By on October 12, 2015

 

A self-professed reformed BMW enthusiast says backlash against Tesla comes from car owners “stuck in the past” who consider grease under their fingernails as a “manliness” status symbol among “nostalgic car weenies.” Basically, military-grade trolling. 

Mike Barnard, a writer at Slate.com, says that the time is coming for internal combustion engine fans to give up the ghost and get with Tesla because:

People who don’t like hybrid race cars and production supercars are saying that they don’t like better all-around performance—they just really only love things with cylinders and pistons, make of that what you will.

His point is mostly well made — despite resorting to pointless innuendos and a handful of quasi-Neanderthal references.

Barnard points out that technological advancements in electric cars have, in many ways, surpassed similar advancements in ICE cars. An electric motor, unencumbered with gears in a conventional transmission, is much quicker off the line; electric motors don’t lose nearly 75 percent of their energy to heat; and, Tesla’s cars don’t waste energy making noise.

And Barnard doesn’t have much patience for wasteful people any more:

In the future, there isn’t room for people who think that burning million-year-old dead plants and blowing a ton of pollution and carbon into the atmosphere in order to go slower is a good thing. There’s just room to put them out to pasture with old YouTube videos and maybe analog amplifiers to make the sound fuzzy and distorted.

Barnard doesn’t address the significant performance gap between Tesla’s electric cars and less expensive electric models from other automakers, nor does he address issues such as living and driving outside in rural areas nor price.

But I’m guessing there are a few more holes in his argument too that the B&B can point out.

H/T to David for pointing this out

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

156 Comments on “Columnist: Car Buffs Who Don’t Like Tesla Are ‘Making Shit Up’...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “In the future, there isn’t room for people who think that burning million-year-old dead plants and blowing a ton of pollution and carbon into the atmosphere in order to go slower is a good thing”

    For some reason, this makes me want to go out and purchase a Range Rover. So thank you, Mike.

    • 0 avatar

      Forget the gas…

      No one can “make up” a $70,000 – $150,000 price tag.

      Even if the Model S was the greatest car ever made (which is isn’t) very few people can afford it – and buying one makes no sense when an ICE with the same features is less than half the price.

      You want a big screen? Buy an IPAD PRO.

      The Cadillac XTS is a better luxury car – with AWD and a way better interior.

      The Hyundai Genesis/Equus are even better.

      • 0 avatar
        Chan

        The Model S is a great $80k toy.

        It is not a great $80k luxury car.

        People need to understand what it is. As a luxury car it cannot hope to compete with cars that actually went to finishing school (see Mercedes-Benz S-Class).

        As a propulsion technology showcase, it is an awesome machine. That it is relatively accessible (to an affluent audience) makes it even better. Fanbois simply misunderstand what the product is, and are blinded by the powertrain and the giant control screen.

        • 0 avatar

          This. In the leafy overpriced burbs surrounding NY, a Tesla is the “hey, I could have done another E class lease, but decided to do something different”. Range anxiety is not a problem, there are 3 cars in the driveway.

          The X will sell to this same group, regardless of mechanical issues. Getting out of this gilded ghetto, and taking on the mass market, that will be the trick.

    • 0 avatar
      carrya1911

      That sentence about the future is written by a dude who has no concept of how a lot of power is actually generated.

      But I’m rather used to people who busy themselves pronouncing what’s good for everybody else lacking the most basic knowledge on the topic they’re pontificating on.

      • 0 avatar

        “But I’m rather used to people who busy themselves pronouncing what’s good for everybody else lacking the most basic knowledge on the topic they’re pontificating on.”

        Obama wants to import 200,000 Syrians.

        I doubt these people read THE TROJAN HORSE.

        • 0 avatar
          bikegoesbaa

          Troy was in modern-day Turkey, not Syria.

          Sheesh, do some basic research.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Do you mean Posthomerica by Quintus Smyrnaeus? Because I don’t think you read that. Maybe you saw a Brad Pitt movie?

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          >>shrugs<< Everybody has forgotten about the 800k potential "commies" that fled Vietnam after the fall, many died trying to escape but the US took most of the survivors which I believe numbered more than 500,000.

