[Basil Ransom]

"The government trailed what the consumer wanted for years.

It took decades before the interstate system was constructed. Long after most Americans had a car."

Mostly true. The big government backing of cars did not really emerge with full force until the 1950s. Which is also approximately when autocentric urban zoning and design started to proliferate.

Even before that, government decisions before that may have made all the difference - like segregating traffic on roads when it previously hadn't been, and not charging vehicles to park on the streets. American cities even before the car often had much wider streets and less dense layouts compared to Europe or Asia which made it easier to insert cars into these cities.

There was also at times mass frustration over the ills of city living - ills which technologies like sanitation, modern medicine and soundproof windowpanes can resolve. Then there are the more political ones which cities are still struggling with, like education.

[TheNinja]

(05-05-2015 11:17 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I misspoke. I meant that they tend to grow up as losers in their formative years, so they nurture this desire for alternative worlds where they can triumph, where there is no prevailing status hierarchy of jocks and cheerleaders that blocks their ascent.

"American needs a decent railway system BADLY. "

If you mean an intercity system, not really. Air travel is fine for distant, occasional travel. America needs cities to stop designing themselves to cater to cars first and everyone else as an afterthought. Intercity traveling is vastly outnumbered by intracity traveling. California's bullet train is stupid IMO, because the number of trips between say SF and LA is nothing compared to the commutes that Californians make daily on a smaller scale - but the governor wants a legacy, and throwing money to local transit systems isn't very grand like a statewide train is. What's the number of long distance trips per person across the state every year, 0.1? 0.5? And trips to routine destinations - several hundreds per year. With the trains, you're just building another infrastructure system to support - you're not trashing the highways or airways any time soon either, so there are little if any savings to be had.

I agree with you on improving public transportation. Most American cities are designed for cars and not humans. Ideal cities would be like Tokyo, Singapore, Paris and Seoul.

However, I don't understand why you're hating on Elon Musk. This guy is not the reason why American cities are built for cars. Musk is pushing the world to use electric renewable sources instead of gas, slowly but still quicker than expected.

[Saweeep]

(05-05-2015 09:40 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

"The last people in the world I'd ever want in charge of my transport are local governments"

Lol, you're a lot more dependent on the government when you use a car to get around than when on your own two feet... Not to mention susceptible to government surveillance and harassment.

Well you must have better councils where you are than here in the UK.

Note I said local not national government. Our differing systems probably make a coherent discussion on this impossible to be honest.

[Basil Ransom]

"However, I don't understand why you're hating on Elon Musk. This guy is not the reason why American cities are built for cars. Musk is pushing the world to use electric renewable sources instead of gas, slowly but still quicker than expected."

I was criticising both Musk and the Tesla admirers. Musk is shilling the falsehood that privately owned cars can be made good, that the problems with cars are merely their source of fuel. For one, electricity is not much improvement when much of it comes from dirty coal - especially if people use the cheaper marginal cost per mile to drive more, as is likely. The electric car is only an improvement (at best) when compared to a gasoline operated car, and not to say, the prospect of living closer to work and walking or biking. Think of a girl who goes to church because she wants to hear that she can fuck outside of wedlock with impunity and still be one of God's besties - she just has to do some Hail Marys at the priest's request. But fornication is fornication. Musk is the priest, promising salvation by driving one of his creations.

I'm not interested in condemning people - just saying that their proposed solution doesn't actually address the source of their grief and guilt, the alleged sin, it's just a palliative, a temporary painkiller. By their own standards, they are failures. Even if its source of energy is "clean," most of the car's ills remain - and clean energy is a misnomer given how even renewable energy makes significant use of fossil fuels as inputs for its initial manufacture and/or entails serious environmental degradation.

What's more, driverless cars threaten to vaporize the car industry as we know it, by giving you the functionality of a car at a fraction of the cost, without requiring car ownership. The established car brands are in no rush to get to this point, because it means cutting their volume of production by 90+%, not to mention their margins when fleet companies like Uber squeeze the profits out for themselves or the consumers. And Musk is no exception - he and carmakers want to keep the driver but just make his experience more plush. While I don't think everyone getting around by driverless cars is ideal, they stand to offer a vast improvement over the status quo where nearly every adult has a car.

[Saweeep]

(05-06-2015 10:37 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

What's more, driverless cars threaten to vaporize the car industry as we know it, by giving you the functionality of a car at a fraction of the cost, without requiring car ownership. The established car brands are in no rush to get to this point, because it means cutting their volume of production by 90+%

This seems like a big leap? What makes you think this.

