media now and all the anti-EV propaganda being spewed that is FULL of falsehoods. How does that foster innovation and customer choice?

I'm not a fan of government incentives, and I got no government incentives on any of my EVs. But letting government push them is no different than letting government push any emissions/pollution related legislation or innovation going back to 1970 and Nixon's creation of the EPA. Or the government development of Arapanet and the governmental push to broadband everywhere and digital signals for TVs. Or GPS satellites. Innovation often comes from meeting government regulations, whether that's pollution, safety, etc. And it's kind of in the national security interests to do this.

When looking at cost of ICE v. EV you do need to take into account the big picture of what we have done, and continue to do, to ensure the oil flows.

I am not a liberal anti-war guy but yeah, we have fought wars over oil. We went into Iraq twice because Iraq threatened the flow of oil (that was the real reason). What was the cost of those operations and the subsequent occupation? We are 'close' friends with Saudi Arabia a nation with which we share no common values, because of oil. We protect and police the middle east and its waterways to ensure the flow of oil. We involve ourselves across the planet in the affairs of other nations, and protect global trade lanes, so that the oil may flow. Then add in the oil spills, the disasters (BP Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc). While we frack massive amounts of oil now, what is the long-term impact to the environment and water tables? I am fine with that when there was no alternative, but we now have an alternative.

The true costs of ICE are massive, and include blood and lives, not just carbon and pollution. By comparison, the rare materials in batteries are recyclable, batteries can be used in 1st and 2nd applications giving them operational life of a decade or more even now, and then they can be recycled. We can get our power from domestic sources, and from the sky. Yes some existing mines are in terrible places, but we can try cleaning them up, and ensuring new mining is done better. We can almost start anew with the supply chains for EVs and do it better. One way is the Lithium Valley in California where lithium is now starting to be extracted from the Salton Sea using clean geothermal energy. It looks like we will be able to extract up to 600,000 tons of it annually from just that location (enough to cover all the US needs for the foreseeable future). And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

Oil is the blood of economies...but if we have the ability to seriously cut our need for it, and possibly eliminate military operations and disasters - do it. Petroleum will always be valuable for plastics, fertilizer and others things, but if we can dramatically cut our needs for it by removing most transportation on the demand side (most, not all) perhaps we can stop having to police the world. What I love most about EVs is the potential for energy independence in conjunction with renewables/fission/fusion/etc. Domestically produced energy (and in many cases, individually generated solar energy on your home...).

Can we have some consistency on this forum, please?  This is floundering.

racerfink said:

Chris_V said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm constantly evaluating it.  I know in the end EVs win.  Think back 10 years.  The reality of the dream is getting closer everyday.  I just wish progress could occur more organically with less outside input.  Let the innovators and customers decide. 

Less outside input on BOTH sides of the aisle? Remember back in the mid 2000s when the Chevy Volt was being developed by Bob Lutz as an American answer to the Prius, while being even more technologically advanced? It was the ONLY new program from before the bailout that was retained. Remember how badly the oil companies and RW outlets slammed that car? Look at social media now and all the anti-EV propaganda being spewed that is FULL of falsehoods. How does that foster innovation and customer choice?

I'm not a fan of government incentives, and I got no government incentives on any of my EVs. But letting government push them is no different than letting government push any emissions/pollution related legislation or innovation going back to 1970 and Nixon's creation of the EPA. Or the government development of Arapanet and the governmental push to broadband everywhere and digital signals for TVs. Or GPS satellites. Innovation often comes from meeting government regulations, whether that's pollution, safety, etc. And it's kind of in the national security interests to do this.

When looking at cost of ICE v. EV you do need to take into account the big picture of what we have done, and continue to do, to ensure the oil flows.

I am not a liberal anti-war guy but yeah, we have fought wars over oil. We went into Iraq twice because Iraq threatened the flow of oil (that was the real reason). What was the cost of those operations and the subsequent occupation? We are 'close' friends with Saudi Arabia a nation with which we share no common values, because of oil. We protect and police the middle east and its waterways to ensure the flow of oil. We involve ourselves across the planet in the affairs of other nations, and protect global trade lanes, so that the oil may flow. Then add in the oil spills, the disasters (BP Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc). While we frack massive amounts of oil now, what is the long-term impact to the environment and water tables? I am fine with that when there was no alternative, but we now have an alternative.

