[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Sport bike guys that hang around car communities love to think they are special. They don't seem to understand that most of us can afford top tier sports bikes, we just don't like bikes lol

You mean, "They don't seem to understand that most of us can afford top tier sports bikes, we just are scared of sport bikes and lack the skills to ride one"... Lol.

The point you missed about ZX's comment are for sport bike riders, until the very recent advent of a few EVs (in the past 4 years or so) almost any car was incredibly slow compared to a sport bike, especially liter-class ones.

But again, what's the real purpose of the EV? Right, to save the planet by concerving energy. Sucking out electrons to hit 60 in 2.5 seconds is a waste of energy and just pollutes the planet more, and why the Govenment doesn't subsidize the Plaid. No one was interested in EVs until Musk started to make them fast. It's just a side-attribute of the electric motor drivetrain and computer-aided driving. BFD. (Skil-less) drag racing EV is still just a waste of energy. Your great great great grandchildren will still need to live underground to keep away from the heat. Lol.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You mean, "They don't seem to understand that most of us can afford top tier sports bikes, we just are scared of sport bikes and lack the skills to ride one"... Lol.

The point you missed about ZX's comment are for sport bike riders, until the very recent advent of a few EVs (in the past 4 years or so) almost any car was incredibly slow compared to a sport bike, especially liter-class ones.

But again, what's the real purpose of the EV? Right, to save the planet by concerving energy. Sucking out electrons to hit 60 in 2.5 seconds is a waste of energy and just pollutes the planet more, and why the Govenment doesn't subsidize the Plaid. No one was interested in EVs until Musk started to make them fast. It's just a side-attribute of the electric motor drivetrain and computer-aided driving. BFD. (Skil-less) drag racing EV is still just a waste of energy. Your great great great grandchildren will still need to live underground to keep away from the heat. Lol.

I think EVs are a little different to regular cars in that sense... all the ones with a HIGH range will be fast... this is just the nature of a larger battery. A larger battery = more range and faster.

I've seen virtually no EVs with a large battery pack and a high range that are slow... because with batteries that would work against itself.

I suppose a manufacturer COULD in theory slap in a big battery and limit the draw of power to conserve range which would by default make the car slower... kind of curious why no one has done that. I think a 6 second 0-60 Tesla Model 3 that has a true 400 mile range would be a strong seller... but then maybe too many people would complain that's too slow for a 50k car.



...also on the separate bike discussion... BIKES are not like Cars at all... I have a friend that too has an S1000RR and his opinions on the few very fast cars he's ridden are that a Fast car feels way different. In a fast car, you don't get the sensation of speed like in a bike and a bike doesn't remotely have the torque of a car so the feeling will be totally different. He said top end, the bike will feel faster unless you have a 9 second car... on the streets, a fast car will FEEL faster due to torque alone... that's before we get into handling and the fact that a car can take corners far faster (this coming from someone that tracked his bike).

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You mean, "They don't seem to understand that most of us can afford top tier sports bikes, we just are scared of sport bikes and lack the skills to ride one"... Lol.

The point you missed about ZX's comment are for sport bike riders, until the very recent advent of a few EVs (in the past 4 years or so) almost any car was incredibly slow compared to a sport bike, especially liter-class ones.

But again, what's the real purpose of the EV? Right, to save the planet by concerving energy. Sucking out electrons to hit 60 in 2.5 seconds is a waste of energy and just pollutes the planet more, and why the Govenment doesn't subsidize the Plaid. No one was interested in EVs until Musk started to make them fast. It's just a side-attribute of the electric motor drivetrain and computer-aided driving. BFD. (Skil-less) drag racing EV is still just a waste of energy. Your great great great grandchildren will still need to live underground to keep away from the heat. Lol.

