Are Electric Cars the biggest con on the planet?

[Diderot]

SWoll said:

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

The problem is that many posters seem to be under the illusion that all ICE cars are going to be banned from the roads in 2030. It's the purchase of new ICE cars in 2030 and hybrids in 2035 that's beng stopped. You'll be able to run a new 2029 ICE car until 2050 should you want to. Likely to be pricey to do so, but then what isn't?

Given many manufacturers have committed to BEV only production by the end of the decade, some even sooner, will there be anything decent left to buy? Which begs the question why would those manufacturers invest in the development of new ICE technology in the meantime?

[otolith]

Diderot said:

Given many manufacturers have committed to BEV only production by the end of the decade, some even sooner, will there be anything decent left to buy? Which begs the question why would those manufacturers invest in the development of new ICE technology in the meantime?

By and large, they are not doing.

[bigothunter]

Diderot said:

Given many manufacturers have committed to BEV only production by the end of the decade, some even sooner, will there be anything decent left to buy? Which begs the question why would those manufacturers invest in the development of new ICE technology in the meantime?

Low tech ICE still has a future in some third world countries. Any ICE development will be focussed on simple, low cost and easily maintained powertrains for those markets. High tech ICE development for road transport is dead.

[SWoll]

Diderot said:

SWoll said:

DMZ said:

I'm fairly sure most people are good with choice. I think it's the ban or threat of a ban that gets people worked up above all else. I get that there are benefits with clear regulations and targets for all parties involved in the transformation but us little people would prefer to have a choice. Don't we?

The problem is that many posters seem to be under the illusion that all ICE cars are going to be banned from the roads in 2030. It's the purchase of new ICE cars in 2030 and hybrids in 2035 that's beng stopped. You'll be able to run a new 2029 ICE car until 2050 should you want to. Likely to be pricey to do so, but then what isn't?

Given many manufacturers have committed to BEV only production by the end of the decade, some even sooner, will there be anything decent left to buy? Which begs the question why would those manufacturers invest in the development of new ICE technology in the meantime?

They won't, but then as a technology has it got anywhere else to go anyway? Othe than mild hybrid, which is what ost will do to extend the lifecycle.

They'll keep selling ICE for as long as possible and the used market will be awash with them for many years to come was the point really. No-one being forced into an EV in 2030 and I'd be willing to bet they'll push back the 2035 hybrid ban anyway.

[delta0]

whirlybird said:

The GuardianThe Guardian
Tesla’s self-driving technology fails to detect children in the road, tests find
Edward Helmore
Tue, 9 August 2022, 6:08 pm
<span>Photograph: Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images</span>
Photograph: Sjoerd van der Wal/Getty Images
A safe-technology advocacy group issued claimed on Tuesday that Tesla’s full self-driving software represents a potentially lethal threat to child pedestrians, the latest in a series of claims and investigations into the technology to hit the world’s leading electric carmaker.

According to a safety test conducted by the Dawn Project, the latest version of Tesla Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta software repeatedly hit a stationary, child-sized mannequin in its path. The claims that the technology apparently has trouble recognizing children form part of an ad campaign urging the public to pressure Congress to ban Tesla’s auto-driving technology.

In several tests, a professional test driver found that the software – released in June – failed to detect the child-sized figure at an average speed of 25mph and the car then hit the mannequin. The Dawn Project’s founder, Dan O’Dowd, called the results “deeply disturbing.”

Company chief “Elon Musk says Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software is ‘amazing,’” O’Dowd added. “It’s not. It’s a lethal threat to all Americans.

“Over 100,000 Tesla drivers are already using the car’s Full Self-Driving mode on public roads, putting children at great risk in communities across the country.”

O’Dowd argued that the test results show the need to prohibit self-driving cars until Tesla proves the vehicles “will not mow down children in crosswalks”.

Tesla has repeatedly hit back at claims that its self-driving technology is too underdeveloped to guarantee the safety of either the car’s occupants or other road users.

O’Dowd has drawn accusations that he is little more than a competitor to Tesla because his company bills itself as an expert in making particular software used in automated driving systems. O’Dowd insists his Green Hills software doesn’t compete with Tesla, saying it doesn’t make self-driving cars. But he has acknowledged some car companies use his company’s software for certain components.

