as long we can keep existing gas cars especially our 914!
Click to view attachment
Full Version: Is this really goin to happen?
Already happening in Europe. I believe no later than 2040.. likely 2030. Hence VW's push into EVs
You gets 15 more years..and an undetermined number after to use up all the gas
Paris already doesn't allow cars older than maybe 1990 (or maybe just old diesels?) Into the city center. The "poor" tax as some call it.
Given California's history on fighting air pollution, I am not surprised.
You gets 15 more years..and an undetermined number after to use up all the gas
Paris already doesn't allow cars older than maybe 1990 (or maybe just old diesels?) Into the city center. The "poor" tax as some call it.
Given California's history on fighting air pollution, I am not surprised.
The world has been changing FAST lately.
So I am wondering will classic car owners have to pay a classic tax later because of the fuel they use?
So I am wondering will classic car owners have to pay a classic tax later because of the fuel they use?
So I've spoken with some folks at VW, who have mentioned that the only way the EV gamble pays off is volume—whether other manufacturers buying into their skateboard and infrastructure or something like this, where states or countries change what is allowed.
I am surprised but not surprised by the announcement today. I suspect it will have little if any impact on driving a 914 before 2050 or so (Elon, who is his own piece of work, estimates it will take 15 years after 2035 to replace most of the daily CA fleet with EVs).
As a car nut, I have mixed feelings on this. As a dad, I have very different feelings that go past what I want. CA was vilified for the catalyst, but it made massive improvements in CA air quality and, eventually, the world's air quality. They're saying half of our greenhouse emissions are still cars and trucks. We've got 44,000,000 people here. So that's a lot of emissions.
Would I prefer that other emitters are targeted? Sure. Would I prefer that other states and countries would have gone after some of the low-hanging fruit as early as CA did? Yep. Consider Germany, which didn't require catalysts until well into the 1980s? And then you get into heavy trucks, boats, planes, cows, etc etc.
But we are where we are.
I worry about the grid, but it has to be addressed (as we all know). May as well address it intelligently. Not naive enough to think solar is "the" solution, but we're making the switch next week. It's a parity deal, with the average of our electricity cost per month (at today's rates) going to a solar company for ten years on a system that should supply ~107% of our usage for 35~ years (and it's warranted for much of that period). A no-cost deal, with provision for a few more panels for…an EV one day. We're adding a battery, which is cost out of pocket, but a hedge against going dark again—which doesn't work for our business.
It isn't a solution that works for everyone, but it feels like a good move.
As for EVs? I am not particularly a fan—but I am not particularly a fan of the bland sea of new cars available these days anyway. With so few stick shifts, and so few cars rather than SUVs, is an EV so bad? A couple of days of touring Europe in a Taycan showed me otherwise, and I sure liked skipping the gas station in our TDI before it was recalled (sigh). When I got back from driving the Taycan, most workaday V6s, V8s, I4s, etc just sounded like noise pollution to me.
Sorry for the book, but we'll have access to a lot of cool cars for a long time to come. Our cars included. I view this move as potentially giving us a longer lease on fun driving. Will they actually be able to enact this by 2035? That remains to be seen...
I am surprised but not surprised by the announcement today. I suspect it will have little if any impact on driving a 914 before 2050 or so (Elon, who is his own piece of work, estimates it will take 15 years after 2035 to replace most of the daily CA fleet with EVs).
As a car nut, I have mixed feelings on this. As a dad, I have very different feelings that go past what I want. CA was vilified for the catalyst, but it made massive improvements in CA air quality and, eventually, the world's air quality. They're saying half of our greenhouse emissions are still cars and trucks. We've got 44,000,000 people here. So that's a lot of emissions.
Would I prefer that other emitters are targeted? Sure. Would I prefer that other states and countries would have gone after some of the low-hanging fruit as early as CA did? Yep. Consider Germany, which didn't require catalysts until well into the 1980s? And then you get into heavy trucks, boats, planes, cows, etc etc.
But we are where we are.
I worry about the grid, but it has to be addressed (as we all know). May as well address it intelligently. Not naive enough to think solar is "the" solution, but we're making the switch next week. It's a parity deal, with the average of our electricity cost per month (at today's rates) going to a solar company for ten years on a system that should supply ~107% of our usage for 35~ years (and it's warranted for much of that period). A no-cost deal, with provision for a few more panels for…an EV one day. We're adding a battery, which is cost out of pocket, but a hedge against going dark again—which doesn't work for our business.
It isn't a solution that works for everyone, but it feels like a good move.
As for EVs? I am not particularly a fan—but I am not particularly a fan of the bland sea of new cars available these days anyway. With so few stick shifts, and so few cars rather than SUVs, is an EV so bad? A couple of days of touring Europe in a Taycan showed me otherwise, and I sure liked skipping the gas station in our TDI before it was recalled (sigh). When I got back from driving the Taycan, most workaday V6s, V8s, I4s, etc just sounded like noise pollution to me.
Sorry for the book, but we'll have access to a lot of cool cars for a long time to come. Our cars included. I view this move as potentially giving us a longer lease on fun driving. Will they actually be able to enact this by 2035? That remains to be seen...
QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Sep 23 2020, 03:33 PM) 
So I've spoken with some folks at VW, who have mentioned that the only way the EV gamble pays off is volume—whether other manufacturers buying into their skateboard and infrastructure or something like this, where states or countries change what is allowed.
I am surprised but not surprised by the announcement today. I suspect it will have little if any impact on driving a 914 before 2050 or so (Elon, who is his own piece of work, estimates it will take 15 years after 2035 to replace most of the daily CA fleet with EVs).
As a car nut, I have mixed feelings on this. As a dad, I have very different feelings that go past what I want. CA was vilified for the catalyst, but it made massive improvements in CA air quality and, eventually, the world's air quality. They're saying half of our greenhouse emissions are still cars and trucks. We've got 44,000,000 people here. So that's a lot of emissions.
Would I prefer that other emitters are targeted? Sure. Would I prefer that other states and countries would have gone after some of the low-hanging fruit as early as CA did? Yep. Consider Germany, which didn't require catalysts until well into the 1980s? And then you get into heavy trucks, boats, planes, cows, etc etc.
But we are where we are.
I worry about the grid, but it has to be addressed (as we all know). May as well address it intelligently. Not naive enough to think solar is "the" solution, but we're making the switch next week. It's a parity deal, with the average of our electricity cost per month (at today's rates) going to a solar company for ten years on a system that should supply ~107% of our usage for 35~ years (and it's warranted for much of that period). A no-cost deal, with provision for a few more panels for…an EV one day. We're adding a battery, which is cost out of pocket, but a hedge against going dark again—which doesn't work for our business.
It isn't a solution that works for everyone, but it feels like a good move.
