New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Toyota woke up and chose aggression. Apparently they will be trying to beat Tesla at Tesla's own game.


Toyota unveils sweeping plans for new battery tech, EV innovation

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...it-2023-06-13/

this is sort of old news.

toyota had been pushing/backing hydrogen until about a 1-2 years ago. there's been some previous articles on how it's aggravated stock holders because they weren't going in the same direction as the rest of the industry, or had a clear-cut-and-published plan to innovate like the rest of the industry kept parroting.

but like dadhawk said, toyota always plays the long game. there's numerous examples where toyota will come in behind everyone else 'innovating', take the same idea, learn from others mistakes, and run away with the category.

that's really what is unacceptable in todays era, but they get points for consistency.

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

well this should have been posted but here's a link bypassing the stupid wapo paywall:

17 fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Autopilot
https://archive.ph/8KkBB



also this came out a couple weeks ago too:


https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ta-breach-leak

this data is useless without context of distance traveled, age of vehicle, or presenting it to a ratio of a similar-cost ICE vehicle of the same age/mileage.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Musk has said

[ZDan]

I say this as a space exploration enthusiast, who witnessed the launch of Apollo 16 as a wee tot, and also as an electric vehicle enthusiast, who developed electric vehicles that have been used on every continent but Antarctica:

Elon Musk is NOT a reliable source of information. Elon Musk is NOT a founder of Tesla. Elon Musk is a grifter.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I say this as a space exploration enthusiast, who witnessed the launch of Apollo 16 as a wee tot, and also as an electric vehicle enthusiast, who developed electric vehicles that have been used on every continent but Antarctica:

Elon Musk is NOT a reliable source of information. Elon Musk is NOT a founder of Tesla. Elon Musk is a grifter.

Not everything Musk has said is true or has come true. None of that really matters much related to the statements he has made about encouraging other manufactures to follow in their footsteps. I could pull up multiple articles and post videos of that. He has open sources many patents. Companies from Ford and GM to VW and Toyota have provided praise of what Tesla accomplished and have circled back on their plans. GM went from saying they were doing pouches to saying they are switching to cylinders. Multiple companies are ordering gigacastings. Multiple companies are trying vertical integration, automating assembly lines, building gigafactories, etc. VW has said they want to be more like Tesla and so have others or have directly said they are going to follow a similar path, and they are. This is all open-source, easy-to-look-up stuff.

https://www.reviewgeek.com/136656/fo...ke-better-evs/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

well this should have been posted but here's a link bypassing the stupid wapo paywall:

17 fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Autopilot
https://archive.ph/8KkBB

I wanted to check the numbers again:

-There are 43-46k car fatalities each year with estimates of 278 million private and commercial vehicles on the road, so say low at 40k deaths for a high of 300 million cars. That is 0.013% of vehicles on the road experience a fatal crash.

-There are 2 million plus Tesla vehicles on the road in the US, but let's say it is just 1 million to be conservative, and there were 11 fatal accidents in a year that involved Autopilot, which is 0.0011% of Teslas were in an Autopilot fatal crash or 10x less fatalities than the national average.

It would appear that just from these numbers that Autopilot is safer than the national average by a factor of ten, but of course, Autopilot is engaged typically at different times than mixed driving scenarios like we have discussed before on this program, so it is hard to draw apples to apples comparisons. But we do know that car fatalities happen the most on highways, which suggests that actually the numbers are even more in the favor of Autopilot being safer because the true percentage of vehicles fatalities from normal cars is actually even higher when just looking at highway fatality rates. While Tesla's Autopilot is by no means perfect, it seems to be much safer than a car not using Autopilot.

The conclusion: traffic accidents are more frequent on roads. However, highway collisions cause more damage and loss of life due to higher speeds.

One-in-three fatalities happen as the result of a highway accident

https://www.wawanesa.com/us/blog/dri...most-dangerous

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I wanted to check the numbers again:

-There are 43-46k car fatalities each year with estimates of 278 million private and commercial vehicles on the road, so say low at 40k deaths for a high of 300 million cars. That is 0.013% of vehicles on the road experience a fatal crash.

-There are 2 million plus Tesla vehicles on the road in the US, but let's say it is just 1 million to be conservative, and there were 11 fatal accidents in a year that involved Autopilot, which is 0.0011% of Teslas were in an Autopilot fatal crash or 10x less fatalities than the national average.

It would appear that just from these numbers that Autopilot is safer than the national average by a factor of ten, but of course, Autopilot is engaged typically at different times than mixed driving scenarios like we have discussed before on this program, so it is hard to draw apples to apples comparisons. But we do know that car fatalities happen the most on highways, which suggests that actually the numbers are even more in the favor of Autopilot being safer because the true percentage of vehicles fatalities from normal cars is actually even higher when just looking at highway fatality rates. While Tesla's Autopilot is by no means perfect, it seems to be much safer than a car not using Autopilot.



https://www.wawanesa.com/us/blog/dri...most-dangerous

You're assuming all Teslas use Autopilot. To compare the fatal accident rate, you have to add all non-Autopilot related deaths in Tesla vehicules.

The other solution would be comparing the fatal injury rate on a per-mile basis, but we're missing the AP-travelled miles.

Another interesting point is that the accident rate per vehicle in the US is almost twice that of France (0.0076%). Probably a combination of harsher inspections, driving education, lower driven miles and better infrastructure.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alex87f

You're assuming all Teslas use Autopilot. To compare the fatal accident rate, you have to add all non-Autopilot related deaths in Tesla vehicules.