After a fiery crash in Texas in 2021 that killed two, Musk tweeted that the autopilot feature, a less sophisticated version of FSD, was not switched on at the moment of collision.

At the company’s shareholder meeting earlier this month Musk said that Full Self-Driving has greatly improved, and he expected to make the software available by the end of the year to all owners that request it. But questions about its safety continue to mount.

In June, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), said it was expanding an investigation into 830,000 Tesla cars across all four current model lines. The expansion came after analysis of a number of accidents revealed patterns in the car’s performance and driver behavior.

The NHTSA said the widened investigation would aim to examine the degree to which Tesla’s autopilot technology and associated systems “may exacerbate human factors or behavioral safety risks by undermining the effectiveness of the driver’s supervision”.

A second NHTSA investigation is also under way to determine if the removal of the forward-looking radar sensor on some newer Teslas is causing the vehicles to apply their brakes for no reason, which is called “phantom braking” and can lead to wrecks.

Since 2016, the agency has investigated 30 crashes involving Teslas equipped with automated driving systems, 19 of them fatal. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation is also looking at the company’s autopilot technology in at least 11 crashes where Teslas hit emergency vehicles.

Many such wrecks aren’t investigated by the NHTSA. And in nearly 400 crashes involving cars with driver-assist systems reported by automakers between July 2021 and this past May, more Teslas were involved than all other manufacturers combined.

Turns out this is false news like a lot of things anti-EV people spread https://electrek.co/2022/08/10/tesla-self-driving-...

[NMNeil]

Diderot said:

Given many manufacturers have committed to BEV only production by the end of the decade, some even sooner, will there be anything decent left to buy? Which begs the question why would those manufacturers invest in the development of new ICE technology in the meantime?

The only new ICE technology is in synthetic petrol and burning hydrogen, and both of those are more in the realms of wishful thinking by the car makers rather than the future.
For example.
https://coverking.com/blogs/blog/lamborghini-belie...

[TheDeuce]

SWoll said:

They won't, but then as a technology has it got anywhere else to go anyway? Othe than mild hybrid, which is what ost will do to extend the lifecycle.

They'll keep selling ICE for as long as possible and the used market will be awash with them for many years to come was the point really. No-one being forced into an EV in 2030 and I'd be willing to bet they'll push back the 2035 hybrid ban anyway.

Government targets do quite often slip... But they already bought that target forward which shows a certain sense of urgency. Also these targets are across multiple governments as a shared effort to let the car industry know what's going to happen and when - so it's not going to look great if some slip and others achieve those targets.

In fact I think it would cause uproar if our own UK car industry and those in the EU that sell heavily here alter billions of spending plans to hit a target and that target then shifts.

I think they'll have to stick to the dates announced at this point. It's one of the few deadlines that they both can't and won't want to change because of the subsequent criticism and fallout, whichever government we have at that stage!

[delta0]

DMZ said:

delta0 said:

I don’t think anyone is claiming non new cars are going to be banned. As you say it will become prohibitively expensive. The average age of a car is 8 years which suggests we will have a few years of lots of ICEs on the road still. Although with increased tax burden and costs this is going to be accelerated a bit.

I remain naively optimistic that the cost of running ICE will not go up. It might even go down. With the caveat that I'm referring to existing cars. I don't think new ICE will be all that interesting from now on as it will be strangled by every imaginable regulation and they will need to have big batteries in them anyhow and then why not just go EV. With the exception of low volume manufacturers, they might be able to get around this specifically in the UK or generally.

For existing cars, I don't think they will be nailed by the powers that be. Retrospective taxation is generally not a vote winner. Once ICE is in a minority, they will also lose interest in it as a revenue generator and will just let it fade. Old polluting cars are not treated badly now from what I know and I don't think that will change. I also think oil will get cheaper once EVs take hold, maybe a lot cheaper.

But anyhow, we'll see. Not much to worry about at the moment anyhow.