As for EVs? I am not particularly a fan—but I am not particularly a fan of the bland sea of new cars available these days anyway. With so few stick shifts, and so few cars rather than SUVs, is an EV so bad? A couple of days of touring Europe in a Taycan showed me otherwise, and I sure liked skipping the gas station in our TDI before it was recalled (sigh). When I got back from driving the Taycan, most workaday V6s, V8s, I4s, etc just sounded like noise pollution to me.
Sorry for the book, but we'll have access to a lot of cool cars for a long time to come. Our cars included. I view this move as potentially giving us a longer lease on fun driving. Will they actually be able to enact this by 2035? That remains to be seen...
Nice post Pete....
I agree, even Porsche will provide a combustion engine for some time but the change is here and with most manufactures seeing the writing on the wall it will someday happen.
Having been born here in the Sixties....the catalytic coverter and eventually EV's will make our air better for the future. For me....I think with the recent smoke reminded me of what the air here used to be like most of the Summer and the damage it had done.
I remember back then when the cat converters came out the V8 guys were himming and hawing about it, how it woud ruin things ect.
Same stuff different decade....if you live long enough you may see some things twice.
If your lucky or blessed or both.
Talk about bad /stupid timing w..t..f.
Deal with pandemic and economic disaster 1st.
Then cover the " next pressing" thing
Electric cars are a band aid soultion / a joke \ reason rich people can pretended to feel good about themselves. Pretend they are saving the environment...such b.s
But as long as all current cars can be say ....converted to
Hydrogen or zip fuel or whatever. Shouldn't be a issue
You just fill up at a different " type " of gas station
But im sure by 2035 a corolla in ca. Will be msrp for 89k dollars
But please . mega rich people . " gavin "
Stop beating the ev . drum its so incredibly unrealistic
. when every plumber and construction worker starts driving a ev . work vehicle. Will be the day that im sleeping with a womens professional tennis player or rosanne bar.. Aka . never gonna happen.
And the whole amazon ev delievery trucks is such a pathetic p.r stunt/ campaign. That if you believe any of that b.s. you are the dumbest s.o.b. on the planet . commercial features a delivery driver . coming to Jesus because he has kids.\ kids as a human shield. Makes me sick .
Talk about pure " window dressing" Clint Eastwood
If this extends to diesal . and i assume it does?
? Then gavin does realize that every supply used is delivered by a semi truck. Something tells me all truckers will be exempt. Cause without them you wont have the toilet paper to wipe you're ass !
Deal with pandemic and economic disaster 1st.
Then cover the " next pressing" thing
Electric cars are a band aid soultion / a joke \ reason rich people can pretended to feel good about themselves. Pretend they are saving the environment...such b.s
But as long as all current cars can be say ....converted to
Hydrogen or zip fuel or whatever. Shouldn't be a issue
You just fill up at a different " type " of gas station
But im sure by 2035 a corolla in ca. Will be msrp for 89k dollars
But please . mega rich people . " gavin "
Stop beating the ev . drum its so incredibly unrealistic
. when every plumber and construction worker starts driving a ev . work vehicle. Will be the day that im sleeping with a womens professional tennis player or rosanne bar.. Aka . never gonna happen.
And the whole amazon ev delievery trucks is such a pathetic p.r stunt/ campaign. That if you believe any of that b.s. you are the dumbest s.o.b. on the planet . commercial features a delivery driver . coming to Jesus because he has kids.\ kids as a human shield. Makes me sick .
Talk about pure " window dressing" Clint Eastwood
If this extends to diesal . and i assume it does?
? Then gavin does realize that every supply used is delivered by a semi truck. Something tells me all truckers will be exempt. Cause without them you wont have the toilet paper to wipe you're ass !
I'll prob be dead by then. I don't care anymore. The spring for the alarm clock broke long ago. As long as the Yellowstone Caldera doesn't pop the cork, I'm golden.
QUOTE(rhodyguy @ Sep 23 2020, 05:14 PM)
I'll prob be dead by then. I don't care anymore. The spring for the alarm clock broke long ago. As long as the Yellowstone Caldera doesn't pop the cork, I'm golden.
And I have just about given up on visiting California anyway. I bet some citizen's panel shuts down Laguna Seca before 2035.
From today's news release,
"The executive order will not make it illegal for Californians to own gas-powered vehicles or to resell them as used cars."
Drive on fellow teeners..................
"The executive order will not make it illegal for Californians to own gas-powered vehicles or to resell them as used cars."
Drive on fellow teeners..................
Not being political... legal analysis only...
but .. the order is mostly symbolic. It violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, so it fails judicial scrutiny, in theory. Now, the automakers would have to challenge it and get it before the courts, in this case, the 9th Circus and then the Supreme Court.
That being said, if one party wins the election, they could decide the "green new deal" is so important, they could try to modify the commerce clause. But mostly, it would not live through judicial scrutiny. For those of you who need the primer on the Commerce Clause, you cannot enact a law that negatively impacts interstate commerce, or commerce between the 50 states. You can enact all the laws you want "within" the state, or "intrastate commerce". This clearly effects commerce between states as automakers are both foreign and domestic.
And yes, I would love to leave CA, but I won't take a BAR exam again, as it was miserable the first time....
but .. the order is mostly symbolic. It violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, so it fails judicial scrutiny, in theory. Now, the automakers would have to challenge it and get it before the courts, in this case, the 9th Circus and then the Supreme Court.
That being said, if one party wins the election, they could decide the "green new deal" is so important, they could try to modify the commerce clause. But mostly, it would not live through judicial scrutiny. For those of you who need the primer on the Commerce Clause, you cannot enact a law that negatively impacts interstate commerce, or commerce between the 50 states. You can enact all the laws you want "within" the state, or "intrastate commerce". This clearly effects commerce between states as automakers are both foreign and domestic.
And yes, I would love to leave CA, but I won't take a BAR exam again, as it was miserable the first time....
Lost this when I did it before. Agree with Rhody, won't live to see this. That doesn't mean I don't have an interest though. What I read shows that the pollution from making a battery is worse than driving a Toyota for 10 years. Seems like the lithium batteries are good for about 10 years. Hear that a Tesla S change out is over $40k. Just looked for a lithium for a car, $1500 for a plain jane, and they advertise it as a forever.
Then we get to the charging. CA seems to think that all will come from green. Hard to explain why the economy is shut when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Power cuts where there in the last month. Green power can't be delivered on the grid to meet the needs.
Next up is that the batteries need cobalt to control heat on charge and discharge. 70% of the worlds cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, an oxymoron. To make the mine work it needs sulfuric acid. This comes from South Africa. We have seen no trucks leave since March. Standby for further news. A lot of built ecars with no batteries to run them.
Not trying to sound cocky but have been a ChemE for near 50 years. An MD for part of that. My thesis was oxidation-reduction, batteries. There is nothing new. The chemistry and potentials were known for long before I was born. Will say that vanadium redox batties do have great potential for storage of green power. Not so greaat for transport. Due to heat requirements they are about the size of a 20 ft container.
