techno-ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Not sure if this Redstate piece has been quoted/linked here; "EV's enter the 'total failure' phase"

Quote:

---

There is no better example of government idiocy than the top-down push for electric vehicles, which at this point has cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. They were a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and even then, they turned out to not be a solution at all. It's not just about cost either. How useful is a car that loses most of its range when it gets below freezing? How useful is a car that can't be driven for more than a few hours in a row, even in perfect conditions?

---

Quote:

---

Ford and GM aren't cutting EV production because they want to. They are doing so because the market is forcing them to. People want reliable vehicles that meet their needs. They don't want to pay a five-figure repair bill for a new battery or because an electric motor failed. Gas-powered cars are not only far more capable, they are cheaper when it comes to acquisition, maintenance, and operating costs. The nexus of spending money on fuel vs. electricity is so far apart that you'll be buying the aforementioned new battery long before you approach any actual savings.

So again, it's worth asking whether EVs have any redeeming qualities in their current iteration. They aren't renewable, and rely on toxic chemicals mined by literal child slaves in Africa that eventually require replacement. They are less capable than your average gas-powered vehicle. They typically cost more new but don't hold their value because the batteries are so expensive to replace, meaning buyers get hit coming and going. The list goes on.

Aren't they saving the planet, though? I'd suggest not given they still rely on power largely created by fossil fuels anyway. So, what's the point? All EVs are doing is empowering China, which produces 70 percent of the world's EVs and controls most of the mining of the materials needed to build them. How many billions of dollars are American companies going to continue to throw away pursuing this government-pushed pipedream? The answer is likely quite a few billion more. Eventually, the market always wins, though.

---

---

Devastating. Absolutely devastating.

---

Your right. This is the absolute pinnacle of well researched and unbiased journalism. It is 100% accurate with an overwhelming number of sources supporting their conclusions.

Ag with kids said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Braking Distance 60-0 mph

Model 3: 114 ft
Camry: 122 ft

---

114 ft you say. Try 152 feet. And Tesla claims 133 ft. So you still are wrong even by Tesla claims.

Tesla 152 feet 60-0mph 7 feet longer than a F150 Truck

---

Looking at dates on articles is one of the first rules of the internet. My link is for the 2024 Model 3, yours is for the 2018 Model 3.

Nine days later, Consumer Reports has updated its review to give the Model 3 its recommendation. What changed? Over the weekend, Tesla pushed out an over-the-air software update, one that the carmaker says tweaked the calibration of the vehicle's antilock braking algorithm. That cut the vehicle's 60 mph stopping distance a whole 19 feet, to 133, about average for a luxury compact sedan.

---

Your first article with the 114 ft also says this:

Quote:

---

U.S. production cars will almost certainly stretch that braking distance and shrink that lateral g number with their all-season tires.

---

---

The point wasn't that a Model 3 stops in exactly 114 ft and a Camry stops in exactly 122 ft, it was that the difference in stopping distance between an EV and a comparable ICE vehicle does not substantially favor the ICE vehicle, which was the claim for the cause in differences in accident rates.

The difference in accident rates is a result of the drivers being new to a different driving profile, not an inherent lack of safety in the vehicle technology. Adapting to a one pedal driving system and faster acceleration takes time, which is why the difference in accident rates falls off over time.


Is the accident rate of a driver switching from a sedan to a full size truck higher? What about the reverse? I'd bet so.

I'm old enough to remember driving big, heavy (more steel even in the skin) cars that took a LOT longer to stop than modern cars. The stopping improvement has helped to improve the death rate due to crashes.
Hope we don't lose too much of that to heavier (mass) EV's.

If people were really worried about curb weight and stopping distances, they wouldn't be buying millions of full-size trucks and SUVs to use as daily drivers.

Tip: going from a "summer" tire to an all-season tire increases the stopping distance 99.9999999% of the time no matter what is powering a vehicle. Tires are a huge piece to the braking capacity of a vehicle.

tk for tu juan said:

---

If people were really worried about curb weight and stopping distances, they wouldn't be buying millions of full-size trucks and SUVs to use as daily drivers.

Tip: going from a "summer" tire to an all-season tire increases the stopping distance 99.9999999% of the time no matter what is powering a vehicle. Tires are a huge piece to the braking capacity of a vehicle.

---

I agree that "all-season" tires are not optimal. Tires do have performance ratings.
Once, back in the late 70's, I got four cheap new tires on my fairly new Camaro that were so bad that the least bit of fast braking threw the car out of control. Changed those right away.
Got a $1000 settlement from General Tire (who are generally pretty good) when one of their highly rated new tires blew out on that by then old Camaro which my young wife was driving and caused her to spin out, fortunately without much damage.

