Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not as if things stay static for the rest of time and technological advances can be part of that. It's also not like one precludes the development of the other especially if there are different use cases where one is more suitable for some situations at a certain time and the other for other situations at a different time.
Well the idea that something will stay stagnant is the belief that technologies regarding fuel powered cars will stay stagnant. How we manufacture fuel may not stay stagnant what we use for fuel may not stay stagnant. How much fuel the vehicle needs probably won't stay stagnant.
I think the belief that the technology has reached its zenith at this very moment is the view that is stagnant.
Last part I definitely agree. It's a stupid use of taxpayer money in my book to subsidize car purchases. I lean on the liberal end so I'm less outraged by the concept of welfare than some people but welfare for really the upper middle-class to buy cars? Yeah, stupid. A lot of the welfare is just for the automakers to pad their pockets. The Chevy Firebolt, for example, when they ran out of corporate welfare vouchers, they dropped the price. If it wasn't a economically viable product Chevy would have just dumped the Firebolt when they ran out of vouchers. Really about two-thirds of the voucher was just for Chevy to pad their pocket while the other third was welfare to consumers.
But as much as I may think it's stupid, as long as that's what it is I'm going to take advantage of it. I think child tax credits are stupid as well. I'm okay paying for schools but writing off people's kids on their income taxes to me is dumb. I'd still use my tax writeoffs if I had 'em though.
I'm of the same opinion, though I think you mean Chevy Bolt rather than Firebolt and I do think there's a tiny bit of nuance there with that. I think it's actually pretty likely that the Bolt would have sold at a crippling marginal loss during its debut if it had sold at the prices it does now and meanwhile would have sold almost no units at all without the federal tax credit. It likely sold at a marginal loss already at its debut with the battery prices of the time, but as those prices came down, it might have passed into profitability and then enough so that it could take an official price cut and maybe come out profitable.
At this point, battery prices seem like they're definitely headed into an area where purchase price parity with ICE vehicles is likely within multiple segments within a few years, so I can't see a reason for extending or expanding EV credits now as right now it would probably do exactly as you said where it serves primarily as corporate welfare.
Well the idea that something will stay stagnant is the belief that technologies regarding fuel powered cars will stay stagnant. How we manufacture fuel may not stay stagnant what we use for fuel may not stay stagnant. How much fuel the vehicle needs probably won't stay stagnant.
I think the belief that the technology has reached its zenith at this very moment is the view that is stagnant.
Internal combustion engines are still improving, but it's possible for other things to improve at a faster rate. They don't really conflict with each other in that sense, though it does bring about some interesting competition in the automotive market. This is great as I'm hoping that this also means we see some advances in all powertrains.
I think we're in the midst of something like a Cambrian explosion of powertrain development where we have a lot of advances in internal combustion engines of different kinds with different features, electric vehicles with different kinds of motors and battery chemistries, hybrids running from mild hybrids to various kinds of parallel and series hybrids along a spectrum, and special guest appearances by fuel cells usually as some kind of fuel cell-battery electric hybrid or even a guest appearance of supercapacitors with that hybrid that Lamborghini did. We also have a wild west of new vehicle startups with several that have been very successful (though the only one us in the US would be familiar with would be Tesla). I find it pretty interesting and I think this decade is going to see some fierce competition both here and abroad.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-26-2021 at 05:09 PM..
The Government is driving, pardon the pun, this head long, mis-directed rush to electric vehicles. Anyone with any sense, understands that the electric grid, currently, pardon another pun, isn't yet robust enough to take care of the increased load that will be generated by having to re-charge all of those EVs....
They're getting by on government subsidies now, which is no only unfair but it's giving the wrong impression of how affordable electrics are. I'll still with my internal combustion engine as long as I can rather than a gloriified golf cart.
A few things, other than the fact that at the moment, may electric owners don't pay any road taxes, but do at least as much damage to the roadway (possibly more since the tend to be heavier) as IC cars do. Plus, what do you do with the batteries once they need replacing? They've got to be an environmental nightmare. Lithium ion batteries are subject to catching on fire, and it spreads rapidly. You can't even put a lithium battery on a flight these day (other than your phone or other device, but it would be impossible to ban those).
Another negative is that instead of taking 5 minutes to fill up the tank, it might take several hours to recharge just to go a couple hundred miles. That'll all get better, and eventually might be OK, but it's still an issue. Normal IC engines do pollute (just sit in LA traffic and see the green smog if you need convincing), but what if you run out of electricity during a traffic jam? AAA can't bring you a 5-gallon jug of electricity to get you going again.
I'm old fashioned. I suppose all the negatives will eventually go away or just be accepted. I'm just not sure they'll be saving the envirnment like advertised. You're still going to need asphalt roadways, a petroleum product, plastics, metals, but most of all, you're going to have to generate the huge volume of electricity that will be needed. Maybe nuclear plants are the answer to that - clean, and mostly safe.
We'll see how it goes. It's really just another leftist push by the "progressive" Democrats that very well might not work.
Internal combustion engines are still improving, but it's possible for other things to improve at a faster rate. They don't really conflict with each other in that sense, though it does bring about some interesting competition in the automotive market. This is great as I'm hoping that this also means we see some advances in all powertrains.
I think we're in the midst of something like a Cambrian explosion of powertrain development where we have a lot of advances in internal combustion engines of different kinds with different features, electric vehicles with different kinds of motors and battery chemistries, hybrids running from mild hybrids to various kinds of parallel and series hybrids along a spectrum, and special guest appearances by fuel cells usually as some kind of fuel cell-battery electric hybrid or even a guest appearance of supercapacitors with that hybrid that Lamborghini did. We also have a wild west of new vehicle startups with several that have been very successful (though the only one us in the US would be familiar with would be Tesla). I find it pretty interesting and I think this decade is going to see some fierce competition both here and abroad.
No, I disagree that just about everything is possible. A lot of different competing powertrains in a lucrative global market every once in a while isn't that wild. A lot of industries have periods of disruption at times.
What seems likely right now though is that battery electric vehicles will gain market share within the US especially if it reaches purchase price parity in most automotive segments.
I think one thing that a lot of the startups and some of the established automakers are eyeing are the profit margins that Tesla has been getting out of its automotive division. They're still earning regulatory credits due to government incentives, but it's been dipping quite a bit and the automotive division even without those credits would have had pretty handsome profits--all this with some pretty large outlays for capital expenditures.
There are new technologies coming out that replace lithium with salt in clay deposits allowing them to be extracted much more environmentally friendly, let's see if those really work.
to be honest, this is not even close to 'oh this is how we do it'
there are new technologies coming out every day. most die in the shadows.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