Thank you for succinctly summarizing with the FTFY:

"They don't seem to understand that most of us can afford top tier sports bikes, we just are scared of sport bikes and lack the skills to ride one"

And as you said, anyone can just stomp their right foot down in a car to drag race. Even doing mindless drag racing on a bike takes some skill in keeping the front end down and maintain stability/traction. And with your point about people bragging about how quick performance EVs are to do these mindless drag races to justify their purchases is totally counter to the marketing propaganda of them being green.

I don't need to flex with being a keyboard warrior about how "special" I am. Never said I was. But I think I know a bit about straight line and corner speed when I can produce the results below. This year at VIR. And I'm not the fastest guy on track.




I'm on this car community because I'm also car enthusiast and will always have a performance oriented car in addition to a street bike(s) that are really race bikes with turn signals and headlights.

[B767capt]

A friend sent this to me yesterday. It's long but peels the onion back on the green energy push. There is a lot there I never knew.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You mean, "They don't seem to understand that most of us can afford top tier sports bikes, we just are scared of sport bikes and lack the skills to ride one"... Lol.

Lol thanks for proving my point. No one is scared. You aren’t special, no one above the age of 25 is impressed by your little bicycle.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by B767capt

It's long but peels the onion back on the green energy push. There is a lot there I never knew.

WARNING: This film features, empirical, verifiable scientific data and common sense so if those concepts cause you stress, you will be better served by speeches from the world economic forum, John Kerry of anything by Karl Marx.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Lol thanks for proving my point. No one is scared. You aren’t special, no one above the age of 25 is impressed by your little bicycle.

Nah man, sportbikes scare you. It's okay.

No one over 55 is impressed by your over sized Hot Wheels Sizzler either. Talent required... move flexible joint above the right foot. Lol.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The point I was making is you are using a stripped Model 3 as an example that EV cost the same or lower as the average $48K ICE. It is only because the Govenment subsidizes the price by $7,500 (18%) that the price gets anywhere near an ICE sedan. Also, if the average price of a car is now $48K, that is not reflective of every manufurer's low ball, no-option trim. Adding FSD is adding the "tech" Tesla's are famous for and 5.8 secs. to 60 is really slow for the "famously fast" Tesla Model 3 (just ask BGM). The lowball stripper Accord LX is $27.3K. The price difference to the stripped Model 3 buys 70,000 miles of fuel for the Accord.

Or plug in the $26,300 Camry SE instead of the Accord LX, same difference. The Camry sells about 100,000 more units per year than the Model 3.

Added $15k Full Self Driving option to the Tesla to make sure we weren't buying a stripped Tesla. You found color, wheels and $15k self driving to even things out.

0-60 in the Accord/Camry is what? Looking for cheap transportation and a Tesla is too slow.

Yes a base Accord is cheaper than a base Tesla Model 3. I never said it wasn't. Post I replied to said not everyone can afford a $50k-$70k and I said many people should never buy a new car but there are EV's far less than $50k, $48k is the average price of cars sold so yes a significant part of the population is buying cars that cost more than this.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Nah man, sportbikes scare you. It's okay.

No one over 55 is impressed by your over sized Hot Wheels Sizzler either. Talent required... move flexible joint above the right foot. Lol.

Maybe if you work a little harder you can buy a fast car instead of little toys lol.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

Added $15k Full Self Driving option to the Tesla to make sure we weren't buying a stripped Tesla. You found color, wheels and $15k self driving to even things out.

0-60 in the Accord/Camry is what? Looking for cheap transportation and a Tesla is too slow.

Yes a base Accord is cheaper than a base Tesla Model 3. I never said it wasn't. Post I replied to said not everyone can afford a $50k-$70k and I said many people should never buy a new car but there are EV's far less than $50k, $48k is the average price of cars sold so yes a significant part of the population is buying cars that cost more than this.

Lol, nope.

The numbers I quoted in my post were a stripped Model 3 to an Accord LX (including the tax credit for the Tesla), i.e. both lowest price versions of each car. The Model 3 is a far smaller car by 8.5 cubic feet of passenger space and weighs 650 pounds more. And it goes just 273 miles then needs to sit for 30 minutes to "recover" just 80% of its range (218 miles - under ideal conditions). The Accord easily goes 450+ miles on a charge and recovers 100% of its range in 5 minutes in any season of the year.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

Maybe if you work a little harder you can buy a fast car instead of little toys lol.