Rongagin71 said:

---

I'm old enough to remember driving big, heavy (more steel even in the skin) cars that took a LOT longer to stop than modern cars. The stopping improvement has helped to improve the death rate due to crashes.
Hope we don't lose too much of that to heavier (mass) EV's.

---

The average passenger vehicle weight today is above where it was in the mid 70s. There was a big drop to from 4,100 to 3,200 pounds by 1981 and it has gradually increased to where in 2021 it was 4,200. Think about how much bigger many vehicles are now vs in the 70s. The urban assault vehicle is a relatively new invention.

Note: Sedans are still about 400 pounds lighter than mid 1970s cars but they have been trending upward as well.

Yeah, a bigger car/SUV is naturally going to weigh more than a small car of the same mass characteristics.
People nowadays rightly think they are safer in larger vehicles.
I was talking about how massive cars used to be - that offered some protection but also more force when poor brakes/tires etc caused a collision...and this mass is what I fear in EV's.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Yeah, a bigger car/SUV is naturally going to weigh more than a small car of the same mass characteristics.
People nowadays rightly think they are safer in larger vehicles.
I was talking about how massive cars used to be - that offered some protection but also more force when poor brakes/tires etc caused a collision...and this mass is what I fear in EV's.

---

Do you fear all the SUVs and pickups that weigh more than most EVs especially the ones that have been raised so their bumper us above your vehicle's bumper?

For the record, I do think about the SUVs and trucks when I am driving a Vette especially when the driver is talking on the phone or doing their makeup or all the other stupid stuff people do when driving these days.

Yeah, I do.
I never obsessed about it but it is one of the reasons that I sold all my cars when I retired and started using bus, Lyft, and rental car as needed.

8:45 in video. Soft off-road suspension and 37" all-terrain tires also not good for stopping distances on pavement

hph6203 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Braking Distance 60-0 mph

Model 3: 114 ft
Camry: 122 ft

---

114 ft you say. Try 152 feet. And Tesla claims 133 ft. So you still are wrong even by Tesla claims.

Tesla 152 feet 60-0mph 7 feet longer than a F150 Truck

---

Looking at dates on articles is one of the first rules of the internet. My link is for the 2024 Model 3, yours is for the 2018 Model 3.

Nine days later, Consumer Reports has updated its review to give the Model 3 its recommendation. What changed? Over the weekend, Tesla pushed out an over-the-air software update, one that the carmaker says tweaked the calibration of the vehicle's antilock braking algorithm. That cut the vehicle's 60 mph stopping distance a whole 19 feet, to 133, about average for a luxury compact sedan.

---

Your first article with the 114 ft also says this:

Quote:

---

U.S. production cars will almost certainly stretch that braking distance and shrink that lateral g number with their all-season tires.

---

---

The point wasn't that a Model 3 stops in exactly 114 ft and a Camry stops in exactly 122 ft, it was that the difference in stopping distance between an EV and a comparable ICE vehicle does not substantially favor the ICE vehicle, which was the claim for the cause in differences in accident rates.

The difference in accident rates is a result of the drivers being new to a different driving profile, not an inherent lack of safety in the vehicle technology. Adapting to a one pedal driving system and faster acceleration takes time, which is why the difference in accident rates falls off over time.


Is the accident rate of a driver switching from a sedan to a full size truck higher? What about the reverse? I'd bet so.

---

If you have a point like that, you should probably post it. Not in response to someone refuting your data.

It would make things flow better around here...

Rongagin71 said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

If people were really worried about curb weight and stopping distances, they wouldn't be buying millions of full-size trucks and SUVs to use as daily drivers.

Tip: going from a "summer" tire to an all-season tire increases the stopping distance 99.9999999% of the time no matter what is powering a vehicle. Tires are a huge piece to the braking capacity of a vehicle.

---

I agree that "all-season" tires are not optimal. Tires do have performance ratings.
Once, back in the late 70's, I got four cheap new tires on my fairly new Camaro that were so bad that the least bit of fast braking threw the car out of control. Changed those right away.
Got a $1000 settlement from General Tire (who are generally pretty good) when one of their highly rated new tires blew out on that by then old Camaro which my young wife was driving and caused her to spin out, fortunately without much damage.

---

I drive my Scat Pack when it's nice weather. When it looks like it might rain, I switch to my Rubicon.

