(07-28-2017 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  We're basically there now, with Tesla ranges well into 2xx miles, and it's 2017.

Pretty much zero chance that they won't be equivalent or better by 2040.

I predict that Telsa will not exist in 2040.

(07-28-2017 01:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  We're basically there now, with Tesla ranges well into 2xx miles, and it's 2017.

Pretty much zero chance that they won't be equivalent or better by 2040.

I predict that Telsa will not exist in 2040.

Tesla, the automobile maker may not. Tesla, the battery maker may.

(07-28-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I question your reading comprehension. My claim in #72 was that between 1970 (12mpg) and 1983 (25mpg) no new techniques were required to reduce the weight and shapes of cars.

By definition, they were. The new designs had to be manufactured, which required new manufacturing processes.

That's technology, by definition.

Says the man afraid to look things up....

Technology: is the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation.

The skills, techniques, methods, and processes needed to make the case of the early 80's existed in the 1930's. Therefor, *by definition* no *NEW* technology was developed or employed the the move from 1970's boats to 1980's compacts.

You have yet to list *1* new technology responsible from the fuel efficiency changes between 1970 and 1983. I submit you have failed at all levels to meet any reasonable standard of proof to your statement or any disproof of mine.

You were wrong, and normally I'd love to watch you keep digging yourself in deeper... But at this point it feels like I'm picking on you when that's not my intent.

Quote:

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Draw more current and decrease the life of the battery by a proportional (but not linear) amount.

The chemical reactions of a fuel tank power the vehicle in a linear fashion.

Now I must question your engineering credentials, because otherwise you would know that no real system follows linear dynamics over any non-zero width interval of parameters.

Dude... Please please tell me you're not being serious here. Because if you are then all you are proving you will never admit you're wrong because you will dig deep for a completely non relevant example of a situation where some variable which is insignificantly small gives you any wiggle room.

"yea but that's not true near a black hole because....."

The problem, as usual, is you're so ignorant you make this a game both can play. Unitary and related operators on tensor products of Hilbert spaces are liner and appear in nature....

Have a nice day.

Quote:Tanks don't, either. If I start trying pump 17gal/sec out of a 17 gal tank, there will be a non-linear curve too!

And pray tell in what vehicle is gas pumped out of a take at that value...

I'm talking real measured performance characteristics that are within the margin of observational error and you're in Oz with the other flying monkeys.

Quote:

(07-28-2017 12:48 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Many people do

I said 500 and he said only if it were 600.

How many people would not be able to do their jobs with a 500, but would with a 600? Zero, to be quite honest, but otherwise functionally equivalent to zero.

Hey my friend sells commercial properties and that sometimes requires him to drive 300+ miles one way to show a building and then home that night. So not zero.

The price of oil will dictate all of this...not the efficiency of electric cars. Keep in mind...oil reserves have not begun to be exhausted..in fact.. more is being discovered all the time. We will be driving vehicles with combustion engines long after everyone that is posting here is long dead and buried.

(07-28-2017 01:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  BS - what gas only passenger vehicles are 6xx mile range?

My VW Passat, for instance. Educate yourself.

My VW Jetta--43 mpg on highway x 14 gallons = 602.
My BMW 528i--34 mpg on highway x 17 gallons = 578.

One other thing. Those mileages hold up pretty well if you are playing radio/stereo and even if you are using the AC. All-electric performance goes down a bunch since they are drawing on the same source of electricity as the engine.

honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

The point is how many times the electric car has to "refuel" compared to the equivalent gas vehicle. My car refuels in less than five minutes, with gas stations everywhere. There is nothing comparable, technology or with respect to accessibility for electric cars.

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  My VW Passat, for instance. Educate yourself.

My VW Jetta--43 mpg on highway x 14 gallons = 602.
My BMW 528i--34 mpg on highway x 17 gallons = 578.
One other thing. Those mileages hold up pretty well if you are playing radio/stereo and even if you are using the AC. All-electric performance goes down a bunch since they are drawing on the same source of electricity as the engine.

honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

Where did I say anything about driving 9-10 hours without a break?

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The price of oil will dictate all of this...not the efficiency of electric cars. Keep in mind...oil reserves have not begun to be exhausted..in fact.. more is being discovered all the time. We will be driving vehicles with combustion engines long after everyone that is posting here is long dead and buried.

Oil? Oil can be used to make electricity. Many things can make electricity.

Consider this- Instead of every automobile dealing with emissions, how about a power plant dealing with the emissions? Can there be scale in moving the pollution from the city, moving it to the plant, and trying to deal with it there?

Horse and buggy- poop and rats. Gasoline engine- smog. Move to unleaded fuel- no smog but releases pollution. Electric vehicles- move pollution to the power plant to deal with it.