Lol.

Nah, fast cars are just larger targets for the police to hit with LIDAR and RADAR. I was blasting past turbo 911's back in the early '90s. Once you've embarrassed a few gold-chained Porche giggalos, it gets old.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Lol.

Nah, I was blasting past turbo 911's back in the early '90s. Once you've embarrassed a few gold-chained Porche giggalos, it gets old.

And yet here you are remembering them 30 years later and they forgot you exist

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

And yet here you are remembering them 30 years later and they forgot you exist

Not the dude (and his girlfriend) I smoked going under Washington Circle circa 1993. I'm sure he remembers.

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by B767capt

A friend sent this to me yesterday. It's long but peels the onion back on the green energy push. There is a lot there I never knew.

It's amazing how people aren't born with a factory installed BS detector. It's also amazing that people aren't clued into the fact that the earth has only so many natural resources. Using this quacks logic we should just not do anything. Hot enough for you today? Just about everything he says is just wrong. Below is just enough reading for the TLDR crowd but over the head of the Prager U crowd.

Mark Mills is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank with a long history of rejecting any government involvement in markets. This has left the group with a reflexive loathing of any attempts to address global warming.

Mills himself is not necessarily a reliable source on renewable power, as he's been heavily involved in companies focused on nuclear power and fossil fuel extraction. Mills has also spoken at the climate meeting hosted by the notorious trolls at the Heartland Institute.

All that is to say that my expectations here were low; the reality turned out to be worse.

The problems with the video go beyond simple matters of bias; the whole thing is just terribly argued. We can't possibly go into detail on all of the problems, but we can list a few issues that stood out.

Mills complains that our best solar technology is only 26 percent efficient. But that's only true for silicon panels; our best, most expensive panels can clear 40 percent efficiency. The focus on efficiency, however, is also a distraction, because solar panel efficiency is already high enough for solar farms to be economical.
The same issue arises when Mills complains about the efficiency of wind turbines. Is it as high as we would like? No. But who cares? Wind turbines already generate power economically. Improvements would be terrific, but they aren't necessary to make wind and solar work cheaply in the real world.
Mills suggests that the only solution to the peaks and troughs (or "intermittency") of wind and solar is batteries. But there are plenty of additional options, like compressed air storage, pumped hydro, or even fossil fuel plants with carbon capture.
Mills focuses all his attention on what he considers to be the limitations of lithium batteries. But there is plenty of research on other battery chemistries that use different metals entirely.
Mills argues that the lack of batteries is why wind and solar power aren't producing more than three percent of the world's power. Note that he's using "power" to get this figure. If instead he used "electricity," wind and solar now produce over 10 percent globally, starting from zero a few decades ago.
Mills claims that lithium and cobalt are rare earth elements. They are not. This isn't important to his argument, but it's extremely sloppy.
Mills then says he has environmental concerns about the resource extraction needed to build solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. This a valid concern to have! But it ignores the massive environmental damage caused by fossil fuel extraction and the production of equipment to burn it.
Mills does a similar thing with human rights abuses in places where these materials are sourced. Again, a worthy concern. But it remains a problem for fossil fuels as well.
Mills acts like it's not possible to recycle any of the hardware involved in wind, solar, and batteries. This is an area where work remains to be done, but as a blanket statement, it's certainly not true.
Mills calls our fossil fuel supply "almost inexhaustible." Come on. This is just obviously not true.
Mills compares the rate of oil extraction to the rate of power generation by wind turbines... for no obvious reason whatsoever.
Ironically, Mills closes his mess of arguments by saying, "We live in the real world." But the video presents no evidence that he does.

Overall, the video shows a sloppy disregard for facts and offers a biased presentation of the ones Mills gets right, along with a lot of misdirection. If solar panels were so inefficient that we would need to pave over all of Arizona and New Mexico with them, then yes, that would matter. But they're not, so why does Mills even bring it up as a concern?

