why so much hate towards electric cars?

JustAnOldFashionedLEDGuy

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
121
When you own an electric vehicle you stop worrying about range for the most part. I estimate I drive >100 miles in a day once a month, maybe 2-3 times/month in the summer. I fuel up my car at home and the connect/disconnect time is about a minute/day (as an estimate). I estimate about 1/2 the time spent fueling compared to a gas vehicle, probably less and less hassle. Maintenance and the time associated is less. Tires will require more frequent changes (see weight comment someone made).

We are going to need distance based tax on EV, but that can be done yearly at license renewal.

It is just a matter of time before all vehicles are EV and it will be market demand more than anything. It is a superior ownership experience. They are not perfect. What is. They will only get better.
 

Remembertheslap

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 12, 2020
Messages
22
Decent thread, enjoyed reading... One thing I haven't seen mentioned here (I got to page 6) or anywhere else, is retrofitting electric motors in ice bodies.

Way I see it, this would be the ultimate. Rip the ice out and replace with a super mass produced generic unit, in a model specific cradle and with a pre-transmission to the original transmission.
The battery pack replaces the fuel tank.

When the technology has progressed.

This way - no need for completely new vehicles. Much more affordable.

Even better would be swapping the wheels out with wheel hub motors and some wiring and a new CPU, maybe some new dash instruments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DRW

Chauncey Gardiner

Flashaholic
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
8,512
Location
Pacific N.W.
Decent thread, enjoyed reading... One thing I haven't seen mentioned here (I got to page 6) or anywhere else, is retrofitting electric motors in ice bodies.

Way I see it, this would be the ultimate. Rip the ice out and replace with a super mass produced generic unit, in a model specific cradle and with a pre-transmission to the original transmission.
The battery pack replaces the fuel tank.

When the technology has progressed.

This way - no need for completely new vehicles. Much more affordable.

Even better would be swapping the wheels out with wheel hub motors and some wiring and a new CPU, maybe some new dash instruments.

Wish car body with Tesla Electric chassis
 

kaichu dento

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
6,124
Location
現在の世界
Shape matters more than weight. Even a subcompact striking a pedestrian or cyclist is more or less similar to being hit by a moving wall in terms of momentum change. The tall, blunt front ends on a lot of SUVs and pickups are what is far more dangerous to pedestrians/cyclists than their weight. If an aero sedan hits someone, they'll most likely ride up the hood and avoid the brunt of the impact. Maybe they'll end up with broken legs but they'll live. Get hit by a tall SUV or pickup of the same weight, closed casket funeral.
In an otherwise excellent post this part starts out impartial enough, changing once we come to 'vilified' vehicles and overtly lenient when it comes to vehicles with a 'pointed' frontal area.

People actually can die from broken legs and in some instances the overall spreading of impact can be preferential over being flung in the air (as seen on video footage of a small frontal area passenger car hitting a group of people in the street), and one of the most dangerous things that can be brought into play in any of these scenarios is what happens with the head of the victim. The concrete itself is likely to be the greatest danger and pushing an anti-SUV/pickup scenario slanted to suggest that it's better to be hit by a passenger car than a truck is ludicrous, especially when leaving speed out of it. Make both vehicles go the same speed and the unknowns about which direction the victim is facing and what they end up hitting after being struck are far more important than what they got hit with.
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
2,836
Please allow me to address the elephant in the room when it comes to electric cars and this push toward green energy and eliminating fossil fuels. There are nearly 8 billion people on this planet all trying to survive. The population has grown dramatically in the last 100+ years thanks in large part to fossil fuels. This didn’t just give us a cheap, reliable source of power to improve transportation, refrigeration, and more, but provided cheap fertilizer to grow ever increasing amounts of food to sustain our current population. While countries ban fossil fuel based fertilizers and fuels to increase their ESG scores, they are not only leaving their population to freeze this winter, but also starve. This is the part of the plan they don’t want you to know. The planet can’t sustain it’s current population without fossil fuels. There aren’t enough resources for much more of a population growth, and there will be much less to go around if you eliminate fossil fuel use. The elites know this, they call it sustainable development. It requires a dramatic reduction in population to achieve a population level that won’t exhaust it’s resources without using fossil fuels. This reduction can easily occur by let’s say releasing a deadly virus worldwide, cutting off enough of the wheat supply to starve 2 billion people, cutting off gas supplies before winter, banning fertilizers so food production plummets, repeatedly releasing violent criminals back on the streets, teaching the next generation alternatives to reproduction, and starting World War 3. I’d like to live in a world where we can all own Teslas powered by a safer type of nuclear energy in the future, but we don’t have the resources for that. We’ll either realize that and go mostly back to fossil fuels, or we could be heading down a very dark path. The problem with this green utopia that is being promised is that you won’t be alive to enjoy it.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
In an otherwise excellent post this part starts out impartial enough, changing once we come to 'vilified' vehicles and overtly lenient when it comes to vehicles with a 'pointed' frontal area.