[Basil Ransom]

Wut? Repeat the question.

[Saweeep]

(05-06-2015 11:30 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:37 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

What's more, driverless cars threaten to vaporize the car industry as we know it, by giving you the functionality of a car at a fraction of the cost, without requiring car ownership. The established car brands are in no rush to get to this point, because it means cutting their volume of production by 90+%

This seems like a big leap? What makes you think this.

Why do driverless cars threaten to destroy the car industry to the tune of 90%+? I assume you believe people will suddenly stop wanting their own cars...I'm asking why you think that and where this number has come from?

Also, how do you know that driverless cars will be sold at a fraction of the cost of existing vehicles? Usually, when people say "a fraction", they mean significantly less.


P.S. manners cost nothing.

[Basil Ransom]

Cars sit idle for 90-95% of their life. That's a big waste of capital. The reason they sit idly is in part because we don't have an efficient way to share cars (though that's been changing of late), and we're already so used to owning them as our way of using them. We've also massively subsidized car ownership through subsidizing parking everywhere (a huge waste of space). For every car in America there are 6-8 parking spots.

As for why driverless cars will cost less - you're amortizing the capital costs over more people in a shorter time frame, the car will be light and tiny for those single passenger trips and thus more fuel efficient, the insurance costs will be much smaller, maintenance will be centralized and vertically integrated, etc. Or take a gander at this academic article - http://sustainablemobility.ei.columbia.e...-20132.pdf

"P.S. manners cost nothing."

Neither do clear antecedents.

[Latinopan]

Apparently, the Tesla CPO cars are dropping to the more average price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/12/tes...-one-time/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/tesl...a-model-3/

I found a 85Kwatts from 2013 CPO at 53,000, I design a new the one with the same configuration and it costs 75,500, that is a 22,500 difference, in 2 years that car drops 30% in price, if the trend continues in 2017 that car will be 30,500, the average price for most cars.

Once the price for electric cars hit the same as ICE cars, then people will more likely buy a Tesla Model S.

[Easy_C]

Thing is though, that you can't assume a linear decline in production costs. In real life costs tend to follow a step down model where the cost savings from large scale production ("economies of scale", if you're a BBA/MBA type) or technological advancement allow significant reductions in cost.

Tesla in this case has very adeptly shifted the industry conditions in their favor They've been able to convince the federal government to back electric cars, and have even managed to goad the Big 3 into developing electric vehicles. Although this may sound like more competition at first it's actually good for Tesla: widespread acceptance of electric cars depends on developing an equally widespread charging infrastructure. Furthermore additional competition is likely to drive down prices of key technologies due to them becoming more commoditized.

I don't see it hurting Tesla as much since they're after different consumer segments than GM and its peers are. Tesla is focused mostly on SWPL types, and the others have a more mainstream appeal.

[Hotwheels]

(01-20-2016 03:21 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Apparently, the Tesla CPO cars are dropping to the more average price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/12/tes...-one-time/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/tesl...a-model-3/

I found a 85Kwatts from 2013 CPO at 53,000, I design a new the one with the same configuration and it costs 75,500, that is a 22,500 difference, in 2 years that car drops 30% in price, if the trend continues in 2017 that car will be 30,500, the average price for most cars.

Once the price for electric cars hit the same as ICE cars, then people will more likely buy a Tesla Model S.

CPO (certified pre owned) prices have little to do with new prices.

[Latinopan]

(01-20-2016 01:07 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:21 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Apparently, the Tesla CPO cars are dropping to the more average price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/12/tes...-one-time/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/tesl...a-model-3/

I found a 85Kwatts from 2013 CPO at 53,000, I design a new the one with the same configuration and it costs 75,500, that is a 22,500 difference, in 2 years that car drops 30% in price, if the trend continues in 2017 that car will be 30,500, the average price for most cars.

Once the price for electric cars hit the same as ICE cars, then people will more likely buy a Tesla Model S.

CPO (certified pre owned) prices have little to do with new prices.

I'm aware of that, what I am saying is that CPO will be the real breaker in electric car market, most people do not buy new cars, most families and individuals buy used cars, once cars like Chevy Volt hit something like 15,000 then we will see difference in the market.