There are some valid issues here, of course. Mills is right that environmental degradation, abusive labor practices, and repressive governments plague our supply chains. But they plague all our supply chains—not just those for renewable energy. And he's correct that we haven't figured out how to recycle wind turbine blades that reach their end of life. But again, that sort of issue isn't unique to renewable energy.

Critically, the one thing missing from all of this is a recognition of the risks of climate change, which is the whole reason we're trying to shift to wind and solar as quickly as possible. That is apparently because Mills doesn't see much in the way of risks. But here in the real world, those risks are considerable and rising. No discussion of renewable power is competent if those risks are ignored, yet Mills ignores them.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

So just running rough numbers for the difference between buying an Accord LX vs. a Tesla Model 3 RWD (279-mile range) with no options and how the tax credit affects the cost to the buyer for the Tesla. By not including the $7,500 tax credit to lower the pre-loan Tesla MSRP costs the buyer a $1,080 increase in total purchase cost (purchase price + down payment and total monthly payments - which includes the loan cost). If the buyer could add the -$7,500 to the Tesla's $41,880 MSRP it drops the down payment (using a 10% downpayment factor) by $750 and the monthly payment by $130.50. In summary, not including the $7,500 in the transaction costs the buyer $8,580 more in total cost, then taking the $7,500 off the back end once the buyer gets his tax credit (assuming he can get the entire $7,500 back - i.e. he needs to pay more than $7,500 per year in Federal income taxes). Numbers for a 60-month loan.

Now comparing the cheapo Accord to the Cheapo Tesla, the Accord is $7,900 less expensive than the Tesla in total purchase cost (applying the tax credit after the purchase of the Tesla). $7,900 buys a bit more than 2,400 gallons of gas, or 77,000 miles of free travel in the Accord. The Accord is a larger car, 105 cubic feet in passenger space compared to just 97 cubic feet for the Model 3. The Tesla does have about 3 cubic feet more cargo space because of its frunck. The Model 3 weighs 623 pounds more than the larger Accord. And the back seat of the Model 3 sucks (I've spent over an hour in one - it completely sucks for an adult to sit in it)

So, when I point out such facts, the Tesla fan boys (like BMG) retort with "but but but the tesla is waaaayyyy faster than the Accord" and "Ooohhh, the Tesla's tech is waaaayyy better than ANYTHING". Yet the cheapo Model 3 is 5.8 seconds to 60 (vs. the Accord LX at 6.6 seconds) and has none of the magic Tesla tech, which is why I added in FSD in my original post you complained about. The Accord LX has all the same basic drivers aids as the non-FSD Model 3 has (i.e. traffic driving assist and lane keeping). The Accord has a 420-mile range and recharges in 5 minutes anywhere in the USA, which completely negates Tesla's charging network attributes (which really applies to EV-to-EV comparisons).

I'm not trying to win any argument here, just pointing out facts that EV just are not near on par with their ICE equivalents when one compares the actual cost of them. Even at a Government subsidized price of $34K, the Model 3 is not worth buying when reviewing it as a transportation device. If you compare the cheapo base-model Model 3 to a compact car (which it really is) such as a Corolla, the picture for the Tesla gets much worse.

A cheap ICE is still cheaper than a cheap car. I never said it wasn't. The price differential continues to get smaller.

We are on a BMW forum and they have also never made sense from a financial point of view, yet I have never seen someone try to "run the numbers' to show there is something cheaper. If people only bought what they needed, about 90% of the population would drive minivans and Civic sized cars, BMW wouldn't exist. You decided to try to show the massive price difference between the Accord and Tesla (aided by $15k Full Self Driving as the base Tesla comes with almost everything), used to be people would try to run the numbers with a base 3 series. Look how far they have come.

I would never do a 60 month purchase with only 10% down so your finance numbers won't apply to me.

