New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[WolfpackS2k]

100%

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Going forward with all vehicles, electric or no, I would not be opposed to having a tax imposed on vehicles weighing more than, say, 3600 lb. if heavier vehicles is a concern.

So basically, I read this as "I would never buy a car that weighs more than 3,600lbs so let's legislate everything above that by taxing it". I mean a Subaru Outback weighs more than 3,600lbs. In 2023 the average car is 4,094lbs.

If you want to tax based on weight then it should be based on every pound of every vehicle. There's nothing magical about 3,600lbs.

Hey, maybe they should just sell them by the pound...

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

So basically, I read this as "I would never buy a car that weighs more than 3,600lbs so let's legislate everything above that by taxing it".

I said "if heavy vehicles is a concern". Point being, the Faux "News" article title is very misleading, suggesting that EVs are "too heavy". Meanwhile they cite a parking garage failure in NYC, that was full of gigantically oversized ICE SUVs...

So *the point* is that if vehicles are becoming too heavy, maybe rather than singling out EVs, perhaps we do something to keep weights more reasonable for *all* vehicles. And reform CAFE standards so we don't have majority hugely oversized gas-guzzling trucks/SUVs on the roads commuting 5 days/week, it's a disaster...

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/electri...garages-report

This is probably a non-issue, and just a case of FN using an event to script a narrative against EVs, and it is probably the case that they didn't script the same narrative against the rising popularity of SUVs and trucks over the last two decades.

Top selling vehicles are ICE trucks/SUVs by a far margin (1).

Per the International Building Code, parking structures are designed for a live load of 40 pounds per square ft of live load. The top level of a parking structure is designed for that plus the snow load – typically 54-60 psf of total live load for the roof level.

Proper use of steel and concrete supports the weight of parking garages. The code required design live load (occupant loading) for garages used by passenger cars and light trucks is 40 psf, which is the same load used for floors in residential buildings. Passenger vehicles generally weigh 3,000 to 5000 lbs each and occupy spaces that are typically 9 to 11 feet wide by 18 to 20′ deep. That is 5000 lb/162 sf or 31 psf for the larger vehicles in smaller spaces. Additional loading from the weight of drivers and passengers is not likely to put the total weight in the smallest parking space above 40 psf.

I've been in a number of full garages after baseball games, operas, concerts, etc, where every spot was full, and everyone was in or walking back to their cars at the same time. The load capacity of the structure far exceeds its average use. If the garage is not built to support a Weight Watchers Anonymous truck convention then they would need to regulate incoming traffic to meet standards or risk a huge lawsuit. Based on the weights of many EVs, if the popularity of trucks and SUVs didn't initiate a change in building codes then I doubt EVs will either.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I said "if heavy vehicles is a concern". Point being, the Faux "News" article title is very misleading, suggesting that EVs are "too heavy". Meanwhile they cite a parking garage failure in NYC, that was full of gigantically oversized ICE SUVs...

So *the point* is that if vehicles are becoming too heavy, maybe rather than singling out EVs, perhaps we do something to keep weights more reasonable for *all* vehicles. And reform CAFE standards so we don't have majority hugely oversized gas-guzzling trucks/SUVs on the roads commuting 5 days/week, it's a disaster...

I agree except taxing things isn't really a deterrent. SUVs or bigger vehicles are typically more expensive (sales are taxed), and they get worse gas mileage (fuel is taxed), and there is a gas guzzler tax, but nothing seems to be preventing people from buying larger vehicles. It would be nice to have CAFE standards apply more evenly, but as it stands, the shift to EVs means all vehicles will meet standards. Weight obviously is problematic for wear and tear on our roads, but I don't know that a tax beyond sales and fuel tax is necessary when many buyers may choose lighter EVs if it means gaining more range. We will see.

The biggest motivation for these huge trucks and SUVs seems to be appeal/aesthetics, perceived utility (which doesn't match actual utility, nor personal utility), perceived safety (which doesn't match actual safety), an upright seating position for comfort (we have big bellies in the US), and for a commanding view of the road (this is a race to the top where we end where we started). Most people are using huge vehicles as a preference only and not a need, so we could preferences change when EVs are doing the driving or people want the most range for the battery size (aka it being light/small).

I think there should be CAFE type standards on battery sizes to keep batteries smaller, which is a type of emissions.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I agree except taxing things isn't really a deterrent.

Not necessarily a tax... What I said in the post you quoted:

Originally Posted by ZDan

...if vehicles are becoming too heavy, maybe rather than singling out EVs, perhaps we do something to keep weights more reasonable for *all* vehicles. And reform CAFE standards so we don't have majority hugely oversized gas-guzzling trucks/SUVs on the roads commuting 5 days/week, it's a disaster...

