[arpad_m]

Okay, I'll try one last time, then I'll let it go, pinky promise. Here is a contrived but relevant to the discussion example.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say we are back in the 1990s with two competing engine technologies, OHV and DOHC, everything else is irrelevant, because it either only exists on paper or is grossly cost ineffective. (Yeah, I know this isn't true, but it's just an example, okay?)

Now, if you are the EPA and mandate that each manufacturer must commit to increasing the minimum number of valves per cylinder from 2.0 to 4.0 on average across their vehicle fleet in a timespan of 5 years (we could have chosen another arbitrary metric such as horsepower per liter, too), is this a DOHC "mandate" in the dictionary definition of the word?

Of course not, after all, everyone is free to invent brand new technologies and pay $$$$ just to appease the regulators, or simply play along and switch to DOHC... realistically speaking to the context, however, I don't see how in the world anyone can say this isn't a DOHC mandate.

Exact same thing with the EPA fuel economy regulations. Everyone knows full well that a gasoline engine that achieves a fuel economy of 51+ mpg while actually satisfying today's customer expectations from a modern vehicle is not possible. Hybrids could do it, but of course the arbitrary tightening of this metric didn't end with 51.3 mpg and model year 2025, eventually it reaches the point where hybrids fall away, too.

This is how such regulation becomes an effective EV mandate, because it focuses on the one metric that vastly favors EVs and prescribes levels impossible to attain but using this one propulsion technology.

And before anyone says again that I'm anti-EV, nope, I have nothing against them, in fact I've been considering one as a commuter and grocery getter for the wife or kids. There is nothing wrong with electric propulsion per se---and everything is wrong with these concealed mandates.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

Yea, it is an official order to make 66% of your light truck mix EVs. Thank you for clarifying my point. It seems like you are stuck on a mandate meaning 100%. It can mean 66% too, and does in this case.

-Geoff

It is exactly NOT that. It is EPA saying “if an automaker were to use all the technologies currently available in all the applications where they could be used, the result would be they would need 66% mix of EVs to meet the targets.” It does not say they have to meet 66%. An automaker could simply choose to reduce the amount of light trucks in their fleet. They could choose to make all their light trucks hybrid. They could choose to implement a variable compression engine and extreme EGR (both things do exist in vehicles on the road today, but are super expensive). Or they could shift their light trucks to fuel cell. What the numbers in the Federal Register do is estimate what % of vehicles would need to be plug-in to meet the regulation based on prevalent technology.

I’m not stuck on 100%. 100% is just easy to demonstrate and it is also what a lot of people believe to be true. California’s 2035 rule is the best example of a mandate and it says 100% zero emissions vehicles. A mandate could be “you MUST have 19% BEV by <pick a date> or face fines.” Such language does not exist anywhere in the regulation, because….no mandate.

[SomeGeoffGuy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It is exactly NOT that. It is EPA saying “if an automaker were to use all the technologies currently available in all the applications where they could be used, the result would be they would need 66% mix of EVs to meet the targets.” It does not say they have to meet 66%. An automaker could simply choose to reduce the amount of light trucks in their fleet. They could choose to make all their light trucks hybrid. They could choose to implement a variable compression engine and extreme EGR (both things do exist in vehicles on the road today, but are super expensive). Or they could shift their light trucks to fuel cell. What the numbers in the Federal Register do is estimate what % of vehicles would need to be plug-in to meet the regulation based on prevalent technology.

You keep bringing California. I have never once brought it up. So I am not even going to address that word salad.

Yes, the Federal Register tells you the target percentage based on current tech. That is the mandate! Congrats for finally getting it!

Literally, your proof that is not a mandate is that they don't have to build the only vehicles that are profitable? So to meet the EPA guidelines, they could just stop selling light trucks? That is what makes it a mandate, you have to stop selling what the people actually want! I think you are admitting why I am right, without admitting that I am right about the mandate.

That is my point - without the actual profitable vehicles, the OEM's would be out of business in a few years. Do you follow Ford's reported EV losses every quarter? How do you think they are staying in business? By selling a crap ton of ICE vehicles, that's how.