Charge at home, estimated fuel savings on the Tesla is $950 per year (12k miles per year). Drive it for 10 years and this is likely around $10k. Starts looking pretty close in overall cost? https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...id=46363&#tab1
Additional time and money savings on maintenance, likely repair over time.

I would charge the Tesla in roughly 30 seconds per week, never making an additional. Refueling would be far easier. Even the trip twice a year I still think it would be simpler overall. I don't believe I average 5 minutes refueling my car when the total process of getting to the gas station to back on route are taken into account.

0-60 almost a second faster doesn't give the owner bragging rights on being way faster? What is the number?

The price difference is getting smaller and the EV comes with a lot of benefits for the right buyer. There are definitely also some downsides. Depends on how you plan to use it.

If you only want the cheapest form of transportation available you should leave this site as it has never happened with a BMW.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Not the dude (and his girlfriend) I smoked going under Washington Circle circa 1993. I'm sure he remembers.

No he doesn’t, because no one cares about your little toy bicycle. To him you were just a kid with something to prove, and seems like nothing has changed lol

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fcman

No he doesn’t, because no one cares about your little toy bicycle. To him you were just a kid with something to prove, and seems like nothing has changed lol

Well, Porsche boy was the one revving his german flat six, I was just minding my own business chatting it up with my wife. I was really just ripping through the tunnel more to just hear the exhaust note echo off the tiles, the giggalo was just an excuse. Lol.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by B767capt

A friend sent this to me yesterday. It's long but peels the onion back on the green energy push. There is a lot there I never knew.

An excellent video that illustrates how green energy isn't, how the transition to green energy and EV's isn't going to accomplish the stated purpose and in fact is having the opposite effect. Well worth the 55 minutes to watch. So to all the folks jumping on the EV bandwagon what is the reason besides the Tesla Plaid being really quick?

[David70]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I think the data is accurate, I just think the last 2 years need to be looked at much more succinctly due to all the crazy things with Covid.

ICE manufacturers had a ton of supply chain issues whearas manufacturers like Tesla took advantage of that with their own chips and were able to manufacture more cars than ever.

The government also stimulated EV sales more than ever with extended tax credits that were combined with a large reduction in price by Tesla... people jumped on the opportunity more than ever.

I too would be curious to see US data on this.

The largest manufacturer, Tesla, lost the federal tax credit years ago, well before Covid affected anything. Now credit is back, MSRP is down. Note what has happened to MSRP's for ICE's over the last 4 years.

Federal Tax Credit For Vehicles Delivered
$7,500 On or before December 31, 2018
$3,750 January 1 to June 30, 2019
$1,875 July 1 to December 31, 2019

https://www.tesla.com/blog/what-you-...edit-phase-out

GM lost the federal tax credit 4/1/2020, now back.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Well, Porsche boy was the one revving his german flat six, I was just minding my own business chatting it up with my wife. I was really just ripping through the tunnel more to just hear the exhaust note echo off the tiles, the giggalo was just an excuse. Lol.

Damn how old are you? Lol, at your age I would expect you to have some accomplishments to be proud about rather than having to rely on cheap speed built for the lowest common denominator

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

Mills complains that our best solar technology is only 26 percent efficient. But that's only true for silicon panels; our best, most expensive panels can clear 40 percent efficiency. The focus on efficiency, however, is also a distraction, because solar panel efficiency is already high enough for solar farms to be economical.

You mean like this solar farm?
Hail Storm Destroys Solar Farm in Nebraska
The multimillion-dollar solar farm consisted of over 14,000 solar panels that had been put into operation in 2019. The system’s 25-year expected lifetime was cut to less than 4 years, leaving a toxic mess to clean up. It begs the questions of whether it makes sense to depend on such weather-vulnerable power plants and how long will it take to clean up the toxic mess left behind.

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...m-in-nebraska/

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

It's amazing how people aren't born with a factory installed BS detector. It's also amazing that people aren't clued into the fact that the earth has only so many natural resources. Using this quacks logic we should just not do anything. Hot enough for you today? Just about everything he says is just wrong. Below is just enough reading for the TLDR crowd but over the head of the Prager U crowd.