The true costs of ICE are massive, and include blood and lives, not just carbon and pollution. By comparison, the rare materials in batteries are recyclable, batteries can be used in 1st and 2nd applications giving them operational life of a decade or more even now, and then they can be recycled. We can get our power from domestic sources, and from the sky. Yes some existing mines are in terrible places, but we can try cleaning them up, and ensuring new mining is done better. We can almost start anew with the supply chains for EVs and do it better. One way is the Lithium Valley in California where lithium is now starting to be extracted from the Salton Sea using clean geothermal energy. It looks like we will be able to extract up to 600,000 tons of it annually from just that location (enough to cover all the US needs for the foreseeable future). And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

Oil is the blood of economies...but if we have the ability to seriously cut our need for it, and possibly eliminate military operations and disasters - do it. Petroleum will always be valuable for plastics, fertilizer and others things, but if we can dramatically cut our needs for it by removing most transportation on the demand side (most, not all) perhaps we can stop having to police the world. What I love most about EVs is the potential for energy independence in conjunction with renewables/fission/fusion/etc. Domestically produced energy (and in many cases, individually generated solar energy on your home...).

Can we have some consistency on this forum, please?  This is floundering.

Sorry you don't think the efforts behind getting electrified/stopping EVs are important, and a part of the issue with adoption. If we can't have a serious discussion of the topic, why have a goddamn discussion board? A lot of the "reasons" behind wanting/not wanting EVs are political. When discussing a Saturn SC2 as an autocross car, nothing about that is political. When discussion which tow rig you want for your race car, nothing about that is political. When discussing EVs however, a HUGE component of it IS in fact, political. ESPECIALLY in the pervasive oil company propaganda against them that a LOT of people are buying into and regurgitating. Just like clearing up misinformation about how braking systems work, there's a lot of misinformation that needs to be cleared up when it comes to EVs these days.  I'm not bashing any political party or person here.

If you don't want misinformation and background cleared up, then be consistent and don't let ANYONE who knows anything about cars explain ANYTHING as it pertains to cars. I've spent the last 16 years studying these extensively, and the last 10 living with them. Me explaining them is no different than Keith explaining Miata suspension secrets. If someone said something about suspension tuning that was incorrect or even dangerous, you'd have no problem letting an expert like Keith call that out. If someone was completely wrong about the history and development of the Alfa GTV, alfadriver would not be discouraged from correcting that information. If you're saying we can't correct information about EVs because you're afraid of it becoming political, then you don't actually want knowledge of EVs and that in and of itself is political. Maybe in the future, it'll be just a method of propelling our fast daily drivers. But for now, WHY they are needed, WHY they are at the state of development they are, and WHY they are being pushed back on is important to the discussion!

Chris_V said:

Chris_V said:

And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

 

Just like clearing up misinformation about how braking systems work, there's a lot of misinformation that needs to be cleared up when it comes to EVs these days.  

To answer the original question. Current fleet is a 2009 Boxster (toy, not a daily driver), a 2017 Ford Fusion (daily driver but now WFH), and a 2018 Toyota RAV 4 (wifes DD). My oldest son will likely purchase the Fusion from us next summer after finishing residency and options to replace it will be either something like a Chevy Bolt or the new electric Equinox  or a Prius Prime. The Prius Prime will reduce our typical weekly fuel consumption by 10-11 gallons and the Bolt/Equinox  by 11-12 gallons. Cost may be similar. Prius Prime could be used easily for the very very rare extended trip but the RAV4 covers that need as well.  I'm not sure about buying a full electric vehicle and consuming the additional battery resources when a plug in hybrid gets me most of the way there in terms of reduced fuel consumption. With almost a year before any action is needed, I have time to ponder and see if there are any new additions or changes in technology coming that would alter my current potential path. 

I keep seeing the EV6 and man that is a good looking vehicle. I don't think it's quite worth the $50+k price tag just yet but it does look good. 

Chris_V said:

a ton of political stuff

IBTL

Chris_V said:

But for now, WHY they are needed, WHY they are at the state of development they are, and WHY they are being pushed back on is important to the discussion!

 

Mmmmm no it's not.

The thread was simply asking what we'd consider; for some people the answer is they wouldn't consider any of them.

As I mentioned I'd consider an EV F500 autocross car or an EV Lotus 7.

I have zero interest in them as a street car.