I had mentioned a tax, but also perhaps just having a reasonable limit, or requiring special licensing/permits for vehicles that exceed that. More than one way to do it, but I do not think it would be unreasonable to get vehicle sizes/masses down to sane levels.

SUVs or bigger vehicles are typically more expensive (sales are taxed), and they get worse gas mileage (fuel is taxed), and there is a gas guzzler tax

That gas-guzzler tax should be based on a single number, the same as for cars. Trucks/SUVs should not be allowed to consume 40% more and emit 40% more CO2 for free.

but nothing seems to be preventing people from buying larger vehicles. It would be nice to have CAFE standards apply more evenly, but as it stands, the shift to EVs means all vehicles will meet standards.

The regulations were hijacked by automakers and fossil fuel sellers to encourage people to drive ever bigger/heavier vehicles. Could just as easily have skewed them the other way to encourage smaller more fuel-efficient vehicles. I mean that's exactly what happened between the 70s and early 90s.

We would be a lot better off if we had transitioned to hybrids more. I know the push is to EVs, but IMO "strong hybrids" that commute on mostly electric is a better idea for the transition period, perhaps forever.

CAFE was hijacked to favor BIGGER, less efficient vehicles...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-...tions-to-blame

The broad CAFE classifications and more relaxed mileage targets certainly incentivize prioritizing light trucks and SUVs, and manufacturers will continue to respond in turn to these incentives. And regardless of surveyed preferences, consumers will keep buying what's on the lot. In short, barring drastic changes to the automotive and regulatory worlds in the near future, small cars aren't coming back any time soon.

Perverse...

[Lantanafrs2]

Judging by how correct you guys were on the covid threads, evs are doomed lol

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

CAFE was hijacked to favor BIGGER, less efficient vehicles...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-...tions-to-blame

The broad CAFE classifications and more relaxed mileage targets certainly incentivize prioritizing light trucks and SUVs, and manufacturers will continue to respond in turn to these incentives. And regardless of surveyed preferences, consumers will keep buying what's on the lot. In short, barring drastic changes to the automotive and regulatory worlds in the near future, small cars aren't coming back any time soon.

Perverse...

I see it differently. The US probably wanted to protect the truck market, so they created two standards. The 25% tariff on truck imports seems to also protect domestic production of trucks. Whatever the fixation, I doubt they predicted the huge rise in people buying trucks, and if they did then the CAFE standards were intentionally created to increase profits of oil and car manufactures. I'm inclined to dismiss conspiracy theories and go with what makes sense.

Of course manufactures followed suit to make more vehicles that could be classified as light duty trucks to avoid CAFE standards, but I completely disagree that consumers were faultless and simply accepting that SUVs were the only vehicles available on the lots. I don't believe car lots are bone dry with consumers demanding lighter, smaller, more compact cars in droves, but ultimately had to settle for an F250 or Expedition Max. How does a Model Y (231,400) sell far more units than a Model 3 (198,200) when it is more expensive ($7k more for the same range, but the Y has dual motors AWD vs RWD) and marginally different if not public sentiment and not manufactures pushing SUVs? Tesla does zero advertising, so either people like the SUV shape and seating position, or people believe AWD is so important they are wiling to spend $7k for it (the performance variant is only $1k different).

I would like to blame the manufacture on the demise of the manual transmission and sports cars too, but consumers are making most of theses choices. At my work, the flashy Porsches and Mercedes have been replaced by the largest versions of American trucks like F250 and F350 King Ranch Editions. People enjoy sitting in their leather-sofa-like chairs and driving cushy tanks down the road.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Judging by how correct you guys were on the covid threads, evs are doomed lol

What was incorrect? It is worth mentioning that people can be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. A broken clock is right twice a day. Hindsight is always 20/20. Even when results are undesirable, they may not change what actions are best in the future. For example, if you have three possible doors with a prize behind one door, and you choose a door and are given the option to keep that door or switch, the statistics suggest it is best to switch. Even if you made a bad switch, the odds for the next contestant would be the same to switch doors and to not hold the choice, meaning, when we don't know the outcomes, the path may be best regardless of the outcomes based on odds. That isn't to say some things can't be learned, but I don't know how different a new deadly, global pandemic would play out given a certain amount of knowns and unknowns. For instance, if Ebola went from what we know it is to something with an incubation period and transmissibility of COVID and with a mutation rate akin to COVID then I think the concerns and reactions would be just as large or larger.

