New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I see no reason why Tesla would intentionally limit or slow the charging speed below the capabilities of what a GM or Ford vehicle could charge because that would just delay these vehicles from vacating a spot. No one who has charged their non-Tesla EV using a Magic Dock has experienced limits in charging speeds or limits in charging duration or capacity.

There have been reported experiences below "full speed ahead" on specific vehicles but that is caused by using an adapter, and not something Tesla is doing intentionally. Seems to be associated with 800V vehicles but persons charging a Lyriq have seen a charge speed less than that of a Tesla at the same location. Like you say, Tesla would not cripple the charge speed intentionally, although they may charge more based on vehicle.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It might be only available on IOS and Android devices, or it could be integrated into GM's and Ford's OS.

GM is using Android Automotive in it's vehicles starting with the Lyriq so there shouldn't be any issue incorporating those into the maps which already can show any other network. Also, on GM, you can run other mapping software (PlugShare for example) natively, as long as it's published to the app store.

[Irace86.2.0]

[soundman98]

more lawsuits

"EPA faces lawsuit from 19 states over California’s 2035 diesel big rig ban"

https://cdllife.com/2023/epa-faces-l...l-big-rig-ban/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

more lawsuits

"EPA faces lawsuit from 19 states over California’s 2035 diesel big rig ban"

https://cdllife.com/2023/epa-faces-l...l-big-rig-ban/

Seems like the country likes to flip-flop back and forth. People are yelling for state’s rights on one issue and then on another issue, states are crying foul and hoping for a federal standard that works in their interests. No surprises here.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Seems like the country likes to flip-flop back and forth. People are yelling for state’s rights on one issue and then on another issue, states are crying foul and hoping for a federal standard that works in their interests. No surprises here.

In this case, this impacts interstate commerce, which is the domain of the US government.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Seems like the country likes to flip-flop back and forth. People are yelling for state’s rights on one issue and then on another issue, states are crying foul and hoping for a federal standard that works in their interests. No surprises here.

i dunno, california and it's specific climate make for a literal different world from the rest of the country.

you see flip-flopping, i routinely see 'my f-650 identifies as a prius'. the mindset of the rest of the country is entirely different from california

early on, i believe that i commented that the rule will never hold, and you responded that it was going to push the industry forward in a needed direction.

what i'm seeing is that there's really 2 polar-opposite groups in the country now that are only growing further apart.

we've got the city folk/california people that want more rules, regulations, progress, change, identity, and equality.

then we've got the rural people that want less rules, regulations, progress, change, identity, and equality.

unfortunately, the city/california people are more politically organized, so they tend to run the political systems and create the laws.

but the rural people are the ones 'in the trenches', doing the work that the laws are directly effecting, though less politically organized.

in this case, we see 'flip-flopping' because of this clash of groups. truckers generally fall into the rural group, while the politicians creating these rules to force progress fall into the city group..

it's really only going to get worse, as from that article i linked, it's going to come to a head to how hardcore the city group holds to the letter of the law they created, when the rural truckers need to decide how badly they want to deliver any cargo to/from the state of california, and buy a replacement truck that conforms, even if their current truck is functional.

there will be a subset that conforms and keeps going within california, but i expect we're going to see a massive uprising at the laws due-date due to the requirements of changing the truck, where truckers are simply going to stop going to any cali-spec states. this is going to cause an incredible shipping backlog, and prices of everything is going to spike even further.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

In this case, this impacts interstate commerce, which is the domain of the US government.

That statement could be applied to many things; it is rather vague. This is a California law, as far as I can tell. It regulates the sale of diesel trucks and vehicles in the fleet of companies in California. From what I have read in a few articles, I believe it says nothing about vehicles passing through the state, which could be diesel vehicles purchased out of state:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/28/cali...s-by-2036.html

California regulators on Friday voted to ban the sale of new diesel big rigs by 2036 and require all trucks to be zero-emissions by 2042, a decision that puts the state at the forefront of mitigating national tailpipe pollution.

The California Air Resources Board unanimously approved the Advanced Clean Fleets rule, the state’s second zero-emissions trucks rule and first in the world to require new commercial trucks, including garbage trucks, delivery trucks and other medium and heavy-duty vehicles, to be electric.

Heavy-duty trucks represent nearly one third of the state’s nitrogen oxide and more than one quarter of its fine particle pollution from diesel fuel, according to the California Air Resources Board While medium and heavy-duty trucks are just 10% of the vehicles on the country’s roads, they emit 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit.

The mandate would require companies that operate 50 or more trucks to convert their fleets into electric or hydrogen models and achieve zero-emissions by 2042.

The earliest deadline is for drayage trucks, which carry cargo to and from major ports, which must be converted to electric models by 2035, while new sales starting in 2024 must be zero-emissions. Vehicles like garbage trucks and school buses must be zero-emissions by 2027.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

i dunno, california and it's specific climate make for a literal different world from the rest of the country.