          Most of the Syrians fleeing are just average people looking for a safer better life. We didn't have a problem admiting Palestinians or the Lebonese in the 70'S or people fleeing eastern Europe during the 90's

          I'm sure there are some bad apples in the bunch but if 500,000 Syrian refugees can topple the US of A that seriously speaks to the quality or lack there of with the average American.

          • 0 avatar

            “I’m sure there are some bad apples in the bunch but if 500,000 Syrian refugees can topple the US of A that seriously speaks to the quality or lack there of with the average American.”

            I DO NOT WANT to take the chance of flying potential terrorists over here.

            They could NEVER have made it across 8000 miles of shark infested water – we’d be IDIOTS to fly em over.

            I DO NOT WANT syrian-Americans adding to poverty and crime here. We have plenty of it. A syrian-American refugee group behind our borders is a Trojan Horse and Only Obama would propose this LUNACY.

            PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD NEVER.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Only in a nation of immigrants could there be such anti-immigrant fervor. Despite all the evidence that immigrants contribute to the economic vitality of our nation, we continue to have people who seek to blame their problems on outsiders.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Heh, it’s like the Know-Nothing Party updated for the 21st century.

      • 0 avatar
        Chan

        Doesn’t understand the present, tries to preach about the future. Sounds like the sort of things I heard in college.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Tesla has an interesting product. I’d love to see them selling it profitably without subsidies from people far less affluent than their customers. End the carbon credit scam and the tax deductions, and let’s see what Tesla’s future is like.

    • 0 avatar
      healthy skeptic

      Tesla’s future would probably look the same in the long run. And actually, I’d be completely with you on two conditions:

      1) Revisit tax breaks/subsidies for fossil fuels
      2) Eliminate car dealer protectionist laws that prevent direct sales

      As long as we’re going all free market purist, why not go all the way? #2 makes me more angry than #1, by the way. That one seems like a no-brainer.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        While we’re at it, can we stop paying for all the oil wars and get US troops out of the Middle East? That would allow us to buy 10 million Teslas for the poor.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I’m cool with item number 2, particularly being fresh from car shopping. Realize that the “tax breaks/subsidies for fossil fuels” fall under two categories. The biggest category is deductions for legitimate business expenses, just like every other business in the US receives. Calling these deductions subsidies is just a way of manipulating the gullible and ignorant. The other form of subsidy for fossil fuels comes in the form of heating oil purchasing assistance for the poor. That doesn’t seem like a partisan issue.

        I would love to see a drop in corporate tax rates to around half what they are now combined with elimination of tax deductions. Pay the tax. Spend your money productively. It would change everything in the country right down the value of professional sports teams.

    • 0 avatar
      Speed3

      The real test for Tesla will be the Model III. To a lesser degree, the degree battery prices fall and battery capacity improves. The current batch of EVs may be pretty compromising, but in 10 years I think their future will be pretty bright.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    When the electric vehicle can travel the same distance on a fill-up as a standard car (let’s be generous toward the electrics and say 300 miles); and when driving those 300 miles you see an equivalent number of charging stations; and when the electric car that does this costs the same as a Camry – THAT’S when we’ll all have electric cars.

    Not a minute before.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      One would expect far lower maintenance costs on an electric vs. ICE so even if it was more expensive than a Camry you could still come out ahead.

      • 0 avatar
        indi500fan

        Because we all know the battery pack will last forever…or even if not it can be replaced for “pennies a day”.

        • 0 avatar
          jmo

          ” we all know the battery pack will last forever…”

          I bet you said the same thing about the Prius.

          • 0 avatar
            Quentin

            The Prius battery has a much more relaxed life than the Tesla. The Prius is also built by an automaker that historically makes very reliable automobiles. I wouldn’t give Tesla the reliability pass just yet. (Not saying they won’t be reliable long term… we just don’t know yet.)

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            Many people still claim that stop-start will destroy an engine, never mind the Prius has been doing it without issue for over a decade.

            When it comes to the longevity of batteries, I like the comparison to transmissions. They should have similar lifespans and cost similar amounts to replace. Yet, we don’t have people clamoring that cars are futile because their transmissions will eventually fail.

      • 0 avatar
        Ralph ShpoilShport

        Have you ever owned a Camry?