The tax burden is not just VED. Fuel taxes will absolutely increase. The cost to use the car in most towns and cities will occur/increase. They have VED increasing with inflation so that will go up a good amount already. The already falling number of fuel stations will accelerate making it both harder to get fuel and less competitive. Less fuel will be refined so supply will fall. Industry will divest as it already is. Then there is the fact that the government are going to want as many people moving to EV as possible and so the loss of taxes are not going to be made up from EV users yet. Nothing can prohibit the switch to net zero so the burden of tax will be placed elsewhere.

[delta0]

TheDeuce said:

SWoll said:

They won't, but then as a technology has it got anywhere else to go anyway? Othe than mild hybrid, which is what ost will do to extend the lifecycle.

They'll keep selling ICE for as long as possible and the used market will be awash with them for many years to come was the point really. No-one being forced into an EV in 2030 and I'd be willing to bet they'll push back the 2035 hybrid ban anyway.

Government targets do quite often slip... But they already bought that target forward which shows a certain sense of urgency. Also these targets are across multiple governments as a shared effort to let the car industry know what's going to happen and when - so it's not going to look great if some slip and others achieve those targets.

In fact I think it would cause uproar if our own UK car industry and those in the EU that sell heavily here alter billions of spending plans to hit a target and that target then shifts.

I think they'll have to stick to the dates announced at this point. It's one of the few deadlines that they both can't and won't want to change because of the subsequent criticism and fallout, whichever government we have at that stage!

Agree. It is not possible to let it slip. Whilst the average age of vehicles is 8 years if it slips then there will be a good possibility of a lot of ICEs on the road in 2050 which will force an even harsher and forceful change to net zero which will be even more painful. Killing off the new sales in 2035 gives 15 years which will flush most of them off the road in time.

[Heres Johnny]

delta0 said:

Turns out this is false news like a lot of things anti-EV people spread https://electrek.co/2022/08/10/tesla-self-driving-...

Have you ever driven a Tesla on autopilot? Would you trust it to stop if you were doing 60mph and you came up to a queue of stationary traffic? Not a chance.

It may not be completely true, but it’s not completely false either. Tesla dropped reporting their passive safety stats when they started to remove the radar, seems an odd thing to do unless you have something to hide.

[delta0]

Heres Johnny said:

Have you ever driven a Tesla on autopilot? Would you trust it to stop if you were doing 60mph and you came up to a queue of stationary traffic? Not a chance.

It may not be completely true, but it’s not completely false either. Tesla dropped reporting their passive safety stats when they started to remove the radar, seems an odd thing to do unless you have something to hide.

Yes I have. I have an M3P. I use autopilot on the motorways and did an 800 mile road trip to Le Mans with it on autopilot for most of the autoroutes. It was accelerating and decelerating with traffic. It responded and slowed down when lorries pulled out into the fast lane. It takes getting used to at first but it works great.

[NMNeil]

delta0 said:

The tax burden is not just VED. Fuel taxes will absolutely increase. The cost to use the car in most towns and cities will occur/increase. They have VED increasing with inflation so that will go up a good amount already. The already falling number of fuel stations will accelerate making it both harder to get fuel and less competitive. Less fuel will be refined so supply will fall. Industry will divest as it already is. Then there is the fact that the government are going to want as many people moving to EV as possible and so the loss of taxes are not going to be made up from EV users yet. Nothing can prohibit the switch to net zero so the burden of tax will be placed elsewhere.

But you have to include the tax losses from support industries.
No more fast oil and filter change garages, EV's don't have either.
Halfords and other parts stores will see a drop in the sale of spark plugs, ignition coils/wires, exhaust systems, starters, alternators, oil and air filters etc.
And of course the aftermarket performance parts companies will just cease to exist because there will be no demand for their products.
Lots of lost tax revenue from lots of industries that will have to be made up from somewhere else.

[TheDeuce]

delta0 said:

Heres Johnny said:

Have you ever driven a Tesla on autopilot? Would you trust it to stop if you were doing 60mph and you came up to a queue of stationary traffic? Not a chance.

It may not be completely true, but it’s not completely false either. Tesla dropped reporting their passive safety stats when they started to remove the radar, seems an odd thing to do unless you have something to hide.