Automobiles are technology.

(07-28-2017 01:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All that is being said is don't cut them off before you have a viable alternative.

There will be by then

“Fooling around with alternating current (AC) is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison

based on this maybe AC should have been banned in favor of DC, the more proven technology of the day.

(07-28-2017 01:47 PM)chess Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The price of oil will dictate all of this...not the efficiency of electric cars. Keep in mind...oil reserves have not begun to be exhausted..in fact.. more is being discovered all the time. We will be driving vehicles with combustion engines long after everyone that is posting here is long dead and buried.

Oil? Oil can be used to make electricity. Many things can make electricity.

Consider this- Instead of every automobile dealing with emissions, how about a power plant dealing with the emissions? Can there be scale in moving the pollution from the city and moving it to the plant and trying to deal with it there?

Horse and buggy- poop and rats. Gasoline engine- smog. Move to unleaded fuel- no smog but releases pollution. Electric vehicles- move pollution to the power plant to deal with it.

Automobiles are technology. iPhones today are better than iPhones yesterday. One day, we may charge our phone once a year.

My point is that all that has to happen to quash this technology is a sharp drop in gas prices. Who thinks the oil producers are going to go quietly into the night?

(07-28-2017 01:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  “Fooling around with alternating current (AC) is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison
based on this maybe AC should have been banned in favor of DC, the more proven technology of the day.

Good trivia. How do you connect Thomas Edison to the Los Angeles Dodgers?

(07-28-2017 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:47 PM)chess Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The price of oil will dictate all of this...not the efficiency of electric cars. Keep in mind...oil reserves have not begun to be exhausted..in fact.. more is being discovered all the time. We will be driving vehicles with combustion engines long after everyone that is posting here is long dead and buried.

Oil? Oil can be used to make electricity. Many things can make electricity.

Consider this- Instead of every automobile dealing with emissions, how about a power plant dealing with the emissions? Can there be scale in moving the pollution from the city and moving it to the plant and trying to deal with it there?

Horse and buggy- poop and rats. Gasoline engine- smog. Move to unleaded fuel- no smog but releases pollution. Electric vehicles- move pollution to the power plant to deal with it.

Automobiles are technology. iPhones today are better than iPhones yesterday. One day, we may charge our phone once a year.

My point is that all that has to happen to quash this technology is a sharp drop in gas prices. Who thinks the oil producers are going to go quietly into the night?

My point is that oil may still be the fuel. The only difference is that the power plant will be working with it. The automobile may not.

(07-28-2017 01:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  We're basically there now, with Tesla ranges well into 2xx miles, and it's 2017.

Pretty much zero chance that they won't be equivalent or better by 2040.

I predict that Telsa will not exist in 2040.

I think the car industry is going to peak around 10-15 years from now. Maybe 20 if they are lucky. Millennials have a completely different attitude towards cars. They live closer to public transportation and they don't have the disposable income of previous generations to afford one. At the very least you will see cars being shared among more people. But at worst:

Uber should scare the **** out of car companies. Now combine Uber with a self-driving car and you knock out easily 75% of car customers. You buy a car and treat it like a 2nd home that you rent out. just imagine sitting in your living room while your car pays its own bills by acting as a taxi.

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)chess Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:01 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  My VW Passat, for instance. Educate yourself.

My VW Jetta--43 mpg on highway x 14 gallons = 602.
My BMW 528i--34 mpg on highway x 17 gallons = 578.

One other thing. Those mileages hold up pretty well if you are playing radio/stereo and even if you are using the AC. All-electric performance goes down a bunch since they are drawing on the same source of electricity as the engine.

honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

The point is how many times the electric car has to "refuel" compared to the equivalent gas vehicle. My car refuels in less than five minutes, with gas stations everywhere. There is nothing comparable, technology or with respect to accessibility for electric cars.

Someday, maybe. And, if so, great. But not soon.

(07-28-2017 01:55 PM)chess Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:47 PM)chess Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The price of oil will dictate all of this...not the efficiency of electric cars. Keep in mind...oil reserves have not begun to be exhausted..in fact.. more is being discovered all the time. We will be driving vehicles with combustion engines long after everyone that is posting here is long dead and buried.

Oil? Oil can be used to make electricity. Many things can make electricity.

Consider this- Instead of every automobile dealing with emissions, how about a power plant dealing with the emissions? Can there be scale in moving the pollution from the city and moving it to the plant and trying to deal with it there?

Horse and buggy- poop and rats. Gasoline engine- smog. Move to unleaded fuel- no smog but releases pollution. Electric vehicles- move pollution to the power plant to deal with it.

