EV's

wrote:

And this doesn't take into account depreciation, with EV batteries reckoned to have a ten year life span at best a ten year old vehicle that cost more than a conventional vehicle to buy initially will be rendered worthless as the battery replacement will cost more than the vehicle is worth. I appreciate that we need to adapt if there is to be a world for our grandkids grandkids to live in but there needs to be a lot more development before conventional vehicle production can be turned off (IMHO)


 

Why must everything be so black and white? Gas vehicles will likely never stop being produced. Why do you care if people want to buy electric vehicles?

Has anyone here ridden an electric motorcycle? Or are we just going to rehash talking points from cable news?

wrote:

wrote:

And this doesn't take into account depreciation, with EV batteries reckoned to have a ten year life span at best a ten year old vehicle that cost more than a conventional vehicle to buy initially will be rendered worthless as the battery replacement will cost more than the vehicle is worth. I appreciate that we need to adapt if there is to be a world for our grandkids grandkids to live in but there needs to be a lot more development before conventional vehicle production can be turned off (IMHO)


 

Why must everything be so black and white? Gas vehicles will likely never stop being produced. Why do you care if people want to buy electric vehicles?

I completely agree that many EV's have breath taking performance and as an alternative to hydrogen (which has it's own problems) are the way forward. I just think there is a long way to go in the development phase. As an example the Jaguar I-Pace is an awesome car but to keep the weight low so that it handles as well as it does (Many others are the same) the battery pack is the centre section of the floor with front and rear subframes attached to it. Battery replacement would be incredibly expensive (you will have seen Jaguar labour rates in my recent post) I think when battery replacement is considered as a routine maintenance operation in the design phase then it will make more sense.

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

And this doesn't take into account depreciation, with EV batteries reckoned to have a ten year life span at best a ten year old vehicle that cost more than a conventional vehicle to buy initially will be rendered worthless as the battery replacement will cost more than the vehicle is worth. I appreciate that we need to adapt if there is to be a world for our grandkids grandkids to live in but there needs to be a lot more development before conventional vehicle production can be turned off (IMHO)




 

Why must everything be so black and white? Gas vehicles will likely never stop being produced. Why do you care if people want to buy electric vehicles?

I completely agree that many EV's have breath taking performance and as an alternative to hydrogen (which has it's own problems) are the way forward. I just think there is a long way to go in the development phase. As an example the Jaguar I-Pace is an awesome car but to keep the weight low so that it handles as well as it does (Many others are the same) the battery pack is the centre section of the floor with front and rear subframes attached to it. Battery replacement would be incredibly expensive (you will have seen Jaguar labour rates in my recent post) I think when battery replacement is considered as a routine maintenance operation in the design phase then it will make more sense.

 

does 10 years count as routine maintenance?

DoctoRot post=874575

SWest post=874560

DIFFERENT DAY SAME KIND OF IDIOT/CRIMINAL. 

 

Steve

 

I agree with you Steve. However as a ADMINISTRATOR, do you think posting something like this in line with the site rules? I know you've been kicked off every major platform and this is the only one left where you can share your "opinions". However,  maybe "bike related" is not the place for it.

Uh sorry I have NOT "been kicked off every major platform"  I started a thread about the dangers of lithium batteries in vehicles. It's a small number of members making false assertions about it being political and still are. I'm just having fun countering them. 

Once again, Back to the subject at hand. 

Steve 

I to am not opposed to battery vehicles. It’s the shoving it down our throats that concerns me. The technology and infrastructure isn’t there but yet you have Brain dead California governors making law to say no new ICE vehicles will be sold starting in 2030. I don’t think we can get to where we need in 10 years. In the meantime it’s Solindra on steroids, it being used as paybacks for election support. Its open and above board money laundering. I heard if we were to combine all of the latest greatest of today’s batteries in one large cell we could power the earth for less than 10 minutes. That puts it into perspective for me, along with the chart should I’d save $160.00 over 25 years. We’re not there!

Yep it's always follow the money. 
Steve

wrote:

wrote:

 Far left and government sites as examples? GOOD ONE. 

Steve

 
What exactly are you laughing at Steve, you posted an well known, absolute garbage site full of easily disputed BS, and you post rubbish from telegram, another place infested with poorly educated, gullible fools being sucked in by a barrage of manipulative, agenda ridden a-holes,  making a living from your donations to their "cause" {their cause is your money}.  The only reason you think anything is "far left" is because you've been told it is. Humour us all and define the "far left".  One major dispute from your conspiracy site link, I suggest you look into the worlds largest lithium mines as they are in Western Australia, there are NO environmental problems because they are hard rock mines using NO WATER or damaging effects to ground water. Sites like that typically pick a small worst case scenario, usually 3rd world, and run with it, convincing the gullible readers that that's how it's done everywhere, it isn't, even though your site adds Australia to the list of "devastating mines".  I doubt lithium will be the major factor in batteries going into the future anyway, Battery tech has come a long way in the last 10 or so years and will develop just as fast into the future. Most, if not all the garbage coming from the anti renewables crowd,  comes from right wing USA , and can mostly be linked to fossil fuel or politically motivated interests {professional liars with an agenda}. And before you try and squeeze me into your imaginary "left" category, I detest all politics equally...
I find it extremely disturbing just how gullible a large amount of Americans seem to be these days, especially when its so easy to research your chosen subject.  It seems to boil down to piss poor comprehension skills,  born from equally piss poor education ,and an intellectual diet of made up of a never ending supply of shite/lies/manipulative garbage.... It's really embarrassing reading some of the slop posted on this site , it does the place a complete disservice, We see enough of this crap all over the news world wide without having to put up with it here.....