Yes I have. I have an M3P. I use autopilot on the motorways and did an 800 mile road trip to Le Mans with it on autopilot for most of the autoroutes. It was accelerating and decelerating with traffic. It responded and slowed down when lorries pulled out into the fast lane. It takes getting used to at first but it works great.

I don't have a Tesla, I have an Ipace. But like the Tesla it uses both radar and camera to double check itself when self driving. All these systems are really only for motorways and dual carriageways, but mine works faultlessly over hundreds of miles on such roads. The emergency braking has kicked in a couple of times when something entirely unexpected has happened and it acheived the sort of emergency stop that would have a driving tester sat in the footwell!

How many distracted drivers are saved by such systems Vs how often the system fails? If true stats are not available for one scenario they can't be available for the other either. The point being that self driving is far from perfect, but used as intended it's quite possibly already more perfect than human drivers in certain situations.

[delta0]

NMNeil said:

delta0 said:

The tax burden is not just VED. Fuel taxes will absolutely increase. The cost to use the car in most towns and cities will occur/increase. They have VED increasing with inflation so that will go up a good amount already. The already falling number of fuel stations will accelerate making it both harder to get fuel and less competitive. Less fuel will be refined so supply will fall. Industry will divest as it already is. Then there is the fact that the government are going to want as many people moving to EV as possible and so the loss of taxes are not going to be made up from EV users yet. Nothing can prohibit the switch to net zero so the burden of tax will be placed elsewhere.

But you have to include the tax losses from support industries.
No more fast oil and filter change garages, EV's don't have either.
Halfords and other parts stores will see a drop in the sale of spark plugs, ignition coils/wires, exhaust systems, starters, alternators, oil and air filters etc.
And of course the aftermarket performance parts companies will just cease to exist because there will be no demand for their products.
Lots of lost tax revenue from lots of industries that will have to be made up from somewhere else.

This has always been the way when industries evolve and parts of it are no longer needed.

[delta0]

TheDeuce said:

delta0 said:

Heres Johnny said:

Have you ever driven a Tesla on autopilot? Would you trust it to stop if you were doing 60mph and you came up to a queue of stationary traffic? Not a chance.

It may not be completely true, but it’s not completely false either. Tesla dropped reporting their passive safety stats when they started to remove the radar, seems an odd thing to do unless you have something to hide.

Yes I have. I have an M3P. I use autopilot on the motorways and did an 800 mile road trip to Le Mans with it on autopilot for most of the autoroutes. It was accelerating and decelerating with traffic. It responded and slowed down when lorries pulled out into the fast lane. It takes getting used to at first but it works great.

I don't have a Tesla, I have an Ipace. But like the Tesla it uses both radar and camera to double check itself when self driving. All these systems are really only for motorways and dual carriageways, but mine works faultlessly over hundreds of miles on such roads. The emergency braking has kicked in a couple of times when something entirely unexpected has happened and it acheived the sort of emergency stop that would have a driving tester sat in the footwell!

How many distracted drivers are saved by such systems Vs how often the system fails? If true stats are not available for one scenario they can't be available for the other either. The point being that self driving is far from perfect, but used as intended it's quite possibly already more perfect than human drivers in certain situations.

Mine has worked flawlessly and has warned me of dangers where it would have emergency braked if I had not intervened. It is a recent vehicle so no LiDAR as far as I am aware. I only use mine for motorways. Don’t need it elsewhere. Maybe traffic assist in jams is the other thing I may use. A recent update has made it very aware of people near the vehicle. It will warn me of any pedestrians in the road.

Edited by delta0 on Wednesday 10th August 19:46

[DMZ]

delta0 said:

The tax burden is not just VED. Fuel taxes will absolutely increase. The cost to use the car in most towns and cities will occur/increase. They have VED increasing with inflation so that will go up a good amount already. The already falling number of fuel stations will accelerate making it both harder to get fuel and less competitive. Less fuel will be refined so supply will fall. Industry will divest as it already is. Then there is the fact that the government are going to want as many people moving to EV as possible and so the loss of taxes are not going to be made up from EV users yet. Nothing can prohibit the switch to net zero so the burden of tax will be placed elsewhere.