Agreed. California is influential in its size having 12% of the population and 15% of the GDP, even if it is one of fifty states or 2% of the states. The variety of fruits, vegetebles and nuts that California produces, over 400 variety of products, wine, etc. make California unique.

So a loss of California ag production would hit hard consumers’ wallets and their diets would become less balanced.This is because our state produces a sizable majority of American fruits, vegetables and nuts; 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots and the list goes on and on. A lot of this is due to our soil and climate. No other state, or even a combination of states, can match California’s output per acre.
Lemon yields, for example, are more than 50 percent higher than neighboring states. California spinach yield per acre is 60 percent higher than the national average.

The valley, LA basin and heat are a poor combination for smog. California is unique in its geography with unique assets and susceptible people, so they were given freedom to expand emissions beyond the EPA. I don't see anything changing on that front.

Originally Posted by soundman98

you see flip-flopping, i routinely see 'my f-650 identifies as a prius'. the mindset of the rest of the country is entirely different from california

What I mostly mean is that there is this "my body, my choice" for one side against masks and against vaccine mandates, and another side saying the same thing against abortion mandates. One group is pro "states rights" when creating anti-abortion bills and anti-trans legislation, and then decrying "states rights" when California passes EV mandates. I'm not trying to get political. I'm just saying people on both sides need to be consistent and not be special pleading.

Originally Posted by soundman98

early on, i believe that i commented that the rule will never hold, and you responded that it was going to push the industry forward in a needed direction.

what i'm seeing is that there's really 2 polar-opposite groups in the country now that are only growing further apart.

we've got the city folk/california people that want more rules, regulations, progress, change, identity, and equality.

then we've got the rural people that want less rules, regulations, progress, change, identity, and equality.

unfortunately, the city/california people are more politically organized, so they tend to run the political systems and create the laws.

but the rural people are the ones 'in the trenches', doing the work that the laws are directly effecting, though less politically organized.

in this case, we see 'flip-flopping' because of this clash of groups. truckers generally fall into the rural group, while the politicians creating these rules to force progress fall into the city group..

it's really only going to get worse, as from that article i linked, it's going to come to a head to how hardcore the city group holds to the letter of the law they created, when the rural truckers need to decide how badly they want to deliver any cargo to/from the state of california, and buy a replacement truck that conforms, even if their current truck is functional.

there will be a subset that conforms and keeps going within california, but i expect we're going to see a massive uprising at the laws due-date due to the requirements of changing the truck, where truckers are simply going to stop going to any cali-spec states. this is going to cause an incredible shipping backlog, and prices of everything is going to spike even further.

The average semi lasts 12-15 years on the road, so they will need to be sold and replaced eventually anyways. There is about 20 years until they need to be replaced or sold to other countries/states. New sales would be in 13 years. The turnover will be there for all types of vehicles, so businesses can start working now on upgrading their fleet as vehicles fall out of service.

Like I said, I don't see the law stating a trucker from Texas will be stopped at the border or need to unload their rig onto an EV rig. This is mostly a non-issue for interstate travel. The difference is that many manufactures and other states have similar laws, and because California is so big and influential, and because manufactures prefer the lower costs and efficiencies that come with abiding by one standard, what California says and does typically filters down. This is actually were other states are upset because they know California is influential in creating trends. California isn't forcing other states or forcing manufactures directly. The other states that are joining California are doing so with similar goals in mind and not because of California.

The fate of many rural/private truckers may be short lived anyways when autonomous EVs make up the vast majority of state and interstate shipping vehicles when vehicles like the Tesla Semi get on the road, unless you think we won't have more autonomous vehicles in 15-20 years.

[Lantanafrs2]

A lot can happen in 12 years, both for and against ev legislation

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

What I mostly mean is that there is this "my body, my choice" for one side against masks and against vaccine mandates, and another side saying the same thing against abortion mandates. One group is pro "states rights" when creating anti-abortion bills and anti-trans legislation, and then decrying "states rights" when California passes EV mandates. I'm not trying to get political. I'm just saying people on both sides need to be consistent and not be special pleading.

i get it. but at the same time, there's this growing political disparity that i was trying to indicate that can't be fixed, which is what's resulting in the 'special pleading'. there's the group that makes the rules and wants the rules, and a group that just rolls up their sleeves and does the work that is affected by the rules--but they're not affected by the rules, or part of the rule design process until it passes and then it's too late for change, which results in the special pleading and late-game backpedalling.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The average semi lasts 12-15 years on the road, so they will need to be sold and replaced eventually anyways. There is about 20 years until they need to be replaced or sold to other countries/states. New sales would be in 13 years. The turnover will be there for all types of vehicles, so businesses can start working now on upgrading their fleet as vehicles fall out of service.