Good luck to CA. As Reagan said, land of the fruits and nuts.
Then we get to the charging. CA seems to think that all will come from green. Hard to explain why the economy is shut when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Power cuts where there in the last month. Green power can't be delivered on the grid to meet the needs.
Next up is that the batteries need cobalt to control heat on charge and discharge. 70% of the worlds cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, an oxymoron. To make the mine work it needs sulfuric acid. This comes from South Africa. We have seen no trucks leave since March. Standby for further news. A lot of built ecars with no batteries to run them.
Not trying to sound cocky but have been a ChemE for near 50 years. An MD for part of that. My thesis was oxidation-reduction, batteries. There is nothing new. The chemistry and potentials were known for long before I was born. Will say that vanadium redox batties do have great potential for storage of green power. Not so greaat for transport. Due to heat requirements they are about the size of a 20 ft container.
Good luck to CA. As Reagan said, land of the fruits and nuts.
one might guess that Elon & Gavimn talked about this
& that's why Tesla just announced a $25K model in 3 yrs
a car-for-the-rest-of-us
Sorry to add to this. Bought a 1996 993T in SF. Drove it back to the NW. Got 17 mpg in CA on CA clean fuel. Hit Oregon, fueled up. Never had less than 25mpg in the two years since then. How in the world you can consume so much fuel and have less pollution is beyond science.
No worries, our gov is in total control of his faculties; just chased Tesla out of the State to build their new pick up trucks elsewhere. Whoops there goes a billion dollar Green mfg & thousands of Green jobs.
When Arnold ran our State he tightened the bi-annual emissions check ; making any vehicle post 1976 to be endlessly tested...but he shows up in BH driving (sans license plates) a Steyer Daimler Puch- Pinzgauer for a photo op !
At least Willow Springs Raceway is protected as it has State historic status; the 1st amateur raceway constructed in Nov. 23,1953.
My Family + friends will be safe in their petrol cars in Rosamond, Sanctury State, Ca. 93560
When Arnold ran our State he tightened the bi-annual emissions check ; making any vehicle post 1976 to be endlessly tested...but he shows up in BH driving (sans license plates) a Steyer Daimler Puch- Pinzgauer for a photo op !
At least Willow Springs Raceway is protected as it has State historic status; the 1st amateur raceway constructed in Nov. 23,1953.
My Family + friends will be safe in their petrol cars in Rosamond, Sanctury State, Ca. 93560
It is always 'we won't make it illegal' but they will do every other sneaky thing to make it incredibly difficult to do anything other than what they really want you to do via more taxes, convoluted rules, eliminating gas stations etc. That way not many will fight it until it is too late. Government is real good at this. Just read it as no more gas vehicles period.
I was thinking on the lines of Outlaws, lots of Outlaws, lots of geriatric Outlaws. Cup holders loaded with Boost and Ensure.
Its not like anyone around here has never done anything illegal in life. Hell I got my first ticket the day I got my drivers license cruising Van Nuys Blvd.
Life is to get better with time. I cannot imagine anything more enjoyable than breaking the law when I get to that age. Especially driving a car that has been outlawed.
Heck Jay Leno is doing it today. Why should we be different?
Its not like anyone around here has never done anything illegal in life. Hell I got my first ticket the day I got my drivers license cruising Van Nuys Blvd.
Life is to get better with time. I cannot imagine anything more enjoyable than breaking the law when I get to that age. Especially driving a car that has been outlawed.
Heck Jay Leno is doing it today. Why should we be different?
I guess, that besides allowing to sell only ev cars, taxes on gas will be raised extremely. Thats the plan for Germany.
Just to remember, when the first ICB powered cars were produced by daimler benz in Germany, you have to buy the fuel in the drugstore
So, be smart, buy stocks from tesla or vw (of course i‘m german) and compensate for all that.
Honestly speaking, I‘m quite sure, that cheap mobility for everyone is something from the past, since there will be no cheap ev „Volkswagen“ in the near future.
Benno
Just to remember, when the first ICB powered cars were produced by daimler benz in Germany, you have to buy the fuel in the drugstore
So, be smart, buy stocks from tesla or vw (of course i‘m german) and compensate for all that.
Honestly speaking, I‘m quite sure, that cheap mobility for everyone is something from the past, since there will be no cheap ev „Volkswagen“ in the near future.
Benno
QUOTE(Jeff Hail @ Sep 23 2020, 11:03 PM)
Hell I got my first ticket the day I got my drivers license cruising Van Nuys Blvd.
It took me almost a month to get my First Speeding Ticket.
QUOTE(Jeff Hail @ Sep 24 2020, 02:03 AM)
I was thinking on the lines of Outlaws, lots of Outlaws, lots of geriatric Outlaws. Cup holders loaded with Boost and Ensure.
Its not like anyone around here has never done anything illegal in life. Hell I got my first ticket the day I got my drivers license cruising Van Nuys Blvd.
Life is to get better with time. I cannot imagine anything more enjoyable than breaking the law when I get to that age. Especially driving a car that has been outlawed.
Heck Jay Leno is doing it today. Why should we be different?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAvQSkK8Z8U
As Jay Leno has mentioned several times... ICE cars will go the way of the Horse. You will eventually be relegated to have them as a luxury. You will have to take them certain places to use them and they will become the plaything of the rich. "Red Barchettta" indeed
California will also pull sway in the Northeast where 6-7 states already follow CA regulations for vehicle emissions. Im looking at you Boston and NYC as the places that will also spearhead a similar effort, at least in cities.
Sitting at idle while you commute does no one any good from an air quality point of view. So, it will start with commuters first (looking at you London with your "tolls" (taxes) to drive an ICE into the busy city center) and go from there. I don't like it.. Electric isn't the answer for everyone, everywhere, but realistically, for most commuters, it is a reasonable alternative.
I would also rather suck it up and drive an electric car than have to take public transportation
California will also pull sway in the Northeast where 6-7 states already follow CA regulations for vehicle emissions. Im looking at you Boston and NYC as the places that will also spearhead a similar effort, at least in cities.
Sitting at idle while you commute does no one any good from an air quality point of view. So, it will start with commuters first (looking at you London with your "tolls" (taxes) to drive an ICE into the busy city center) and go from there. I don't like it.. Electric isn't the answer for everyone, everywhere, but realistically, for most commuters, it is a reasonable alternative.
I would also rather suck it up and drive an electric car than have to take public transportation
Sorry just don’t see big oil letting this happen. LA Metro bought a couple battery powered buses and they couldn’t even make it up some simple hills. There now parked.
I will buy a elec car when.
# The price comes down
# When they aren’t so ugly.......blame Tesla
# When you can go 1000 miles without a charge
# When charging only takes 5 minutes
California’s future
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I will buy a elec car when.
