New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I got you bro:

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143867


You are from Michigan. Why do you care?

California allows for classic cars to be on the road. California has a path for people to do legal engine swaps. California allows for aftermarket parts like turbochargers kits that have EO#s (the 86 has like half a dozen FI kits to choose from like Harrop, Edelbrock, JR, Works, etc). California has huge areas of the state that are exempt from smogging their car. California has exempt new cars from needing to be smogged for eight years. A person could flash their car and uninstall parts before smog and then flash it back and be good for two more years. Yes, people wouldn't be running legal just like people have illegal levels of tint; a person takes a chance on getting caught, but it isn't that big of a deal, and I think it is odd that other states bash on California.

There is this idea that whatever California does will eventually be passed on to other states. Sometimes this is true because California has such a huge car market that they influence manufactures to meet their standards, and these manufactures sometimes make California and Federal cars, and sometimes they just change to meet California's standard, so they only have to produce one car. It is also often the case that California's standards are just a few years ahead of the federal standards, so it isn't that California is influencing the rest of the market, but rather, that the market is inherently delayed behind California, so even if California didn't exist, the federal standards would move cars to tighter emission standards.

In some ways, modifications that allow for coal rolling are federally illegal and many states have made these modifications more illegal or illegal at the state level or harsher. California was not listed at the time of this article:

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/rolling...pickup-trucks/

I care for the topic because then info like this can be brought up, which clarifies questions.
Also, I care because this influences on my work, as you mentioned, it influences the whole country trend for changes due to its market size. Your state can bring good changes (and for sure did several times) or changes driven by snobs that had their own private jets and chauffeurs (not that those conditions makes someone to be a snob).
Vehicle design also has a trend for automation, which can move the OEM’s design houses to California.

And last but not least, because it’s fun.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

I care for the topic because then info like this can be brought up, which clarifies questions.
Also, I care because this influences on my work, as you mentioned, it influences the whole country trend for changes due to its market size. Your state can bring good changes (and for sure did several times) or changes driven by snobs that had their own private jets and chauffeurs (not that those conditions makes someone to be a snob).
Vehicle design also has a trend for automation, which can move the OEM’s design houses to California.

And last but not least, because it’s fun.

On the topic of the thread, the synopsis is there was an executive order from the governor, but it isn’t likely to mean much as is because the mandate is so far into the future. It was only an order made to encourage the industry to consider such a mandate could and like will exist soon enough that they should start making adjustments now. Also, there isn’t any specifics about bringing cars into California from other states; it is only about new car sales. It doesn’t mention (unless I missed it) exemptions based on vehicle class or size, so in short, we know nothing and anything can change.

Irregardless of California, manufacturers have already made claims that they will go completely electric and be moving to carbon neutral manufacturing on their own, so changes are coming, but there will likely still be options for people driving ICEs for a long time, yet they may not have as many options.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by ZDan

0.025% to 0.041%
Quite significant in fact...

But it's not significant, because a CO2 molecule's warming effect is logarithmic, not linear, and each molecule added to the atmosphere has exactly half the warming effect of the previous molecule. After around 500 ppm, it's effect is maxed out - adding more won't change anything.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

But it's not significant, because a CO2 molecule's warming effect is logarithmic, not linear, and each molecule added to the atmosphere has exactly half the warming effect of the previous molecule. After around 500 ppm, it's effect is maxed out - adding more won't change anything.

??? "Warming effect is logarithmic" doesn't mean that every molecule added has "exactly half the warming effect of the previous molecule", it doesn't take much thinking to realize how ridiculous that claim is. I mean, do you really think that the 2nd additional molecule had half the effect of the 1st? If so then by the 10th molecule the effect was less than 0.1%.

You can be on a technically "logarithmic" curve and still have a nearly linear relationship. For *sure* on a "molecule by molecule" scale, it's linear.
https://skepticalscience.com/why-glo...ccelerate.html

[Irace86.2.0]

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

[url]Are EVs the Problem? video

Interesting, but no real surprises there, for me at least.

I'll be honest though, this plays almost 0% into my purchase of a vehicle, and I suspect it is true for a lot of the buying product. Should it, yes, does it, no.

I liked that he addressed the "yea, but my car is still being used" scenario. I did think that immediately. I'm not sure his answer was sufficient but to some extent he was correct, you really can't know.

