New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I'm saying that because it's true. CO2's warming effect is a logarithmic function.



The whole theory of alarmist global warming has its foundation based on the 2+ degrees added by CO2's effect pushing things over a tipping point, leading to other environmental changes that will create a runaway warming effect. But that's all theory with no empirical evidence to back it up. And each of the last 3 IPCC reports has shown less confidence in that even being a possibility.

Please don't interpret the above as an argument from me against EVs. Oil obviously isn't going to last forever so a variety of transportation options are ideal and definitely worthy of development.

As Transport pointed out, there are the direct effects of CO2, and then there are the secondary effects. Another one worth mentioning is the warming effect water vapor, which should rise as temperature rises. A runaway effect is definitely concerning.

Besides that, levels of CO2 can’t rise indefinitely without having other effects.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/07/1...ously-thought/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, folks in the US aren't exactly rioting in the streets over EVs either.

Size/distance travelled matters because their use case changes. The average Norwegian drives 6,500 miles a year. If that's all I drove I wouldn't be worried about plugging in either. I drive 5x that much (literally)

I don’t believe Norway, unless I am mistaken, has had to deal with as much ICEing and as many instances of non-provoked attacks to Teslas like North America has had to deal with, yet they have a far higher adoption.

Similarly, North America has seen far more acts of vandalism and protests against EVs, even though the government hasn’t pushed EVs to the extent Norway has, causing such a fast change to the automobile landscape.

There is a lot to tease out comparing demographics, standard deviations from the norm for outliers that skew the numbers, state differences, etc. Is this driving for work or personal driving? If someone is a passenger then does that count as driving statistically? I always wonder where these numbers come from and what they mean. Our averages don’t look bad for many groups. I’m curious what our bell distribution looks like. It might be more similar to Norway’s, but ours is skewed by some outliers that are heavy users. Average mileage foes tell us average trip length or trip type or charging ability in the areas or all types of things. I’m sure Norway is different, but we have so much variety in the US that I don’t think Norway is the exception to the rule.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t believe Norway, unless I am mistaken, has had to deal with as much ICEing and as many instances of non-provoked attacks to Teslas like North America has had to deal with, yet they have a far higher adoption.

I don't know that those weren't also isolated events or more creations of the news cycle, but I'll concede it's more likely to happen here than in Norway. It is definitely not something we're seeing in huge numbers though, any more than any other sets of fanboys yelling at each other.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Average mileage foes tell us average trip length or trip type or charging ability in the areas or all types of things. I’m sure Norway is different, but we have so much variety in the US that I don’t think Norway is the exception to the rule.

Well it is an average so it isn't really "skewed" by outliers, and I'm sure for my 32,500 miles a year there is someone that drives less than 1000 miles a year that averages me out. Knowing the median would be interesting though.

Norway is more normal than the US is in average mileage for sure. I think the US is the outlier, mainly because of our size and lack of a solid alternative. I went to Orlando for four days this past week and would have loved to have taken a highspeed train. The 7 hour car drive from Atlanta to Orlando takes 37 hours on the train, because you have to go to Washington DC first. (Route is ATL->DC->ORL). I could get to Orlando by train in 6 hours if I drove to Savannah first (5 hours) so I do have that going for me.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well it is an average so it isn't really "skewed" by outliers, and I'm sure for my 32,500 miles a year there is someone that drives less than 1000 miles a year that averages me out. Knowing the median would be interesting though.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. By definition an arithmetic mean is dragged up (or down) by outliers. Distributional details can make pretty big differences. And, yes, a comparison with the median would help clarify the point.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I don't know that those weren't also isolated events or more creations of the news cycle, but I'll concede it's more likely to happen here than in Norway. It is definitely not something we're seeing in huge numbers though, any more than any other sets of fanboys yelling at each other.



Well it is an average so it isn't really "skewed" by outliers, and I'm sure for my 32,500 miles a year there is someone that drives less than 1000 miles a year that averages me out. Knowing the median would be interesting though.

Norway is more normal than the US is in average mileage for sure. I think the US is the outlier, mainly because of our size and lack of a solid alternative. I went to Orlando for four days this past week and would have loved to have taken a highspeed train. The 7 hour car drive from Atlanta to Orlando takes 37 hours on the train, because you have to go to Washington DC first. (Route is ATL->DC->ORL). I could get to Orlando by train in 6 hours if I drove to Savannah first (5 hours) so I do have that going for me.

Remember mean, median and mode? The mean or average can be heavily skewed by outliers, even if those outliers are a minority, if those outliers are strong outliers. Examples are wealth or income when the top 1% and 0.1% and 0.01%, etc are included, and another is alcohol consumption averages, which look much different when alcoholics are removed from the equation. If we did a straight average, the highest income earners earn so much and have so much wealth that they throw off the average making the average higher than the middle of the bell curve. Same with alcohol, where the vast majority have only a few drinks a week or no drinks, but the highest drinkers drink so much that they throw off the average.