2032 is eight years away. Seven in auto years since they are selling 2025s now. It is pretty much the point of no return in terms of engineering for 2032, there is maybe one product cycle left.

But it's only a mandate if you want to make money, so it's not a real mandate! But they don't have to be in business either I guess! That would solve everything, right? Your logic not mine.

-Geoff

[GreenZLE]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

James has very good insights and decades of experience he's willing to share with us, I'm happy that he is a regular here and read everything he posts.

However, what is likely going on with him (and Number 3 and several others) is what we called "institutionalization" at my previous job with a company with 100,000+ employees. You simply become blind to outside perspectives and go to contortions to defend whatever direction the company is taking. Eventually this is what leads to the convoluted explanations in the face of obvious facts we see in every thread.

Take this example I posted some time ago, the actual fuel economy standards mandate from the Obama era, where I noted how this forces ICE vehicles out of the market by means of mandating impossible metrics.

The answer? "This is not a mandate, automakers are free to achieve it in any way they want, it just so happens that EVs are the best means to do that"---I mean, talk about the very definition of coercion, yet there is always some weird excuse to how this is not a mandate.

Yep. By default, all these regulations are government mandates to end ICE vehicles. The other side would like to entangle everyone in technicalities.

We could roll back all emissions standards to 2010 and not see an appreciable decrease in air quality. Diesel particulate emissions was reduced about 95% from 1990 to 2012.

Meanwhile, the other side of the earth pollutes without regard so our efforts are rendered moot.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

You keep bringing California. I have never once brought it up. So I am not even going to address that word salad.

I bring up California because that is a real life living breathing mandate. It’s actually the only one in play. Well, that and Canada.

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

Yes, the Federal Register tells you the target percentage based on current tech. That is the mandate! Congrats for finally getting it!

Not sure what you think I got. The table in the register is an example estimated to show that the regulation is achievable through product mix. Nothing more, nothing less. No automakers are engineering to the numbers on that table. No automakers will be penalized for not adhering to the numbers on that table. That alone makes it not a mandate. It doesn’t direct anybody to do anything.

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

Literally, your proof that is not a mandate is that they don't have to build the only vehicles that are profitable? So to meet the EPA guidelines, they could just stop selling light trucks? That is what makes it a mandate, you have to stop selling what the people actually want! I think you are admitting why I am right, without admitting that I am right about the mandate.

You have conveniently over-looked the other options I listed in that same sentence.

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

That is my point - without the actual profitable vehicles, the OEM's would be out of business in a few years. Do you follow Ford's reported EV losses every quarter? How do you think they are staying in business? By selling a crap ton of ICE vehicles, that's how.

That’s short term. Ford does not yet have a true EV platform. Both Mach E and Lightning are built off of modified ICE platforms. They are still developing their BEV platform and have delayed it at least a year based on the decision to re-purpose Oakville. But they are still, by their choice, moving in that direction. They made some tactical errors in terms of the amount of capacity to dedicate to EV pickups and they have to fix that problem. All of that costs money.

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

2032 is eight years away. Seven in auto years since they are selling 2025s now. It is pretty much the point of no return in terms of engineering for 2032, there is maybe one product cycle left.

One product cycle left for what? There’s more than one product cycle left for ICE. And why are you picking 2032? The California mandate and the Canada mandate are both targeting 2035. And I’d lay odds that one or both will either push their timing out several years or redefine what they mean by “Zero Emissions Vehicle”. California already has a track record on this. They’ve been playing this game since the early ‘90s. That’s why we have Near Zero Emissions (NZEV), Partial Zero Emissions (PZEV) and Advanced Technology Zero Emissions (AT-PZEV) vehicles with different credit values. When it becomes apparent that automakers can’t meet California’s requirements no matter how genuinely they may try, California has a history of resetting the targets.

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

But it's only a mandate if you want to make money, so it's not a real mandate! But they don't have to be in business either I guess! That would solve everything, right? Your logic not mine.