There is no wrong answer here. 

racerfink said:

Chris_V said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm constantly evaluating it.  I know in the end EVs win.  Think back 10 years.  The reality of the dream is getting closer everyday.  I just wish progress could occur more organically with less outside input.  Let the innovators and customers decide. 

Less outside input on BOTH sides of the aisle? Remember back in the mid 2000s when the Chevy Volt was being developed by Bob Lutz as an American answer to the Prius, while being even more technologically advanced? It was the ONLY new program from before the bailout that was retained. Remember how badly the oil companies and RW outlets slammed that car? Look at social media now and all the anti-EV propaganda being spewed that is FULL of falsehoods. How does that foster innovation and customer choice?

I'm not a fan of government incentives, and I got no government incentives on any of my EVs. But letting government push them is no different than letting government push any emissions/pollution related legislation or innovation going back to 1970 and Nixon's creation of the EPA. Or the government development of Arapanet and the governmental push to broadband everywhere and digital signals for TVs. Or GPS satellites. Innovation often comes from meeting government regulations, whether that's pollution, safety, etc. And it's kind of in the national security interests to do this.

When looking at cost of ICE v. EV you do need to take into account the big picture of what we have done, and continue to do, to ensure the oil flows.

I am not a liberal anti-war guy but yeah, we have fought wars over oil. We went into Iraq twice because Iraq threatened the flow of oil (that was the real reason). What was the cost of those operations and the subsequent occupation? We are 'close' friends with Saudi Arabia a nation with which we share no common values, because of oil. We protect and police the middle east and its waterways to ensure the flow of oil. We involve ourselves across the planet in the affairs of other nations, and protect global trade lanes, so that the oil may flow. Then add in the oil spills, the disasters (BP Horizon, Exxon Valdez, etc). While we frack massive amounts of oil now, what is the long-term impact to the environment and water tables? I am fine with that when there was no alternative, but we now have an alternative.

The true costs of ICE are massive, and include blood and lives, not just carbon and pollution. By comparison, the rare materials in batteries are recyclable, batteries can be used in 1st and 2nd applications giving them operational life of a decade or more even now, and then they can be recycled. We can get our power from domestic sources, and from the sky. Yes some existing mines are in terrible places, but we can try cleaning them up, and ensuring new mining is done better. We can almost start anew with the supply chains for EVs and do it better. One way is the Lithium Valley in California where lithium is now starting to be extracted from the Salton Sea using clean geothermal energy. It looks like we will be able to extract up to 600,000 tons of it annually from just that location (enough to cover all the US needs for the foreseeable future). And that problematic mineral, Cobalt, that is mined in the Congo by child slave labor, is being used less and less in EVs (and many modern EVs use none), while still being heavily used in gasoline refining to get the sulfur out...

Oil is the blood of economies...but if we have the ability to seriously cut our need for it, and possibly eliminate military operations and disasters - do it. Petroleum will always be valuable for plastics, fertilizer and others things, but if we can dramatically cut our needs for it by removing most transportation on the demand side (most, not all) perhaps we can stop having to police the world. What I love most about EVs is the potential for energy independence in conjunction with renewables/fission/fusion/etc. Domestically produced energy (and in many cases, individually generated solar energy on your home...).

Can we have some consistency on this forum, please?  This is floundering.

It is but its constant from the same person who just told everyone in a different thread how everyone but him is floundering everything. 

In reply to Chris_V :

Sorry you don't think the efforts behind getting electrified/stopping EVs are important, and a part of the issue with adoption. If we can't have a serious discussion of the topic, why have a goddamn discussion board? A lot of the "reasons" behind wanting/not wanting EVs are political.

Because this particular thread is supposed to be about the cars themselves, not the politics around them. On this board I'd say that the average reader is a bit more educated on the subject than the average person. That you think that you constantly need to educate us and that you know better about what we should want and need is a bit insulting. If you see factual misinformation, correct away. If someone gets the battery size wrong, range or price incorrect, by all means share the correct info. But I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing you call other's opinions as wrong. If I say that I am not comfortable with the compromises of some EV's- range or charge times- you don't get to tell me I'm wrong, and what compromises I should be willing to accept. There is a lot of misinformation about EV's, but it's both for and against. For every "EV's are horrible and can never replace an ICE car" comment, there is an "EV's are perfect and will save the planet" comment. Neither are true, and most people understand that. Share your experiences and why it works for you, I'm sure there are a lot of people for which EV's are a similar fit. But realize that the perfect solution for you might not be for many others. 
 