Automobiles are technology. iPhones today are better than iPhones yesterday. One day, we may charge our phone once a year.

My point is that all that has to happen to quash this technology is a sharp drop in gas prices. Who thinks the oil producers are going to go quietly into the night?

My point is that oil may still be the fuel. The only difference is that the power plant will be working with it. The automobile may not.

We will see. Routine travel in sedans could be possible I suppose.
Id find it hard to believe that America's freight will ever be transported by an electric vehicle and without semi's moving it?...We grind to a halt in mere hours.

(07-28-2017 02:15 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)chess Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My VW Jetta--43 mpg on highway x 14 gallons = 602.
My BMW 528i--34 mpg on highway x 17 gallons = 578.

One other thing. Those mileages hold up pretty well if you are playing radio/stereo and even if you are using the AC. All-electric performance goes down a bunch since they are drawing on the same source of electricity as the engine.

honestly if you are going to drive 9-10 hours without a break power to you. but that's unrealistic for 99.9% of people so you are just adding an arbitrary standard to bash electric cars.

The point is how many times the electric car has to "refuel" compared to the equivalent gas vehicle. My car refuels in less than five minutes, with gas stations everywhere. There is nothing comparable, technology or with respect to accessibility for electric cars.

Someday, maybe. And, if so, great. But not soon.

Certainly would change the paradigm.

(07-28-2017 02:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  We're basically there now, with Tesla ranges well into 2xx miles, and it's 2017.

Pretty much zero chance that they won't be equivalent or better by 2040.

I predict that Telsa will not exist in 2040.

I think the car industry is going to peak around 10-15 years from now. Maybe 20 if they are lucky. Millennials have a completely different attitude towards cars. They live closer to public transportation and they don't have the disposable income of previous generations to afford one. At the very least you will see cars being shared among more people. But at worst:

Uber should scare the **** out of car companies. Now combine Uber with a self-driving car and you knock out easily 75% of car customers. You buy a car and treat it like a 2nd home that you rent out. just imagine sitting in your living room while your car pays its own bills by acting as a taxi.

I don't think it is safe to assume that the millennials will act that way forever though. Their generation will likely also experience a desire for a lawn when they really start to have kids, etc. Plus, most of things you mention work well only in very densely populated areas.

(07-28-2017 02:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think the car industry is going to peak around 10-15 years from now. Maybe 20 if they are lucky. Millennials have a completely different attitude towards cars. They live closer to public transportation and they don't have the disposable income of previous generations to afford one. At the very least you will see cars being shared among more people. But at worst:

Uber should scare the **** out of car companies. Now combine Uber with a self-driving car and you knock out easily 75% of car customers. You buy a car and treat it like a 2nd home that you rent out. just imagine sitting in your living room while your car pays its own bills by acting as a taxi.

I disagree with you for 7 reasons, namely: China, India, Indonesia, Russia, South America, Africa and blue state America. The first six have untold future demand and the last, just ain't going to go for a service like Uber.

You may be right about big cities, but Uber is never going to make an impact outside of the cities.

(07-28-2017 02:19 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 01:36 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:03 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  We're basically there now, with Tesla ranges well into 2xx miles, and it's 2017.

Pretty much zero chance that they won't be equivalent or better by 2040.

I predict that Telsa will not exist in 2040.

I think the car industry is going to peak around 10-15 years from now. Maybe 20 if they are lucky. Millennials have a completely different attitude towards cars. They live closer to public transportation and they don't have the disposable income of previous generations to afford one. At the very least you will see cars being shared among more people. But at worst:

Uber should scare the **** out of car companies. Now combine Uber with a self-driving car and you knock out easily 75% of car customers. You buy a car and treat it like a 2nd home that you rent out. just imagine sitting in your living room while your car pays its own bills by acting as a taxi.

I don't think it is safe to assume that the millennials will act that way forever though. Their generation will likely also experience a desire for a lawn when they really start to have kids, etc. Plus, most of things you mention work well only in very densely populated areas.

I think it's very safe to assume that. Millennials spend huge amounts of money on gadgets that didn't exist 20 years ago on top of being a poorer generation. the disposable income simply isn't there like it used to be.

and yes they enjoy living in high population density areas and I can't see how you can argue that would change. why would it? in my city (which is no means a large city but still a city) a lot of companies are moving downtown because they want to attract young workers and to do that they need to be in the city rather than in the suburbs.

(07-28-2017 02:23 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 02:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I think the car industry is going to peak around 10-15 years from now. Maybe 20 if they are lucky. Millennials have a completely different attitude towards cars. They live closer to public transportation and they don't have the disposable income of previous generations to afford one. At the very least you will see cars being shared among more people. But at worst:

Uber should scare the **** out of car companies. Now combine Uber with a self-driving car and you knock out easily 75% of car customers. You buy a car and treat it like a 2nd home that you rent out. just imagine sitting in your living room while your car pays its own bills by acting as a taxi.

