- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: GM delays start of EV production at Michigan plant due to lack of demand
Posted on 10/20/23 at 3:20 pm to OweO
Posted on 10/20/23 at 3:20 pm to OweO
quote:Hours!!!!
You mean to tell me people don't want a vehicle they can't drive any further than outside of their city without having to wait hours to charge?
Posted on 10/20/23 at 3:23 pm to OweO
Saw a post online this morning from a 10 year Tesla owner. She said aside from the battery worry, she's buying tires more frequently because of the added wear and tear from the curb weight.
Posted on 10/20/23 at 3:27 pm to kywildcatfanone
I know they run pretty high cold PSI tire inflation rates, I assume to help with range efficiency.
Noisy cabins, though.
Noisy cabins, though.
Posted on 10/20/23 at 3:42 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Saw a post online this morning from a 10 year Tesla owner. She said aside from the battery worry, she's buying tires more frequently because of the added wear and tear from the curb weight.
They’re marginally heavier than vehicles in their class. She’s probably curb surfing a lot.
And idk why she’s worried about the battery. You can check the degradation on the dash.
This post was edited on 10/20/23 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 10/20/23 at 4:02 pm to billjamin
quote:
They’re marginally heavier than vehicles in their class.
Not true, and they put more wear and tear on the roads also due to the extra weight but still get to skate on road taxes.
In LA they finally upped the annual inspection fee to $200 but that still is a steep discount to what the ICE vehicles are paying in road tax per year.
Posted on 10/20/23 at 4:03 pm to shel311
quote:
One of the funniest OT replies to this point was maybe about a month ago, wish I remembered which poster, but he justified it by saying the companies got the subsidies but with EVs the consumer gets the subsidies. You did not read that wrong, that was his way of justifying O&G getting subsidies to the multi billion dollar company with no issue, but it was bad to for EV companies to give consumers the subsidies.
holy shite how did I miss that. That’s some impressive corporate boot licking.
Posted on 10/20/23 at 4:04 pm to AndyCBR
Go look at the weight of a model 3 vs a 3 series.
Also your discount rate for the 200 fee is incorrect. States are doing flat fees at higher rates because it’s political and people like ones in these thread lap up sticking it to ev owners and because they’re too lazy to do anything else.
I’m happy to see your math to prove me wrong though.
Also your discount rate for the 200 fee is incorrect. States are doing flat fees at higher rates because it’s political and people like ones in these thread lap up sticking it to ev owners and because they’re too lazy to do anything else.
I’m happy to see your math to prove me wrong though.
This post was edited on 10/20/23 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 10/20/23 at 6:01 pm to Clames
quote:Know of any major breakthroughs in the pipeline? You must, if you think there is much more room for improvement. But again you show your bias by not considering improved battery chemistries and design.
Except for ICE vehicles the ceiling for improvement is much higher because the energy density available in a gallon of gasoline is still vastly higher than what EV's have available.
At this point, the only way to get a significant improvement in efficiency from ICE is to build a hybrid.
quote:
No, I just have a better STEM education than you and I don’t buy into the bullshite wank you peddle.
Electric motors are better for driving vehicles in literally every single way. Power to weight, efficiency, control, every way. You know that, though. But to pretend that battery energy density by volume and by weight haven't improved in 20 years is just silly.
If advancement stops on all fronts right now, EVs are already on par with ICE for many millions of people. They get the job done at an agreeable price with no sacrifices for their usage (in fact it's more convenient in many cases). But advancement has not stopped, and there are so many avenues for improvement that it should be exciting for anyone with a STEM education. You however seem to be stuck in a rut, wallowing in hate or fear or something.
Posted on 10/21/23 at 12:17 am to billjamin
I guess no one wants to do the math on that?
Posted on 10/21/23 at 2:02 am to Clames
quote:
The 18650 cells in a 20 year old laptop are the same as what's in your power tools today.
I have a lot of respect for your opinions though we often differ but you are out over your skis here and claiming a better STEM education only makes it worse.