[WestIndianArchie]

(01-20-2016 03:21 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Apparently, the Tesla CPO cars are dropping to the more average price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/12/tes...-one-time/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/tesl...a-model-3/

I found a 85Kwatts from 2013 CPO at 53,000, I design a new the one with the same configuration and it costs 75,500, that is a 22,500 difference, in 2 years that car drops 30% in price, if the trend continues in 2017 that car will be 30,500, the average price for most cars.

Once the price for electric cars hit the same as ICE cars, then people will more likely buy a Tesla Model S.

Something about buying a used battery doesn't sit right with me just yet.

WIA

[Hotwheels]

(01-20-2016 06:37 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:21 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Apparently, the Tesla CPO cars are dropping to the more average price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/12/tes...-one-time/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/tesl...a-model-3/

I found a 85Kwatts from 2013 CPO at 53,000, I design a new the one with the same configuration and it costs 75,500, that is a 22,500 difference, in 2 years that car drops 30% in price, if the trend continues in 2017 that car will be 30,500, the average price for most cars.

Once the price for electric cars hit the same as ICE cars, then people will more likely buy a Tesla Model S.

Something about buying a used battery doesn't sit right with me just yet.

WIA

[Latinopan]

(01-20-2016 06:37 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 03:21 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  

Apparently, the Tesla CPO cars are dropping to the more average price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/12/tes...-one-time/

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/30/tesl...a-model-3/

I found a 85Kwattids from 2013 CPO at 53,000, I design a new the one with the same configuration and it costs 75,500, that is a 22,500 difference, in 2 years that car drops 30% in price, if the trend continues in 2017 that car will be 30,500, the average price for most car

Once the price for electric cars hit the same as ICE cars, then people will more likely buy a Tesla Model S.

Something about buying a used battery doesn't sit right with me just yet.

WIA

EV's batteries have a life warranty of 10 to 12 years, besides, considering the maintenance of EV vs ICE, the long term cost of ICE cars is way high, an EV like the Model S does not even require oil change, does have radiator for engines, or even a transmission, even the one with two engines, the number of moving parts is very low.

Murhphy law: if it can go wrong, it will go wrong.

Compare these two chassis and imagine which one will more likely break a part after driving 10,000 miles straight without going to the mechanic:

[spokepoker]

Maintenance sure looks easier, but I'm willing to bet if the winding burns up on one of those electric motors, it will cost more than replacing everything on the chasis in the lower pic.

[Latinopan]

(01-20-2016 09:46 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

Maintenance sure looks easier, but I'm willing to bet if the winding burns up on one of those electric motors, it will cost more than replacing everything on the chasis in the lower pic.

You know the reason most automakers do not like EVs?

Quote:

He warned the adoption of electric technology risked continuing the process that he called “disintermediation”, under which carmakers have gradually lost control over elements of a vehicle’s contents to suppliers.

“It’s been a very steady, rigorous process of disintermediation,” said Mr Marchionne.

Having initially manufactured all their own components, carmakers currently retain primary control of making only vehicles’ powertrains — their engines and transmissions — he added.

“If we start losing any of that . . . we will not be able to hang on to any proprietary knowledge and control of that business,” said Mr Marchionne. “We won’t be manufacturing the batteries. We won’t be manufacturing the electric motors that are part of that powertrain.”

http://evobsession.com/sergio-marchionne...evolution/

[dicknixon72]

Random thoughts...

The future of electric cars is more akin to the cell phone market versus the current automotive field. How many people do you see with a '93 Camry, '92 C/K pickup, or a GM front-drive mid/fullsizer from the 80s? How many people do you see actively using a Motorola Timeport?

The resale value on mainstream EVs is in a glut right now due to a combination of record low pump prices, exponentially-improving technology in battery capacity, and the general uncertainty of a used EV's longevity. Nissan, for one, is learning the hard way that a primitive passive air-cooled thermal management system is going to piss off a lot of early adopters. There are claims of 20-40% range loss when ambient temps are far out of norm. That's like topping off your car on the ride home then waking up the next morning with 3/4 of a tank left. Oh, and that tank now only gets you 60 miles. Oh, and you can't just drive to Shell and piss away $8.82; you have to plug it in for HOURS.

You will also never, ever get over range anxiety without a mass gas station-like network of safe, reliable supercharging stations. Have fun waiting for that to come around.

The average car shopper will ignore an EV because of those factors making the presence of a mainstream-priced Tesla irrelevant.

