Electric Car News

Kinnakeet

Kinnakeet

Well-Known Member
phreddyp said:
Perhaps you should learn to read properly, there has been plenty of pro and con posts, and both have points, unfortunately the cons outweigh the pros due to EV flaws. I am totally convinced that these " not ready for prime time " products are exactly that nothing more nor less. EV's will have their time, but for them the future is NOT now.
Click to expand...
Democrats pushing the EV BS to get rich! someday they will probably have their time but it will not be in our lifetime and possibly not even our childrens lifetime
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Kyle said:
On Car and Driver‘s 75-mph highway test, more than 350 internal combustion vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than what was stated on their window stickers. But the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than the window sticker numbers, the magazine says. Uh oh.
Click to expand...
If these manufacturers - and the government of course - want buy-in from the public, the product CANNOT be marginally better - or "as good as" - and certainly not ever - WORSE. It has to be substantially better. It has to be so much better, that people will THROW AWAY their ICE cars.

You build something that can deliver the same or better driving experience, can go a thousand miles on a charge that takes less than fifteen minutes - and at a price I can afford - and I will give my current paid for car - away. If on the other hand, you offer a car that costs twice what my car cost - yes, I got my car used at a great price, and the overwhelming portion of car sales are for used cars - and the best you can offer is possibly comparable performance - I'ma sittin' and waitin'.

In order to adopt a new technology - it works when it is better. A LOT better.
 
Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
If these manufacturers - and the government of course - want buy-in from the public, the product CANNOT be marginally better - or "as good as" - and certainly not ever - WORSE. It has to be substantially better. It has to be so much better, that people will THROW AWAY their ICE cars.

You build something that can deliver the same or better driving experience, can go a thousand miles on a charge that takes less than fifteen minutes - and at a price I can afford - and I will give my current paid for car - away. If on the other hand, you offer a car that costs twice what my car cost - yes, I got my car used at a great price, and the overwhelming portion of car sales are for used cars - and the best you can offer is possibly comparable performance - I'ma sittin' and waitin'.

In order to adopt a new technology - it works when it is better. A LOT better.
Click to expand...
Why do that when you can just build a cult around them and send your disciples out to extol the virtues of the Governments Green Goddess.

Theres always an excuse for any shortcoming. "But this" ... "what if that" ... "in the near future when" ... Especially the "coming soon." It's always just around the next corner.

I already walked away from an established religion once. I don't need a new one.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
If these manufacturers - and the government of course - want buy-in from the public, the product CANNOT be marginally better - or "as good as" - and certainly not ever - WORSE. It has to be substantially better. It has to be so much better, that people will THROW AWAY their ICE cars.

You build something that can deliver the same or better driving experience, can go a thousand miles on a charge that takes less than fifteen minutes - and at a price I can afford - and I will give my current paid for car - away. If on the other hand, you offer a car that costs twice what my car cost - yes, I got my car used at a great price, and the overwhelming portion of car sales are for used cars - and the best you can offer is possibly comparable performance - I'ma sittin' and waitin'.

In order to adopt a new technology - it works when it is better. A LOT better.
Click to expand...
Regular ICEs are more efficient at their highest gearing, Hybrids and EVs do better at mid to lower speeds (around 45) and tend to drop off in efficiency quickly the higher the speeds.

More to the point this test isn't comparing ICE to EVs it's comparing their overall rated MPG to the results of a specific test (one that favors ICEs). So if an ICE rated for 35mpg does 4% better on this test (so 36.4mpg) that supposed to be more impressive than an EV rated at 115mpge doing 15% worse (so 97.75mpge)?

Now lets do a stop-and-go test like the drive from Pax river to Hollywood in the morning or afternoon. I bet the ICE comes out well below the rated "city mileage" while the EV will probably come out above. But that would never get posted here because it doesn't fit the narrative.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Clem72 said:
Now lets do a stop-and-go test like the drive from Pax river to Hollywood in the morning or afternoon. I bet the ICE comes out well below the rated "city mileage" while the EV will probably come out above. But that would never get posted here because it doesn't fit the narrative.
Click to expand...
You do GET my point - which was I don't want something even MARGINALLY better - it has to be a whole WORLD better. EV promoters are asking those with a lifetime of experience with ICE for a technology that at best - overall - is only a little bit better? And only in certain condtions?

If I switch out the way I heat or cool my house - it has to be 100% better. I don't waste my precious time for 4 or 5% better.

I don't doubt that EVs are probably the future - but it's still YEARS off before they are THAT much better. I don't want "almost as good" or "10% better". The way government pushes this, it's a one way trip. It has to be orders of magnitude better, or it's just more government crap.
 
P

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
You do GET my point - which was I don't want something even MARGINALLY better - it has to be a whole WORLD better. EV promoters are asking those with a lifetime of experience with ICE for a technology that at best - overall - is only a little bit better? And only in certain condtions?

If I switch out the way I heat or cool my house - it has to be 100% better. I don't waste my precious time for 4 or 5% better.

I don't doubt that EVs are probably the future - but it's still YEARS off before they are THAT much better. I don't want "almost as good" or "10% better". The way government pushes this, it's a one way trip. It has to be orders of magnitude better, or it's just more government crap.
Click to expand...
Damn Sam don't bring economics into this discussion, that is way above the pay scale of EV priests!
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
phreddyp said:
Damn Sam don't bring economics into this discussion, that is way above the pay scale of EV priests!
Click to expand...
There have been countless new technologies over the decades that were clearly superior to what they were replacing.
LaserDiscs. BetaMax. And so on. They were better.