The 18650 cells you see today are potentially quite different from the cells of 20 years ago. Just because they have the same standardized external dimensions it is foolish to think they are the same inside which is patently false. The 18650 standard has been around for almost 30 years. During that time the maximum capacity has more than tripled from 1200 mAh to as much as 4000 mAh today, cycle times have increased significantly, and max discharge rates have risen from under 5A to as much as 40A. There are literally dozens of combinations of capacity and discharge rates available today along with widely varied pricing and quality. This has been accomplished by tweaking the chemistry and construction of the cells despite the basic chemistry staying the same.
Your statement was dead wrong and I actually think you know it and were just preaching to a choir that doesn't know better. All current 18650 cells are not the same and definitely not all are remotely similar to cells of 20 years ago though you can still buy low capacity low discharge rate cells because they are cheaper and completely adequate in some applications.
I have no issue with people who dislike EVs for whatever reason but misinformation whether accidental or purposeful needs to be addressed.
Posted on 10/21/23 at 2:16 am to billjamin
quote:
Go look at the weight of a model 3 vs a 3 series.
Trucks do tend to be significantly heavier than their ICE counterparts but EV and ICE cars within a class tend to be reasonably close at least not enough to cause any significant increase in road wear. Most roads are built to handle 40 ton truck travel so even an extra 2000 pounds does not cause any significant difference in wear. Most roads don't fail from just surface wear anyway it is almost always significant areas of base failure. Roadways like interstates with high construction standards to tend to reach the end of service life due to wear though.
EVs should pay their fair share of road taxes and you are correct that some of the flat fees are higher that one pays for a similar ICE vehicle driving an average number of miles per year.
This post was edited on 10/21/23 at 2:18 am
Posted on 10/21/23 at 2:17 am to dewster
quote:
The work truck models that can go 400 miles on a single charge
And how long will it take to get even 70% of that back?
Posted on 10/21/23 at 3:40 am to billjamin
quote:They do not. I did the math and these folks are 100% driven by feelings.
I guess no one wants to do the math on that?
Posted on 10/21/23 at 4:22 am to Obtuse1
quote:Of course he knows it, Clames is a known liar/troll. Either that or he's a serious headcase.
Your statement was dead wrong and I actually think you know it
How anyone can look around at all of the battery powered equipment today and say with a straight face that the technology hasn't advanced in 20 years is beyond me. They weren't making battery powered chainsaws and mowers and snowblowers 20 years ago, but they are now because shite is better. They weren't making battery powered concrete finishing tools 20 years ago but they are now because shite is better.
And drones existed but they weren't as cheap and ubiquitous as today because shite got better. Batteries and motors deliver more punch in a smaller and lighter package.
But the chemistry is the same! The limitations!
Blah blah blah, take a look around.
And while you're at it, run it by me again, Clames, how your disaster plan which relies on the international oil trade and mega-corp refineries and transport infrastructure and banks and the internet to all continue functioning is better than an off-grid-capable battery+solar+EV plan which only requires the sun to rise each day?
Posted on 10/21/23 at 4:28 am to dewster
Nobody wants these, including the sales team.
Posted on 10/21/23 at 7:37 am to 0x15E
quote:
And how long will it take to get even 70% of that back?
Hours
Posted on 10/21/23 at 7:49 am to kywildcatfanone
Central planning results in low inventory, high prices and shittier service.
This is what people seem to want though.
This is what people seem to want though.
Posted on 10/21/23 at 9:15 am to Korkstand
quote:
They do not. I did the math and these folks are 100% driven by feelings.
Just drive by down voting little bitches
Posted on 10/21/23 at 9:22 am to 0x15E
quote:
And how long will it take to get even 70% of that back
The answer is always going to be it depends and varies from ev to ev. This has to do with size of battery in the vehicle, charging station output abilities, and ev vehicle charging input abilities.
The Denali ev has a 200kw battery and can accept up to a 350kwh charge. So realistically to go from 10-80% charge in the best charging conditions would take about 30mins. However with the charging infrastructure currently that would be unlikely to be consistent results. But that doesn't mean this can't be achievable in the future.
Posted on 10/21/23 at 9:31 am to goofball
quote:
General Motors spent about $20 billion so far trying to scale up their EV production
When Trump reverses all of the EV mandates and CAFE standards this will be a total waste.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News