All Teslas (since about 2019) have AutoPilot, but only about 19% have FSD, so it depends on which one is being discussed. Cars built between 2014 and 2019 had the option for Autopilot.

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Toyota woke up and chose aggression. Apparently they will be trying to beat Tesla at Tesla's own game.


Toyota unveils sweeping plans for new battery tech, EV innovation

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...it-2023-06-13/

I wonder how much of this is just behind the scenes stuff that gets ignored because its not newsworthy or isnt ready to be talked about beyond "we're working on it", and they just decided they needed to fasttrack a bunch of it because of the increasing pace of EV adoption/progress. They do a ton of R&D of stuff that no one really knows or talks about, and they're not ones to just roll stuff out unless their confident it works well.
Heck they have a new "bipolar" NiMH battery in the second gen Aqua/Prius C that no one ever talks about. Its a more compact and higher density NiMH battery pack. Im not sure how it compares to an equivalent LiON battery but its something that isnt really used in a commercial vehicle application. And they also road tested SSD batteries during the Tokyo Olympics in 2020 with their LQ concept car. I hardly see any news on that. Plus alot of their technology "road tests" seem to happen only in Japan. Like their "Lexus Teammate" autonomous driving system. I dont think thats available anywhere outside of Japan in select areas....

If you were to look at Toyota's timelines alot of it seems to coincide with them making an EV pivot (or prepared to make a pivot) somewhere in the 2030 timeframe....Most of their newly redesigned models are rolling out now and into 2024 which gives the NEXT generation after that time to be ready for EV utilization or whatever in 2030ish. I dont know if that has always been their plan but they dont seem to NEED to make an EV push right now just to appease the court of public opinion (and alot of EV fanboys are quite toxic and delusional to reality and smug about their choices)

Toyota plays the long game (as anyone should know by now) and it seems like they have just set themselves up to be able to make a pivot whenever one tech starts pulling away from others.

Anyone thinking they're going under in 2030 is completely delusional.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

All Teslas (since about 2019) have AutoPilot, but only about 19% have FSD, so it depends on which one is being discussed. Cars built between 2014 and 2019 had the option for Autopilot.

Isn't there a difference between a Tesla having the ability to Autopilot, and the driver actually enabling the feature whilst driving? Hence the per-mile reasoning.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Isn't there a difference between a Tesla having the ability to Autopilot, and the driver actually enabling the feature whilst driving? Hence the per-mile reasoning.

Yes, but there was discussion earlier about the number of vehicles with it. Frankly I think there are too many variables in general to do a direct comparison or anything meaningful from the statistics, and in the end the families with the 17 fatalities don't really care how "safe" or "better" it's supposed to be, rightly or wrongly.

In comparison, during the same time GM reported 3 incidents (none fatal) with the 36,000 SuperCruise deployed units. Of those none of the 3 were determined to be the fault of SuperCruise.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by alex87f

You're assuming all Teslas use Autopilot. To compare the fatal accident rate, you have to add all non-Autopilot related deaths in Tesla vehicules.

The other solution would be comparing the fatal injury rate on a per-mile basis, but we're missing the AP-travelled miles.

Another interesting point is that the accident rate per vehicle in the US is almost twice that of France (0.0076%). Probably a combination of harsher inspections, driving education, lower driven miles and better infrastructure.

Tesla provides that data, and their numbers suggest Autopilot has a much lower rate of accidents than Teslas that don't have Autopilot engaged. The argument has been made that most accidents happen off-highways than on highways, and Autopilot is mostly engaged on highways, so this makes Autopilot look especially good, except, as I stated, the fatality rate per accident is higher on highway due to the speeds, even if more accidents happen off-highway and more total deaths happen off-highway.

I agree with Dadhawk that there are too many variables and not enough data to draw conclusive conclusions, but as I have said before addressing this same topic in the past, it is hard to go from Autopilot looking like it is 10x safer to being magnitudes deadlier like the articles suggest; it is more likely it is just less than 10x safer.

[Lantanafrs2]

Hydrogen over electric for motorcycles?
https://www.cyclenews.com/2023/06/ar...tted-column-6/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Hydrogen over electric for motorcycles?
https://www.cyclenews.com/2023/06/ar...tted-column-6/

I think synthetic fuels make sense for motorcycles because most people are fair weather riders and don't put many miles on their bikes, so even if e-fuels are $20-30/gal, it won't be nearly the same dent in a person's wallet, as e-fuels for your average commuter driving 12k-15k/year. I just don't know if e-fuels for high end exotics and motorcycles will be easily accessible in a future without gas stations on every corner. If we have a little less than 300 million cars and 10 million bikes in the US then we could expect gas stations to drop by a factor of 30 or so. In Santa Rosa, we have 44 gas stations, so that means we would be left with 1-2 e-fuel stations perhaps, just doing some very rough math. That might be all fine and dandy, but those Ferraris and bikes come out when the weather is nice, and then they get stored for the winters, very often. Between COVID and nursing school, I haven't been on my Ducati for three years. What happens to a business when no one shows up consistently during the winter?

There are motorcycles with decent speed and range, which could work for a short trip/loop, a commuter or for a ride with a midway stop for lunch, as we typically do. I think we will see motorcycles being more feasible if they were to eventually shift to solid state batteries, which could be 2-3 times as energy dense. Also, motorcycles would be the ideal candidates for battery swapping. Someone could literally slide out battery packs themselves and put new ones in. This is the way to go for motorsports or for someone who needs a quick recharge like how I swap batteries on my power tools when one runs dry.

https://www.makeuseof.com/fastest-el...cles-for-sale/

[Lantanafrs2]

^why did covid stop you from riding a motorcycle?