    • 0 avatar

      Don’t forget that Tesla et. al. have to make it to a place where they build that many cars in the first place. Even if they had the tech to do all of what you mention and can sell it for a price people can afford, the electric car industry is nowhere near ready to meet global demand. Even if you think Tesla is the best company ever in the history of the world, it is going to be a long transition away from ICE.

    • 0 avatar
      healthy skeptic

      @CoreyDL

      Agree with you on the 300+ mile range and reduced cost, but disagree on the need for so many charging stations. The idea is that you mostly charge at home. It’s like having a gas pump right in your own garage. In that case, who cares if there’s not a gas station on every corner?

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        There needs to be some sort of charging station infrastructure. People drive over 300 miles all the time. I drive 500 miles round trip almost every weekend between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I don’t want to buy a charger and update the electrical for both of my houses. Maybe in the future I cannot be wasteful with two domiciles.

        • 0 avatar
          Lack Thereof

          >>”There needs to be some sort of charging station infrastructure. People drive over 300 miles all the time.”

          You’re overlooking what’s already there. At this point in time, there’s Supercharger stations at roughly ~100 mile intervals along the major Interstate highways in the US. If I were the type of person to buy a $70,000 car, I could get a Model S base model, and drive it coast-to-coast on a whim.

          There’s a handful of gaps that you need a near-full charge to cross (Boise to Salt Lake City, for example), and the system isn’t completely built out (a diagonal Washington-Florida trip would require you to route yourself around a gaping network hole in the Tennessee area). But the infrastructure is pretty much built, and the holes are filling fast.

          These charging stations are dirt cheap to implement, and going up fast.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Yeah, but you are talking about getting a full charge in an hour. Battery tech has to get better to convince me, and I drive a hybrid. In order for EV to be on par with gasoline, you’d need charging times of 10-15 minutes and availability almost everywhere gas stations are. You need to cover every freeway in closer than 100 mile intervals. Even on turnpikes there are usually gas stations AT LEAST every 15-20 miles.

            People don’t want something that is less convenient than they have now. The solutions to the problem present problems of their own.

          • 0 avatar

            >>>At this point in time, there’s Supercharger stations at roughly ~100 mile intervals along the major Interstate highways in the US. If I were the type of person to buy a $70,000 car, I could get a Model S base model, and drive it coast-to-coast on a whim.

            I’m skeptical, but even if supercharger stations are that dense along all the itnerstates, the really beautiful driving is off of the interstates. Furthermore, if you saw the NYT yesterday, in California people with electric cars are getting into shouting matches over charging stations. I woudn’t want to arrive at a charging station with a low battery and have to wait an hour for someone else to finish up.

          • 0 avatar
            Lack Thereof

            >>you are talking about getting a full charge in an hour

            No, no. When you’re driving long-range, you don’t want to wait for a full charge. Most modern EV’s slow the charge rate dramatically during the last 10-20% of the charge, to prevent battery wear. Cell phones do the same thing when they charge.
            That’s why fast-charging times are always given in minutes-to-50%, and why the Supercharger stations are spaced 2-3x as close as they “need” to be for full-range charges.
            These things are supposed to be 20 minutes to 50%. So, every hundred miles or so, when the wife starts complaining that she needs to stretch her legs/use the bathroom/get a coffee, you stop at a supercharger station. You only plug in for around 15 minutes, which bumps the charge enough for another couple hours until the next station and stretch break. You’re never running the battery down much below half, and you’re never plugging long enough to get a full charge, or waiting as the last 10% of charge trickles in (unless you are trying to hop a gap in the network).

            I know when I drive x-country by myself, I do ironbladder 400 mile full-tank stints and eat behind the wheel. But if it’s a family trip, my wife absolutely refuses to sit still for that long; by mile 200 she’s complaining of leg cramps and insisting we stop right this second.

            >>the really beautiful driving is off of the interstates.
            Can’t argue with that. Someone wanting to go more than a hundred or so miles off the interstate would have to plan ahead, find a standard charger somewhere, and deal with slow charging. Which, in the rural west, would often mean finding an electrical outlet and using a REALLY slow portable charger.
            Or, ya know, just take a different car. Most people willing to spend $70,000 on a car own more than one.

            >>In California people with electric cars are getting into shouting matches over charging stations.

