GM Recalls 73,000 More of Its Chevy 'Bolt' Electric Cars Over Fire Risk (cnbc.com) 97
In November GM recalled 69,000 of its "Bolt" electric cars after five reported fires and two minor injuries. Last month they issued a second recall "after at least two of the electric vehicles that were repaired for a previous problem erupted into flames," CNBC reported.
And then Friday the company expanded that recall "due to potential fire risk." The recall expansion is expected to cost the automaker an additional $1 billion, bringing the total to $1.8 billion to replace potentially defective battery modules in the vehicles. GM said about 73,000 vehicles in the U.S. and Canada are being added to the recall from the 2019-2022 model years, including a recently launched larger version of the car called the Bolt EUV...
The expanded recall now includes all Bolt EV models ever produced, casting a shadow over GM's first mainstream electric vehicle, as it attempts to transition to exclusively sell EVs by 2035...
The expansion follows the companies finding that the batteries for these vehicles may have two manufacturing defects — a torn anode tab and folded separator — present in the same battery cell, which increases the risk of fire. GM has confirmed one fire in the new population of recalled vehicles. That's in addition to at least nine previous confirmed fires in the first round of vehicles that were recalled.
And then Friday the company expanded that recall "due to potential fire risk." The recall expansion is expected to cost the automaker an additional $1 billion, bringing the total to $1.8 billion to replace potentially defective battery modules in the vehicles. GM said about 73,000 vehicles in the U.S. and Canada are being added to the recall from the 2019-2022 model years, including a recently launched larger version of the car called the Bolt EUV...
The expanded recall now includes all Bolt EV models ever produced, casting a shadow over GM's first mainstream electric vehicle, as it attempts to transition to exclusively sell EVs by 2035...
The expansion follows the companies finding that the batteries for these vehicles may have two manufacturing defects — a torn anode tab and folded separator — present in the same battery cell, which increases the risk of fire. GM has confirmed one fire in the new population of recalled vehicles. That's in addition to at least nine previous confirmed fires in the first round of vehicles that were recalled.
From what I've heard the Bolt (Score:3)
Hopefully the upcoming changes to tax incentives will incentivize car companies to make more affordable electric cars. You have to be pretty well off to use the current tax incentives. And if you're that well off you're not buying a Chevy Bolt.
Has someone whose family has a history of lung cancer although I was fortunate enough not to try cigarettes when I was young and stupid I'm still worried about the effects of smog on my lungs long-term. Guessing a lot of Slashdoters because we're nerds and we tend to be more prone to asthma. I've had to go to downtown big cities a few times and I don't know how anyone even breathes there. And a friend of the friend's father had to give up truck driving because the smog he was breathing while stuck in traffic had completely fucked up his heart. We really don't talk enough about the effects of smog on people. Though given how profitable selling gasoline for even cars is I'm not surprised
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing smoke from a lithium-ion battery fire is probably no picnic either.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. You just have to lease an EV from a manufacturer that hasn't already reached its 200,000 quota. The manufacturer claims the tax credit and (hopefully) passes the savings onto the lessee.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the Senate is rejiggering [electrek.co] the tax incentive - it will apply only to cars costing under $40000, and only for buyers who make less than $100000 per year. I don't know if this is the law yet, but if you're looking for an electric car you should watch for this.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they're basically eliminating the incentive. The cars in that price range aren't worth buying, not to mention that people making under $100k per year rarely have $12,550 in other deductions, and every dollar less than that number comes out of their tax credit.
They're not eliminating it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that they also require a certain minimum battery capacity. When almost half of that $40,000 maximum price tag is just the cost of building a battery that meets the minimum range requirements to get the tax credit, this basically means that only the cheapest, least-featured base model of any car can qualify. And nobody wants to spend $40,000 and get only the base model of a car when they can spend a few thousand more and get a better car. But then they lose the tax credit. So the incentive, as cu
Re: (Score:2)
Until the battery issues arose, the Bolt met those criteria. Current (2022) MSRP is about $33K for the base model, which is reasonably well equipped and now has DC charging (though only 50kw) standard ($34K for the squarer SUV-styled one - EUV - and $40-45K for the fancy trim). There's a stop-sale order on them right now, though.
The long-range optioned Leaf probably meets the criteria, too, barely.
