New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I would be fine getting an EV as a third car to run around town in if I had a powered third garage space and they weren't more expensive than my other two cars combined. But I don't and they aren't.

You can easily pick up an EV for under the price of a twin now. Multiple models, or used.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by clio

The potential for EV's is huge imho. It isn't too difficult to imagine this imho:

1) EV's drive themselves (Tesla is already making big gains in this space)
2) Cars 'talk' to one another in real time, and
3) ... This makes them all but crash proof, meaning most impact safety systems could be removed from vehicles (reducing cost and weight)
4) Traffic lights could be removed. All traffic is staggered and speed governed to ensuring a non-stop journey. Traffic will simply 'interlace'
5) Uber-style transport, without drivers, will be ridiculously cheap meaning most people will not have to own cars.

Whilst as a driving enthusiast this sounds awful I think a future that resembles this is very likely

You could accomplish all this with ICE vehicles. None of what was mentioned is exclusive to EVs. Also, we were supposed to have flying cars by now.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

You could accomplish all this with ICE vehicles. None of what was mentioned is exclusive to EVs. Also, we were supposed to have flying cars by now.

I'd at least be happy with a Mr. Fusion at this point

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

You could accomplish all this with ICE vehicles. None of what was mentioned is exclusive to EVs. Also, we were supposed to have flying cars by now.

Toyota/Subaru are trying to ease us into flying cars. That's the only explanation I can see for the huge wings on the side of the GEN2. GEN3 will replace those with foldable wings. In fact Subaru already has the patent filed for it.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Toyota/Subaru are trying to ease us into flying cars. That's the only explanation I can see for the huge wings on the side of the GEN2. GEN3 will replace those with foldable wings. In fact Subaru already has the patent filed for it.

[bcj]

Originally Posted by clio

2) Cars 'talk' to one another in real time, and
3) ... This makes them all but crash proof, meaning most impact safety systems could be removed from vehicles (reducing cost and weight)

They can't talk to little Sarah riding her tricycle or Bobby catching a long pop-fly.
Hard to wi-fi a rock fall or bridge collapse too.

Could put it all underground in Kansas, but then everyone would have to be forceably re-located there.

"You are in transport only property! The white zone is for loading and unloading!"

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

^^^Does nothing for sustainability. Just dressing up the same problem in a new costume. Which is fine, when the government isn't shoving it down your throat.

Did you read the above articles (or try the ones below)? They have developed sodium sulfur batteries and lithium sulfur batteries that don't use cobalt and are more energy dense and have long life cycles. There is more sulfur and sodium than what is needed to power the whole world with batteries and then some. Once mined, the recycling of batteries for raw materials means the sustainability only gets better, especially if we use car batteries for grid storage prior to recycling.

They have already developed sodium sulfur batteries to 300 cycles. At 400miles of range x 12k miles per year that is 30 cycles/year, so that is 10 years for a battery, and it will only get better and more sustainable. The world has really only been doing massive research for batteries for a short time. Before that, the use was for cell phones and computers, which is on a completely different scale, so the research wasn't focused as much on sustainability and environmental impact in the same way and at the same scale.

https://www.freethink.com/environmen...sulfur-battery

https://automotivepowertraintechnolo...echnology.html

Once we can get renewables into a place where there is an abundance of energy, then we can move to even smaller batteries, if we transition to hydrogen.

These solutions are sustainable and better than oil.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

You could accomplish all this with ICE vehicles. None of what was mentioned is exclusive to EVs. Also, we were supposed to have flying cars by now.

This is true, but it probably will be the case that EVs will be dominant by the time self-driving really becomes ubiquitous. I think there are some advantages to EVs for self-driving and things like robo-taxis. For one, the computer will have an easier time driving the car because the power curve is far, far more predictable for the computer than an ICE vehicle, especially one with a turbocharger. The second would be the difference between recharging and refueling in a car park versus a gas station, respectively, in the case of robo-taxis. They could probably develop an automated process for refueling like they have for recharging, or they could deploy people to refuel cars like they require in some states, but this seems much easier from an EV perspective and business perspective. Read more below from GM:

https://www.gm.com/stories/all-avs-should-be-evs

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by clio

The potential for EV's is huge imho. It isn't too difficult to imagine this imho:

1) EV's drive themselves (Tesla is already making big gains in this space)

and tesla's doing it by making the every other driver part of the beta testing as well.

