New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The other thing is that these companies need a new focus. The horsepower wars are getting so ridiculous that there needs to be a new focus to reign in the power, or rather, where do you go from a 700+hp sports coupe? There are engineering limits on cooling, reliability, fuel economy, weight, etc with ICEs. Going EV could reset and restart the bar. At one point in time, Japanese cars had a gentlemen's agreement on 280hp or something, and now, we may see an agreement to move past the latest horsepower wars and move onto something different.

Apparently to seeing how many CUVs you can ram down your customers' throat if you are Ford...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Apparently to seeing how many CUVs you can ram down your customers' throat if you are Ford...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...ans-1525369304

Are they ramming CUVs or are we wanting CUVs? Is it a push or pull situation? That is the question.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...ans-1525369304

Are they ramming CUVs or are we wanting CUVs? Is it a push or pull situation? That is the question.

they did say their cars weren't selling, but then ford has never been known to make the most quality cars anyways. even here, half the guy's considering a mustang have to keep reminding themselves that it's either got a turbo, or a v8 to feel that it's the better purchase.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by soundman98

are you implying that suspending a tank of a flammable liquid underneath a vehicle in a 1/8" thick plastic tub is less problematic to road hazards?

Yes, infinitely.

If I puncture my gas tank nothing happens except oil spills out over the road and eventually evaporates and we replace the gas tank.

If I puncture a car's battery pack, at best there is no fire but the entire car would be totaled because you can't simply replace the battery pack, and at worst the entire car catches fire.

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by soundman98

they did say their cars weren't selling, but then ford has never been known to make the most quality cars anyways. even here, half the guy's considering a mustang have to keep reminding themselves that it's either got a turbo, or a v8 to feel that it's the better purchase.

Ford Fusion was a success on the category. Fiesta also (in Europe). Focus was a bummer, failed in China and got a bad rep.
Not a reason to drop all. The reason may be different, including regulations (e.g. CAFE), profits, cusromwr demand, shifting of CEOs, new direction...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Yes, infinitely.

If I puncture my gas tank nothing happens except oil spills out over the road and eventually evaporates and we replace the gas tank.

If I puncture a car's battery pack, at best there is no fire but the entire car would be totaled because you can't simply replace the battery pack, and at worst the entire car catches fire.

This can happen, but it doesn't really happen at any rate to be a real concern. Like I posted above, ground clearance is fairly low. In fact, many vehicles come from the factory with really low ground clearance. There are cars like the C8 Corvette that will remember your preferences, so when you come to a particular area, it will automatically raise the car.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...nt-lift-video/

Fires are much more common with ICEs than EVs. The incidents typically don't happen from tank punctures, but that is possible. Typically it happens when a fuel line, injector, regulator, etc leaks or breaks, and the gas hits the exhaust pipe and starts a fire. This happens with oil leaks too of course. The GT350 had a recall because several cars caught on fire from the oil filter not sealing well enough. Then there are the physical damages from a crash or catastrophic engine failure that can cause a hole in the crank case or a leak, which can start a fire.

You are correct that a serious impact to the bottom of the car will likely result in more expensive damage, but this is very rare. The battery area under an EV is also bigger than say the area under an ICE vehicle where an object could puncture the oil pan that could cause engine failure, so there is a greater chance of an impact with an EV. Yet, the under trays of EVs are very thick. Some EVs like Ford's Mach-E has individual sections that can be changed out if one got damaged.



On the newest Teslas, the batteries will be integrated into the floor like how some engines in motorbikes or race cars become integral components of the chassis, so removing the battery may not be as easy or possible. Initially they planned to design the car, so the batteries could be swapped, and while other companies like Nio are providing that service, Tesla is moving away from that model because it seems less necessary. But, previously, Teslas could have their battery packs removed and replaced, which was very common, and like a broken engine, they could be recycled and harvested for parts and materials. Most wrecked Teslas showed little to no major damage to the battery packs. Nio has performed over 500,000 battery swaps so far using these swapping stations:

Tesla battery pack:



Nio swapping station:

[Dadhawk]

Speaking of Tesla, they were just forced to recall 135,000 vehicles because the center tablet may fail. Tesla refused to voluntarily recall them because they didn't think the failure was a safety issue, even though some systems, like the backup camera and the window defrost systems are controlled by it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Good video breakdown:

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Good video breakdown:

Agreed, good video. I like his balanced approach to the whole subject.

Of course, I may like him because he sounds like a Muppet.

Only thing, I think he missed the point that it's not quite that straight forward. Charging at night also makes use of electricity production that is now "lost". That is why, for example, my EMC (electric co-op) let's you charge a car for free if you do it between certain hours (up to 400kWh per month).