People actually can die from broken legs and in some instances the overall spreading of impact can be preferential over being flung in the air (as seen on video footage of a small frontal area passenger car hitting a group of people in the street), and one of the most dangerous things that can be brought into play in any of these scenarios is what happens with the head of the victim. The concrete itself is likely to be the greatest danger and pushing an anti-SUV/pickup scenario slanted to suggest that it's better to be hit by a passenger car than a truck is ludicrous, especially when leaving speed out of it. Make both vehicles go the same speed and the unknowns about which direction the victim is facing and what they end up hitting after being struck are far more important than what they got hit with.
Here's a good read on that:


Earlier research had shown that SUVs, pickup trucks and passenger vans were 2-3 times more likely than cars to kill a pedestrian in the event of a crash. However, most earlier studies were based on crash data collected in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Since then, SUV manufacturers have made substantial design changes.

.....

In recent years various SUV manufacturers have adopted more carlike designs. Part of those changes were intended to address the risk that SUVs posed to car occupants. Bumpers and other force-absorbing structures were lowered so that they aligned better with those of cars. As a result, SUVs no longer pose a greater threat to the occupants of other vehicles than cars of comparable weight (see "SUVs no longer pose outsize risk to car occupants, but pickups lag," October 10, 2019).

There hasn't been a similar widespread effort to address the danger that SUVs pose to pedestrians, and the changes made to improve compatibility with cars wouldn't be expected to improve outcomes for pedestrians. In pedestrian crashes, the location of the force-absorbing structures is less important than the overall shape of the front end.

In a crash with a traditional, block-front SUV, the grille strikes the pedestrian's pelvis or chest split seconds after the bumper hits the lower extremities, transferring more energy to the pedestrian's body. It's possible that a more sloping profile could do less damage.


I'll also add that a more sloping profile will make the vehicle more aerodynamic, so it's a win-win situation.

As for 'vilified' vehicles, my beef is that the conversion to EVs would be a lot easier if we went to vehicles which used less energy per mile. All the issues mentioned, like limited supplies of lithium, impact on the grid, etc. are made worse with vehicles which require larger batteries to go the same distance. If a person really, truly needs this type of vehicle on a regular basis, most likely for business purposes, then I have no issue with it. But if you're just moving people, nothing wrong with the regular sedans we were happy using for most of automotive history.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
Please allow me to address the elephant in the room when it comes to electric cars and this push toward green energy and eliminating fossil fuels. There are nearly 8 billion people on this planet all trying to survive. The population has grown dramatically in the last 100+ years thanks in large part to fossil fuels. This didn’t just give us a cheap, reliable source of power to improve transportation, refrigeration, and more, but provided cheap fertilizer to grow ever increasing amounts of food to sustain our current population. While countries ban fossil fuel based fertilizers and fuels to increase their ESG scores, they are not only leaving their population to freeze this winter, but also starve. This is the part of the plan they don’t want you to know. The planet can’t sustain it’s current population without fossil fuels. There aren’t enough resources for much more of a population growth, and there will be much less to go around if you eliminate fossil fuel use. The elites know this, they call it sustainable development. It requires a dramatic reduction in population to achieve a population level that won’t exhaust it’s resources without using fossil fuels. This reduction can easily occur by let’s say releasing a deadly virus worldwide, cutting off enough of the wheat supply to starve 2 billion people, cutting off gas supplies before winter, banning fertilizers so food production plummets, repeatedly releasing violent criminals back on the streets, teaching the next generation alternatives to reproduction, and starting World War 3. I’d like to live in a world where we can all own Teslas powered by a safer type of nuclear energy in the future, but we don’t have the resources for that. We’ll either realize that and go mostly back to fossil fuels, or we could be heading down a very dark path. The problem with this green utopia that is being promised is that you won’t be alive to enjoy it.
The planet can support over 1 trillion people easily. The key is mass recycling and sustainable energy generation (that includes nuclear, preferably fusion). The way we live now, I doubt the carrying capacity of the planet is over a few hundred million.

Here's what happens if we keep burning fossil fuels:


After 10,000 years, under a "burn it all" scenario, the sea will rise by as much as 200 feet.