the real sticking point with self-driving isn't the 'drive themselves'. it's the liabilities surrounding the driving of themselves. the trolley problem. when something goes wrong, who's fault is it? the auto makers? the individual programmers? the person riding in the car that no longer has control, or isn't ready to take over at a moments notice?

currently, tesla is adamant about placing the blame on the vehicle 'rider' behind the steering wheel.

but if the steering wheel no longer exists, can the blame be placed on the rider? or if the blame must be placed on the auto maker, how long are they liable for it? can i own a 30 year old ev, running 29 year old software, and still blame them for driving through a newly built school?

and if the automaker is liable, what benefit do they have to sell individuals vehicles? it's quite clearly to their advantage liability-wise to create their own rentable fleets of vehicles that can be much easier to maintain to a specific standard.

Originally Posted by clio

2) Cars 'talk' to one another in real time, and

this has been discussed ad nasuem for the last few decades. they dreamt it up in the 40-50's, and the fcc allotted bandwith in the 5.9ghz portion of teh spectrum for 20 years for the cause
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...ange-revealed/

the reality is that no car maker wants to work enough with any other car maker to make any of this even slightly work.

Originally Posted by clio

3) ... This makes them all but crash proof, meaning most impact safety systems could be removed from vehicles (reducing cost and weight)

lol, insurance companies aren't likely to do that.

Originally Posted by clio

4) Traffic lights could be removed. All traffic is staggered and speed governed to ensuring a non-stop journey. Traffic will simply 'interlace'

lol, again, never gonna happen. too many different governmental bodies involved. they can't even coordinate the traffic lights in my town, and they're all municipal-owned. 2 of them are fun to trip as i make a left hand turn, cut the corner over the turn lane, and watch the traffic behind me come to a stop for a ghost green light...

Originally Posted by clio

5) Uber-style transport, without drivers, will be ridiculously cheap meaning most people will not have to own cars.

why will it be ridiculously cheap? if the automakers are no longer able to sell the cars outright to turn a profit, then they'll need to either be subsidized, or they'll need to charge enough to make a profit that will exceed the manufacturing costs, as well as the recurring operating costs of running a taxi business.

and even worse, if there is minimal competition, what/who will keep the prices in check?

[clio]

Originally Posted by soundman98

and tesla's doing it by making the every other driver part of the beta testing as well.

the real sticking point with self-driving isn't the 'drive themselves'. it's the liabilities surrounding the driving of themselves. the trolley problem. when something goes wrong, who's fault is it? the auto makers? the individual programmers? the person riding in the car that no longer has control, or isn't ready to take over at a moments notice?

currently, tesla is adamant about placing the blame on the vehicle 'rider' behind the steering wheel.

but if the steering wheel no longer exists, can the blame be placed on the rider? or if the blame must be placed on the auto maker, how long are they liable for it? can i own a 30 year old ev, running 29 year old software, and still blame them for driving through a newly built school?

and if the automaker is liable, what benefit do they have to sell individuals vehicles? it's quite clearly to their advantage liability-wise to create their own rentable fleets of vehicles that can be much easier to maintain to a specific standard.


this has been discussed ad nasuem for the last few decades. they dreamt it up in the 40-50's, and the fcc allotted bandwith in the 5.9ghz portion of teh spectrum for 20 years for the cause
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...ange-revealed/

the reality is that no car maker wants to work enough with any other car maker to make any of this even slightly work.

lol, insurance companies aren't likely to do that.


lol, again, never gonna happen. too many different governmental bodies involved. they can't even coordinate the traffic lights in my town, and they're all municipal-owned. 2 of them are fun to trip as i make a left hand turn, cut the corner over the turn lane, and watch the traffic behind me come to a stop for a ghost green light...



why will it be ridiculously cheap? if the automakers are no longer able to sell the cars outright to turn a profit, then they'll need to either be subsidized, or they'll need to charge enough to make a profit that will exceed the manufacturing costs, as well as the recurring operating costs of running a taxi business.

and even worse, if there is minimal competition, what/who will keep the prices in check?

Firstly, no need to laugh at my thoughts.

I don't believe insurance is an insurmountable problem. Agreed settlements on particular incidents is already commonplace between insurers and these types of issues already exist to an extent with autonomous vehicle functionality.

