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 silly for you to be backtracking now. You are the one who brought up 80 miles for a century old electric vehicle as an example and compared it to the 200+ miles for a Model 3. Implicit to you using those figures is missing several things I pointed out including that those 80 mile figures was for 20 mph and under cruising which for EVs today would be extreme hypermiling figures and nets you something like 600 miles of range for a Model 3. You're talking about millions of spending and then you forget that orders of magnitude more that had been spent bailing out US automakers just a decade ago--mind you, I think your line of reasoning on this is wrong in general, but you manged to miss even this kind of low-hanging fruit.
You also brought out how improved your Camry is over a Model T after you had talked about range for EVs and lack of improvement. The general improvements not related to mileage are still there with the electric vehicle, and meanwhile the mileage improvements are greater. Your standard Camry gets 32 miles per gallon to the Model T's 21 miles per gallon, so by your logic that's much more money spent for the same time frame for much less improvement. Now that's a weak argument in general, but it is how you're constructing yours.
I'm in favor of charging road taxes on EVs. Do it annually by miles and weight sounds good to me. I have no opposition to that and gas taxes as they are don't seem to have been enough to keep CT's roads in shape, so raise them all. You also have greater negative externalities attached to tailpipe emissions and I think taxing more of that, too, would be great.
One gallon of gasoline is very energy dense--the problem is that the internal combustion engine in an automobile after untold billions of investment and a century's time still cannot effectively convert the vast majority of that energy into useful work. People still worry about fuel efficiency despite its great amount of energy because of it. There are still fires in today's ICE vehicles and safety issues with such and recalls still occur despite all that experience and money. Meanwhile, battery improvements have kept on increasing the amount of range available for the cost and charging stations have proliferated. There's no great difficulty in owning an electric vehicle in CT and there are people with experience with such who can tell you as much.
I also want to mention that it's not just electric vehicles I'd like to see sold outside of dealerships--I'd like to see that happen with ICE vehicles as well. I think it'd be great if Toyota also was not obligated to sell through dealerships and so there can be a price / value competition between Toyota dealerships and Toyota direct sales. That would be fantastic.
There was no need to” bail out” the automakers with millions of taxpayer dollars. Just like there isn’t any solid reason to dump hundreds of millions to try and get a product to market that can’t stand on it’s own 4 wheels. That’s Obama and the Democrats.
MPG in a modern car is just part of the story. Care to compare emissions output from ICE engines 100 years ago? How about drivability ? Reliability?
Stae and local governments have been pulling in boatloads of money from petroleum taxes , so don’t even think that any investment in them by the government is an argument. Herein CT, they even added a tax on top of a tax. Greed. And you want to reward th incompetence of politicans by taxing the people even more. Super. Tax it high enough so they can consider an all electric, then you’ll get nothing.
There isn’t any mechanism in place to tax electric vehicles. Why allow a manufacturer to skirt existing law to sell a product that will result in each vehicle sold responsible for a loss of revenue ?
Regardles of the continued inefficiencies of an ICE engine, at the present time, under the present circumstances for the vast majority of Americans, it is superior to an all electric vehicle. Don’t we have a Free market System? Isn’t that the goal? They don’t sell well. They don’t sell well because there is a lack of desire to buy them. For many reasons.
So typical of Government policy , if tons of money is being spent on failure, just go ahead and pump more money into it, then make excuses. Outside of California , the sales of electric vehicles are what, single digit percentage? How about CT ?
“ no great difficulty” . If it was true, more people would purchase them. It isn’t true. And the answer? Dump more money for charging stations so people have to wait in the middle of a trip to get going again. Yep, that’ll do it.
Hey. Electrics are the future. But not here, not now. Instead of trying to force it down American’s throats, wasting billions, have some patience. Nope, can’t do that. There is an agenda you know.
Like I said , there aren’t any compelling reasons to change the Law. Emotional responses aplenty, which always is expected.
Thanks everyone for the debate. I am moving on. Spend as you wish, enjoy whatever vehicle works for you.
Hey. Electrics are the future. But not here, not now. Instead of trying to force it down American’s throats .