"It is one thing to say, 'We can deal with 2 or 3 feet of sea level rise.' It is another thing entirely to discuss when we will be forced to abandon New York, London, Paris, Rome, Washington, etc.," Caldeira says.

The global average temperature, at that point, will be around 9 degrees Celsius (roughly 16 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than it is today. That is not a climate scenario under which many things would survive.


To me this sounds far worse than any issues which will occur during the transition off fossil fuels. Besides, given the limited supply, it has to happen anyway. None of your apocalyptic scenarios are going to happen. There's actually a lot of talk about building new nuclear plants finally to fill the void as we get off fossil fuels, along with keeping old ones operating longer.

We're nearly at the point of being able to economically mine space. I'd say that'll happen within a generation. That neatly fixes any potential resource issues.
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
2,836
The planet can support over 1 trillion people easily. The key is mass recycling and sustainable energy generation (that includes nuclear, preferably fusion). The way we live now, I doubt the carrying capacity of the planet is over a few hundred million.
Estimates I have heard is that earth has a carrying capacity of 10-13 billion. Some of those estimates assume everyone goes vegan. That gives us a handful of decades tops before we reach our limit. Without oil, a few hundred million sounds about right. We have limited resources to mine to make batteries and wires, and require fossil fuels to make the rest of electric cars. Without fertilizers like ammonium nitrate made from fossil fuels, many will starve if these fertilizers are eliminated. Some nations have already banned them. Development of nuclear power plants takes time and we currently have supply chain issues. Taiwan is at risk with a potential conflict with China so if anything happens, don’t expect any equipment needed to make a nuclear power plant to function to be available in the near future (computer chip shortage). If you’re worried about sea levels rising, some of Europe is switching back to coal for power generation. If we had been sending them our natural gas instead of limiting our own production to go green, it wouldn’t be an issue.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
Oil is best used as feedstock for industrial chemicals like fertilizer, instead of wasting it burning it for energy.

Electric cars aren't going to save us, either, but that's another topic entirely. There's a huge amount of waste and inefficiency associated with a system reliant on private automobiles. Unfortunately, as others have said, transitioning away from that is a decades long proposition. For now we're stuck with it. EVs make the best of a bad situation.

Fortunately, in the countries which are most resource intensive per capita, birth rates are declining. Their population growth is trending negative. The third world is where most of the population growth is occurring. As those places increase their standard of living, birth rates will trend down as they are in current first world countries. Anyway, it's not so much the amount of people as it is how they live. There's no scenario where continued burning of fossil fuels is even remotely sustainable. Besides, reliance on them is exactly what results in the geopolitical conflicts we're now seeing. Ever wonder why China is going all in on electric vehicles, in addition to building thousands of miles of high-speed rail and dozens of subway systems? For starters, they're avoiding being held hostage by countries like Russia. Sure, they get a lot of their electricity from coal now, but their pollution problem is making that untenable. They're poised to go big on nuclear power. Hopefully they'll also avoid the worst of an auto-based paradigm as well once they realize how much more energy intensive that is. At least they have a great rail system now to make that possible. The US doesn't.

Small, modular nuclear plants are the way to go. Less permitting, some can even be sailed in on a barge. We already potentially have a lot of the fuel. As the economic isolation of Russia continues, soon the only thing of substantial value they may have to sell the world will be the uranium in their nuclear warheads. So we kill two birds with one stone. Russia gets rid of most of its nuclear weapons, and we get lots of fuel for those new nuclear reactors. With the Russian nuclear threat mostly gone, the US can follow suit and dismantle most of its arsenal for fuel as well.

Regarding your last paragraph, how does the US send Europe natural gas? Build a pipeline across the ocean? Or burn millions of tons of diesel fuel in LNG tankers, which incidentally don't exist in large enough numbers to do the job? That's not even getting into the fact lots of places don't want fracking for good reason. To do what you said, the US would have to ramp up production (at multiyear process which will be challenged by people who care about clean water supplies every step of the way), build a bunch of LNG tankers, find more places for those to fill up (hint-not near population centers since an LNG tanker blowing up is a Hiroshima scale event), and find people to man those tankers. By then Europe could already build some nuclear plants and continue installing more wind/solar capacity to fill the gap. The sad fact is Europe will indeed have an energy shortage no matter what for the next few years. I might suggest better insulating buildings so people don't die of cold.
 

kaichu dento

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
6,124
Location
現在の世界
research had shown that SUVs, pickup trucks and passenger vans were 2-3 times more likely than cars to kill a pedestrian in the event of a crash.