            I’ve heard of this, but only in urban areas where car congestion is bad, and so people are already getting into shouting matches over parking spaces and whose turn at the pump it is at AM/PM. You’re not going to have the same problems at the supercharger in Murdo, South Dakota as you will at the one-stall free charging station in front of the Palo Alto library. I also haven’t heard these complaints from people who use the private, subscription-based charger networks. It’s always people trying to get something for nothing on the freebie public chargers.

        • 0 avatar
          sgeffe

          What does amping up one of these things each night do to ones electric bill? (Even where rates aren’t demand-based?)

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Depends on rates. Here in Detroit, I calculated that it would cost me about $65-$70 in electricity per month for a Focus EV or Leaf. I haven’t paid more than $80 a month for gas in a long time. I’ll keep my C-Max.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          Don’t assume that for EVs to be viable, every car needs to be an EV. You can’t tow a boat with a Civic or move a couch with a Corvette, but that doesn’t mean those cars aren’t viable. Those that need to drive long distances won’t buy an EV, just like I won’t buy an F-150.

          And yes, most people will charge at home. I recall a study of how much people drove EVs, and without chargers, they were overly cautious about range, but when chargers were installed, they didn’t use them, but they did drive much more. In the end, it was an anxiety thing, not an actual requirement.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        That’s a valid point about the home charging.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Not everyone has a house. I’m sure apartment building landlords are going to update all parking spots to ones with charging points…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            When my brother owned a Leaf in Manhattan, NYC, he paid $50/month to use a 120v receptacle in the parking garage of his building.

            Problem was, everyone needing an outlet for a tool or whatever, would unplug his Leaf, use the receptacle he paid for, then not plug in his Leaf after they were done stealing the electricity he had paid for.

            After about a year of this schit he sold his Leaf to a guy in Huntsville, AL, who owns Golf Carts and is all set up for battery-charging EVs.

          • 0 avatar

            Some towns in the NE and I assume west coast require charging stations on new builds and major remodels of apartments and some commercial buildings. There is more and more every day but not enough for it to be practical for me.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            Again, not every vehicle will be nor needs to be an EV. But even so, apartments are already installing chargers.

            One of my coworkers lives in an apt building where there are quite a few Teslas. (There are actually more Teslas than chargers, but they still make it work.)

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “When the electric vehicle can travel the same distance on a fill-up as a standard car (let’s be generous toward the electrics and say 300 miles);”

      This would be an apples-to-apples comparison if everyone had gasoline outlets in their house.

      Remember that EVs charge primarily at home, and only use shared charging infrastructure on road trips.

      Accordingly, EVs start every day with a full charge.

      My gas cars never leave the house with a full tank of gas, and so require much longer Lange and faster refueling.

      EVs are a different tool than gasoline cars, and they don’t have to be all things to all people to save tons (literally) of gasoline. Maybe they don’t work for you. But, it will work for a lot of people.

      I’m likely to own a household fleet of mixed fuel types going forward, with EVs being used as commuter cars and a conventional vehicle for road trips and moving heavy objects.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      @Corey

      Change Camry to RAV4, CR-V or Rogue and I agree.

    • 0 avatar
      pragmatist

      It gets worse. Suppose you have a 30 kWhr battery, run it till 20% full. Then you go to your super 10 minute recharging station. Suppose that station will fully top off your battery in 10 minutes at 95% efficiency.

      During those 10 minutes you will be drawing 151 KW.

      By comparison, your typical home (according to government USEIA) consums 929 KWhr per month, which works out to 0.21 KW in 10 minutes. By that calculation, your recharge draws as much power as 719 American homes.

      A busy 6 bay recharging station would equal 4314 homes in power consumption assuming a fairly constant business (as is typical for a large gas station).

      Looks like we’re going to need a WHOLE LOT more infrastructure to cover that. In today’s regulatory climate that will take a long time. (And seriously the ONLY non carbon option for so much power is nuclear)

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    It’s this kind of idiot just flapping his dumb trap that makes me want to go buy an F450 to just drive to the mall or maybe a diesel Jetta.

    I bet this guy was sitting with his legs crossed like a woman when he wrote this.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      “I bet this guy was sitting with his legs crossed like a woman when he wrote this.”

      Which means what besides he’s not a fat slob?