You're making a false equivalence either way. There are fairly predictable timelines and models for the future of oil based on the size of known oil reserves, the rate of new oil discoveries, the timeline to drill, the timeline to build refineries, the ability to extract oil from reserves, the investment in oil extraction based on peak demand, etc. Many areas have already seen peak demand, but global peak demand is likely to hit in decades and not centuries. This is true with production too, irregardless of EVs reducing demand for oil. We just haven't been finding more deposits despite ever greater technology. We have gotten more efficient with what oil we use (eg, cars are more fuel efficient) and have been more creative with extracting oil from unconventional sources like fracking shale, but production is going to fail to keep up with supply far sooner than most people realize. Even if you are not accepting of climate science, oil and ICEs have a finite shelf life, so EVs and renewable energy is a predictable, forgone conclusion. It isn't a matter of us being wrong about the if, but maybe the when, but this is a decades debate and not a centuries debate.

The economics of renewable is also winning (1) where the price of renewables is just cheaper than coal (2).



https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/peak-oil-demand/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I see it differently. The US probably wanted to protect the truck market, so they created two standards. The 25% tariff on truck imports seems to also protect domestic production of trucks. Whatever the fixation, I doubt they predicted the huge rise in people buying trucks, and if they did then the CAFE standards were intentionally created to increase profits of oil and car manufactures. I'm inclined to dismiss conspiracy theories and go with what makes sense.

It isn't a conspiracy theory. I mean, "protecting domestic production of TRUCKS"?! They have blatantly allowed trucks/SUVs which are used as commuter transportation to have a HUGE break on fuel economy, and have also blatanly allowed LARGER cars to get a break relative to smaller cars.

It's all out there in the open. They are actively discouraging automakers from building reasonably sized CARS, and ENcouraging them to build more trucks/SUVs and larger cars. They explicitly give a BREAK to you if you build a bigger, heavier, less efficient vehicle.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

It isn't a conspiracy theory. I mean, "protecting domestic production of TRUCKS"?! They have blatantly allowed trucks/SUVs which are used as commuter transportation to have a HUGE break on fuel economy, and have also blatanly allowed LARGER cars to get a break relative to smaller cars.

It's all out there in the open. They are actively discouraging automakers from building reasonably sized CARS, and ENcouraging them to build more trucks/SUVs and larger cars. They explicitly give a BREAK to you if you build a bigger, heavier, less efficient vehicle.

Yeah, I am onboard with the hypocrisy, but it is hard to create legislation that allows for big diesel vehicles to exist that are used for work, for their true utility, for hauling, etc, while also telling people they can't buy these types of vehicles for solo commuting. I think the government believed there was a need for a double standard, so these vehicles could exist, but they didn't expect the manufactures and public to make the exception the standard by taking something from 10-20% of the market to 80% of the market. I don't believe they drafted the legislation with the intention of manipulating the market to create the current situation where we have so many trucks and SUVs.

Trucks And SUVs Are Now Over 80 Percent Of New Car Sales In The U.S.
https://jalopnik.com/trucks-and-suvs...ale-1848427797

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yeah, I am onboard with the hypocrisy, but it is hard to create legislation that allows for big diesel vehicles to exist that are used for work, for their true utility, for hauling, etc, while also telling people they can't buy these types of vehicles for solo commuting.

Super-easy, really. This is the target. Miss it and there's a guzzler tax commensurate with how much you missed it by. Exceed it, reduced tax. No breaks for trucks/SUVs, no breaks for bigger cars.

But the laws and regs are written for $$$$ corporate sponsors, not for the people...

[Lantanafrs2]

The laws and regulations are formulated by the large dollar corporations and mega wealthy to control regular people. The idea is to control what we can eat, drive and think. They are looking to turn society into a cesspool of medicated, non binary things. No thanks

[Dadhawk]

Kind of hard to buy cars when a lot of the manufacturers have left the car business. Ford in the US only sells the Mustang. GM is down to only one or two models unless you go high end.

Toyota and Honda still sell cars, but only if you want a 4 seater.

The problem is, there used to be such a thing as a "family car". One that you could get the entire family, and their luggage, in and go on a week long road trip. It was also the car one of the parents drove to work, or used at home.

You literally no longer have that choice (or at least it's limited). Not everyone can afford a vehicle for every occasion. You have to compromise, and usually you are going to compromise on the 5% of what you need, not the 95%.

When I was a kid, up until I was in my mid 30's you bought a truck because you couldn't afford a car. Now, it is literally the other way around.