I disagree with you for 7 reasons, namely: China, India, Indonesia, Russia, South America, Africa and blue state America. The first six have untold future demand and the last, just ain't going to go for a service like Uber.

You may be right about big cities, but Uber is never going to make an impact outside of the cities.

I will gladly rephrase it to include only the USA and maybe western nations. but the point remains. losing the big cities when more and more people keep choosing to live there is going to be a big blow. and if anyone wants to uber a medium distance (say visit relatives two hrs away) I'm sure a business model will find a way to cater an uber-like service to that need.

even in the more suburban areas you still could possibly have joint ownership of cars or a timeshare like model. 95% of the time a car sits around doing nothing. self-driving tech is going to turn that into something profitable.

(07-28-2017 01:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  that means that it is not as comparable to gasoline or diesel powered cars as you want to suggest.

Yes it is, you just have to rate it correctly to begin with and then build it to the appropriate size.

(07-28-2017 01:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  it's idiotic to impose arbitrary standards at any point in time, unless and until the technology to achieve it is there.

It's idiotic to wait all the way until the (slow) market drags its feet to bring a clearly viable alternative technology fully into fruition when government mandates can move the process along much quicker.

(07-28-2017 01:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What if there isn't?

Should be pretty obvious by, say 2035. The law can be revamped, at that time, if need be.

(07-28-2017 01:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  You have yet to list *1* new technology responsible from the fuel efficiency changes between 1970 and 1983.

I already did and you ignored it. Classic Bull.

By your own definition, a manufacturing process is a collection of techniques, technology. Every time a new model comes out, by definition new technology has been created to mass produce the new model.

(07-28-2017 01:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Unitary and related operators on tensor products of Hilbert spaces are liner and appear in nature....

What system is perfectly linear over its entire parameter space? None

(07-28-2017 01:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  And pray tell in what vehicle is gas pumped out of a take at that value...

I'm talking real measured performance characteristics that are within the margin of observational error

Exactly my point. What you were describing with batteries would be well outside the operating region in a commercial product.

(07-28-2017 01:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Hey my friend sells commercial properties and that sometimes requires him to drive 300+ miles one way to show a building and then home that night. So not zero.

It's impossible for him to achieve that with a 500mi range car? Of course you know that's false. That proves my point.

(07-28-2017 01:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  We will be driving vehicles with combustion engines long after everyone that is posting here is long dead and buried.

Depends on what semantics game you're playing. For example, people still own and drive Model T's, for fun. Sure, you'll be able to purchase gasoline somewhere and drive combustion engine cars, for fun and/or hobby, for many decades to come.

But new sold, passenger vehicles, will be mandated electric, in the mid term future. Whether you like it or not. And that's a good thing!

(07-28-2017 01:47 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  based on this maybe AC should have been banned in favor of DC, the more proven technology of the day.

If AC was causing massive pollution, then maybe it should have been.

(07-28-2017 01:51 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Who thinks the oil producers are going to go quietly into the night?

Why should investors put money in oil companies?? Gasoline is dead. I wouldn't invest in oil companies, unless they make a public announcement of a massive shift in what their core technology will be. Which would be a very wise thing for them to start planning, in the coming decade or so.

(07-28-2017 02:17 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Id find it hard to believe that America's freight will ever be transported by an electric vehicle and without semi's moving it?...We grind to a halt in mere hours.

The thread is about passenger vehicles.

(07-28-2017 02:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I don't think it is safe to assume that the millennials will act that way forever though. Their generation will likely also experience a desire for a lawn when they really start to have kids, etc. Plus, most of things you mention work well only in very densely populated areas.

I think it's very safe to assume that. Millennials spend huge amounts of money on gadgets that didn't exist 20 years ago on top of being a poorer generation. the disposable income simply isn't there like it used to be.[/quote]

Due to their age, Millenials are at a point where their earning power is least. It will increase. And, in fact, in many areas, condos and the such in very densely populated areas cost much more than a house in the burbs. If finances are a concern, they will move out.

john01992 Wrote:and yes they enjoy living in high population density areas and I can't see how you can argue that would change. why would it? in my city (which is no means a large city but still a city) a lot of companies are moving downtown because they want to attract young workers and to do that they need to be in the city rather than in the suburbs.

Regarding the highlighted, you just can't not be a jerk, can you?

Young workers become middle aged workers. Middle aged workers have different goals and desires than the young. That is consistent for all generations. It is not reasonable to assume the millennials will act at age 50 as they do at age 23.