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        It means that somebody thinks they’re clever if they call another person feminine instead of actually refuting that person’s argument.

        • 0 avatar
          Mandalorian

          Someone who cares enough to look up sources and spend time can refute the argument. I came to mock the silicon valley sissy archtype.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “the silicon valley rich sissy archetype”
            FIFY

            “look up sources”
            Where would we do that?
            sub40grandqueerhaters.org?

          • 0 avatar
            Mandalorian

            What is FIFY?

            I do not like these type of people because they just push their views on others. I am reactionary, but of the live and let live mindset.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            FIFY stands for Fixed It For You. I actually had to look that one up, because I’m more familiar with FTFY (Fixed That For You).

  • avatar
    ajla

    I would WAY rather own an electric car over some twin-charged 1.2L with 15-speed DCT vehicle that the future seems to be promising.

    That said, Tesla fans are almost universally insufferable and defensive.

  • avatar
    carrya1911

    Pecksniffian condescension from somebody writing for Slate?

    GET OUTTA TOWN!!!!

  • avatar
    Waftable Torque

    Some people just have a knack of saying what I think.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Can we get this one to 200+ comments? Probably not, but let’s try!

    If this is being described as “military-grade trolling,” why is it even being brought up, if not to rouse the rabble and increase page clicks? Rule #1 of the Internet is do not feed the trolls.

  • avatar
    KrohmDohm

    From a long tail perspective he is right. How long who knows. ICE Technology dates before the 1900’s. Long before. The moment motor sports started to incorporate hybrid-electric systems signaled the true beginning of the end of ICE only cars for private use. All tech trickles down in any industry and eventually it will for cars as well. All of the things I see people say they are waiting for electric cars to do before they will buy one, they will someday do. Better range, better charging rates, charge station availability, cheaper. It will happen it’s only a matter of time.
    I’m willing to bet some geezer riding his horse once said,”I’ll buy one of those horseless carriages when they can outrun a real horse!”

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Posting this is inviting us to slam-dunk on a 6′ basket. Why is any attention paid to the Matt Honan clones out there?

    Punch the weird kid. Especially if he’s rich.

    • 0 avatar
      Aaron Cole

      Kind of. But the author ruins a good point with trolling and hyperbole. His salient point is that Tesla fans are tech fans right now, not necessarily car fans. I like Tesla, but for different reasons than he points out. But what happens to the next generation of car enthusiasts? What will they get pumped about? That’s not a knock on Tesla, I’m just curious how electric cars will inject enthusiasm into automobiles.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        There’s certainly a lot of …enthusiasm here, no question of that.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        Barnard doesn’t have a point. Haters and fanbois can chatter as much as they please. Rich people don’t care with the common bumpkin thinks about luxury cars or capitalism or anything else.

        Furthermore, the real haterade, which is also probably justified, is not about the nature of the propulsion technology, rather the valuation of the companies equity instruments and the possibility of more stock issuance to fund their questionable cash position.

        Obviously, Barnard can’t take exception to people with a valid point, who debate openly in a marketplace, so he takes a cheap shot at consumers who dare to want cheap, reliable cars. Terrible middle-class people. They should be willing to put hybrid cars before their child’s college tuition!

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Maybe the next generation of car enthusiasts will look something like today’s horse enthusiasts. Prior to that, you might have more concern about autonomous driving systems than how the cars are powered.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        I had given up on wy enthusiasm for cars in the early 2000s. It was a solved problem, with no innovation that I cared about.

        Until the Volt comceyt game along. The possibility of new and tech pulled me out of the woodwork.

        I shill find big V8s boring. What’s exciting about just being able to buy a refined version of the same shuff that wy father tinkered on when he was a young man, with the size being proportional to your bank account? Others feel differently, but I find this to be pretty much the definition of BORING!

        Put something new and interesting under the hood, and suddenly I’m under there with a wrench and a camera trying to figure out how it works!

        I’ve always done some maintenance on my own cars (thanks, dad!), but the question is: is it a chore like paying my bills? Or is it an act of electromechanical exploration and enlightenment? I’ll pay to avoid the first one, and I’ll pay to play with the second one.

  • avatar
    PeterKK

    I’m not impressed. His argument is: Here’s my opinion, if you don’t agree F you.