The video itself is a bit weird though. This would have been better done in the studio similar to his video on the CT5-V Blackwing. The driving and random shots of Hummer EVs, Mach-Es, etc were distracting.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Agreed, good video. I like his balanced approach to the whole subject.

Of course, I may like him because he sounds like a Muppet.

Only think I saw is I think he missed the point that it's not quite that straight forward. Charging at night also makes use of electricity production that is now "lost". That is why, for example, my EMC (electric co-op) let's you charge a car for free if you do it between certain hours (up to 400kWh per month).

The video itself is a bit weird though. This would have been better done in the studio similar to his video on the CT5-V Blackwing. The driving and random shots of Hummer EVs, Mach-Es, etc were distracting.[URL]

I’m missing your point when you say lost.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m missing your point when you say lost.

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I've read that there is a certain amount of power required to keep the grid active. At night the consumption of that power can fall below that minimum and is somehow dumped. If the power isn't being consumed by a consumer, it is consumed by the grid, and effectively "lost" as in it doesn't power anything else. Since I'm no expert though I could be completely off in my understanding.

There are examples of this in the production of electricity, although not exactly the same thing. For example, in some cases of hydroelectric power, the generators required to provide electricity during the day to the grid may not be needed at night. Rather than turn the generators off, they are used for another purpose. For example, in Georgia, Lake Oconee is a power generating lake and Lake Sinclair (downstream) is basically "battery storage". Each night, the excess power generation is used to pump water from Lake Sinclair back into Lake Oconee, then that water is reused to power the turbines during peak times. Lake Sinclair, as result, has a low and high "tide" every day as the water is pumped out then flowed back in.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I've read that there is a certain amount of power required to keep the grid active. At night the consumption of that power can fall below that minimum and is somehow dumped. If the power isn't being consumed by a consumer, it is consumed by the grid, and effectively "lost" as in it doesn't power anything else. Since I'm no expert though I could be completely off in my understanding.

There are examples of this in the production of electricity, although not exactly the same thing. For example, in some cases of hydroelectric power, the generators required to provide electricity during the day to the grid may not be needed at night. Rather than turn the generators off, they are used for another purpose. For example, in Georgia, Lake Oconee is a power generating lake and Lake Sinclair (downstream) is basically "battery storage". Each night, the excess power generation is used to pump water from Lake Sinclair back into Lake Oconee, then that water is reused to power the turbines during peak times. Lake Sinclair, as result, has a low and high "tide" every day as the water is pumped out then flowed back in.

I don’t know if this is done with green/renewable energy only like wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal. All plants are designed to stop, so I don’t think there is a minimum. Some plants just run continuously to meet a basic need and other plants fine tune their output to meet fluctuations in energy supply and demand, so coal and nuclear might provide a continuous base, and as solar and wind comes online, hydro and natural gas turn down supply. Like the video details, incentivizing power usage at night helps to flatten the curve, so there are natural price reductions in utility costs at night from supply and demand, but there may also be tariffs or government incentives to use power at night, not because of waste or to avoid loses, but rather, to ease the burden on the system and possibly avoid the use of the more-expensive, on-demand utilities.

On a separate note, the US is one of the most wasteful countries in how we use energy—in terms of absolute amounts and per capita, so we have the capacity to improve on that metric to get more energy by not wasting more energy. For example, many homes could be much more efficient. New homes are being designed with smart cooling/heating and zone climate control, better insulation, etc.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I've read that there is a certain amount of power required to keep the grid active.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t know if this is done with green/renewable energy only like wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal. All plants are designed to stop, so I don’t think there is a minimum.

Capacity (amount of electricity a grid can generate) vs supply are two different things.

Plants can run continuously but whether they generate power or not is a different story, depending on how they generate power.

Wind is pretty much based on forecast and location, so it is variable. Hydroelectric usually are at dams, so they can turn it on/off as long as the dam is not at capacity. etc etc...

Other plants like coal/oil/gas/nuclear usually are always "on", so the only variable is whether they are running at 25% or 100% based on demand.

This real time graph shows the overall US electrical grid at any time with info on supply and demand. The only real concern is what the forecast electrical need is vs what is actually available, and whether or not excess capacity can be provided in case of spikes.

https://www.eia.gov/realtime_grid/#/...nd=20210211T12

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t know if this is done with green/renewable energy only like wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal. All plants are designed to stop, so I don’t think there is a minimum. .

My point was around the minimum amount of energy required to energize the grid (basically keeping the supply line hot). Perhaps I misinterpreted the explanation from my EMC on why they could provide free charging at night, and it had to do with some other factor around what they had to pay for, as you mention.