-Geoff

Totally don’t get that last part, but I’m not sure that it's important that I do.

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the fuel economy and emissions regulations definitely lean the industry towards a much greater presence of BEV. This is because as they become more strict over time, the only technologies that clearly meet the new regulations require more electrification and less carbon emissions. What’s being mandated is better fuel economy and cleaner emissions. Automakers are choosing more electrification as their path to get there.

[SomeGeoffGuy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

One thing I think we can all agree on is that the fuel economy and emissions regulations definitely lean the industry towards a much greater presence of BEV. This is because as they become more strict over time, the only technologies that clearly meet the new regulations require more electrification and less carbon emissions. What’s being mandated is better fuel economy and cleaner emissions. Automakers are choosing more electrification as their path to get there.

To summarize, you say: word salad, word salad, word salad, it isn't a mandate because an automaker can choose NOT to make light trucks.

Sorry, that is still a mandate. It might not be exactly 66%, but it is limiting ICE production. A mandate that limits ICE vehicle production. Mandate. Mandate. Mandate.

-Geoff

p.s. mandate mandate mandate.

[s346k]

Originally Posted by Malbjey

Absolutely disagree on the bold portion. What new cars don't have enough power??? We have been in a golden age of power, even when factoring the increasing weight of cars. Unless you're shopping economy cars, I don't get how you can make this statement. You do not need to spend $100+K for a powerful car. A Corvette isn't powerful enough, now?

we are also in the golden age of astronomical weight. no, a base model c8 does not have enough power. my bolt on m6 camaro would absolutely walk away from one. if you want a new car that traps 130+ or 60-130 in the high 6-low 7 sec range, itll cost you 100k. no, 12 second camaros are not fast. no, a 123 mph c8 is not fast.

[Number 3]

Well the argument is around the word "mandate".

No governmental agency in the US has mandated electric vehicles. It's that simple. Even CARB has not mandated EVs. As California often does, they simply mandate the desired outcome which is ZEV (ZERO Emission Vehicles) and let the actual businesses do whatever it takes or invent but their choice. That way California can, when or if it blows up, blame the automakers for not inventing something.

In the Federal sense, what has been mandated is emissions/fuel economy (one and that same as if you burn gas or diesel or even hydrogen you create emissions). But again, they have not told anyone how to do that.

From a timing and investment standpoint as well as customer acceptance due to features, functionality and existing infrastructure, a BEV is the most practical solution. So, in a roundabout way, BEV looks like it has a mandate. But by the definition of the word, and the existing CARB and Federal Regulations, a BEV has NOT been mandated. Yep, it's weaselly as they know the auto makers know that the solution will MOSTL LIKELY be a BEV. Automakers could all select FCEVs as this solution. It even fixes one of the major issues with EVs and that is charging time. But everyone in this discussion knows Hydrogen doesn't work. It may someday, but certainly not in the next 10 years. Heck GM is the deepest of any OEM in Fuel Cells other than they don't have a car in production as even GM sees FC as an industrial power source, not a means of propulsion.

One of my favorite engineering mantras is given enough time and money I can do anything. Problem is there isn't enough time or money to invent a ZEV that isn't a BEV or FCEV.

But to be clear, the mandate is emissions not EVs. EVs are just the easiest and quickest way to meet that mandate.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well the argument is around the word "mandate".

No governmental agency in the US has mandated electric vehicles. It's that simple. Even CARB has not mandated EVs. As California often does, they simply mandate the desired outcome which is ZEV (ZERO Emission Vehicles) and let the actual businesses do whatever it takes or invent but their choice. That way California can, when or if it blows up, blame the automakers for not inventing something.

In the Federal sense, what has been mandated is emissions/fuel economy (one and that same as if you burn gas or diesel or even hydrogen you create emissions). But again, they have not told anyone how to do that.