# The price comes down
# When they aren’t so ugly.......blame Tesla
# When you can go 1000 miles without a charge
# When charging only takes 5 minutes
California’s future
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
In my humble opinion, it is unlikely to happen by 2035. I am sure it will happen some day, but not 2035. California doesn't have enough electric power now, and unless it builds a couple more power generating plants by then, there is no way it can support that kind of change. Maybe by then people will start to be concerned not only with their carbon foot print but also with their destruction foot print of the countries being devastated mining for lithium. Just saying.
QUOTE(Robarabian @ Sep 23 2020, 11:41 PM)
Not being political... legal analysis only...
but .. the order is mostly symbolic. It violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, so it fails judicial scrutiny, in theory. Now, the automakers would have to challenge it and get it before the courts, in this case, the 9th Circus and then the Supreme Court.
That being said, if one party wins the election, they could decide the "green new deal" is so important, they could try to modify the commerce clause. But mostly, it would not live through judicial scrutiny. For those of you who need the primer on the Commerce Clause, you cannot enact a law that negatively impacts interstate commerce, or commerce between the 50 states. You can enact all the laws you want "within" the state, or "intrastate commerce". This clearly effects commerce between states as automakers are both foreign and domestic.
And yes, I would love to leave CA, but I won't take a BAR exam again, as it was miserable the first time....
Except that the Clean Air Act allows CA to set its own auto emission standards (only state with that authority). Note that Newsom decreed "zero emissions" not EV. The legal question is whether he can do this by executive order or whether the legislature needs to pass a law.
The grid is not of concern. If there is money to be made, private industry will fill the need if the government won't. The mandate is to remove ICE emitting sources of polluton and cars are the easy target. Global manufacturers have bought in and all offer, or will offer, at least 1 electric vehicle for sale. Its about driving change. Change is never easy, especially in America where we all cling to our "constitutional freedoms".. well.. I don't recall seeing "car ownership" in that document.
Not sure who gets the Hagerty magazine, but they had an article about California and its initial efforts in the 1940s and 50s to get active in cleaning up the air. Interesting read of the challenge between "Carb", the EPA and auto makers to advance technology that simply, did not exist!
Not sure who gets the Hagerty magazine, but they had an article about California and its initial efforts in the 1940s and 50s to get active in cleaning up the air. Interesting read of the challenge between "Carb", the EPA and auto makers to advance technology that simply, did not exist!
Sorry but in Calif the grid is the problem. Calif put hugh restrictions on its natural gas powered plants in favor of solar and wind. Then they went out and bought controlling interest in plants outside of our state and shut those down.
Problem with solar and wind is they do have limits and the cost to store that energy is off the table. We just finished another round here of rolling blackouts and Calif had to get electricity from several states away.
Problem with solar and wind is they do have limits and the cost to store that energy is off the table. We just finished another round here of rolling blackouts and Calif had to get electricity from several states away.
I think cities will be the first to change. First electric vehicles. Then autonomous electric vehicles that are corporate owned. The advantage I see is not having to own a car. No purchase price, monthly maintenance, storage or insurance. They just show up when you need them and you pay per mile. No need to learn how to drive. Put your 10 year old in the car and send them to school or their friends house.
Will the future be 914 friendly, probably not but our numbers will dwindle to nothing over time. The younger generations won't miss it.
Will the future be 914 friendly, probably not but our numbers will dwindle to nothing over time. The younger generations won't miss it.
Nice to see this conversation veer away from politics. Some very thoughtful points above, and nice to see perspective from a brother overseas to boot.
Mainly just glad to get some thoughts from fellow 914 nuts—as change is a'comin. I don't know if it's as soon as 2035—and even if it is, for new cars, there's gonna be a long transition to replace the existing CA fleet with ~2,000,000 new cars sold per year. Looks like there are about 274,000,000 motor vehicles registered in USA, with probably 30,000,000 (?) of them in CA. Probably why ol' Elon estimates a 15-year transition, so 2050 before gas stations get harder to find and heavy taxation can be levied without complaints that heavy disincentives are an unfair tax on those who can't afford a new or newer car, etc. Much the same as the discussions surrounding smog tests, cash for clunkers, etc.
Then there's the not so small matter of what can be done. The last round of CAFE and US standards seemed to me beyond optimistic when it came to MPG, and still do years later. Unless everyone wants to drive a CRX HF…
Not sure I buy gas stations will ever go away completely—unless something big happens, EVs simply don't have the range to replace internal combustion for those who need or want to drive long distances. Conversely, few of us need vehicles with 300-mile range on a daily basis. My daily car is rarely driven more than 50-80 miles a day (and usually a lot less than that), and then triple-digit mileages just a handful of times a year. If there's a viable, affordable, fun to drive (!), good-looking, low or near-zero maintenance car to replace my daily, I'd have to look at that. If the downside was having to stop to charge on a long trip a couple or a few times a year, I'd have to consider the other benefits (no more weekly gas station stops, no more maintenance/oil changes, fewer moving parts, etc). So far, I see no EV that interests me, but that may change.
Mainly just glad to get some thoughts from fellow 914 nuts—as change is a'comin. I don't know if it's as soon as 2035—and even if it is, for new cars, there's gonna be a long transition to replace the existing CA fleet with ~2,000,000 new cars sold per year. Looks like there are about 274,000,000 motor vehicles registered in USA, with probably 30,000,000 (?) of them in CA. Probably why ol' Elon estimates a 15-year transition, so 2050 before gas stations get harder to find and heavy taxation can be levied without complaints that heavy disincentives are an unfair tax on those who can't afford a new or newer car, etc. Much the same as the discussions surrounding smog tests, cash for clunkers, etc.
Then there's the not so small matter of what can be done. The last round of CAFE and US standards seemed to me beyond optimistic when it came to MPG, and still do years later. Unless everyone wants to drive a CRX HF…
Not sure I buy gas stations will ever go away completely—unless something big happens, EVs simply don't have the range to replace internal combustion for those who need or want to drive long distances. Conversely, few of us need vehicles with 300-mile range on a daily basis. My daily car is rarely driven more than 50-80 miles a day (and usually a lot less than that), and then triple-digit mileages just a handful of times a year. If there's a viable, affordable, fun to drive (!), good-looking, low or near-zero maintenance car to replace my daily, I'd have to look at that. If the downside was having to stop to charge on a long trip a couple or a few times a year, I'd have to consider the other benefits (no more weekly gas station stops, no more maintenance/oil changes, fewer moving parts, etc). So far, I see no EV that interests me, but that may change.
Something else to ponder: companies popping up to convert gas to electric. Your 914 obviously won't sound or feel the same as a gas powered flat six but the looks would be the same and depending on weight delta to convert, still handle like a 914.
As for a cheap EV? you can buy a used Leaf for less money than a 914..
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylist...tedEntity=d2077
I don't recall their range (80 miles?) but no one said you had to go buy a new Tesla or Taycan.
I know.. its not what you want.. but it may be what you "need" someday. and in 15 years, a then cpo used "leaf" or "bolt" will likely have a range of 300+ miles/charge.. maybe 500 miles.. who knows.