The tires are the main reason.

Was pretty clear to anyone that actually read the preceding posts about EVs having significantly longer stopping distances that wasn't trying to get a gotcha over some minutiae rather than focusing on the broader point.

You didn't refute data, what you did was point out that summer tires stop faster than all season tires without providing proof that a Model 3 using all season tires stops significantly slower than a Camry with all season tires.

hph6203 said:

---

Was pretty clear to anyone that actually read the preceding posts about EVs having significantly longer stopping distances that wasn't trying to get a gotcha over some minutiae rather than focusing on the broader point.

You didn't refute data, what you did was point out that summer tires stop faster than all season tires without providing proof that a Model 3 using all season tires stops significantly slower than a Camry with all season tires.

---

You WERE trying to refute data. And left out an important part of the data.

And I did refute the little data you tried to post as a "gotcha". With YOUR source.

And then when you posted new data to try and refute another poster, your data just backed up what they said.

There was no data in the post I was refuting. It was a claim that EVs stop significantly slower than ICE vehicles due to their weight.

You didn't refute any data, you pointed out that the Model 3 was using summer tires without any knowledge of the type of tires that the Camry had nor the stopping distance between the two vehicles if they used stock tires.

The article they posted in refutation of my post was from 6 years prior and claimed a stopping distance of 152 feet for a Model 3, which was perhaps accurate at the time the article they posted was written but remained accurate for all of a week when Tesla sent a software update to correct the ABS system/stopping profile reducing stopping distance by 19 ft in consumer reports' test.

The point they were trying to make was that current stopping distance was 152 ft rather than the 114 ft listed in the Motortrend article, so no I did not post an article that confirmed their claim.

You would have to assume that all season tires rather than summer tires would add 38 ft to the stopping distance for their claim to be accurate. Edmunds did a test of all season, summer and winter tires and found a differentiation between the all season and summer tires of 10 ft on dry ground, meaning that even with all season tires the gap in stopping distance between a Camry and Model 3 is unlikely to be significant.

Here's a video contemporaneous to the article from Consumer Reports/my article in response testing the stopping distance before and after the software update. Their test with stock tires? 122 ft.


In short, you're wrong and using some piece of minutiae to try to appear correct. Point remains that the stopping distance between an EV and comparable ICE vehicle is not that significant.

hph6203 said:

---

There was no data in the post I was refuting. It was a claim that EVs stop significantly slower than ICE vehicles due to their weight.

You didn't refute any data, you pointed out that the Model 3 was using summer tires without any knowledge of the type of tires that the Camry had nor the stopping distance between the two vehicles if they used stock tires.

The article they posted in refutation of my post was from 6 years prior and claimed a stopping distance of 152 feet for a Model 3, which was perhaps accurate at the time the article they posted was written but remained accurate for all of a week when Tesla sent a software update to correct the ABS system/stopping profile reducing stopping distance by 19 ft in consumer reports' test.

The point they were trying to make was that current stopping distance was 152 ft rather than the 114 ft listed in the Motortrend article, so no I did not post an article that confirmed their claim.

You would have to assume that all season tires rather than summer tires would add 38 ft to the stopping distance for their claim to be accurate. Edmunds did a test of all season, summer and winter tires and found a differentiation between the all season and summer tires of 10 ft on dry ground, meaning that even with all season tires the gap in stopping distance between a Camry and Model 3 is unlikely to be significant.

Here's a video contemporaneous to the article from Consumer Reports/my article in response testing the stopping distance before and after the software update. Their test with stock tires? 122 ft.


In short, you're wrong and using some piece of minutiae to try to appear correct. Point remains that the stopping distance between an EV and comparable ICE vehicle is not that significant.

---

No, I didn't refute it. Your source refuted it.

You posted 114 ft for stopping distance. THEN, you posted 133 ft when challenged.

I just pointed out that your ORIGINAL source said the 114 ft wouldn't hold with US production tires...you know...the things they put on the cars in the US...YOUR SOURCE said the data would be unreliable in the real world.

Don't post data if you don't really understand it...

Oh god, is this going to be like that debate you tried with me on the other thread where you argued that Teslas were "level 3" when you didn't even really understand what level 3 meant?

The 114ft brake test occurred in the real world when the refreshed 2024 Model 3 was released in Europe and Motor Trend tested it.