MY CASE IN POINT. 

Steve
 

Doctorot, Speaking for myself it’s not going to batteries that’s the problem. It’s the political side of it that is causing the bad tastes in peoples mouths. The vast majority of Americans are smart enough to see through the crap. When you are told they are trying to stop all fossil fuel production and eliminate internal combustion engines in the near future. That’s the part that is causing this huge rift between people. Currently as I mentioned it is a scheme, money laundering, in your face payback for political support. If we could approach this as a pure technological step and allow it happen through the free market then good. Until then stop using my tax dollars to pay off your friends 

wrote:

I to am not opposed to battery vehicles. It’s the shoving it down our throats that concerns me. The technology and infrastructure isn’t there but yet you have Brain dead California governors making law to say no new ICE vehicles will be sold starting in 2030. I don’t think we can get to where we need in 10 years. In the meantime it’s Solindra on steroids, it being used as paybacks for election support. Its open and above board money laundering. I heard if we were to combine all of the latest greatest of today’s batteries in one large cell we could power the earth for less than 10 minutes. That puts it into perspective for me, along with the chart should I’d save $160.00 over 25 years. We’re not there!
 

Got it so you're saying we need bigger government to stop these radicals from controlling their state?

wrote:

Doctorot, Speaking for myself it’s not going to batteries that’s the problem. It’s the political side of it that is causing the bad tastes in peoples mouths. The vast majority of Americans are smart enough to see through the crap. When you are told they are trying to stop all fossil fuel production and eliminate internal combustion engines in the near future. That’s the part that is causing this huge rift between people. Currently as I mentioned it is a scheme, money laundering, in your face payback for political support. If we could approach this as a pure technological step and allow it happen through the free market then good. Until then stop using my tax dollars to pay off your friends 



 

so it is a political issue. Steve -  take notes.

I refer to the site rules

BE CIVILIZED
Don't use racial, ethnic, or gender slurs, religiously derogatory comments or any other personal discriminations even in jest. Use of slurs needlessly offends people - whether or not they're a member of the group you've insulted. Respect others' religious beliefs and culture. Recognize that others have religious and personal beliefs which may differ from yours. Stay away from political debates . Keep the language and behaviour appropriate.

wrote:

Uh sorry I have NOT "been kicked off every major platform" 

this you Steve?

BTW you might have hit peak "Grandpa on the internet" back there by posting a photo of a printed out email from 6 years ago. LOL


 

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

And this doesn't take into account depreciation, with EV batteries reckoned to have a ten year life span at best a ten year old vehicle that cost more than a conventional vehicle to buy initially will be rendered worthless as the battery replacement will cost more than the vehicle is worth. I appreciate that we need to adapt if there is to be a world for our grandkids grandkids to live in but there needs to be a lot more development before conventional vehicle production can be turned off (IMHO)





 

Why must everything be so black and white? Gas vehicles will likely never stop being produced. Why do you care if people want to buy electric vehicles?

I completely agree that many EV's have breath taking performance and as an alternative to hydrogen (which has it's own problems) are the way forward. I just think there is a long way to go in the development phase. As an example the Jaguar I-Pace is an awesome car but to keep the weight low so that it handles as well as it does (Many others are the same) the battery pack is the centre section of the floor with front and rear subframes attached to it. Battery replacement would be incredibly expensive (you will have seen Jaguar labour rates in my recent post) I think when battery replacement is considered as a routine maintenance operation in the design phase then it will make more sense.


 

does 10 years count as routine maintenance?

Fair point, however this is a repair operation that is guaranteed to need doing at some point therefore I still think the designers should consider building the vehicle in such a way that it is a viable repair (how many 10 year old vehicles are on the roads currently) 
Case in point was the VW T4 van, when first launched it was designed to make maintenance easy with a front end that hinged forward reducucing service times and making it attractive to the light commercial vehicle market, the facelift didn't have this as it reduced production costs.
The first Mercedes "A" class had a two piece front subframe for access to the gearbox and sump etc, the facelift had a one piece subframe so to replace a clutch involves removing the engine, gearbox and complete front suspension. When I worked in a MB dealer back in 2005 a clutch replacement in an "A" class (entry level model) was £1500 (again reduced production cost) 
Many German cars have a one-piece exhaust system from new, you can buy replacement sections from a dealer but have to cut out the old piece and use special joining sleeves to install the replacement ( again reduced production cost as no alignment required on the assembly line)
This would all be fine if it was reflected in the cost of the vehicle in the first instances but I don't believe it is