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylist...tedEntity=d2077
I don't recall their range (80 miles?) but no one said you had to go buy a new Tesla or Taycan.
I know.. its not what you want.. but it may be what you "need" someday. and in 15 years, a then cpo used "leaf" or "bolt" will likely have a range of 300+ miles/charge.. maybe 500 miles.. who knows.
QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Sep 24 2020, 07:34 AM)
Nice to see this conversation veer away from politics and personal attacks. Some very thoughtful points above, and nice to see perspective from a brother overseas to boot. Mainly glad to get some thoughts from fellow 914 nuts.
Just about everything Pete writes sounds gold to me.As someone who spent a career as an ecologist in wildlife conservation, this issue has been front and center for decades. Change will, and must happen quickly as we've simply run out of time dithering looking for the magic "perfect" solution. Can a shift like this happen by 2035? Probably not, but that target is about right to keep moving at the pace needed even if the target is not hit on time.
I'm not worried about the future of my 914 though. As has been said, a ban on sale of NEW ICE cars is very different from a ban on ICE. This is a numbers game where reducing total emissions is the target. That can happen without an outright ban. Even with increased longevity, the average age of cars on the road is 12 years with 75% of vehicles on the road less than 16 years. If 100% of the replacements are zero emissions, it doesn't take long to drastically cut total emissions simply through natural attrition. What is more likely to happen to ICE is that as the market for gasoline shrinks, so will the infrastructure for selling it. Gas stations will become fewer and farther between and the price of gas may actually decline as the demand decreases but I think we can count on increased taxes on that gas.
It's all good. Making this change increases the odds that some future group of enthusiasts not yet born will some day be nostalgically wringing their hands over their beloved EVs being replaced by whatever comes next.
Were phasing out of the ugly past 10 years with E vehicles where they were not practical for most buyers and entering he era where they are practical for most buyers. In 10 years they will be practical for all buyers as battery tech improves and charging rates drop.
As a consumer it only makes sense. Its newer, more efficient, more powerful tech that is quieter and has less emissions.
Im not at all worried about ICE cars, They will go by the wayside for everything but the important/classics. Worst case scenario? They get converted to electric by enthusiasts as the gasoline pumps dry out in 50 years.
As a consumer it only makes sense. Its newer, more efficient, more powerful tech that is quieter and has less emissions.
Im not at all worried about ICE cars, They will go by the wayside for everything but the important/classics. Worst case scenario? They get converted to electric by enthusiasts as the gasoline pumps dry out in 50 years.
QUOTE(bbrock @ Sep 24 2020, 09:29 AM)
QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Sep 24 2020, 07:34 AM)
Nice to see this conversation veer away from politics and personal attacks. Some very thoughtful points above, and nice to see perspective from a brother overseas to boot. Mainly glad to get some thoughts from fellow 914 nuts.
Just about everything Pete writes sounds gold to me.As someone who spent a career as an ecologist in wildlife conservation, this issue has been front and center for decades. Change will, and must happen quickly as we've simply run out of time dithering looking for the magic "perfect" solution. Can a shift like this happen by 2035? Probably not, but that target is about right to keep moving at the pace needed even if the target is not hit on time.
I'm not worried about the future of my 914 though. As has been said, a ban on sale of NEW ICE cars is very different from a ban on ICE. This is a numbers game where reducing total emissions is the target. That can happen without an outright ban. Even with increased longevity, the average age of cars on the road is 12 years with 75% of vehicles on the road less than 16 years. If 100% of the replacements are zero emissions, it doesn't take long to drastically cut total emissions simply through natural attrition. What is more likely to happen to ICE is that as the market for gasoline shrinks, so will the infrastructure for selling it. Gas stations will become fewer and farther between and the price of gas may actually decline as the demand decreases but I think we can count on increased taxes on that gas.
It's all good. Making this change increases the odds that some future group of enthusiasts not yet born will some day be nostalgically wringing their hands over their beloved EVs being replaced by whatever comes next.
Of course as gas use decreases an alternative to the gas tax to maintain roads will have to be implemented. Charge per mile of travel anyone?
Forget politics, forget the environment. forget anything other than:
IT ALL COMES DOWN TO $$$$$$.
Gas is still cheap. In some cases, adjusting for inflation, cheaper than 30 years ago.
Until this changes, ICE's will still be produced and purchased by "middle Class". Plus petroleum distribution (i.e. gas stations) are prolific and quick to refuel your vehicle.
Now, there is only 2 ways to get people into EV's; add a $4.00/gal tax on gas, or make it more expensive to purchase an ICE vehicle by taxing the crap out of it, or flat out ban them. All of which would be political suicide for those who are putting forth such nonsense..
Oh, and there's the issue of raw materials to manufacture batteries, and dispose them safely. Where are we going to get all this Lithium from?
Like everything else, there has to be a balance between what is economically viable for the a average person. EV's in the present form are not as practical as a conventional ICE vehicle. That will change over time but, outlawing the old technology is just plain stupid.
Take for instance the outlawing of conventional toilets. Now you can purchase only 1 gallon flush toilets to be used with sewer systems designed for 2-3 gallon flushes. Duh, now the pipes get clogged. Oh, the solution is a smaller diameter waste line from 4" to 3" to increase the velocity. Wow, what a surprise - clogging still happening due to smaller passage.
When the government try's to tell us or make do what THEY think is best, it usually turns out to be a disaster. It usually costs more and doesn't work.
Let the free market work this out rather than shoving it down our throat.
Dave
IT ALL COMES DOWN TO $$$$$$.
Gas is still cheap. In some cases, adjusting for inflation, cheaper than 30 years ago.
Until this changes, ICE's will still be produced and purchased by "middle Class". Plus petroleum distribution (i.e. gas stations) are prolific and quick to refuel your vehicle.
Now, there is only 2 ways to get people into EV's; add a $4.00/gal tax on gas, or make it more expensive to purchase an ICE vehicle by taxing the crap out of it, or flat out ban them. All of which would be political suicide for those who are putting forth such nonsense..
Oh, and there's the issue of raw materials to manufacture batteries, and dispose them safely. Where are we going to get all this Lithium from?
Like everything else, there has to be a balance between what is economically viable for the a average person. EV's in the present form are not as practical as a conventional ICE vehicle. That will change over time but, outlawing the old technology is just plain stupid.
Take for instance the outlawing of conventional toilets. Now you can purchase only 1 gallon flush toilets to be used with sewer systems designed for 2-3 gallon flushes. Duh, now the pipes get clogged. Oh, the solution is a smaller diameter waste line from 4" to 3" to increase the velocity. Wow, what a surprise - clogging still happening due to smaller passage.
When the government try's to tell us or make do what THEY think is best, it usually turns out to be a disaster. It usually costs more and doesn't work.
Let the free market work this out rather than shoving it down our throat.