They're production tires. They're just the tires that get put on the vehicles for the European and Asian markets and they're summer tires. They're not unavailable to a U.S. consumer they're just not the default. The 114 ft stopping distance wasn't the point, it was that the stopping distance of an EV is not significantly longer than an ICE vehicle. A person that doesn't have a propensity for being blinded by minutiae, like you tend to do, could easily intuit that from my post and the posts preceding it. That was the same issue in the autonomy discussion.

If a person were to desire improving the stopping distance of a U.S. Model 3 during the non-winter months they're more than capable of buying the tires. They're Hankook Ventus Se Evo3 tires.



The second article I posted did not refute the first article I posted for the same reason that the article the initial responder posted did not refute it. They're old ass articles from the initial production phase of the Model 3 and not only have there been many mechanical and software updates to the vehicles since then there have also been efforts to improve tire performance for EVs. They are outdated and it was merely an illustration of how rapidly information relating to EVs, and especially Tesla, becomes stale.

The entirety of the Elon's "save the planet" claim looks like fraud. Even if man made global warming were real, I am struggling to find a redeeming quality of EVs that is beneficial for the planet.

The United States Department Of Energy Has Been Letting Electric Vehicle Manufacturers Lie To The Public About Their Efficiency

EV manufacturers can “Multiply the efficiency” of their vehicles

“There's a bombshell electric vehicle cheating scandal. Turns out Biden's EVs aren't… pic.twitter.com/sbCM5WPgv5

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 22, 2024

Quote:

---

The United States Department Of Energy Has Been Letting Electric Vehicle Manufacturers Lie To The Public About Their Efficiency

EV manufacturers can "Multiply the efficiency" of their vehicles

"There's a bombshell electric vehicle cheating scandal. Turns out Biden's EVs aren't near as efficient as they claim."

"Emission cheating scandals, they seem to be a dime a dozen. Right? In the past 8 years, 2 major automakers were pursued by regulators for misrepresenting emissions records.

Volkswagen and Daimler paid billions in settlements and fines, but now 2 Washington attorneys say the government has its fingers on the scale When it comes to fuel efficiency of electric cars, it's the government cutting corners and misleading the public. Listen.

Well, it is a form of corporate welfare hidden tax on consumers. The whole point of this multiplier, they call it, is to Privatize the benefits so Tesla can sell credits and pass on those savings to its buyers, but socialize the cost.

Here's how it works. Under a Department of Energy rule, carmakers multiply the efficiency of electric cars by a factor of 6.67. Test a 2022 Tesla Model Y in a lab, and you'll find the vehicle getting the equivalent of 65 miles per gallon. But according to the government, the model y's equivalent fuel efficiency is 430 miles per gallon. Now wondering why you haven't heard about this before?

It's hidden buried deep in the federal register on page 36,987 of volume 65. Probably didn't see that, did you? But wait, it gets worse. Not only is the government helping companies exaggerate their efficiency, they're also handing out compliance credits on the basis of those scores, Which are tradable for, get this, cash. The credits amount to millions and millions of dollars."

---

Not sure how you can accuse the manufacturers of cheating when they are using the government regulation calculations. Now is the government tipping the scale for the credits that shouldn't exist in the first place? Yes, but if you were a manufacturer, even if you don't agree with the rule, would you turn down the benefit?

I didn't say they were cheating. I said their claims are fraudulent. The master cheaters ARE our government, and yes, they've enabled the illusion that EVs are saving the planet.

However, Tesla and Elon know the numbers are bogus. Compliance credits are issued which Telsa can sell - they amount to socialized welfare for EVs. It might be legal, but it's theft. Add that to other claims that amount to "saving the planet" with electric cars, and the mountain of BS grows.

willtackleforfood said:

---

I didn't say they were cheating. I said their claims are fraudulent. The master cheaters ARE our government, and yes, they've enabled the illusion that EVs are saving the planet.

However, Tesla and Elon know the numbers are bogus. Compliance credits are issued which Telsa can sell - they amount to socialized welfare for EVs. It might be legal, but it's theft. Add that to other claims that amount to "saving the planet" with electric cars, and the mountain of BS grows.

---

The tweet you posted called it cheating and you saying they are fraudulent is essentially saying they are committing a crime. So how is Tesla supposed to calculate the credits? Use a different method than the government protocol? These credits are sold to other automakers to make CAFE standards. They shouldn't exist but the government wrote the rules so are you saying if you were the CEO of an EV company you wouldn't take advantage of the rule?

Go show me where Tesla or any EV maker is claiming the mileage range the credit calculation shows? Most of them now just show range which is again based on EPA testing procedures just like MPG for ICE vehicles.