From a timing and investment standpoint as well as customer acceptance due to features, functionality and existing infrastructure, a BEV is the most practical solution. So, in a roundabout way, BEV looks like it has a mandate. But by the definition of the word, and the exiting CARB and Federal Regulations, a BEV has NOT been mandated. Yep, it's weaselly as they know the auto makers know that the solution will MOSTL LIKELY be a BEV. Automakers could all select FCEVs as this solution. It even fixes one of the major issues with EVs and that is charging time. But everyone in this discussion knows Hydrogen doesn't work. It may someday, but certainly not in the next 10 years. Heck GM is the deepest of any OEM in Fuel Cells other than they don't have a car in production as even GM sees FC as an industrial power source, not a means of propulsion.

One of my favorite engineering mantras is given enough time and money I can do anything. Problem is there isn't enough time or money to invent a ZEV that isn't a BEV or FCEV.

But to be clear, the mandate is emissions not EVs. EVs are just the easiest and quickest way to meet that mandate.

You’ve said it much more clearly than I have. Thank you for that.

Let me play devil’s advocate for a minute…let’s pretend that I agree that there IS a BEV mandate? When was it put in place? How do you remove it and what happens after you remove it?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by SomeGeoffGuy

To summarize, you say: word salad, word salad, word salad, it isn't a mandate because an automaker can choose NOT to make light trucks. Or they can choose to make their trucks hybrid or add other technologies to them

Sorry, that is still a mandate. It might not be exactly 66%, but it is limiting ICE production. A mandate that limits ICE vehicle production. Mandate. Mandate. Mandate.

-Geoff

p.s. mandate mandate mandate.

Fixed it to include the rest of what I said that you conveniently ignored. Fact is, this is already proving to be true. The pickups that are left are increasing their penetration of hybrids (F150, Tundra, Tacoma) and/or adding more aggressive EGR and gas particulate filters. Still doesn’t get ‘em there but keeps ‘em around a little longer.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Well the argument is around the word "mandate".
...
So, in a roundabout way, BEV looks like it has a mandate.
...
Yep, it's weaselly as they know the auto makers know that the solution will MOST LIKELY be a BEV. Automakers could all select FCEVs as this solution. It even fixes one of the major issues with EVs and that is charging time. But everyone in this discussion knows Hydrogen doesn't work.
...
But to be clear, the mandate is emissions not EVs. EVs are just the easiest and quickest way to meet that mandate.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. When you enforce a metric that has only one way known to man to meet, it is an effective mandate.

Sure, in 10-20-30 years someone may invent something or make something work that can finally satisfy the metric, however, deferring to that is not only weaselly but cynical to its core. Like when Don Corleone makes "suggestions" to businesses that want to retain their "safety". Does he order them to pay, oh no, he never said that, but everyone knows the deal.

(Also, even the metric itself is disingenous, it's not "zero emission" when you just shift all emissions elsewhere.)

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Let me play devil’s advocate for a minute…let’s pretend that I agree that there IS a BEV mandate? When was it put in place? How do you remove it and what happens after you remove it?

Easy as pie. Send minimum fleet mpg standards the way of the dodo, along with whatever mandatory penetration rates and zero emissions goals may exist at the federal level, plus the $7500 subsidy on EVs, done.

What happens after you remove all this is businesses will start producing what people actually want and need. If that's a bunch of 3-4 ton EVs, so be it. I'm sure many people will still buy Teslas, and good for them. But there will be a clear opportunity to produce what actually sells and turns real profit.

I'd give some leeway here, too: some emissions (not fuel economy) standards could be allowed to remain, but those have to be established by serious and unbiased sources, not industry and political shills. Not particularly easy to do, for sure.

[90503]

Still a Mandate...whether it's de-facto, back door, spun to sound like something else...Its still a mandate (that will end soon, hopefully).


https://energycommerce.house.gov/pos...the-ev-mandate

Energy and Commerce is leading to stop Biden’s agenda to force Americans to drive EVs
President Biden’s EPA is proposing a de facto mandate for two-thirds of all new vehicles to be electric by 2032. To stop the administration’s rush-to-green agenda that is taking away people’s vehicle choice and handing the keys to America’s auto future to China, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) are leading on H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) Act.