Like I said , there aren’t any compelling reasons to change the Law. Emotional responses aplenty, which always is expected.
Plenty of compelling reasons, which I listed in my post above. And this isn't about electric vehicles...I think *most* consumers would love a direct model for any cars they buy.
should Bigalow Tea have franchises? Columbia Elevator Products? How about Honeywell? how about Medtronic? How about Nucor steel?
The argument that a manufacturer cannot sell direct is a bit of a joke as it obviously is not enforced uniformly. Manufacturing is not exclusive to engines. This is akin to a old blue law.
The state of CT has no active measurements of going after these manufacturers for selling direct so it is directly targeting Tesla based on the dealerships. You can't tell us all that there are franchises for jet engines.
As for electric cars themselves you are arguing against technology. I'm not a man of God but if there's one thing I've learned is if you bet against technology improving you lose. It might not be today, tomorrow, next year or a decade but gradually you'll lose. On my way to work I pass by a gas station with a broken pay phone. There used to be payphones all over the place until about 20 years ago. Newspapers have been replaced with websites. Increasing technology is adapted at a faster rate albeit much is incremental.
https://investorplace.com/2021/06/no...y-to-trade-it/
"So, it was big news last week when Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) unveiled the electric version, the F-150 Lightning. In addition to starting to accept reservations for the new electric pickup, Ford says it’s investing $30 billion in electric vehicles (EVs) through 2025 and is aiming for 40% of its sales as electric by 2030."
Even if they met half that's 20% of sales. If it was just tesla I could see the argument but the whole industry is moving to electric
"Here’s why. The average 84 kilowatt-hour battery — the size of the pack in a Tesla Model 3 or Volkswagen ID.4 — costs about $11,000 a car. There’s nothing in an internal combustion engine that costs that much. Even without the engine, fuel and exhaust systems, EVs are at a steep disadvantage in terms of cost. Hence the race to lower the price of batteries.
The batteries are made with a handful of key metals: cobalt, nickel, lithium, manganese, aluminum and iron. Cobalt is one of the most expensive, at $45,000 per metric ton. Most EV batteries today are 20% cobalt. That means the element represents about $850 per vehicle in that 84 kWh battery in the ID.4, according to LMC Automotive analyst Sam Adham. That’s real money.
When General Motors announced its Ultium battery pack a year ago, the company bragged it would cost less than $100 per kWh, because it would use a lot less cobalt. That’s still too high — to get to cost parity with a combustion engine vehicle, BloombergNEF thinks it has to get to less than $80 per kWh. In a battery with 20% cobalt, the metal is about $10 per kWh.
That’s why VW, Tesla and China’s SVOLT are looking at batteries that replace cobalt with manganese, which costs less than $2,000 per metric ton. Not only is it cheaper, the price doesn’t fluctuate as much as cobalt. From 2011 to 2016, cobalt hung in the $30,000/ton range. Then it spiked starting in 2016 and soared as high as $115,000 per metric ton in April 2018. It has since come down, but recently spiked over $65,000 before settling in at $45,000, according to data from BNEF. Carmakers can’t live with that kind of price fluctuation. Manganese prices, by comparison, have mostly remained stable for a decade.
Volkswagen said in March that it will use high-manganese content batteries for high-volume cars and even cheaper, no-cobalt chemistry for its entry-level models. Tesla also is planning to use manganese to make its promised $25,000 affordable Tesla."
If tesla is eventually $25,000 it's game over folks. When you have one issue or one industry that is dependent on one thing being solved or being a problem and then it's fixed or it is a problem then we're talking change.
Then there's the maintenance of cars. Oil changes, tire rotations, filter changes etc. Soup to nuts it's all about maintaining things which is fine but that come at a cost of time, money and energy. Gasoline had lead and then went to MTBE (controversial) and then to Ethanol (extremely controversial). Yes I drive but I try to order as much online as possible. I recently bought reel lawnmower to avoid having oil and gas and fumes etc. It's simple to use and the biggest issues are sticks. You had the right to repair bill and the industry tried to fight that. First they fight people wanting to fix their own cars and now you want middle men from innovators?
