[Capricio]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Yep. Tire pollution is much higher. Wear on the roads is much higher with attendant repair costs and environmental impact.

Yup, not just filling up the landfills, the air particulate pollution, too. But lets obsess over tailpipe emissions, with no regard for second or third order effects, or the pollution/envrinmental damage to achieve "clean" energy.

"To some extent, running through tires quickly may offset the reduction of damaging emissions that EVs offer. Some studies have shown that tires actually have more particle pollution than exhaust, 2,000 times as much."

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...284533695.html

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...3b8d31bc&ei=98

I don't expect any of the folks pushing EVs to own up to what a bad idea it was to try to force this on consumers.

"There is a lesson in the humiliating climbdown. State-led industrial strategies never work. Indeed, the failure of the drive into EV is a textbook example of everything that goes wrong."

Yeah, but... TESLA foam-finger #1!! Just look at this sales chart from when things were still trending upward!!! This is just oil cartel misinformation from a right wing news outlet!

Seriously, though, good find. The article offers a good summary describing where things are at now. Interesting comments section, too, for anyone interested. And, I can agree with this, despite probably being considered an EV hater by some:

"There is nothing wrong with EVs themselves. They are often great as run-arounds for dense urban environments, and as long as the raw materials are sourced correctly, and the chargers are not powered by coal-burning generators, they are probably a little better for the environment than the petrol version."

...again, leaving out that green energy sources are more expensive and less reliable, and "properly sourced materials" are also more expensive and harder to find. Generally speaking, even if you are convinced CO2 is pollution, EVs won't solve anything.

If you're an early adopter, God bless you, and good luck with your re-sale value. My advice is still to wait another 4-5 years. Let the dust settle. Wait for solid state batteries, hydrogen, hybrids, or whatever comes next. I don't think what comes next will be an iterative evolution of existing EVs, more like a paradigm shift or a reversion. And yes, EVs will still have a share of the market, no doubt. Just nowhere near the projections.

[Mr_Draco]

Originally Posted by Capricio

This is just oil cartel misinformation from a right wing news outlet!

The Telegraph is a UK news outlet so you can't use US terms to describe their political stance. Yes they support UK Conservative views, but you need to understand the typical UK Conservative is more left than the left leaning US Democrat. When Googling trying to find comparisons between the two, it seems that UK citizens consider the typical US Democrat to be a right leaning UK Conservative.

[genxer]

This is behind a paywall. Posting for others that might want to search around for the scoop from their sources.
https://www.autonews.com/retail/ev-b...rop-california

"EV sales start to fall in California, an industry bellwether"
"Consecutive quarters of falling EV sales could derail state's zero-emission vehicle transition target."

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

The Telegraph is a UK news outlet so you can't use US terms to describe their political stance. Yes they support UK Conservative views, but you need to understand the typical UK Conservative is more left than the left leaning US Democrat. When Googling trying to find comparisons between the two, it seems that UK citizens consider the typical US Democrat to be a right leaning UK Conservative.

I was surprised to see it run on MSN, only a half step closer to center from MSNBC.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Unfortunately all of your facts aren't actually true. Yes, I did mention 40% clean power in the UK, and I posted the link that provided me that information. That source BTW is a proponent of clean energy. You made a claim of 60% for which you produced zero proof

Post #1725 includes a hyperlink to a realtime breakdown of UK power generation and I mention it in at least 3 other posts, for the record: https://grid.iamkate.com/ - its 10.4% fossil fuels atm.
You actually quoted it yourself in post 1726

Theres no way that a vehicle using 100% solar energy to move around pollutes more than a car using 100% fossil fuels ....... and claiming that your travel costs would be higher if the energy was free sounds like something out of a comedy routine.

You dont like Electric cars but you arent really sure why so you grasp at straws, sometimes non existent straws. Dont worry about it, lots of people are in the same boat but it does seem rather counterintuitive trying to argue with a guy that actually runs 3 EVs in a country thats embracing the technology and its benefits.

Originally Posted by me

but people still have a problem with them existing, thats the bit I dont get.

[docwra]

This insistence that Im somehow lying by providing actual, realtime power generation numbers is getting a bit tired now.

Ive made a couple of posts around 0930 where its been more than 50% clean energy, its now 1000 GMT and 14.4% is fossil fuels. If you look a bit further down fossil fuels only generated 11.6% in the last 24 hours. In the middle of winter. In the UK. Actually, Ill save you the time:



For your other example Im not even going to get into the maths, but 85mph average speed for 13 hours carrying 250lb isnt your average drive, is it? Factoring in cost of hotel room and meals because 13 hours becomes 15 isnt going to be the calculation most owners will do before purchase, by your workings anything <11 hours would take longer but cost less.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by docwra

...
For your other example Im not even going to get into the maths, but 85mph average speed for 13 hours carrying 250lb isnt your average drive, is it? Factoring in cost of hotel room and meals because 13 hours becomes 15 isnt going to be the calculation most owners will do before purchase, by your workings anything <11 hours would take longer but cost less.