Like I said, I don't see the law stating a trucker from Texas will be stopped at the border or need to unload their rig onto an EV rig. This is mostly a non-issue for interstate travel.

there is actually.

"As of January 1, 2023, all drayage trucks over 26,000 lbs. vehicular gross weight must have engines from 2010 or later. And if you enter the facilities of the Port of Long Beach, your truck must be 2014 or newer. These regulations have obliged all operators in California to upgrade their fleets to comply."

and i only know of this due to talking to some local truckers-- there's entire companies that are designed to ship up to the california border, and then the load changes hands to go the rest of the route, because there are that many non-cali-compliant truckers on the road in the rest of the nation, but cali represents one of the largest major ports for the america given it's proximity to china...

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The fate of many rural/private truckers may be short lived anyways when autonomous EVs make up the vast majority of state and interstate shipping vehicles when vehicles like the Tesla Semi get on the road, unless you think we won't have more autonomous vehicles in 15-20 years.

i believe we currently have the technology/capacity for AV trucking. but i don't believe that independent truckers are going anywhere for at least the next 50 years minimum. what we're getting mucked up in, and i believe will continue to remain the problem for a very long time is going to be the liabilities,legalities, and cost of the systems.

the big companies have the budgets, and the long over the road routes can already be easily overtaken by AV gear right now. but they're not. the small companies, last mile, pipeline, logging, farming, industrial, and immigrant trucking stuff is going to remain relevant for a very long time, as there's either custom routing where they're driving without official roads, and it requires human logic to know where to go, or the startup costs aren't beneficial to the usage customizations.

i know multiple farmers that maintain a trucks older than 30 years. they use them for harvest and standard fleet moving stuff a few times a year. most don't even have 100,000 miles on them yet. there's no incentive to make those autonomous, it's even more prohibitive when considering how they drive them through the farm field during harvest time-- you can't easily program the route, it depends on rainfall, and where the water sits on the property.

many local businesses even run trucks at least that old. i know of a few larger trucking companies that have dedicated restoration shops were they're specifically buying up and frame-up restoring pre-clean-air-act trucks for their fleets because the mpg gains offset the restoration costs. there's also the 'glider kits' for factory-fresh/warrantied trucks where the trucking shops install their own engine packages that omit all the clean air act gear...


but the biggest hurdle that few are mentioning, and why i think we'll be stuck for a very long time at level 3-4 like we are now is the legality aspect, as well as our current legal ownership/status hierarchy.

the hands-off nature of level 5 would require the AV software to be fully liable for the vehicles actions for the life span of the vehicle, despite the maintenance performed on the vehicle. it's also the critical eye the public has for anything level 5.

there was just a story that popped up on my new feed about a level 5 test vehicle that hit a 'families dog'. reading into the incident report, it was clear that the software recognized the dog, calculated the trajectory, and analyized suitable responses, but due to the speed/direction of the vehicle and dog, there was no avoiding the impact.

but the unfair level of public scrutiny of an incident like that is going to be detrimental towards level 5 for a very long time.

this is a level of software liability we as a society have never dealt with outside mission-critical military installations, especially in an era of 'push-to-release, patch-later' software. but i also believe we're in the "last 20%" of the trolley problem

what few are discussing in public circles is how the public vehicle ownership model needs to be drastically altered in order for level 5 AV to be possible.

it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
level 5 needs to exist for AV to take off.

level 5 can't exist because all laws currently written are based on specific

individual ownership, and there are minimal roadworthiness certifications country-wide.

level 3-4 exist because they offload the vehicle responsibility to the individual owner.

level 5 software with no control over vehicle maintenance/performance in an individual-registration setting means that large companies are now liable for pep boys discounted brake pads failing. or owners forgetting that steering links need grease.

for a company to own all the vehicles and lease them out to maintain their software/hardware to a specific standard upends the individual status symbol that vehicles have become.

[Lantanafrs2]

I don't understand the woke marketing strategy for evs. The demographic seemingly targeted will never be able to afford a 50 grand ev by smashing storefronts and looting walmarts.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

I don't understand the woke marketing strategy for evs. The demographic seemingly targeted will never be able to afford a 50 grand ev by smashing storefronts and looting walmarts.

i dunno, it's working well if you want to loot a ford ev.
https://jalopnik.com/stolen-ford-f-1...les-1850523477

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by soundman98

i dunno, it's working well if you want to loot a ford ev.
https://jalopnik.com/stolen-ford-f-1...les-1850523477

My recent experiences with factory ford parts as a mechanic leaves me rather apathetic regarding fomoco.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

A lot can happen in 12 years, both for and against ev legislation

That’s very true. It will largely depend on who is elected, whether companies move forward regardless, and the reality of whatever happens. If oil production flattens and then oil prices spike, and if renewables stay cheaper, then regardless of who is in office, things will keep progressing. Musk is cozy with Republican candidates, so I don’t see his business going anywhere, even if federal incentives go away.