I have said many times that EVs aren't saving the planet although they are materially more energy efficient as many studies have shown because of the inherent difference in thermal efficiency of an ICE vs a large scale power plant combined with an electric motor.

Harvard Claims 'Holy Grail' EV Battery Breakthrough. But When Will We See It? (thedrive.com)

Good news - Solid State batteries are getting closer.
Bad News - sounds like that these will require more lithium than the current battery offerings....

The petroleum equivalent fuel economy factor (PEF) mentioned above has been around for a while . The history of it can be seen in the proposed rule change submitted last year

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/11/2023-06869/petroleum-equivalent-fuel-economy-calculation

The 2000 final rule (10 CFR Part 474)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-06-12/pdf/00-14446.pdf

From the rule change discussion:

Quote:

---

This approach demonstrates how the current PEF value leads to overvaluation of EVs in determining fleetwide CAFE compliance, which allows manufacturers to maintain less efficient ICE vehicles in their fleet by utilizing a few EV models to comply with the CAFE standards. As noted in the Petition, "excessively high imputed fuel economy values for EVs means that a relatively small number of EVs [could] mathematically guarantee compliance without meaningful improvements in the real-world average fuel economy of automakers' overall fleets." 86 FR 73995. This runs counter to the need of the nation to conserve energy, particularly petroleum. Encouraging adoption of EVs can reduce petroleum consumption but giving too much credit for that adoption can lead to increased net petroleum use because it enables lower fuel economy among conventional vehicles, which represent by far the majority of vehicles sold. Moreover, contrary to the original intent behind the fuel content factor, "excessively high imputed fuel economy values for EVs" can also act as a disincentive to manufacturers to produce additional EVs if manufacturers can achieve CAFE compliance with a relatively small number of EVs.

---

munch96 said:

---

Harvard Claims 'Holy Grail' EV Battery Breakthrough. But When Will We See It? (thedrive.com)

Good news - Solid State batteries are getting closer.
Bad News - sounds like that these will require more lithium than the current battery offerings....

---

Harvard, eh? Did they copy this from somewhere?

That and it is an 100% DEI compliant battery.

Quote:

---

Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche make game-changing announcement about future electric models: 'This is great news'

"Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Scout Motors brands to implement the North American Charging Standard in future electric vehicles" #NACS

---

This is a good move by some very large companies.

The future is electric...

Lamborghini!?!?!?




The future of EV batteries? Lamborghini licenses new organic, fast-charging battery tech | TechRadar

I mean, wow. You just have to give it to the commies, they are all-in on BEV's for the serfs.

BYD's Zhengzhou factory isn't even finished and can easily fit every single Tesla factory, a few times over. The factory is 98% automated, and is already the world's most advanced auto and battery factory.

You could fit over 12,000 football fields in this factory. pic.twitter.com/dYiJhnO5Zc

— Taylor Ogan (@TaylorOgan) January 24, 2024

Watch your fingers around the cyber truck. This thing is a menace in more ways than one.

https://insideevs.com/news/705904/tesla-cybertruck-finger-pinch-guillotine/amp/

Model 3 absolutely plowing through a flooded street in San Diego pic.twitter.com/n1v4zpRATV

— Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) January 24, 2024

Video is obviously fake. I was assured that all Teslas are useless in disasters and immediately explode into fireballs in contact with water

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Model 3 absolutely plowing through a flooded street in San Diego pic.twitter.com/n1v4zpRATV

— Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) January 24, 2024

---

Can't do that in most internal combustion engines. I wouldn't recommend it in any vehicle that are specially designed for it but in an emergency…

I doubt those windshield wipers were doing much good.

Do Telsa's have a water/humidity sensor inside of their battery packs? If not I would not drive though submerged water since you don't know what is under there. I believe they are IP67 rated which means they can be submerged at 1 meter for 30 minutes but thats not 100% of the case.

We have water and humidity sensors in our water cooled packs incase something fails or water happens to get inside the pack (normally by them being punctured and water gets in that way).

It doesn't take much water or dust to short a lithium ion battery pack and normally when one shorts the entire pack needs to be replaced.

We just had 2 batteries fail in one of the first packs we ever built and will soon find out how the rest of the pack looks. If everything else looks good we will replace those and use the pack as a spare. These old style lithium batteries were in the field around 3 years with over 20,000 hours and close to 3,000 cycles. The newer batteries are supposed to last twice as long so we will see. I say this since the old batteries are rated for 2,000 cycles and we just had 2 fail in that time so the battery manufacturers are accurate with their ratings, its the car manufacturers that are lying.