In theory, the lowest is zero, but the high could be a hundred thousand miles a year or more. The high is much higher from the median than the low. A mode or median or critical consideration of the curve could be more valuable. The assumption is the curves will be identical across states and between countries, but we don’t know.

I do agree that Norway probably has far better infrastructure for public transportation.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Remember mean, median and mode? The mean or average can be heavily skewed by outliers, even if those outliers are a minority, if those outliers are strong outliers.

Yea, I get that, and it is partially why the "average age" of car buyers is so high, since there pretty much no one buying a NEW car from 0 - 18, then a very small percentage from 18-30, but the top end probably doesn't fall off until well in the 60s.

My point was that in miles driven it's likely there are outliers on both sides of near equal numbers, and there is a practical top end (even to get to 100K a year you would have to drive over 270 miles a day, every day of the year). There are just as many that drive only a few hundred or thousand mile a year. There is also a good variation from state to state, but almost exactly what you would expect.

That's why I said median would be interesting.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I do agree that Norway probably has far better infrastructure for public transportation.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I'm not sure what you mean by this. By definition an arithmetic mean is dragged up (or down) by outliers. Distributional details can make pretty big differences. And, yes, a comparison with the median would help clarify the point.

As said above, I meant in this case there are probably just as many low outliers as upper outliers. Even in my own family, I drive 35K a year, MomHawk drives less than 10K, and my oldest son (who walks to work, and whose wife does most the family driving even on trips) drives less than 5K.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

As said above, I meant in this case there are probably just as many low outliers as upper outliers. Even in my own family, I drive 35K a year, MomHawk drives less than 10K, and my oldest son (who walks to work, and whose wife does most the family driving even on trips) drives less than 5K.

Yearly mileage might not even be that great of a metric. The average person only drives 30-40 miles a day based on 12k-15k annual miles. It is entirely possible for Norwegians to average less miles per day, but average longer miles per trip or the same miles per trip. This is possible if they use public transportation primarily or a lot, but then tend to use the family car for trips out of the city or between cities where range is important. It may be the case that Norwegians have the same upper requirement for EV range, even if they average less miles.

We know that for 95% of people or more, an EV would suit their daily needs. Even those outside that range could fully charge the car each day with a level 2 charger at home and/or at work. There will always be exceptions, and there will be solutions, even if those solutions aren’t ideal.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ars-says-study

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yearly mileage might not even be that great of a metric. The average person only drives 30-40 miles a day based on 12k-15k annual miles. It is entirely possible for Norwegians to average less miles per day, but average longer miles per trip or the same miles per trip. This is possible if they use public transportation primarily or a lot, but then tend to use the family car for trips out of the city or between cities where range is important. It may be the case that Norwegians have the same upper requirement for EV range, even if they average less miles.

We know that for 95% of people or more, an EV would suit their daily needs. Even those outside that range could fully charge the car each day with a level 2 charger at home and/or at work. There will always be exceptions, and there will be solutions, even if those solutions aren’t ideal.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ars-says-study

How about we just let people buy what they want without having to justify those wants with bullshit qualifiers like "needs". I don't "need" a 2 door manual tranmission sub 3,000lb sports car. I don't "need" a 400 hp Trans Am that I lusted after in high school. I don't "need" a 4x4 Jeep setup for overlanding.

I want those things and I will buy them and I don't give a shit if some clown **** thinks I should have to prove I have a "need" for for me to be able to own them.

If some company wants me to be interested in electric cars then they will "need" to build a 2 door sports car that doesn't look like a me-too CUV with body lines reminiscent of a bag of smashed assholes. They will "need" to figure out a way to make the drive more engaging than simply pressing on and off the accelerator pedal like some boring kids slot car toy. They will "need" to make it priced so that someone of moderate means can afford it instead of just looking at pictures and videos on the internet. They will also "need" to figure out a way to charge it that doesn't result in me sitting around at a charging station for 45 minutes every two weeks or spending half the cost of the car to have a construction company/electrician come out and smash my concrete driveway all to hell running power out to my parking area.

But I guess in this brave new world of brilliant collectivist ideas it's more about to each according to his "needs" and screw the individual for having wants outside what his "betters" believe he deserves.

[soundman98]

An ev perfectly suits my day-to day driving. I could even install a charger with minimal fuss.

But all of the models bore me until getting into the impractical hyper car territory that I'd have to sell body parts to afford. They're like the highschool equivalent of bragging to your friends that you have to drive your mom's minivan with the siblings car seats in the back.

I enjoy randomly deciding to go by the home improvement store and throwing things in the back of my truck. Sure, I absolutely could rent a truck for this. I don't do it all that often.. But then it's checking availability, paperwork, signatures, deposits, rushing to get 'x' done so I don't get charged another day for the rental(projects ALWAYS take twice the time expected on weekends), having to worry about dings, dents, dirt, and always returning it with a full tank.