People do hear what you have to say about your experience, and it's good info. I'm a math guy, I get that with a few tweaks to your routine EV's can fill a lot of people's current needs. But I also am pretty good with understanding human nature, and know that many people aren't willing, able, or just uncomfortable with making those adaptions. And they shouldn't have to. 

Also saw a Rivian R1S this weekend. Very nice looking car, well put together. Pricing isn't as far off as some others, considering a Grand Wagoneer is almost $90k now

Keith Tanner said:

gixxeropa said:

In reply to amg_rx7 (Forum Supporter) :

I know someone has made a prototype for an electric Formula 600 car. The wide side pods seem like a good match for stashing batteries

The Entropy Racing EVSR project has been shut down because their home track and the SCCA have banned EVs - for the time being anyhow, we discussed that at the time :) It's a real shame, they'd managed to complete two Thunderhill 25 races using battery swaps. Hopefully that will eventually be reversed and we'll start seeing some interesting solutions show up.

Yeah it's region and track dependent at the moment but it's slowly happening. Heck, there were a few EVs at NASA nationals at Laguna Seca a couple of years ago. One guy was in a Tesla Model 3. A few others were home grown. It's more like time trials at this point than w2w but interesting to follow. 
EVs make good DD appliances but I'm not entirely convinced about them making good competition vehicles. My EVs saved me a ton of money on gas and maintenance costs. Especially the lower cost options. 

In reply to amg_rx7 (Forum Supporter) :

I don't think NASA has a problem with EVs, just SCCA and some tracks.

I think they make very effective competition vehicles in competitions that play to their strengths such as hillclimbs and time trials. Pikes Peak is an EV race now, for example.

They're definitely less effective on longer run events and probably will be for a while due to the high energy density of gasoline. But I love seeing the engineering of attempts to make them work. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

If I could reasonably convert my F500 to an EV for autocross that would be appealing to me.  If I could time trial it even better.

Well, this thread looks like it got sidetracked like all other EV Threads..but anyways, the new 2024 VW ID.4 looks pretty good. Gets a bigger infotainment, revised steering wheel setup, backlit sliders, and more power!

Keith Tanner said:

They're definitely less effective on longer run events and probably will be for a while due to the high energy density of gasoline. But I love seeing the engineering of attempts to make them work. 

That and the fact that they are still relatively new, so there aren't a lot of high-performance EVs that have depreciated to the level where people want to build race cars out of them.  Give it a decade or two and that will change, we'll probably have Spec Model 3.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

and after the first few races Spec Tesla will get nicknamed Spec Wrecksla........................so all is well.

Tom1200 said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

If I could reasonably convert my F500 to an EV for autocross that would be appealing to me.  If I could time trial it even better.

 

You have mentioned that sentiment a couple of times. Is it truly something you are interested in? I believe it might be possible, but it would require a discussion that is probably outside of the scope of this thread. 

Edit: If you are interested in the possibility I think it would be really cool you posted a thread with more details about the F500 so we could discuss it. I am really curious about seeing if its possible.

In reply to MrJoshua :

So the car builder Jay Novak took one of the Novakar chassis and converted it.

The earliest it would ever happen is 3-5 years from now.

I will admit it's tempting.

Tom1200 said:

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

and after the first few races Spec Tesla will get nicknamed Spec Wrecksla........................so all is well.

That will fit in with Spec Pinata, Spec wRecker Ford, B-crash and others.

Tom1200, I posted this in the "0-60 in under 1s" thread, but just in case someone misses it...here's a Formula Student car from Delft doing an "autocross" run four years ago.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

1.26 Gs of accel. That would be a hoot. 

While it sounds a little antiseptic to my ears, I bet it doesn't feel like it. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

That's cool; amazing how quickly it accelerates off corners.

In reply to dyintorace :

I saw it at a local car show. I was told the owner/builder is a GM engineer who works on their electric vehicle programs. Electric motor is connected to a manual transmission that remains in one gear. There is a stubby shift lever hidden in a lunch pail, bolted to the floor of the cab. Chevy Volt battery pack is hidden under the wooden floor of the bed, and the charging port is hidden inside the original gas filler cap. That's all I got.