If an actual 16 wheeler can safely drive around by itself it's only a matter of time for passenger to follow. Ultimately I think we'll see some public private hybrid of transportation like a utility. Maybe you pay some flat rate of $200-5000 a month depending on what vehicle you want. It covers gas and insurance. It picks you up, drops you off, lugs material etc. Being able to free up garage space will be a huge boom nationwide if not internationally.
Nothing is silly. 80, 90 miles on unpaved roads, with the tires and mechanicals at the time , was what was achieved . 40 K for a Tesla to go 200 or so miles on smooth roads. Those special hubcaps to help out, bet they looked great back in the day.
No, that’s pretty silly and totally ignores a lot of engineering factors.
What electric car did 80-90 miles 100 years ago?
Top speed was also very limited. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Electric cars were limited to urban use by their slow speed (no more than 24–32 km/h or 15–20 mph[37]) and low range (50–65 km or 30–40 miles[37]), and gasoline cars were now able to travel farther and faster than equivalent electrics.
There was no safety equipment and the vehicles were a lot lighter. The Tama “truck” was 2000 pounds. A Model 3 is double that weight. It had a top speed below 30mph and a range under 40 miles.
The cheapest Model 3 has a range of 263 miles, lots of torque, and a top speed of 140 miles.
To say we haven’t advanced that much is ridiculously laughable.
Look, I’m all for my ICE cars. We have 4. We owned an EV and the public charging infrastructure was frustrating and unreliable. Tesla solved that issue. We would’ve rather had one in hindsight. EV ownership is getting more attractive every year.
I know someone that has a prius plug in and during an outage they were able to run off of it. Like most things EV's are just going to improve. Just as most of the light bulbs in my house are LED. Did I switch the second they came out? Heck no but they were $10 a bulb back then. Now it's much less.
There was no need to” bail out” the automakers with millions of taxpayer dollars. Just like there isn’t any solid reason to dump hundreds of millions to try and get a product to market that can’t stand on it’s own 4 wheels. That’s Obama and the Democrats.
Oh my, I don't think you understand macroeconomics at all. I remember my UTC boss at the time, a staunch Republican btw, remarking that he shuddered to think of the broader economic impact had Detroit not been bailed out in 2009.
Oh my, I don't think you understand macroeconomics at all. I remember my UTC boss at the time, a staunch Republican btw, remarking that he shuddered to think of the broader economic impact had Detroit not been bailed out in 2009.
GM was bailed out but not the City of Detroit, that still filed for bankruptcy. There's different types of bankruptcy and as a City they are out of it.
GM was bailed out but not the City of Detroit, that still filed for bankruptcy. There's different types of bankruptcy and as a City they are out of it.
No, that’s pretty silly and totally ignores a lot of engineering factors.
What electric car did 80-90 miles 100 years ago?
Top speed was also very limited. From Wikipedia:
There was no safety equipment and the vehicles were a lot lighter. The Tama “truck” was 2000 pounds. A Model 3 is double that weight. It had a top speed below 30mph and a range under 40 miles.
The cheapest Model 3 has a range of 263 miles, lots of torque, and a top speed of 140 miles.
To say we haven’t advanced that much is ridiculously laughable.
Look, I’m all for my ICE cars. We have 4. We owned an EV and the public charging infrastructure was frustrating and unreliable. Tesla solved that issue. We would’ve rather had one in hindsight. EV ownership is getting more attractive every year.
I said I am done but the nonsense continues.
Detroit Electric produced a vehicle that was reported to go over 200 miles. 80 miles was their normal range. Of course, it was 25 MPH, but that was fine for that time period and the roads they had. Plenty of other innovations also.
Do you know who Mr. Wonderful is ? Listen to him when he says “ show me sales” ?
I wonder if $ 500 plus million in taxpayer dollars , and more, would have been available to those early inventors what more they could have achieved.
“ more attractive”
Let me know when sales reach double digit percentages.
There is not any reason to change the Law to accommodate one company, propped up by taxpayer dollars, to sell a small percentage of vehicles to a very limited interested group of buyers. However , it is kind of expected in the present environment , that fashion negates logic.
With that, I am gone. Enough nonsense for one day. Really. See ya.
Carry on.
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.