His example may not be a drive that happens often for the vast majority of people, although most people do it at least a few time a year or more.

But it highlights exactly why most people that have (or haven't) considered an EV and then ultimately decided against it. Why add time, stress, and additional planning to your trips? I can say with 100% certainty that if we had a full EV right now, I'd also have to have either an ICE or a hybrid to back it up. Why? Because I don't want to have to deal with any of that above crap when I need to go on a trip, or leave in an emergency, or whatever life throws at you. Cost is also an up-front factor. Government incentives help of course, but there is no question, that when you compare pretty much any class of EV, to it's comparable ICE counterpart, the ICE is easily in the range of 5 to 10 grand cheaper or more.

Sorry again if our views don't fit yours. That's just the way it is.

Now...PHEVs. Those make sense for nearly everyone who can afford a new vehicle. It's actually the best way to reduce emissions quickly (because LOTS more people would go for them). It's what car makers and the government should be striving for in the meantime if reducing emissions is the goal.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

His example may not be a drive that happens often for the vast majority of people, although most people do it at least a few time a year or more.

But it highlights exactly why most people that have (or haven't) considered an EV and then ultimately decided against it. Why add time, stress, and additional planning to your trips? I can say with 100% certainty that if we had a full EV right now, I'd also have to have either an ICE or a hybrid to back it up. Why? Because I don't want to have to deal with any of that above crap when I need to go on a trip, or leave in an emergency, or whatever life throws at you. Cost is also an up-front factor. Government incentives help of course, but there is no question, that when you compare pretty much any class of EV, to it's comparable ICE counterpart, the ICE is easily in the range of 5 to 10 grand cheaper or more.

Sorry again if our views don't fit yours. That's just the way it is.

Now...PHEVs. Those make sense for nearly everyone who can afford a new vehicle. It's actually the best way to reduce emissions quickly (because LOTS more people would go for them). It's what car makers and the government should be striving for in the meantime if reducing emissions is the goal.

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

I completely agree. PHEVs make a lot more sense given the current technology.

PHEVs do probably make the most sense, especially from a consumers point of view. In some circumstances the PHEV can completely overlay the typical use of an EV. If it has enough range (40+ miles) PHEVs can be driven almost 100% on electricity.

The problem has been, there are not many fully functional PHEVs on the market. Toyota has been changing that and, depending on what GM comes back to market with, they may be able to do that too. What do I mean by fully functional? Easier to offer an example of what ISN’T fully functional. The 1st generation Prius Prime had an 8.8kWh battery and could do at most 25 miles on electric before turning on the ICE. Also, there was a top EV speed set, though I don’t remember what that was. Something in the 40 - 60 mph range. If someone remembers please feel free to drop that in here. By contrast, the Chevrolet Volt had an 18.1 kWh battery, a 53 mile range, and could drive engine off all the way to its electronically limited top speed of 99 mph. Today Toyota has upped their game on PHEVs and offer them almost across the board. The Prius Prime gets a much more respectable 44 EV miles per full charge. Battery size is increased to 10.9 kWh. I’m not sure if it is speed limited like the 1st gen. The RAV4 Prime is the highest performance and highest price trim in the lineup and they have trouble keeping them in stock.

The biggest issue with PHEVs is from the manufacturer’s side. They have to engineer two fully functional drivetrains into the vehicle and that drives a lot of cost and complexity. That is probably the single reason we have not seen more PHEV products in the market. That, and the battery size (10+ kWh vs under 2 kWh for hybrids) make it more difficult to package, sometimes resulting in compromises elsewhere in the vehicles.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

PHEVs do probably make the most sense, especially from a consumers point of view. In some circumstances the PHEV can completely overlay the typical use of an EV. If it has enough range (40+ miles) PHEVs can be driven almost 100% on electricity.

The problem has been, there are not many fully functional PHEVs on the market. Toyota has been changing that and, depending on what GM comes back to market with, they may be able to do that too. What do I mean by fully functional? Easier to offer an example of what ISN’T fully functional. The 1st generation Prius Prime had an 8.8kWh battery and could do at most 25 miles on electric before turning on the ICE. Also, there was a top EV speed set, though I don’t remember what that was. Something in the 40 - 60 mph range. If someone remembers please feel free to drop that in here. By contrast, the Chevrolet Volt had an 18.1 kWh battery, a 53 mile range, and could drive engine off all the way to its electronically limited top speed of 99 mph. Today Toyota has upped their game on PHEVs and offer them almost across the board. The Prius Prime gets a much more respectable 44 EV miles per full charge. Battery size is increased to 10.9 kWh. I’m not sure if it is speed limited like the 1st gen. The RAV4 Prime is the highest performance and highest price trim in the lineup and they have trouble keeping them in stock.