Dave
QUOTE(sechszylinder @ Sep 23 2020, 10:24 PM)
Honestly speaking, I‘m quite sure, that cheap mobility for everyone is something from the past, since there will be no cheap ev „Volkswagen“ in the near future.
What do you consider cheap?
I have seen used BMW I3s and Nissan Leafs for next to nothing.
With Teslas latest battery developments they are talking about at 25k price range for new vehicles. Not a lot of new cars today that MSRP for less than 25 that I would consider sitting in.
This is a difficult subject for us who grew up as young guys working on our own old clunkers. A lot of us grew up learning how to do just that by working on the farm machinery. Times change whether we like it or not. I dread the day when there will be no gas engines to work on any more. Heck, unless you have a bunch of new equipment to diagnose what is wrong, most of us can't even work on our new cars today. That SUCKS for me, someone who has always fixed my own car problems for over 55 years.
On the flip side, I envision kids wearing some kind of gas mask with an oxygen supplement system just to go outside. Will we be living in airtight homes with expensive air filtration and supplement systems to keep the air breathable for us. I know what the air was like growing up in the 1950/1960's, but what will kids see in the 2050's/2060's?
I forsee car racing to start going away for ICE cars. When we need to watch our financial health, we start looking for the small things first. ICE car racing would only be a small help and it is entertainment for some, but I think it will be getting attention some day soon.
In the future I think ICE cars will be fazed out by increasing the costs of fossil fuels until it is so much cheaper to go EV.
Fellows, we have lived in a wonderful time for ICE cars. I would say the golden years of automobiles, but many would argue the golden years were the 1920's-1960's. It sure was great while it lasted!
By the time they get around to outlawing motorcycles, I will be too old to ride anymore, otherwise I would be an outlaw! I am sure some of you feel the same way about your 914's. I would if I still had one.
Tom
On the flip side, I envision kids wearing some kind of gas mask with an oxygen supplement system just to go outside. Will we be living in airtight homes with expensive air filtration and supplement systems to keep the air breathable for us. I know what the air was like growing up in the 1950/1960's, but what will kids see in the 2050's/2060's?
I forsee car racing to start going away for ICE cars. When we need to watch our financial health, we start looking for the small things first. ICE car racing would only be a small help and it is entertainment for some, but I think it will be getting attention some day soon.
In the future I think ICE cars will be fazed out by increasing the costs of fossil fuels until it is so much cheaper to go EV.
Fellows, we have lived in a wonderful time for ICE cars. I would say the golden years of automobiles, but many would argue the golden years were the 1920's-1960's. It sure was great while it lasted!
By the time they get around to outlawing motorcycles, I will be too old to ride anymore, otherwise I would be an outlaw! I am sure some of you feel the same way about your 914's. I would if I still had one.
Tom
It's going to happen to new cars sooner or later, but even then in places without salt it will be 50 years before all the gas DD's are off the road, so we're talking about 65 years. In salt areas like where I live it would only take 20 years to have almost all gas DD's off the road.
My kids or even grand kids might have to sell the 914's off to collectors, but that's not my problem. Minimum 35 years before it really starts to effect my operating costs, I'll be close to done by then, if I live that long.
My kids or even grand kids might have to sell the 914's off to collectors, but that's not my problem. Minimum 35 years before it really starts to effect my operating costs, I'll be close to done by then, if I live that long.
Really curious to know more about the longevity of new cars going up rather than down. Is there some way to learn more about that?
My anecdotal experience is sort of the opposite, with many recently popular cars just gone from the roadways because of the cheap way they're built (i.e. E60 BMWs, which were already pretty awful but apparently killed off by bad and heinously expensive fuel injectors that have to be replaced in sets), where in the "old days" it seemed like cars were made to live a long time. At least in places they don't rust. And the cost to manufacture, ship, sell, and dismantle cars is huge.
And yes to the point about cutting off one's nose to spite his/her face. See it in all sorts of well-meaning environmental legislation where something changes but the reaction causes more damage. One of the dumbest is the deletion of the dipstick as well as hood-opening sensors, which forces techs to go drive around in the car for a certain distance to make the computer happy. And yet, trend in air quality from 1968 > 2000s here in the Bay Area is simply undeniable, moving from an inability to see across the bay from east bay hills due to the smog most days to very clean air most days (sadly, our pollution gets pushed to the central valley…which makes you wonder what that must've been like back then). Those vilified air pumps, thermal reactors, and catalysts (only one of these was a really good thing…and it took a while to get to) were key to a real, tangible improvement and a long second wind for the performance car. Arguably, we've only enjoyed the performance cars we have since the 1980s because of the efficiency required by legislation, which drove the need for O2 sensors.
Battery materials and disposal are legit concerns.
Cost to consumers, less so, as a high % of consumers seem to lease their daily cars and there's a tipping point between lease + running costs + convenience. From many consumers' standpoint, the EV is either "there" or about to be. EVs may also offer better longevity as whole cars, with so few moving parts. And good cooling seems to go a long way with re: to batteries. And how many ICE cars, in the fleet at large, see 200,000, 300,000, 500,000 miles etc. anymore? Seems a lot depreciate to the point they're not worth fixing, and then. I'd like to learn more, but what appeared to be fair and not EV-motivated studies suggest EVs are less damaging to the earth from cradle to grave.
Whatever the case, I don't think much of this conversation will apply to our 914s or fun cars built in the last 100 years or the next 15. Maybe it'll look different in 2050, but the rest of the world probably will too. But I think this decision may have a big effect on what most people drive every day over the next 30~ years. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Listening to the street outside my office, I hear one bird and a ton of Honda Odysseys, Maximas, F150s, and other bland mobiles.
I'd rather listen to the bird...and then really enjoy the occasional cool car or motorcycle.
My anecdotal experience is sort of the opposite, with many recently popular cars just gone from the roadways because of the cheap way they're built (i.e. E60 BMWs, which were already pretty awful but apparently killed off by bad and heinously expensive fuel injectors that have to be replaced in sets), where in the "old days" it seemed like cars were made to live a long time. At least in places they don't rust. And the cost to manufacture, ship, sell, and dismantle cars is huge.
And yes to the point about cutting off one's nose to spite his/her face. See it in all sorts of well-meaning environmental legislation where something changes but the reaction causes more damage. One of the dumbest is the deletion of the dipstick as well as hood-opening sensors, which forces techs to go drive around in the car for a certain distance to make the computer happy. And yet, trend in air quality from 1968 > 2000s here in the Bay Area is simply undeniable, moving from an inability to see across the bay from east bay hills due to the smog most days to very clean air most days (sadly, our pollution gets pushed to the central valley…which makes you wonder what that must've been like back then). Those vilified air pumps, thermal reactors, and catalysts (only one of these was a really good thing…and it took a while to get to) were key to a real, tangible improvement and a long second wind for the performance car. Arguably, we've only enjoyed the performance cars we have since the 1980s because of the efficiency required by legislation, which drove the need for O2 sensors.