The Kona EV, theoretically, can be obtained for $40K. In practice, forget it - the dealers' added profit and or
Carmakers will subsidize the BEVs with ICEVs. (Score:2)
Car manufacturers have already been subsidizing the sales of BEVs to be allowed in some markets and so I don't expect this to stop. The total BEV market in the USA is about 2% so that leaves a lot of room for big car makers like GM and Ford to take a big bite from EV prices and add a little on the top to hydrocarbon burners.
Companies that make only BEVs can't do this so they will have to stay in the luxury car market to stay profitable.
As more people buy BEVs the costs will rise for batteries, and that wil
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they're basically rejecting trickle down economics.
Fixed that for you.
On the contrary. Cars are one of the few places where trickle-down economics actually works. Where do you think used cars come from?
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary. Trickle-down economics actually works. Where do you think jobs come from?
Fixed that for you.
Jobs come from businesses that have specific needs. With the exception of very small businesses, giving more money to a business almost never causes it to suddenly hire more people, because businesses already have all the people they need to do a particular job, to within a small percentage.
Trickle-down economics doesn't really work at all. If you want to create jobs, you give money to small businesses, not big businesses, and the money mostly trickles up, not down.
Re: From what I've heard the Bolt (Score:2)
The EV tax credit can be claimed without itemizing on your taxes, so oneâ(TM)s other deductions are immaterial. Only thing that matters Is the credit canâ(TM)t exceed the total tax you would otherwise own. At any rate, the credit goes to the legal purchaser of the car. In the case of a lease, which is how most of them go out the door, that will be the leasing company, which is usually the manufacturerâ(TM)s captive finance arm.
Re: (Score:3)
Some reasons that the proposed 40K electric vehicle price cap on eligibility for federal tax rebates will never become law.
1. Elsewhere [autonews.com] that amendment is described as "non-binding."
2. Only four Senators (4%) voted for it.
3. The amendment needs to survive house-senate reconciliation to become law.
4. The auto manufacture lobby, which has large influence in Congress, will oppose the cap. Electric automobile manufactures benefit from the subsidy (devision of benefits from subsidies between buyers and sellers f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Spark EV was a compliance car. The Volt was a partial EV, not just a PHEV - it was in fact EV using electric drive in most cases, with the ICE along for backup after running the battery down or assisting in certain circumstances. The Bolt is a full EV, with (before the fire issues) 230-250 miles range and quite adequate performance; it's a fine EV overall. As far as EV fanboi are concerned, the main problem is that, of course, it's not a Tesla.
GM tried to fiddle it, but finally got pushed into doing wha
Re: (Score:2)
Them being not Teslas is a plus to me - Chevy is far, far better at quality control than Tesla is.
I was watching a review of a brand new Model S Plaid and the paint was mismatched and the door handles didn't work consistently and that's just... what you expect with a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame. With this huge, glaring exception, my used Bolt has been a great car. Best I've ever owned. I *want* them to fix it and I want to keep driving it. And I want them and everyone else to keep selling EVs, and I'm kind of scared the negative PR from this will set us back a few years.
Only seven issues for a recall? (Score:2)
Tesla vehicles have had at least 11 accidents [cnn.com] involving Autopilot or other self-driving features that crashed into emergency vehicles when coming upon the scene of an earlier crash. There were 17 injuries and one death as a result in the time period January 2018 to July 2021.
While NHTSA is investigating, it would seem logical for Tesla to either do a voluntary recall or limit functionality until the cause for these ongoing accidents is resolved. But I'm sure Musk wil find some excuse not to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
But I'm sure Musk wil find some excuse not to do so.
Musk is busy sewing Slenderman costumes and pretending he has made a humanoid robot AI that dances. That boring autopilot AI stuff is so last year...
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to do a recall to fix a software issue.
Tesla does OTA software updates.
Re: Only seven issues for a recall? (Score:2)
Software errors that cause catastrophic loss of life and/or property require more formalized and rigorous remediation procedures than "we'll just push out a patch."
For example, if the software is set up in such a way that N cars have already caught fire under "normal" use and charging conditions, there almost certainly exist k x N (where k could be big) cars that are just on the margin of catching fire because of accumulated damage to their batteries and/or power electronics. And a patch that prevents a fac
Re: (Score:2)
Software errors that cause catastrophic loss of life and/or property require more formalized and rigorous remediation procedures than "we'll just push out a patch."
Those aren't software errors. Those are conditions that exceed the design parameters under which the software was intended to operate.