Mark Mills is associated with the Manhattan Institute, a free-market think tank with a long history of rejecting any government involvement in markets. This has left the group with a reflexive loathing of any attempts to address global warming.

Mills himself is not necessarily a reliable source on renewable power, as he's been heavily involved in companies focused on nuclear power and fossil fuel extraction. Mills has also spoken at the climate meeting hosted by the notorious trolls at the Heartland Institute.

All that is to say that my expectations here were low; the reality turned out to be worse.

The problems with the video go beyond simple matters of bias; the whole thing is just terribly argued. We can't possibly go into detail on all of the problems, but we can list a few issues that stood out.

Mills complains that our best solar technology is only 26 percent efficient. But that's only true for silicon panels; our best, most expensive panels can clear 40 percent efficiency. The focus on efficiency, however, is also a distraction, because solar panel efficiency is already high enough for solar farms to be economical.
The same issue arises when Mills complains about the efficiency of wind turbines. Is it as high as we would like? No. But who cares? Wind turbines already generate power economically. Improvements would be terrific, but they aren't necessary to make wind and solar work cheaply in the real world.
Mills suggests that the only solution to the peaks and troughs (or "intermittency") of wind and solar is batteries. But there are plenty of additional options, like compressed air storage, pumped hydro, or even fossil fuel plants with carbon capture.
Mills focuses all his attention on what he considers to be the limitations of lithium batteries. But there is plenty of research on other battery chemistries that use different metals entirely.
Mills argues that the lack of batteries is why wind and solar power aren't producing more than three percent of the world's power. Note that he's using "power" to get this figure. If instead he used "electricity," wind and solar now produce over 10 percent globally, starting from zero a few decades ago.
Mills claims that lithium and cobalt are rare earth elements. They are not. This isn't important to his argument, but it's extremely sloppy.
Mills then says he has environmental concerns about the resource extraction needed to build solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. This a valid concern to have! But it ignores the massive environmental damage caused by fossil fuel extraction and the production of equipment to burn it.
Mills does a similar thing with human rights abuses in places where these materials are sourced. Again, a worthy concern. But it remains a problem for fossil fuels as well.
Mills acts like it's not possible to recycle any of the hardware involved in wind, solar, and batteries. This is an area where work remains to be done, but as a blanket statement, it's certainly not true.
Mills calls our fossil fuel supply "almost inexhaustible." Come on. This is just obviously not true.
Mills compares the rate of oil extraction to the rate of power generation by wind turbines... for no obvious reason whatsoever.
Ironically, Mills closes his mess of arguments by saying, "We live in the real world." But the video presents no evidence that he does.

Overall, the video shows a sloppy disregard for facts and offers a biased presentation of the ones Mills gets right, along with a lot of misdirection. If solar panels were so inefficient that we would need to pave over all of Arizona and New Mexico with them, then yes, that would matter. But they're not, so why does Mills even bring it up as a concern?

There are some valid issues here, of course. Mills is right that environmental degradation, abusive labor practices, and repressive governments plague our supply chains. But they plague all our supply chains—not just those for renewable energy. And he's correct that we haven't figured out how to recycle wind turbine blades that reach their end of life. But again, that sort of issue isn't unique to renewable energy.

Critically, the one thing missing from all of this is a recognition of the risks of climate change, which is the whole reason we're trying to shift to wind and solar as quickly as possible. That is apparently because Mills doesn't see much in the way of risks. But here in the real world, those risks are considerable and rising. No discussion of renewable power is competent if those risks are ignored, yet Mills ignores them.

My take aways were simple. GHG emissions continue to rise, coal use is on the increase, the mining and production of the materials needed for the green transition will have significant environmental impact, staggering expense and likely won't achieve the goals we are told they will. I'm all for reducing pollution but it seems that isn't the actual goal here.