Battery materials and disposal are legit concerns.
Cost to consumers, less so, as a high % of consumers seem to lease their daily cars and there's a tipping point between lease + running costs + convenience. From many consumers' standpoint, the EV is either "there" or about to be. EVs may also offer better longevity as whole cars, with so few moving parts. And good cooling seems to go a long way with re: to batteries. And how many ICE cars, in the fleet at large, see 200,000, 300,000, 500,000 miles etc. anymore? Seems a lot depreciate to the point they're not worth fixing, and then. I'd like to learn more, but what appeared to be fair and not EV-motivated studies suggest EVs are less damaging to the earth from cradle to grave.
Whatever the case, I don't think much of this conversation will apply to our 914s or fun cars built in the last 100 years or the next 15. Maybe it'll look different in 2050, but the rest of the world probably will too. But I think this decision may have a big effect on what most people drive every day over the next 30~ years. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Listening to the street outside my office, I hear one bird and a ton of Honda Odysseys, Maximas, F150s, and other bland mobiles.
I'd rather listen to the bird...and then really enjoy the occasional cool car or motorcycle.
The Leaf is a throw away car from the get go. Cheap battery that degrades heavily and can't be replaced or fixed like the Prius. It is NOT a viable used car.
Also, EVs are currently subsidized by ICE sales and are only on the market because of CA. Even Tesla is subsidized by carbon tax profits.
The Obama Era CAFE standards are grossly optimistic and hampered by the fact that EV sales are flat at 2%. Any manufacturer that sells trucks is failing to keep up, per EPA website. Personally, I'd be happy to see these current monster trucks off the market.
An affordable EV made to fit everyone's needs in 15 years... I don't see how that's possible. But I'm sure Nevadans will be happy to sell you fruits & nuts new ICE cars.
As for a cheap EV? you can buy a used Leaf for less money than a 914..
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylist...tedEntity=d2077
I don't recall their range (80 miles?) but no one said you had to go buy a new Tesla or Taycan.
I know.. its not what you want.. but it may be what you "need" someday. and in 15 years, a then cpo used "leaf" or "bolt" will likely have a range of 300+ miles/charge.. maybe 500 miles.. who knows.
Also, EVs are currently subsidized by ICE sales and are only on the market because of CA. Even Tesla is subsidized by carbon tax profits.
The Obama Era CAFE standards are grossly optimistic and hampered by the fact that EV sales are flat at 2%. Any manufacturer that sells trucks is failing to keep up, per EPA website. Personally, I'd be happy to see these current monster trucks off the market.
An affordable EV made to fit everyone's needs in 15 years... I don't see how that's possible. But I'm sure Nevadans will be happy to sell you fruits & nuts new ICE cars.
QUOTE(Racer @ Sep 24 2020, 07:10 AM)
As for a cheap EV? you can buy a used Leaf for less money than a 914..
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylist...tedEntity=d2077
I don't recall their range (80 miles?) but no one said you had to go buy a new Tesla or Taycan.
I know.. its not what you want.. but it may be what you "need" someday. and in 15 years, a then cpo used "leaf" or "bolt" will likely have a range of 300+ miles/charge.. maybe 500 miles.. who knows.
My point with the Leaf, despite its limits, is that you can buy one rather cheaply and could comply with a statute if it went effect in 2021. I would think, that by 2035 (15 years in the future), even basic EV's would have advanced significantly in range, cost and usefulness.
If the average transaction price of a car is about $38,000 today, then a Bolt, or Model 3, would be in the reach of many consumers if they wanted an EV today with reasonable range.
And lets remember, that the mandate is ZERO emissions. It does not say that Battery Electrics are the only way to do it. It could be Hydrogen that eventually wins out.
Perhaps the Europeans have nudged in a better direction, having the prime crowded cities start restricting ICE emmissions.. whether it be by taxation / fees/ tolls or what ever economic incentive would cause people to change their habits. If I had to drive into downtown LA, or NYC, or Miami or wherever, and I had to pay an extra $10/day to do so in an ICE, or $5/day for a hybrid or $0/day in an EV, that might spark the needed change for a majority. Having/owning. operating or even having access to a car is not a protected right in America.
Automakers would have never embraced many advancements we take for granted today without government intervention: Seatbelts, Airbags, Crash safety and Auto emissions are just the obvious ones.
If the average transaction price of a car is about $38,000 today, then a Bolt, or Model 3, would be in the reach of many consumers if they wanted an EV today with reasonable range.
And lets remember, that the mandate is ZERO emissions. It does not say that Battery Electrics are the only way to do it. It could be Hydrogen that eventually wins out.
Perhaps the Europeans have nudged in a better direction, having the prime crowded cities start restricting ICE emmissions.. whether it be by taxation / fees/ tolls or what ever economic incentive would cause people to change their habits. If I had to drive into downtown LA, or NYC, or Miami or wherever, and I had to pay an extra $10/day to do so in an ICE, or $5/day for a hybrid or $0/day in an EV, that might spark the needed change for a majority. Having/owning. operating or even having access to a car is not a protected right in America.
Automakers would have never embraced many advancements we take for granted today without government intervention: Seatbelts, Airbags, Crash safety and Auto emissions are just the obvious ones.
Just think about how far EV and other zero or nearly zero emission vehicles have come since 2005 (15 years in the past).
Do you all think that we will be in the same place as now? Nope. The next 15 years will likely progress as quickly as the last 35.
Will this really come to pass? Probably not due to the lack of broadly available technology.
This is a negotiation and we now have the "line in the sand" but not a "barrier of lead" to work from.
My guess is that we will have better tax breaks on zero emissions and the closer to zero emissions a vehicle is, the better the tax breaks. Conversely, the further from zero emissions a vehicle is, the larger the tax increases. (For purchases of new vehicles only).
Other items will follow as far as guzzler taxes on cars that get below a set standard etc. . .
Just a guess.
Do you all think that we will be in the same place as now? Nope. The next 15 years will likely progress as quickly as the last 35.
Will this really come to pass? Probably not due to the lack of broadly available technology.
This is a negotiation and we now have the "line in the sand" but not a "barrier of lead" to work from.
My guess is that we will have better tax breaks on zero emissions and the closer to zero emissions a vehicle is, the better the tax breaks. Conversely, the further from zero emissions a vehicle is, the larger the tax increases. (For purchases of new vehicles only).
Other items will follow as far as guzzler taxes on cars that get below a set standard etc. . .
Just a guess.
QUOTE(horizontally-opposed @ Sep 24 2020, 10:02 AM)
Really curious to know more about the longevity of new cars going up rather than down. Is there some way to learn more about that?
Here are DOT stats on average age of vehicles on the road since 1995. Obviously there are other factors that influence the age of the cars we drive than longevity, but it's reasonable to assume most cars don't reach the scrap heap until they become unreliable or unsafe to drive. I haven't found anything on cradle to grave lifespan though. It may be out there but would be a more direct measure.