When using Autopilot, you are responsible for driving, not the car. If you allow the car to drive into a firetruck, that's your fault, not the car's fault, unless there was a software bug that prevented you from disengaging Autopilot (which to my knowledge has never happened). This isn't a software bug that makes the vehicle unsafe to drive. It's a software bug that requi
Re: Only seven issues for a recall? (Score:2)
A charge controller that will let you either overcharge the battery or charge it at too high a current such that it incurs thermal damage is its own class of engineering failure separate from poor cell design or assembly process control or workmanship.
Re: (Score:2)
Nods.
Yes, there's also the possibility that they're doing something stupid *and* their batteries stink. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing are driver defects, not manufacturing defects. Cars bursting into flames due to manufacturing defect in the batteries = recall. Drivers not understanding the difference between driver assists and autonomous driving, and ignoring all reminders to pay attention = driver defect.
Re: (Score:3)
What you're describing are driver defects, not manufacturing defects.
So what you're saying is the driver didn't brake in time because they were relying on the software which we're told is supposed to be the failsafe because human drivers are unreliable. That doesn't sound like a rousing endorsement of avoidance detection if we're going to have self-driving cars.
But thanks for the excuse. I figured someone would come up with something to make Tesla blameless for shoddy work.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not at all what I said. I said that they did not understand the difference between the technology in our cars (driver assists) and autonomous driving (future functionality we expect cars will have). There is a reason the cars tell you to keep your hands on the wheel when you engage features like lane keep assist (or auto pilot, in Tesla's case), they are driver assists only and the driver is expected to take over as needed.
Can you show me any piece of documentation from a car manufacturer that says
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I read an article recently about Tesla supposedly changing the name of autopilot to something else, but searches turn up little but old articles about others opining that they should, so I guess I misread it.
I don't know that I agree they are implying the features are more capable than they actually are. My impression is that they tend to be quite clear on what the system can currently do, and what they are working to make the system capable of doing, and what they're currently able to do during supervised
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of those accidents was caused by people taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel. No different than someone setting cruise control and running into a wall. Autopilot in an airplane will happily fly you into a mountain or another airplane.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of those accidents was caused by people taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel. No different than someone setting cruise control and running into a wall. Autopilot in an airplane will happily fly you into a mountain or another airplane.
See above. Even if what you say is true, we've been told Tesla's avoidance software is the failsafe because human drivers are unreliable. Hitting a staionary object with its lights on doesn't sound like a failsafe.
re: hitting a stationary object.... (Score:2)
There's a lot of info out there about the issue with Tesla Autopilot running straight into stationary objects. It seems the core problem there was in their attempt to use a combination of output from the car's front radar AND front camera.
While it seems counter-intuitive that eliminating one of those would improve the detection, it does in this situation. The radar was always generating really "noisy" data from all the radar reflections that come back, and Tesla had a lot of software running to try to int
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're an ordinary mortal, most of the time, all you can contact is an unmonitored email address. Haha.
If it's a public company, buy some stock and contact investor relations. It may or may not help, but at least somebody will answer the phone or email.
Foo (Score:1)
Car makers are missing the point. Or not serious. (Score:1)
Why are we bothering with EVs? Has anyone actually stopped to ask that recently? The goal is to lower CO2 in the atmosphere from that being released from deep underground. There's more than one way to do that. We know how to capture carbon from the air and use that to make carbon neutral gasoline and diesel fuel. Why aren't carmakers investing in that? EVs cannot get the same performance as the ICE in many respects. We can get the best of both worlds with hybrids. I know people with a "mild hybrid"
Re: (Score:3)
Why are we bothering with EVs? Has anyone actually stopped to ask that recently?
Yes. We have. Why don't you ask and listen to the answers, instead of asking the clouds, and noticing clouds don't answer?
Re: (Score:3)
If the answer is EVs then the question must be so narrow that it cannot cover heavy trucks, passenger aircraft, cargo ships, and so many other cases where EVs cannot go.
Where's the Tesla Semi? Wasn't that supposed to some out this year? Oh, right, Mr. Musk says there is a battery supply issue but that should be resolved next year. Maybe it is but that still means a lot of diesel fuel burned because Tesla's battery supply problems are more than just their own. This is industry wide, and covers competitio
Re: (Score:2)
If the answer is EVs then the question must be so narrow that it cannot cover heavy trucks, passenger aircraft, cargo ships, and so many other cases where EVs cannot go.