Get hit by a tall SUV or pickup of the same weight, closed casket funeral.
There's a great difference between these two statements and the content that you post which is grounded in reality can be a joy to read, unlike the definitive "closed casket" statement. More likely is not at all interchangeable with "2-3 times more likely", and those of us you'd like to convince with your arguments would probably be "2-3 times more likely" to be swayed if you didn't come across sounding like a lobbyist.
nothing wrong with the regular sedans we were happy using for most of automotive history.
Nothing wrong with bicycles. You should be riding a bike and getting rid of your car rather than telling people what vehicle they need/don't need. I travel very regularly with my tools, many possessions in a vehicle that I can sleep in as well and don't 'need' other people deciding what will suffice for transportation that I buy with my own money.

If you like more economical vehicles, then buy them, but don't suggest that we need to become cookie-cutter consumers.

Yes, I ride my bike and walk rather than drive just about every chance I get.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,624
Location
Flushing, NY
There's a great difference between these two statements and the content that you post which is grounded in reality can be a joy to read, unlike the definitive "closed casket" statement. More likely is not at all interchangeable with "2-3 times more likely", and those of us you'd like to convince with your arguments would probably be "2-3 times more likely" to be swayed if you didn't come across sounding like a lobbyist.
Fair enough, that was a bit over the top, although I sometimes end up being overly dramatic to make a point.
Nothing wrong with bicycles. You should be riding a bike and getting rid of your car rather than telling people what vehicle they need/don't need. I travel very regularly with my tools, many possessions in a vehicle that I can sleep in as well and don't 'need' other people deciding what will suffice for transportation that I buy with my own money.

If you like more economical vehicles, then buy them, but don't suggest that we need to become cookie-cutter consumers.

Yes, I ride my bike and walk rather than drive just about every chance I get.
FYI, I never owned a car in my life, or had a driver's license, so I practice what I preach. Walking for most local shopping, bike rides or bus/subway for trips too long to walk, and commuter rail/Amtrak for the rare times I've traveled outside the city.

Your use case sounds like "needs a large vehicle". And I'm glad you walk or bike whenever possible. My objections to large vehicles stem in part from a lot of the so-called "limousine liberals" in my own city who don't practice what they preach. That includes NYC's last Mayor who used to be driven daily 10 miles each way to a gym in Brooklyn in an SUV convoy. When people here called him out on his hypocrisy, he didn't like it. You almost always see these vehicles with just the driver and no cargo. Moreover, this is in a place with the most alternatives to the automobile in the entire country.

Sad to say, but this country already is made up of lots of cookie-cutter consumers. Probably a lot of other countries as well. That can be good or bad, depending upon what people decide to buy en masse.
 
Last edited:

bykfixer

Flashaholic
CPF Supporter
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
16,781
Location
My own little Idaho
"Rules for thee, not for me"

That's a huge factor in why the resentment mindest of a lot Americans attitude toward electric cars along with other dictates by gubment officials and holleyweird elitists.

Now on a practical side, the other evening at my home at dinner time the ac was running, the clothes dryer and refrigerator all at the same time. Nothing unusual there. Wife cuts on an electric skillet took cook some turkey burger and I turned on the microwave to nuke some corn on the cob. Nothing unlike many typical American homes. In the next rooms small table fans or ceiling fans run so the ac can be set at 80 degrees. Well, the kitchen started feeling stuff so I cut on a small table fan when "pop" goes a circuit breaker.

No biggy, but add a car charging to the mix. What about his and hers charging? My 100amp service home would have to be upgraded to handle the load all the way to the wire at the pole owned by the power company. And the grid in my subdivision was built back in the 1970's when 40-60 amp homes were the norm. That's just one story. Add millions upon millions to that.....
 
Last edited:

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
11,744
wish i had one today walked to target its so so such a long hard walk. and a course even thou no rain in forcast it poured . worked out thou lol i was to tired to shower im just laying down to i catch my breath
 

xxo

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
2,669
No biggy, but add a car charging to the mix. What about his and hers charging? My 100amp service home would have to be upgraded to handle the load all the way to the wire at the pole owned by the power company. And the grid in my subdivision was built back in the 1970's when 40-60 amp homes were the norm. That's just one story. Add millions upon millions to that.....
We're gonna need to burn a lot of coal to run all of those EV's now that we have cut back on fracking for natural gas and the price has gone through the roof and that we are not building new nuke plants to replace the old ones from the 70's and 80's.
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
11,744
i say we build more nuclear plants. there way safer then most think
 
Top