I don't see the threat of driving a car with 29 year old firmware. A self driving car would no doubt be IOT and could be bricked.

Unbelievably cheap Ubers would result from driverless vehicles as the cost per mile is currently ~80% labour. The vehicle price, or depreciation, is largely insignificant per mile.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by clio

5) Uber-style transport, without drivers, will be ridiculously cheap meaning most people will not have to own cars.

I see this working in a relatively densely populated area, but how does this work beyond the city limits, and what happens in holiday periods when car utilization exceeds capacity? A business doesn't plan for the extreme case, but for the average case with a little bit of error.

If the "Uber-style" transport has to mingle with personally owned vehicles there will be issues. If vehicles are personally owned, you have to account for 30 year old cars, unless there is no such thing as car ownership, which circles back to liability.

We probably won't get to this in my lifetime, but I can tell you for a fact I'm not going to get in a purely self-driving car with no controls where I am somehow liable for what happens.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I see this working in a relatively densely populated area, but how does this work beyond the city limits, and what happens in holiday periods when car utilization exceeds capacity? A business doesn't plan for the extreme case, but for the average case with a little bit of error.

If the "Uber-style" transport has to mingle with personally owned vehicles there will be issues. If vehicles are personally owned, you have to account for 30 year old cars, unless there is no such thing as car ownership, which circles back to liability.

We probably won't get to this in my lifetime, but I can tell you for a fact I'm not going to get in a purely self-driving car with no controls where I am somehow liable for what happens.

This is already happing all across Europe with France (yes FRANCE) kicking it off.
https://www.globalconstructionreview...ineer%20Alstom.

Now of course they are starting with more mass transport vehicle but fully autonomous is fully autonomous be it a couple of passengers or twenty. The introduction n of individual passenger vehicles will not lag far behind.
A good and realistic read on the topic (which I get forced down my throat 4 times a year). https://www.zf.com/mobile/en/technol...s_driving.html

As far as liability goes it will have to shake up the whole insurance industry as being a paying passenger in a self driving car could place no responsibly upon a person. Little doubt there are whole teams working on this consideration already.

Yes, as you said, it will take longer to catch on in North America due to lighter population density and longer distances. But, unless you plan on dyeing in the next ten years or so, it is not only possible but probable that you will see a mix of fully autonomous for hire vehicles and 30 year old privately owned ones on the road at the same time in your lifetime.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

.....
As far as liability goes it will have to shake up the whole insurance industry as being a paying passenger in a self driving car could place no responsibly upon a person. Little doubt there are whole teams working on this consideration already.

Yea I was more referring to a privately owned vehicle that was supposed autonomous, not a public service type. The public service type would just follow the model used today by cabs, busses, etc.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

.. But, unless you plan on dyeing in the next ten years or so, it is not only possible but probable that you will see a mix of fully autonomous for hire vehicles and 30 year old privately owned ones on the road at the same time in your lifetime.

Not planning on the next 10 years, 30 is getting questionable though.

I agree that within the next 10 years we may see a mix, but I was referring more back to the 30 year old autonomous car with EOL software, not a hand-driven or even L2 car.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Did you read the above articles (or try the ones below)? They have developed sodium sulfur batteries and lithium sulfur batteries that don't use cobalt and are more energy dense and have long life cycles. There is more sulfur and sodium than what is needed to power the whole world with batteries and then some. Once mined, the recycling of batteries for raw materials means the sustainability only gets better, especially if we use car batteries for grid storage prior to recycling.

They have already developed sodium sulfur batteries to 300 cycles. At 400miles of range x 12k miles per year that is 30 cycles/year, so that is 10 years for a battery, and it will only get better and more sustainable. The world has really only been doing massive research for batteries for a short time. Before that, the use was for cell phones and computers, which is on a completely different scale, so the research wasn't focused as much on sustainability and environmental impact in the same way and at the same scale.

https://www.freethink.com/environmen...sulfur-battery

https://automotivepowertraintechnolo...echnology.html

Once we can get renewables into a place where there is an abundance of energy, then we can move to even smaller batteries, if we transition to hydrogen.

These solutions are sustainable and better than oil.

I agree with everything you just said. But we're not there yet. Is that battery remotely close to being put into an affordable car? (no). And if governments really gave 2 craps about improving things they'd do a top down approach. Energy generation, not how it's consumed by end users.