Anecdotally, the reliability of first cars I owned started to decline rapidly after 100K and stretching it to 120K guaranteed being left stranded more once. Even worse were the early Japanese imports that started to rapidly decay at around 60K miles. I don't have anything in my fleet now with under 120K. One is pushing 300K and while I wouldn't trust it on a cross country trip, it is find for trips withing 100 miles from home. Our DD has 200K and we think nothing of hopping in for cross country trips. Neither car has had any major work. Just maintenance. Of course, that isn't uniform across all makes and models and I do agree that some of the high end makes have cheapened themselves by chasing higher volume sales.
QUOTE
And yes to the point about cutting off one's nose to spite his/her face.
At the risk of opening another can of worms, the worst case of this in my experience is how my environmental and conservation colleagues have irrationally turned their back on nuclear. I have yet to see a serious analysis of a roadmap toward zero emissions that doesn't rely on nuclear. The health and safety record of the old and outdated technology is still way better than coal and new designs would eliminate risk of failures like we have seen in the past. Sure, it isn't perfect and presents challenges as do all technologies including solar. But no. It is off the table. WTF?
QUOTE
I'd rather listen to the bird...and then really enjoy the occasional cool car or motorcycle.
And the birds would agree with you. Several studies have shown that noisy environments reduce reproductive success. Turns out being able to hear each other is pretty important for them. Go figure.
QUOTE(Robarabian @ Sep 23 2020, 09:41 PM)
Not being political... legal analysis only...
but .. the order is mostly symbolic. It violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, so it fails judicial scrutiny, in theory. Now, the automakers would have to challenge it and get it before the courts, in this case, the 9th Circus and then the Supreme Court.
That being said, if one party wins the election, they could decide the "green new deal" is so important, they could try to modify the commerce clause. But mostly, it would not live through judicial scrutiny. For those of you who need the primer on the Commerce Clause, you cannot enact a law that negatively impacts interstate commerce, or commerce between the 50 states. You can enact all the laws you want "within" the state, or "intrastate commerce". This clearly effects commerce between states as automakers are both foreign and domestic.
And yes, I would love to leave CA, but I won't take a BAR exam again, as it was miserable the first time....
The historical analysis is in The Clean Air Act( Federal Law)which Southern California has been in violation of since it was signed back in the 60's. Has nothing to do with Interstate Commerce.
The catalytic converter was mandated for California( by the Feds) to comply with this law. The only reason the rest of the country put them on was economics. 40 million people now which most whom drive cars command a pretty big market share.
A primer in history and the same thing will prevail with EV's. Newsom is playing this like he invented the idea that this will happen. Politicians do this since they were invented by us. Detroit wants one standard because safety and now.....yes.....wait for it..................now lawyers get involved when bad sh**t happens.
Right now.....and I'll put on my engineering hat....Batteries and charging standards are the tipping point along with the grid are holding EV's from going full tilt here (in CA)
Pete is right....particularly in CA.....EVERYONE and most engineers from out of state that I know have their eyeballs glued to what happens to SPG &E.
QUOTE(Chris914n6 @ Sep 24 2020, 09:15 AM)
An affordable EV made to fit everyone's needs in 15 years... I don't see how that's possible.
With Teslas latest battery development, and VW now also entering the market, I would not be surprised if we hit that mark in 5 years. Though "everyone" is a pretty broad base, but im not sure you could say ICE vehicles do that currently. There will always be some level of compromise. The "perfect" vehicle for everyone just doesn't exist.
Another real elephant in the room, whatever we end up driving or riding in, is highway construction and maintenance. Now largely funded by federal and state gas taxes that are a declining per capita revenue stream since increased fuel efficiency of petroleum powered vehicles prompted the start of declining gas and diesel demand. Hybrids, EVs etc. only exacerbate the problem.
It won't matter much how we power our transportation if there's no useful infrastructure between Point A and Point B. I don't think the answer will be mandating increased fuel consumption from gas and diesel powered conveyances or that every household own a late '70s gas guzzler in order to drive more demand for petro fuels and thus higher gas tax collections. Sooner rather than later we'll have to come to grips with per-mile taxes or fees, mileage based registration fees or some other alternate funding mechanisms for our streets and roads.
I spent part of my professional career consulting with both major international companies as well as environmental organizations on energy issues. The mantra from the majors was "we don't want to be in then buggy whip business." They insisted they were energy companies, not oil companies. That's why even 25 years ago major portions of their r&d budgets were targeted to biofuels, solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. Auto manufacturers are moving toward alternatives for the ICE for the same reason. As others have mentioned, EVs may be the answer...or just a transition to something else.
In the bigger picture, three things drive our overall energy use...transportation, building practices and land use patterns. New homes and offices are more energy efficient. Density (like it or not) is more energy efficient than sprawl. Hard to think transportation is or should be immune from evolution and change.
It won't matter much how we power our transportation if there's no useful infrastructure between Point A and Point B. I don't think the answer will be mandating increased fuel consumption from gas and diesel powered conveyances or that every household own a late '70s gas guzzler in order to drive more demand for petro fuels and thus higher gas tax collections. Sooner rather than later we'll have to come to grips with per-mile taxes or fees, mileage based registration fees or some other alternate funding mechanisms for our streets and roads.
I spent part of my professional career consulting with both major international companies as well as environmental organizations on energy issues. The mantra from the majors was "we don't want to be in then buggy whip business." They insisted they were energy companies, not oil companies. That's why even 25 years ago major portions of their r&d budgets were targeted to biofuels, solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. Auto manufacturers are moving toward alternatives for the ICE for the same reason. As others have mentioned, EVs may be the answer...or just a transition to something else.
In the bigger picture, three things drive our overall energy use...transportation, building practices and land use patterns. New homes and offices are more energy efficient. Density (like it or not) is more energy efficient than sprawl. Hard to think transportation is or should be immune from evolution and change.
QUOTE(Mark Henry @ Sep 24 2020, 07:05 AM)
It's going to happen to new cars sooner or later, but even then in places without salt it will be 50 years before all the gas DD's are off the road, so we're talking about 65 years. In salt areas like where I live it would only take 20 years to have almost all gas DD's off the road.
My kids or even grand kids might have to sell the 914's off to collectors, but that's not my problem. Minimum 35 years before it really starts to effect my operating costs, I'll be close to done by then, if I live that long.
ICE may be killed off eventually but i think our classics will stay viable. If you think about it R12 was basically banned yet we have solutions to keep old AC systems going. Just looking at the 914 community and all the things we have done to keep these cars on the road in the absence of NOS part availability. Aftermarket injection, Suby swaps, etc. Electric is just the next evolution. Where there is a problem, someone will create a solution.
I find the fact that the VW factory recognizes this as highly encouraging.
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2019/0...the-beetle.html
I have to imagine parts provided by the factory to retrofit an old Beetle wouldn't take to much to adapt to a 914.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.