The biggest issue with PHEVs is from the manufacturer’s side. They have to engineer two fully functional drivetrains into the vehicle and that drives a lot of cost and complexity. That is probably the single reason we have not seen more PHEV products in the market. That, and the battery size (10+ kWh vs under 2 kWh for hybrids) make it more difficult to package, sometimes resulting in compromises elsewhere in the vehicles.

That's a real thing. My Volvo has essentially no center console storage because that's where the battery lives.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

I just checked. It’s broad daylight there and windy renewables are at 52%, not 60%.

Yep my typical drives are long, fast and involve a fair amount of equipment. I don’t work a typical job and I don’t commute (thankfully). I typically drive at most once a week, and average distances are typically several hundred miles one way.

This just illustrates that EVs are not for everyone.

If I was stuck in a 9-5, M-F job commuting 30-50 miles a day in traffic, a Tesla with self driving might be a good solution for me.

Thankfully that’s not the case for me. Which is one of many reasons I resent EVs being forced onto the population and the government confiscating over 40% of my income and using some of it to subsidize EVs.

Many probably don’t value their time as highly as I do mine and that’s ok with me. But for me time IS money and 30-45 minutes lost charging is time I could have been earning, or doing something fun, not sitting in a parking lot.

I’ll add one more thought. In my world view there’s plenty of room for you to drive EVs to your hearts content. Why would I care? Just don’t ask me to pay for it.

It’s your world view and the view of other EV proponents that feels they know better what other people need and have a right to dictate mine and other’s driving options. THATS what I object to.

That sums it up perfectly

[RLHMARINES]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

PHEVs do probably make the most sense, especially from a consumers point of view. In some circumstances the PHEV can completely overlay the typical use of an EV. If it has enough range (40+ miles) PHEVs can be driven almost 100% on electricity.

The problem has been, there are not many fully functional PHEVs on the market. Toyota has been changing that and, depending on what GM comes back to market with, they may be able to do that too. What do I mean by fully functional? Easier to offer an example of what ISN’T fully functional. The 1st generation Prius Prime had an 8.8kWh battery and could do at most 25 miles on electric before turning on the ICE. Also, there was a top EV speed set, though I don’t remember what that was. Something in the 40 - 60 mph range. If someone remembers please feel free to drop that in here. By contrast, the Chevrolet Volt had an 18.1 kWh battery, a 53 mile range, and could drive engine off all the way to its electronically limited top speed of 99 mph. Today Toyota has upped their game on PHEVs and offer them almost across the board. The Prius Prime gets a much more respectable 44 EV miles per full charge. Battery size is increased to 10.9 kWh. I’m not sure if it is speed limited like the 1st gen. The RAV4 Prime is the highest performance and highest price trim in the lineup and they have trouble keeping them in stock.

The biggest issue with PHEVs is from the manufacturer’s side. They have to engineer two fully functional drivetrains into the vehicle and that drives a lot of cost and complexity. That is probably the single reason we have not seen more PHEV products in the market. That, and the battery size (10+ kWh vs under 2 kWh for hybrids) make it more difficult to package, sometimes resulting in compromises elsewhere in the vehicles.

James, I've been intrigued with the Chevy Volt PHEV ever since it came out, especially the last generation, but I just stumbled onto the last gen Chevy Malibu Hybrid and how it relates to the Volt hybrid drive system. I remember that you had a Volt but I don't remember what gen you had and I know you retired from GM in product engineer/management arena so I value your opinion and I wanted your input about the similarities and differences of the two hybrid systems. I'm looking for an EV/Hybrid for my 40 mile round trip commute and this would help me maybe get into a nicer EV before I retire in a few years.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by RLHMARINES

James, I've been intrigued with the Chevy Volt PHEV ever since it came out, especially the last generation, but I just stumbled onto the last gen Chevy Malibu Hybrid and how it relates to the Volt hybrid drive system. I remember that you had a Volt but I don't remember what gen you had and I know you retired from GM in product engineer/management arena so I value your opinion and I wanted your input about the similarities and differences of the two hybrid systems. I'm looking for an EV/Hybrid for my 40 mile round trip commute and this would help me maybe get into a nicer EV before I retire in a few years.