I’m not sure you have accounted for the ICE ban in your predictions. A very big reason for the ban is that you don’t need to incentivise something or disincentivise something else because there is no longer choice. They will immediate tax EVs and they will no longer care about ICE. It will also be politically and morally very challenging to tax the crap out of something old. Pre-tax price of fuel is hard to predict of course but keeping existing infrastructure and having it churn out same ol same ol is usually quite profitable. Petrol or diesel are not going anywhere for a very long time anyhow. Diesel in particular given its commercial use.

[delta0]

DMZ said:

delta0 said:

The tax burden is not just VED. Fuel taxes will absolutely increase. The cost to use the car in most towns and cities will occur/increase. They have VED increasing with inflation so that will go up a good amount already. The already falling number of fuel stations will accelerate making it both harder to get fuel and less competitive. Less fuel will be refined so supply will fall. Industry will divest as it already is. Then there is the fact that the government are going to want as many people moving to EV as possible and so the loss of taxes are not going to be made up from EV users yet. Nothing can prohibit the switch to net zero so the burden of tax will be placed elsewhere.

I’m not sure you have accounted for the ICE ban in your predictions. A very big reason for the ban is that you don’t need to incentivise something or disincentivise something else because there is no longer choice. They will immediate tax EVs and they will no longer care about ICE. It will also be politically and morally very challenging to tax the crap out of something old. Pre-tax price of fuel is hard to predict of course but keeping existing infrastructure and having it churn out same ol same ol is usually quite profitable. Petrol or diesel are not going anywhere for a very long time anyhow. Diesel in particular given its commercial use.

I have. That’s when they will transition tax to EVs as well. I know full well they won’t be exempt from tax forever but they won’t be taking the burden of tax for a while yet. I’m not sure they won’t care about ICE. The tax will still be high and fuel stations almost non existent but then the majority will be in EVs before then. Any carbon still being produced will need to be offset and carbon credits are already forecast to be very high. People producing carbon will have to fund these.

Edited by delta0 on Wednesday 10th August 20:23

[SWoll]

delta0 said:

Agree. It is not possible to let it slip. Whilst the average age of vehicles is 8 years if it slips then there will be a good possibility of a lot of ICEs on the road in 2050 which will force an even harsher and forceful change to net zero which will be even more painful. Killing off the new sales in 2035 gives 15 years which will flush most of them off the road in time.

Lets be honest, government has recent history of srttong timescales to implement things that eventually they give up on once they realise how unpopular they are.

And this is going to be incredibly unpopular..

[delta0]

SWoll said:

delta0 said:

Agree. It is not possible to let it slip. Whilst the average age of vehicles is 8 years if it slips then there will be a good possibility of a lot of ICEs on the road in 2050 which will force an even harsher and forceful change to net zero which will be even more painful. Killing off the new sales in 2035 gives 15 years which will flush most of them off the road in time.

Lets be honest, government has recent history of srttong timescales to implement things that eventually they give up on once they realise how unpopular they are.

And this is going to be incredibly unpopular..

Seems like this is a hope. We are legally signed up to net zero. It’s going to get very expensive if we ignore this. As pointed out this date was brought forward. Also EV sales are accelerating very quickly, more so than was forecasted.

Edited by delta0 on Wednesday 10th August 20:57

[TheDeuce]

SWoll said:

delta0 said:

Agree. It is not possible to let it slip. Whilst the average age of vehicles is 8 years if it slips then there will be a good possibility of a lot of ICEs on the road in 2050 which will force an even harsher and forceful change to net zero which will be even more painful. Killing off the new sales in 2035 gives 15 years which will flush most of them off the road in time.

Lets be honest, government has recent history of srttong timescales to implement things that eventually they give up on once they realise how unpopular they are.

And this is going to be incredibly unpopular..

That's true in general but these targets go far beyond our own feckless UK borders. They have made a plan and they have done so hand in hand with valuable inshore industry that needs to know the dates given are reliable. It's also a matter of royally pissing off the Germans, the French, the Italians and the Spanish neighbours if their car makers all work to plan A and then at the last minute the UK comes up with a plan B. The production lines and model release targets by the car makers are already targeted to meet the dates they have been given.