Also, remember that Tesla lacks true economy of scale a la BMW, General Motors, Audi/VW who are all pouring big R&D into the EV field. If anyone can make it work for the true long term, it will be them via their worldwide reach, 100+ years of expertise, and extensive dealer and service networks. Remember two big factors stunting real long term growth at Tesla - Tesla eschews the entire concept of a franchise dealer network and Tesla's short-term profitability is banked largely on selling CAFE credits to other manufacturers that fall short, namely FCA (Dodge/Chrysler/Fiat), GM, Subaru, and Honda. Wait until they start pumping out their own EVs in significant numbers, not just compliance cars.

[Hotwheels]

(01-20-2016 11:05 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 09:46 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

Maintenance sure looks easier, but I'm willing to bet if the winding burns up on one of those electric motors, it will cost more than replacing everything on the chasis in the lower pic.

You know the reason most automakers do not like EVs?

Quote:

He warned the adoption of electric technology risked continuing the process that he called “disintermediation”, under which carmakers have gradually lost control over elements of a vehicle’s contents to suppliers.

“It’s been a very steady, rigorous process of disintermediation,” said Mr Marchionne.

Having initially manufactured all their own components, carmakers currently retain primary control of making only vehicles’ powertrains — their engines and transmissions — he added.

“If we start losing any of that . . . we will not be able to hang on to any proprietary knowledge and control of that business,” said Mr Marchionne. “We won’t be manufacturing the batteries. We won’t be manufacturing the electric motors that are part of that powertrain.”

http://evobsession.com/sergio-marchionne...evolution/

Marchionne isn't the best source when it comes to the future of the auto industry.

He's running FCA into the ground.

[Sooth]

The technology is 100% available, people have put it to use. The problem is that everyone is scared of electric vehicles. Investors see it is far too risky so it's hard for the small guy to get money.

There are niche markets where battery electric absolutely destroys ICE diesels in terms of lifetime running costs.

Zero maintenance for 10 years (other than tyres and windscreen wiper blades) - electric motors only have one moving part, regeneration means no wear on brake components.

Less than $5 worth to "fill the fuel tank" with charge.

We're just not quite there yet with fuel prices dropping.

If you're a software engineer with a bit of mechanical interest you would do well buying a crashed old Toyota Prius, figuring out how it works then starting a business.

[Latinopan]

(01-21-2016 02:02 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 11:05 PM)Latinopan Wrote:  

(01-20-2016 09:46 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

Maintenance sure looks easier, but I'm willing to bet if the winding burns up on one of those electric motors, it will cost more than replacing everything on the chasis in the lower pic.

You know the reason most automakers do not like EVs?

Quote:

He warned the adoption of electric technology risked continuing the process that he called “disintermediation”, under which carmakers have gradually lost control over elements of a vehicle’s contents to suppliers.

“It’s been a very steady, rigorous process of disintermediation,” said Mr Marchionne.

Having initially manufactured all their own components, carmakers currently retain primary control of making only vehicles’ powertrains — their engines and transmissions — he added.

“If we start losing any of that . . . we will not be able to hang on to any proprietary knowledge and control of that business,” said Mr Marchionne. “We won’t be manufacturing the batteries. We won’t be manufacturing the electric motors that are part of that powertrain.”

http://evobsession.com/sergio-marchionne...evolution/

Marchionne isn't the best source when it comes to the future of the auto industry.

He's running FCA into the ground.

His point still stand, automakers have been in this business for almost a century, the amount of things they have outsource to others companies is too big, making the transition to EVs means they would have to break long time relationship with many companies due to the low numbers of parts EVs uses compared to ICEs, and parts EVs do not even use, and they would not be making most the EVs, they would design it but everything would be made by third parties, many automakers are using LG batteries just to name one thing, in order to created an EV, an automaker would need to put dozens of companies.

Tesla has an easy time because they started full electric, everything in Tesla cars in build inside their own factory, rather than take a gasoline car and trying to make it electric, they build a car from scratch. And that is not counting the battery factory they are building in Nevada.

Adding more to the fire, Apple is known to be working on its own Tesla like car, the amount of attention Apple is able to get from the media and the general public is enough to shake the whole car industry.

[WestIndianArchie]

There is a big case working it's way through the courts about whether a farmer, or more likely his mechanic can fix the tractor that he OWNS, because repairs might involve him dealing with the software. Congress had to pass an exception to DMCA just so you could root your phone legally.

Is Musk going to make sure his software is open source?

I'm all for progress, but all I've done for the better part of a decade is watch how big banks, oil companies, big pharma, etc screw over consumers and get slapped on the wrist.