[Irace86.2.0]

I like that he provides a basic breakdown that shows that for most people, a new EV is still better than keeping an existing car.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I like that he provides a basic breakdown that shows that for most people, a new EV is still better than keeping an existing car.

Well, not really. He shows its more environmentally sound to do so, but doesn't really show that overall its a better solution. Buying a new/different car is rarely an overall "better" solution for most folks, even if you take into account the cost of repairs. At least, not unless you keep the new car a very long time.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, not really. He shows its more environmentally sound to do so, but doesn't really show that overall its a better solution. Buying a new/different car is rarely an overall "better" solution for most folks, even if you take into account the cost of repairs. At least, not unless you keep the new car a very long time.

Of course. That was the point: to tackle the argument that an old car is greener than a new EV because the carbon footprint of something new is inherently higher than something that is old, but in fact, old cars will likely burn through so much fossil fuels that it offsets the carbon footprint of a new EV.

[Arthur-A]

Finally some wise words being said.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/42399/...ion-engine-ban

"We will not agree with the ban on selling fossil fuel-powered cars. It's not possible. We can't dictate here what green fanatics devised in the European Parliament."

Bravo! Hopefully other countries will drop that "carbon footprint" bullshit soon.

[soundman98]

i'm not entirely opposed to ev's. i'm just opposed to outright abandonment of 1 legacy fuel source, for what is a very fledgling fuel source because the current benefits appear better.

there's a lot of questions yet about natural resources, and utilities that haven't been put to rest for me.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by soundman98

i'm not entirely opposed to ev's. i'm just opposed to outright abandonment of 1 legacy fuel source, for what is a very fledgling fuel source because the current benefits appear better.

there's a lot of questions yet about natural resources, and utilities that haven't been put to rest for me.

Yea, I'm with you. I will always on an ICE vehicle until they stop selling fuel for it. That doesn't mean I won't own an EV as well, just like I would own a diesel or propane vehicle if it made sense.

In fact, I had planned to put down an order for the Cadillac Lyriq tonight, but it sold out very quickly. Might hold out for the Silverado now.

[soundman98]

i've looked into the NGV conversions a few times. imo, it's better than hydrogen because the tanks don't age out the same due to the lower pressures, and standard ICE works with it. biggest drawback is the conversion cost, the loss of the spare tire on body-on-frame vehicles, or cargo space on unibody vehicles, refueling, and that it's cleaner, but still has carbon emissions...

what i don't currently like the most about electric is that tesla is pushing everyone else to get into it. i mean, that's in and itself is good, but then there's things like the chevy bolt recall/fires-- that is the direct result of pushing the boundaries of the tech early on. it's a reminder that we as a collective still have a massive amount to learn in the design and implementation of electric power.

around 2014-16, i had said when nissan leaf's drop to $5k on the used market, i'd pick one up for commuting. i only commute less than 10 miles a day, so it would easily fulfill my basic transportation needs year round. i just can't do it. i admit, much of it has to do with the 'appliance' nature of the leaf, and that i feel i'm giving up a part of my soul every time i try one. in the first 5 minutes of test driving one(to what amounted to be about a 4 hour test drive session, thanks to the situation), the very first thought was "the future is supposed to be exciting. why is this is more boring than aspiring to be a low end production manager at a vanilla factory?!?"

every feature had been distilled down to a 'yes' or 'no' answer. does it steer? yes. does it have a stereo? yes. does it have seats? yes. there was nothing interesting, unique, or even notable about any of it. it was the car version of getting socks for christmas.

that experience has definitely burned me on the concept of ev ownership. every vehicle i own, there's something unique, and something to be passionate about. the only thing the leaf even offered that was unique was led headlights...

it might be time to try another ev, but unfortunately, i can't do tesla for a number of reasons, the cult of musk for starters, and signing my life over in electronic form for finishing...

i'm hopeful that someone will come to market with an ev that has some unique qualities without the teslastans ruining it yet...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Arthur-A

Finally some wise words being said.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/42399/...ion-engine-ban

"We will not agree with the ban on selling fossil fuel-powered cars. It's not possible. We can't dictate here what green fanatics devised in the European Parliament."

Bravo! Hopefully other countries will drop that "carbon footprint" bullshit soon.

The market will go electric regardless. He doesn’t have to ban them, but it is highly unlikely ICEs will last long, even if he doesn’t ban them. Not choosing to modernize could be a problem for the future of the country.