I had eight tracks - sound was inferior to vinyl but you just couldn't beat something that was cheaper than a stereo system, was easily transported and the 8-tracks themselves were cheaper. When CDs came along, they were superior to 8-tracks and cassettes. In every way.

When a new technology appears, you adopt because it is clearly BETTER *and* comparably priced. When it is vastly over-priced - the only people adopting it are aficionados with money to burn.

I had a computer early on, for work and home. When printers got cheap enough - cheaper and easier to use than my electric typewriter - I bought one. When I needed to print a LOT of things - it was cheaper to buy a laser printer - than to have it printed by someone else.

And sure, I knew people who bought all of the early stuff - because they had money to burn - and they wanted everyone to see they had one - but everyone ELSE bought it when it was a better deal. Remember "car phones"? It was the 80's version of a cell phone. They cost what would be thousands in today's dollars and they called them car phones, because about the only thing mobile that could keep them charged was a car. The console was HUGE - and only businessman with a lot of money had them. What would become cell phones was very much the wave of the future - but not in 1986.
 
P

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
There have been countless new technologies over the decades that were clearly superior to what they were replacing.
LaserDiscs. BetaMax. And so on. They were better.

I had eight tracks - sound was inferior to vinyl but you just couldn't beat something that was cheaper than a stereo system, was easily transported and the 8-tracks themselves were cheaper. When CDs came along, they were superior to 8-tracks and cassettes. In every way.

When a new technology appears, you adopt because it is clearly BETTER *and* comparably priced. When it is vastly over-priced - the only people adopting it are aficionados with money to burn.

I had a computer early on, for work and home. When printers got cheap enough - cheaper and easier to use than my electric typewriter - I bought one. When I needed to print a LOT of things - it was cheaper to buy a laser printer - than to have it printed by someone else.

And sure, I knew people who bought all of the early stuff - because they had money to burn - and they wanted everyone to see they had one - but everyone ELSE bought it when it was a better deal. Remember "car phones"? It was the 80's version of a cell phone. They cost what would be thousands in today's dollars and they called them car phones, because about the only thing mobile that could keep them charged was a car. The console was HUGE - and only businessman with a lot of money had them. What would become cell phones was very much the wave of the future - but not in 1986.
Click to expand...
In my company we had radios and bag phones, both were pretty good.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
phreddyp said:
In my company we had radios and bag phones, both were pretty good.
Click to expand...
Sure. I had a roommate in the 80s who made a killing selling pay phones once they became a commodity you could sell. He drove around in a fully tricked out Volvo with all the trimmings - and a "car phone".

Of course, none of us schmucks could afford one.
 
Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
And sure, I knew people who bought all of the early stuff - because they had money to burn - and they wanted everyone to see they had one - but everyone ELSE bought it when it was a better deal. Remember "car phones"? It was the 80's version of a cell phone. They cost what would be thousands in today's dollars and they called them car phones, because about the only thing mobile that could keep them charged was a car. The console was HUGE - and only businessman with a lot of money had them. What would become cell phones was very much the wave of the future - but not in 1986.
Click to expand...

One of my bosses in the 80s had a phone in his company truck. Loaded Dually, Diesel, Leather... The works.

Wasn't good enough just to have a car phone... His had an answering machine on it. :ohwell:
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
Sure. I had a roommate in the 80s who made a killing selling pay phones once they became a commodity you could sell. He drove around in a fully tricked out Volvo with all the trimmings - and a "car phone".

Of course, none of us schmucks could afford one.
Click to expand...
I had a bag phone in the late 80s or early 90s (honestly cant remember when I got it) but the rule was basically no one uses the damn phone unless someone is dying.
 
Kyle

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
Clem72 said:
I had a bag phone in the late 80s or early 90s (honestly cant remember when I got it) but the rule was basically no one uses the damn phone unless someone is dying.
Click to expand...
So Dying to call someone and tell them counted, right?
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
IIRC the cost per MINUTE was also huge, back then.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember. We had a very limited plan, nothing included and big cost per minute charge. I bought the thing to keep in my wife's car because she was constantly getting in accidents (usually fender benders), running out of gas, popping a tire, or burning through the clutch. Basically somehow becoming stranded at least once a month. So a AAA membership and the phone was well worth the cost.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Clem72 said:
Yes, I remember. We had a very limited plan, nothing included and big cost per minute charge. I bought the thing to keep in my wife's car because she was constantly getting in accidents (usually fender benders), running out of gas, popping a tire, or burning through the clutch. Basically somehow becoming stranded at least once a month. So a AAA membership and the phone was well worth the cost.
Click to expand...
That was my primary reason for getting a cell phone. Everyone I knew lived up near DC, and I lived down in Lusby. Should I be stranded between Prince Frederick and Lusby - which happened, once - it was a long walk. I made sure my exchange was one near DC, so calls to people I knew would be "local". Yeah, there was "long distance" back then.
 
glhs837

glhs837

Power with Control

And of course, besides the benefit of getting access to the absolute largest and most reliable high-speed charging network in the country, now they're able to use what's also the best connector in the country.
connector_comparison.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top