That's right. The questions for passenger vehicles are different questions than for heavy trucks, airplanes, and cargo ships. Each of which is a different issue. And only two out of the three will likely be EVs soon.
Why do you need cars and airplanes to be the same issue? Are your answers really so fucking stupid as that? That you don't even subjects? All answers are just, "Derp!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need cars and airplanes to be the same issue?
It doesn't have to be but it is. The solution to getting carbon neutral passenger aircraft in less than 30 years is synthesized fuels. We solve that and we solved the problem for commuter cars too. The way things are going we will solve our synthesized fuel supply problem long before the battery supply problem.
This is a problem with a lot of people working on it. If we are going to send people to Mars then we need in-situ resource utilization, and that includes rocket fuel to get home. If we can synthe
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
what is the output from a pollution tailpipe when burning synthesized fuels? aroma of Roses or fresh air or toxic fumes?
CO2 and water vapor. If burning vegetable oil there is a hint of cooked french fries or movie theater popcorn.
We are not going to get to carbon neutral transportation without nuclear fission and synthesized fuels. You can complain about the fumes all you like but that doesn't change the math. Too bad you get that french fry scent from passing buses rather than just around fast food restaurants.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you're burning something in air, the engine will at least emit nitrogen oxides. That comes from air being at high temps - you can even get it from air compressors if they produce high enough pressures and temperatures. So yes, even an engine burning pure hydrogen will have harmful emissions: NOx. Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels produce all of the same criteria pollutants, and require all the same emission controls, as those burning petroleum-based fuels; the only difference is that if the synthetic f
Re: (Score:2)
There's a small but vocal contingent that says even EVs are horrible: what we need is no cars at all. In the US at least, that contingent is likely to remain small. If they are too vocal in some places, and personally identifiable, other things might happen too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not just small, that's not even 1%.
There's probably 15% who believe, "EV's can't happen, because muh truck!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Why don’t you start one of these ventures yourself if you feel the market can support it?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we bothering with EVs? Has anyone actually stopped to ask that recently? The goal is to lower CO2 in the atmosphere from that being released from deep underground. There's more than one way to do that. We know how to capture carbon from the air and use that to make carbon neutral gasoline and diesel fuel. Why aren't carmakers investing in that? EVs cannot get the same performance as the ICE in many respects.
EVs wipe the floor with ICE cars in nearly every metric other than range per fill-up.
We can get the best of both worlds with hybrids.
All the mechanical problems of a complicated ICE engine with piles of emission control garbage tacked on, combined with all the cost of an EV? Kind of sounds like the worst of both worlds to me. The best of both worlds is an EV with a range extender trailer and a gas tank that you can rent and fasten to your trailer hitch for the occasional long-range trip.
I know people with a "mild hybrid" truck and for how little I rode in it the truck seems very nice. For trucks we need the energy density of hydrocarbons. For long drives in cars we need that too.
Most of that energy gets wasted by the horrible inefficiency of ga
Re: (Score:2)
>"EVs wipe the floor with ICE cars in nearly every metric other than range per fill-up."
And purchase cost.
And, right now, still, model choice.
Both are certain to change, though. Like many, I am awaiting impatiently.
>"[hybrids]All the mechanical problems of a complicated ICE engine with piles of emission control garbage tacked on, combined with all the cost of an EV? Kind of sounds like the worst of both worlds to me."
I couldn't agree more. I would never consider a hybrid. I will move from ICE to EV
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will find that the hybrids that have actually made it to market are, almost universally, more reliable than the gasoline- or diesel-powered equivalent vehicles sold by the same manufacturers. The Prius is nearly, if not actually, the most reliable Toyota, and is in the running for most reliable, period.
If you have problems with a hybrid, it's probably with the ICE side of the system.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs wipe the floor with ICE cars in nearly every metric other than range per fill-up.
You mean other than the fires?
All the mechanical problems of a complicated ICE engine with piles of emission control garbage tacked on, combined with all the cost of an EV? Kind of sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.
Then don't buy one. For people that need the fast fill up to get shit done won't buy an EV, but they might buy a hybrid for greater fuel economy and lower TCO. There are many many people that cannot wait for an EV to charge, have unreliable power, or whatever, and they simply will not buy an EV. GM can choose to leave this market behind in 2030 or whatever but I doubt they will. Their claim to be ICE free is complete bullshit, all we need to do is wait to see.