We had a 1st Gen Volt (2012) and replaced it with a 2nd gen Volt (2017). Whether you’re talking a HEV or an EV the electric motor and drive unit are pretty similar, possibly the same. I would expect for an EV the electric motor would have higher output. The team that developed the Volt motor and drive system also did the motors and drive units for the Malibu Hybrid, so the hardware is sound. I don’t know much about the application engineering on the Malibu Hybrid. I assume it’s a pretty good integration. I suspect that if the vehicle was too heavy for the hybrid system I would have heard a ton of negative reviews by now but I have not. I don’t recall ever driving one but I did get to drive a Saturn Vue with an earlier version of the same system in it. That vehicle was never released because of Saturn getting nuked in the bankruptcy. I remember that I was really impressed with the integration on that vehicle. So seven years later a more refined system in a more refined vehicle should have been a pretty solid package.

[RLHMARINES]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

We had a 1st Gen Volt (2012) and replaced it with a 2nd gen Volt (2017). Whether you’re talking a HEV or an EV the electric motor and drive unit are pretty similar, possibly the same. I would expect for an EV the electric motor would have higher output. The team that developed the Volt motor and drive system also did the motors and drive units for the Malibu Hybrid, so the hardware is sound. I don’t know much about the application engineering on the Malibu Hybrid. I assume it’s a pretty good integration. I suspect that if the vehicle was too heavy for the hybrid system I would have heard a ton of negative reviews by now but I have not. I don’t recall ever driving one but I did get to drive a Saturn Vue with an earlier version of the same system in it. That vehicle was never released because of Saturn getting nuked in the bankruptcy. I remember that I was really impressed with the integration on that vehicle. So seven years later a more refined system in a more refined vehicle should have been a pretty solid package.

Thank's for the feedback James...I found the article from MT describing the Malibu hybrid as Voltec 2.0.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/...rid-tech-dive/

Chevy sat us down to explain some interesting differences in the Malibu's riff on the Volt's electrical architecture.
Only an absolute expert will be able to distinguish between the electric transaxle drive units of a Volt and a Malibu, even in cutaway form, but five parts differ. The rotors on both electric motors and the stator for motor A are new, tailored to the Malibu's different driving characteristics—namely, operating with the engine running most of the time. In the Volt, motor A manages to forego pricey rare earth magnets for cheaper ferrite ones, putting out 64 hp. This design is most efficient during charge-depleting (electric-only) driving. In the Malibu, neodymium-iron-boron magnets are used, boosting output to 74 hp and delivering lower losses during the charge-depleting mode, which the Malibu spends most of its time in. Motor B employs rare earth magnets in both cars, but in the Malibu the output drops from the Volt's 117 to 102 hp—a change that didn't require a new stator.

Since the Volt must be able to deliver peak acceleration with the engine off, there is a one-way clutch that prevents the engine-input shaft from rotating during hard acceleration. The Malibu doesn't need that part, because it never accelerates hard without the engine. Leaving it in caused parasitic losses, so it's out, partially defraying the increased cost of the fancier magnets. Finally, the Malibu's 306cc larger 1.8-liter engine required stiffer springs on the input shaft torsion damper. Beyond that, there are some calibration tweaks and a slightly different connector shield (required for the different crash characteristics).

Speaking of that "Midsize Gasoline Engine Family" 1.8-liter, it gets a few spiffs unique to its new hybrid role, including pistons and rods that provide 11.5:1 compression, a single-volume close-coupled catalyst, and a direct-to-the-block mount for the A/C compressor. The bigger changes are a cooled exhaust gas recirculation system to optimize fuel economy (all the cool new hybrids are getting this feature) and an exhaust-heat recovery system. During cold starts this feature temporarily diverts hot exhaust gasses exiting the catalyst through a heat exchanger to warm the engine coolant much more rapidly. This improves both emissions light off and the time required to warm the cabin. It also lets the powertrain function with the engine off for 50 percent or more of the time on the fuel-economy test schedule, even when run in 20-degree weather.
The meticulous calibration of these two retuned motors and the Voltec's double-planetary transaxle's four operating modes allow the Malibu Hybrid to drive the city-oriented fuel-economy test schedule and the more highway-oriented US06 schedule with this highly efficient engine operating within 2 percent of its peak brake-specific fuel consumption for most of the time. That's how Chevy manages to land those big EPA numbers.

The power-biased type of battery best suited to a charge-sustaining hybrid like the 2016 Malibu's is necessarily very different from the energy-biased types used in pure EVs and range-extended EVs such as the Volt. This new pack marks a quantum improvement relative to the one in the 2008-2009 Malibu Hybrids, but the chemistry is the same: lithium-ion graphite mixture with a nickel-manganese cobalt-oxide cathode. This type provides the strong cold-cranking amps required to start the engine. Power density improves greatly by switching from cylindrical to flat pouch-type cells grouped 10 cells to a module, with eight modules comprising the pack. It stores 1.5 kW-hr, triple the old Malibu Hybrid pack's energy with 75 percent greater power density. It's air-cooled, drawing air from the passenger compartment, and the pack weighs just 95 pounds.