Ahead of today’s House Floor vote, don’t miss what the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board had to say:

12.6.23 WSJ Headline.png

“House Republicans have teed up a vote this week on legislation to block President Biden’s back-door electric-vehicle mandate. Democrats are spinning the legislation as an attack on public health, innovation and free markets.”

[…]

“The Environmental Protection Agency 'is not imposing an EV mandate,' says a memo from Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee opposing the GOP legislation. But the EPA in April proposed tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gases that would effectively require that electric vehicles make up two-thirds of car sales in 2032.

“The only way auto makers could meet the emissions restrictions is by producing more EVs and fewer gas-powered cars. This is a mandate in everything but name, and it’s already causing enormous problems.”

“The House GOP bill would prohibit EPA from finalizing its proposed CO2 emissions standards and bar any regulation that would 'mandate the use of any specific technology' or ‘result in limited availability of new motor vehicles’ based on the type of engine. This means EPA couldn’t promulgate a similar new mandate.”

[…]

“‘American demand for EVs is already outpacing supply,’ the Democratic memo says, and ‘auto manufacturers are independently trending toward EVs because of increasing popularity with consumers.’ Then why are auto makers scaling back EV production plans? And why are thousands of auto dealers begging the Administration to tap the brakes on the EPA regulation as EVs pile up on their lots?

“Tesla accounted for nearly two-thirds of EV sales last year. Battery-powered EVs make up less than 3% of most auto makers’ fleets, which means they’d face an extremely steep ramp-up to hit the 2032 mandate. Even with Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, the Energy Information Administration forecasts that EVs will make up only 15% of sales in 2030.”

“That means auto makers will have to raise prices on gas-powered cars to offset losses on EVs they are required to make to meet government quotas. Ford lost $62,016 for every EV it sold in the third quarter. The only alternative is to buy regulatory credits from EV manufacturers. Tesla pocketed about $2,380 in credit sales for each car it sold in the U.S. during the first six months.”

[…]

“Why can’t Democrats let producers meet the market demand for consumers?

“As the facts about Mr. Biden’s EV mandate become better known, and the implications for consumers sink in, it is going to be an issue in 2024. If EVs were as popular as the climate lobby claims, the Administration wouldn’t have to mandate them, and Democrats wouldn’t be dissembling about what they’re doing.”

[SomeGeoffGuy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Fixed it to include the rest of what I said that you conveniently ignored. Fact is, this is already proving to be true. The pickups that are left are increasing their penetration of hybrids (F150, Tundra, Tacoma) and/or adding more aggressive EGR and gas particulate filters. Still doesn’t get ‘em there but keeps ‘em around a little longer.

That stuff you are talking about might make a tiny shift, but just doing EGR isn't going to gain you 10% of sales shifted from EV to ICE. If you read the link I posted, they even included a lot of that tech in their projections. The numbers of 67% EV by 2032 (from the chart I posted) and leaving 33% ICE, that is the MAXIMUM number of ICE vehicles you can build. a plug-In hybrid isn't a 1:1 replacement for an EV. It is roughly 2:1 in 2028, and 3:1 by 2032. So if you want to go hybrid, by 2032 your mix is 100% EV's and hybrids, and zero ICE. Or as Ford motor Company likes to say, zero profit.

The reason why Ford and GM went all in on EV, is because if they can still sell 1/3 ICE, and 2/3 EV, they can still make a profit. The push you are seeing for hybrids all of a sudden, is due to the new rule drop earlier this year (that I posted), and if you read them (which I did, and you obviously haven't), you will see that from 2028-32, doing hybrids matters. But once it is 3:1 in 2032, the OEMs are better off with a pure EV and ICE mix in terms of profit.

In summary, being forced into a bad choice isn't a choice. It is a mandate. Luckily, the mandate is going in the garbage where it belongs soon, and the big three can focus on building the cars and trucks the American people want, not what the unelected bureaucrats want.

-Geoff