The best of both worlds is an EV with a range extender trailer and a gas tank that you can rent and fasten to your trailer hitch for the occasional long-range trip.
The range exte
Re: (Score:2)
EVs wipe the floor with ICE cars in nearly every metric other than range per fill-up.
You mean other than the fires?
In an average day, 150 gasoline-powered cars catch fire in the United States alone. In fact, Tesla cars catch fire about an order of magnitude less often [tesla.com] than gasoline-powered cars (by miles traveled) according to the NFPA and DOT.
Maybe you've forgotten that gasoline-powered cars are basically a bomb on wheels.
All the mechanical problems of a complicated ICE engine with piles of emission control garbage tacked on, combined with all the cost of an EV? Kind of sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.
Then don't buy one. For people that need the fast fill up to get shit done won't buy an EV, but they might buy a hybrid for greater fuel economy and lower TCO. There are many many people that cannot wait for an EV to charge, have unreliable power, or whatever, and they simply will not buy an EV. GM can choose to leave this market behind in 2030 or whatever but I doubt they will. Their claim to be ICE free is complete bullshit, all we need to do is wait to see.
Oh, don't worry. I wouldn't touch anything with an internal combustion engine with a ten-meter pole. I don't even like having to drive them as rental cars. They're hopelessly underpowered, and thu
Re: (Score:2)
In an average day, 150 gasoline-powered cars catch fire in the United States alone. In fact, Tesla cars catch fire about an order of magnitude less often than gasoline-powered cars (by miles traveled) according to the NFPA and DOT.
The average car in the USA is nearly 11 years old. That's not a valid comparison. A new car starting on fire is quite distinct from one that is 15 years old.
Maybe you've forgotten that gasoline-powered cars are basically a bomb on wheels.
How many start on fire while idle in the garage?
It's no less safe than a car running on fuel.
A pusher trailer is pushing the car on a hinged drawbar, that means it can power the car into a spin very quickly. This was an issue with a number of experimental vehicles through history and is a blown up effect of rear wheel drive cars, and we don't see many rear wheel drive cars because of the safety
Re: (Score:2)
The average car in the USA is nearly 11 years old. That's not a valid comparison. A new car starting on fire is quite distinct from one that is 15 years old.
Vehicle fuel systems develop all sorts of fun problems on their own at a level that batteries generally don't. And yet in a couple of decades of using lithium ion batteries for electronics en masse, we've had what, two or three devices in total that have had non-negligible rates of self immolation?
Maybe you've forgotten that gasoline-powered cars are basically a bomb on wheels.
How many start on fire while idle in the garage?
About 8% don't involve accidents. So per mile driven, it's probably about the same as the total for EVs, including all of the EV highway fires.
It's no less safe than a car running on fuel.
A pusher trailer is pushing the car on a hinged drawbar, that means it can power the car into a spin very quickly.
Who is talking about a pusher? Again, IC engines suck at moving car
Re: (Score:2)
Who is talking about a pusher?
A trailer that charges the EV while moving requires modifications to the car, modifications that nobody has done yet and is unlikely to do any time soon. It is far more likely for a car maker to offer a range extended EV than an EV with an add-on trailer for longer trips. It is far more likely for people to buy a range extended EV than a trailer because that means licensing and insuring two road worthy items and needing to remember to have the trailer attached before going on a long trip, as well as the e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What toxic fumes? NAME THEM!
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a synthesized hydrocarbon fuel from renewable sources using processing powered by renewable energy, the engine burning it still emits all of the pollutants it would if burning a fossil petroleum-based fuel (e.g. gasoline or diesel, or even propane or natural gas). That is: carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons (unburned and waste), nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. Depending on the fuel formulation, sulphur compounds may be in the exhaust too. There is also CO2 in the exhaust; the difference if the f
Re: (Score:2)
We know how to capture carbon from the air and use that to make carbon neutral gasoline and diesel fuel.
Not really actually, it's very expensive. You wouldn't be willing to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really actually, it's very expensive. You wouldn't be willing to pay for it.
Your point? We could have said the same thing about electric cars not so long ago. The technology develops, economy of scale is created, and we get from what only the military would dare pay in a war for national existence to what people buy routinely.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the technology will develop. People are working on it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what I understand as well.... but just how much more expensive? Consider: fuel is more expensive around the world than in the US, but even in the US a large portion of the price of the fuel is tax. Elsewhere, more so.