Government is not incentivized to stop abuses and crimes. (Sometimes it's the people meant to protect that are willfully doing damage)

WIA

[Ingocnito]

The entire solar / electric direct industry is based on 1) % efficiency of panels. I.e. Cadmium telluride, versus, mono crystalline, versus poly crystalline, and MOST importantly 2) Battery quality. << the true bottle neck.

The proper term is "inverter" not converter. Solar power is DC, needs to be converted by way of an inverter to AC for safe home use. In fact solar's the cleanest sine wave power you can get, hardly needs conditioning. If you really needed DC power, you could apportion part of your solar array for DC usage. or, I guess, "convert" it post-AC inversion back to DC.

However, with a house, if the goal is to NOT have a "grid-tied" system - for which MOST local power companies don't pay SHIT for buy back power (extra power generated by your solar array you don't use up real time - which also effectively you're using the power grid as your "battery back up"), then it all boils down to having quality, not extremely expensive, very long lasting batteries. << I'm all for this.

The ideal scenario would be a poly crystalline solar array, with cutting edge, yet somehow cheap battery bank, that would never run short on power under heavy load.

Then there's better, and worse "solar windows" depending on your location on the Earth. Solar and wind charts exist to test if your area is a viable source for renewable energy, per available technology. Fossil fuels will forever remain in use to some extent, simply due to the energy intensity per therm, watt, Kvar, kWh, HP, calorie, or whatever measure you chose... and location dependence.

There is however little reason much of the SW USA, and southern states couldn't benefit from some form of "cost effective" solar power. They're simply in prime area. Yet, and ironically, with Obama dems in office we currently have the cheapest gasoline we've seen in years, and providing it's not all coming from oil sands, world market oil wells almost always produce natural gas as well. Not to mention, USA is sitting on a shit load of natural gas. This is of course all ironic since a major environmental push has been made by Obama n crew.

So in the "energy market," if ANY fome of energy becomes cheap and abundant, it drives down the cost of ALL energy if that abundance remains for long enough. Simply put, whatever is the cheapest source, will be used to create electricity. Natural gas driven power plants.

If solar is cost prohibitive compared to fossil fuels, solar won't take off no matter what. I do understand the value of buying "from the grid" during non-peak hours, but again, you're STILL grid tied. And WTF do you think the power companies DO to people trying to "break free" but still enjoy all the benefits of cheap off-peak battery stored power from them? Fuck you in the ass with extra fees and charges.

Side note: GHG and carbon emissions due to space conditioning of "buildings," when compared to automobiles, is actually greater.

So it's a solar battery off-grid system with mysteriously cheap and better battery bank than EVER seen before VERSUS an increasingly abundant fossil fuel driven energy market.

I don't see marketable viability for the next 20 years for this, at minimum. The ROI isn't there. Having been an energy services specialist for a few years, working closely with the supply-side, and demand-side energy managers at my previous job, I'm confident it what I've presented here.

[WestIndianArchie]

Slightly OT

But it seems like "excess" solar energy could be used for something other than
- sending back to the grid
- wasting in some battery someplace.

There are machines out there, think of them as pieces of capital.
If you ran them more often, you could do more/make more stuff.

Maybe all of that excess power could be used to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, or make salt water into fresh water through reverse osmosis.

If we were talking about companies with gobs of cash lying around earning 2% in government bonds, or sending out dividends, surely they could use that money to make acquisitions or expand the labor force, or beef up R&D, or smooth out customer service.

People, if they thought about it, could use that resource to make their lives better.

Part of the overall problem is looking at the world through an entirely financial perspective.

WIA

[Latinopan]

(01-21-2016 09:13 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

There is a big case working it's way through the courts about whether a farmer, or more likely his mechanic can fix the tractor that he OWNS, because repairs might involve him dealing with the software. Congress had to pass an exception to DMCA just so you could root your phone legally.

Is Musk going to make sure his software is open source?

I'm all for progress, but all I've done for the better part of a decade is watch how big banks, oil companies, big pharma, etc screw over consumers and get slapped on the wrist.

Government is not incentivized to stop abuses and crimes. (Sometimes it's the people meant to protect that are willfully doing damage)

WIA

Tesla went open source in 2014
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ompetitor/

-------------------------------
He said Tesla could make a 400 miles Model S but cost would be very high, considering about 40% of the price for the Model S is for the battery pack alone, a Model S with 400 miles would cost 200,000 or more.