Or I can own a truck, sign paperwork once, pay once, go whenever I feel like it, finish the next day if I need to, and not be as concerned about maintaining someone else's property. The convenience absolutely costs me more in the long run, but the peace of mind of having a vehicle/tool that can do exactly as I need it, whenever I need it makes up for it. My truck is a tool


I like my sports car. It's absolutely frivolous. I drive it on the weekends most times, usually just to buy lunch, or other stupid little errands. But it makes me happy, seeing it the garage, and being able to drive it whenever I feel.

Ev's are currently more of an 'adult' decision. They are perfectly suited to fit the logical, rational, and typical needs of the majority of the population. What I've filled my garage with instead is a tool to do work, and a toy. They're only mildly rational, one has capabilities that are well beyond what I need to perform tasks, the other makes me giggle when I give it more gas in a corner.

What ev's need is to be is less rational. Be fun, be interesting. Be less base-model minivan in the high school parking lot.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

How about we just let people buy what they want without having to justify those wants with bullshit qualifiers like "needs". I don't "need" a 2 door manual tranmission sub 3,000lb sports car. I don't "need" a 400 hp Trans Am that I lusted after in high school. I don't "need" a 4x4 Jeep setup for overlanding.

I want those things and I will buy them and I don't give a shit if some clown **** thinks I should have to prove I have a "need" for for me to be able to own them.

If some company wants me to be interested in electric cars then they will "need" to build a 2 door sports car that doesn't look like a me-too CUV with body lines reminiscent of a bag of smashed assholes. They will "need" to figure out a way to make the drive more engaging than simply pressing on and off the accelerator pedal like some boring kids slot car toy. They will "need" to make it priced so that someone of moderate means can afford it instead of just looking at pictures and videos on the internet. They will also "need" to figure out a way to charge it that doesn't result in me sitting around at a charging station for 45 minutes every two weeks or spending half the cost of the car to have a construction company/electrician come out and smash my concrete driveway all to hell running power out to my parking area.

But I guess in this brave new world of brilliant collectivist ideas it's more about to each according to his "needs" and screw the individual for having wants outside what his "betters" believe he deserves.

Because the world is changing like it has always done, whether that was adding safety equipment or reducing the size of vehicles during the gas crisis or moving to EFI and better emissions or whatever. The buyer hasn’t determined the features of cars for most of the history of cars. This is nothing new. The change to EVs isn’t going to be solely dependent on demand. It’ll be governments and manufacturers playing a huge role like they always have.

Build what you want within the confines of the law if the market displeases you, but the world will be moving to EVs regardless of what buyers may feel about it. This will happen sooner or later, but it will happen regardless of whether people want or don’t want it to happen. Because it is an inevitability, it is worth considering the feasibility. This is in regards to many aspects, but one consideration is whether EVs can realistically meet the needs of everyone. Needs trump wants.

There will be a point in time where someone may not have access to gas or be near a gas station or be able to find an ICE vehicle that isn’t twenty years old. This future isn’t far off. I might die before it happens in my lifetime, but it is inevitable. Who knows, driving a vehicle could be illegal in a future with self driving cars. This may be to the opposite of your wants, but that won’t stop it from happening.

[WildCard600]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Because the world is changing like it has always done, whether that was adding safety equipment or reducing the size of vehicles during the gas crisis or moving to EFI and better emissions or whatever. The buyer hasn’t determined the features of cars for most of the history of cars. This is nothing new. The change to EVs isn’t going to be solely dependent on demand. It’ll be governments and manufacturers playing a huge role like they always have.

Build what you want within the confines of the law if the market displeases you, but the world will be moving to EVs regardless of what buyers may feel about it. This will happen sooner or later, but it will happen regardless of whether people want or don’t want it to happen. Because it is an inevitability, it is worth considering the feasibility. This is in regards to many aspects, but one consideration is whether EVs can realistically meet the needs of everyone. Needs trump wants.

There will be a point in time where someone may not have access to gas or be near a gas station or be able to find an ICE vehicle that isn’t twenty years old. This future isn’t far off. I might die before it happens in my lifetime, but it is inevitable. Who knows, driving a vehicle could be illegal in a future with self driving cars. This may be to the opposite of your wants, but that won’t stop it from happening.

So collectivist corporatocracy. It's currently en vogue to spout lip service to minority rights but it's perfectly fine to shit all over the rights of the ultimate minority, the individual.

Those dystopian cyberpunk futures sure seemed a lot cooler in 80's anime.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by soundman98

But all of the models bore me until getting into the impractical hyper car territory that I'd have to sell body parts to afford.

Your body parts must be worth more than mine.....

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by WildCard600

So collectivist corporatocracy. It's currently en vogue to spout lip service to minority rights but it's perfectly fine to shit all over the rights of the ultimate minority, the individual.

Those dystopian cyberpunk futures sure seemed a lot cooler in 80's anime.

Individualism has long been, and remains, overrated.