If synthetic fuels were NOT taxed, they actually might be able to compete, and even out-compete, conventional fuels. Anyone have the numbers to prove/disprove this theory?
Re: (Score:2)
This one puts the cost of removing CO2 from the air at ~$2 a gallon [livescience.com]. That's removing it from the air, not converting it back into gasoline. I couldn't find numbers for the other pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're removing it from the air, it should be to sequester it not burn it again.
What ever happened to the scheme for perforating a large ultramafic formation (in one of the Emirates?) then pumping air through it? Somebody once said that it could pull a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere in a decade or two.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that converting it to stone (once it's been removed from the atmosphere) is an additional expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in your solution, its still means burning stuff and producing toxic fumes.
What toxic fumes would those be? List them. Today's catalytic converters take out all the toxic stuff and all that is left in the exhaust is CO2 and water vapor. With synthesized fuels therems no sulfur, and so long as nobody is stupid enough to add lead or some other toxic stuff then it's clean. It's devoid of oxygen so don't go sucking on the tail pipe or run the car in the garage but it's not going to cause any harm in the open air.
get with the EV program because none of your solutions work
I will when EVs fly, which will be about the time when pigs fly. Sur
Just a compliance vehicle (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when auto makers are allowed to make half-ass "compliance" vehicles, just so they can get some green credits to offset their massive V8 powered smog tractors. GM management was probably giggling as they discussed the ways they could invest the least amount possible, making an extremely dorky vehicle, on purpose. It would have been tragic if the vehicle was actually good and people bought them in large numbers, since they lost money on every one.
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:4, Insightful)
They're all just compliance vehicles. Even Teslas. Just that Tesla sells their credits to other carmakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops! You mean nobody makes or buys an electric vehicle because they're hella fast, quiet, and fun to drive? Coulda fooled me! And it's just a happy side effect that it's good for the planet.
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:3)
"Hella" isn't a word.
Regardless, people used to buy and wear powdered wigs because they were hella prestigious. Even though they were impractical as fuck. It was a marker of social status that you a) had money to burn on frivolities and b) had people to attend to tasks for you that the powdered wig rendered impossible for you yourself to perform.
Electric cars are like that in many ways. The rich can afford to parade around in them because if they really need to get somewhere on short notice they can hire so
Re: (Score:2)
If "hella" isn't a word, why are you using it? Is slang outlawed on these forums?
Your disdain for "the rich" suggests a socialist or communist point of view. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I certainly agree that wealth inequality is a major problem in our society.
But I think that lots of people who wouldn't be considered "rich" enjoy electric vehicles, not to "parade around in" but to drive, and that while manufacturers certainly make "compliance cars" for business reasons, consumers often buy t
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:2)
I am not able to rightly apprehend the confusion of thought that conflates skepticism that rich people's hobbies and proclivities can scale to the population at large with socialism or disdain for capitalism or wealth.
Presumably one can have a low opinion of a particular occupant of a Senate seat or the White House without having a similarly low opinion of the United States Senate or the office of the president.
Re: (Score:2)
I love EVs because they are more practical and also great to drive.
I save a lot of time and money by charging at home instead of going to people petrol stations regularly. I can pre-condition the car without gassing myself to death in a garage. No gearbox, just smooth acceleration and one pedal driving.
Not going back to fossil now.
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:2)
You live on a tiny island.
I live in a country where I can drive all day and not have traversed 1/10th of it. There are some places where you can drive all day and still be in the same country you started in.
And yes, I do do that a couple of times a year. And yes it's frequently on too short a notice to rent a car in advance. And often occurs on holidays when everyone else is doing the same thing, so me owning an EV and renting an ICE car to see the family on Thanksgiving will really really not work at all i
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, so this is the new "remote cabin in the woods" scenario? You need to drive extremely long distance on a holiday, refuse to take any safety/comfort breaks and the time lost to charging is going to ruin your already extremely marginal plans that would presumably be wrecked if say a truck overturned and blocked the highway for a while.
Have a look at Bjorn Nyland's 1000km challenge results here: https://docs.google.com/spread... [google.com]
Over 1000km a fossil car is only 20 minutes faster than a Model 3 LR, w
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:2)
I can, and have, driven 300 miles with no breaks in a little under 5 hours. And then turned around and driven back the following morning.
A model 3 can theoretically go one leg of that trip with a 20 minute penalty, but the second leg isn't possible if the destination (relatives' driveway/hotel/condo parking garage guest space) doesn't even have a 15 amp 120v outlet, let alone a 50 amp 240v charger.
Like I keep saying. Maybe in 20 or 30 or 50 years it will make sense for everyone. But right now it doesn't; it
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you need to charge 3 times, total of an hour. Journey time 10 hours plus one hour charging. 10% speed penalty, but increased safety and comfort. All over the space of two days.
And apparently that is just too much for you, for some reason.
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:2)
A 1 hour penalty with no difference in safety or comfort (come on guy...really?) for a trip where I'm at my destination for maybe 10 or 12 hours *is* a penalty that's significant. I either get to spend less time at my destination or can't plan my trip around rush hour at all the points between A and B. And all that for a car that costs more and has lower availability for other use cases too.
Re: (Score:2)
No difference? You get a quiet, smooth ride and you get to take comfort breaks instead of holding it in for 5 hours.
And this extreme requirement you pulled out of your arse means that these are "compliance cars" for everyone.
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:2)
Life is full of "extreme requirements" and holding your piss in for 5 hours is among the least taxing of them.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't get one. For at least another 10 years, there will be plenty of non-EVs sold, especially in the larger sizes you likely prefer. Gasoline, diesel, propane, and natural gas will likely be widely available well past 2050, and some of it (probably most of it as time goes on) is likely to have renewable content so as you age out of the population you can still feel good about driving that lifted diesel F350 on biofuel. Just be aware that some places (most likely not in whatever's left of the US) probabl
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't fucking scale.
You just described cars and computers in general.
Also "hella" is a word.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
https://dictionary.cambridge.o... [cambridge.org]
https://www.lexico.com/definit... [lexico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The market suggests otherwise given the waiting list for a Tesla.
Re: Just a compliance vehicle (Score:2)
You mean the wait list for a low-volume luxury car with a customer base that tends to buy a new one every few years for more shiny?
All EVs combined were something like 3% of vehicle sales last year, guy.
I could turn out to be wrong, of course. But my next car next year will be an ICE car (haven't decided on a v6 or 4-cylinder hybrid) and my wife's next car in 5 or 10 years will also almost surely be an ICE car. As will the majority of cars sold.
In 20 or 30 years? I don't discount the possibility of a breakt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...since they lost money on every one.
That is what will keep BEVs from dominating the market, they won't sell for what they actually cost to make. If the government mandates they be made then car makers will just keep shaving off the price of BEVs until they sell in sufficient quantity to satisfy the government and then add that on to the cost of the ICEVs they sell to make up for it. As raw materials for batteries get tighter the prices will go up, and the car makers just keep subsidizing the difference with ICEV sales. There will be a bre
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. EVs should cost more because for many use cases, they are superior to ICE.
They have better acceleration, are "peppier" and generally perform better than ICE. Given people pay lots of money for a "muscle car", you're right, EVs shoudl be classed as muscle cars.
They're also easier to drive - one pedal is a nice way to drive. I suppose it sucks if you love tap dancing your feet on the pedal
Re: (Score:2)
They're also easier to drive - one pedal is a nice way to drive.
That's been a thing on ICEVs for like a decade now.
Having your "gas station" at home is also a luxury that was reserved for only the rich.
Growing up on a farm we'd have a fuel truck come out to fill the diesel tank for the tractors, gasoline tank for the cars and truck, and an oil tank for the furnace and we weren't "rich" exactly. If someone wants a fill up at home it's easy enough to get with liquid fuels but with compressed natural gas cars the fuel is already piped into people's homes. CNGVs have the fuel up at home convenience of the BEV, and if it's a dual fuel then it can burn gasoli
This leaves media types in a quandry doesn't it (Score:2)
Had this been related to Tesla, it would have been exploded out all channels at full volume with lots of "Can Tesla Survive?" type of stories. Lots of view lots of clicks. Profits made.
Oops it isn't Tesla. It's Chevy which is a big-bucks advertiser. They can't treat GM the way they treat Tesla now can they? But it IS an EV story, and the prevailing preferred storyline is that EVs are fake, over promised, not really eco-friendly and tinged with fraud everywhere. THAT story they like just fine beca