    This is not a good argument, no matter what he has backing it up. He can keep his enmity for himself. I’m good over here.

    I’ll keep buying my cars based on the whole package of efficiency and economy. Be it electric, gas, or baby seal tears.

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      Second that. Also you have take some of these opinions with a grain of salt. Some are great. But if you don’t have the same opinion. Their panties get in a wad. Beware of the Web site nannies.

  • avatar
    Blackbeard

    I have a friend who lives in Silicon Valley and drives a Tesla. I tried it out when I visited last year. Very nice car, but:

    1. My friend is a successful tech investor who can afford a $90,000 car on a whim. What about lesser mortals?
    2. My friend has three cars in his driveway: the Tesla, an S-Class Mercedes (his old car) and his wife’s Lexus SUV. If the Tesla isn’t convenient he has plenty of options.
    3. He lives in a detached house with a garage. He installed the special Tesla charger and can charge overnight.
    4. Where he lives the climate is mild. He doesn’t need to use the car heater or A/C much. Using either drastically shortens the range on an electric car. In addition, extremes of temperature, hot or cold, (Think Houston or Phoenix in the summer, or North Dakota in the winter.) have a major effect on battery performance.
    6. There are numerous Tesla chargers where he lives. Where I live, for example, in Manhattan, there are only four Superchargers in the metropolitan area. The closest to me is at JFK airport which is around 25 miles from my house. Depending on the time of day the trip to JFK can easily take an hour one way. Living on the 20th floor of an apartment building charging in my “driveway” is not an option.

    In contrast my brother also lives in California but not in Silicon Valley. He lives in Fresno and is far from a tech millionaire. He too has an electric car, a Nissan Leaf his wife uses as a commuter vehicle. He charges it overnight in his driveway with an ordinary 110v extension cord. Range is limited but he has another gasoline powered car so that is manageable. The Leaf came with great incentives from California and the federal government so the price couldn’t be beat.

    My point is that the Tesla is an unrealistic vision of what our electric future looks like. (And make no mistake, our elites have decreed that our automotive future will be electric.) Yes some people who are well situated both financially and geographically will enjoy Teslas or their soon to be available equivalents from BMW or Mercedes or wherever. But for most people the switch to electric will be mean a significant loss in mobility and therefore will make a suburban lifestyle unrealistic or at least much more difficult. Of course our elites have always despised the suburban lifestyle so this is no coincidence.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      “But for most people the switch to electric will be mean a significant loss in mobility”

      You do know that 95% of people drive less than 40 miles a day.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        jmo, no doubt true about the 40 miles per day, but how about on those occasions where those same 95% have to drive longer distances?

        Rent an ICE car to go the distance and back? Added expense.

        Or how about people living outside of the great metropolis? Own a second car? Added expense.

        Nope. EVs work for some but not all.

        EVs are great for putt-putting around the inner city. But for the greater distances, not so much.

        (I do think EVs should be available to anyone who wants to buy one, just without taxpayer subsidies)

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          He never claimed that they “work for some but not all.”

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Some households have more than one car.

        • 0 avatar
          jmo

          Use your wife’s minivan for road trips?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            jmo, currently have a 2015 Sequoia 5.7L 4×4, a 2011 Tundra 5.7L and a 1989 Camry V6 (bought used).

            We spent a few days up in Albuquerque for Balloon Fiesta last week and took the back roads up from where we live, using the Sequoia.

            Got a surprising 15mpg on average, up and back over a grand total of 662 total miles driven highway and city.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          >> EVs are great for putt-putting around the inner city. But for the greater distances, not so much.

          I don’t know about that one. I put over 20k miles on my Leaf in a year. Lots of 100 mile round trips. Charge at home, charge at my destination – no problem. Granted, I did it with the newest generation of Leaf battery. Around town, I can make it to most of the stores I need to go to without the range meter dropping from full or maybe one bar from full. It’s range is actually overkill for around town.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            EVs work for some.

            The bottom line remains that people buy what works for them.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            >> The bottom line remains that people buy what works for them.

            Exactly. In the Northeast it works well for me, but if I lived on my property near Hobbs, NM, it might be a different story.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            You are an individual who knows……

            BTW, whatever happened to the comments my reply was appended to?

            My copy looks totally different than this thread.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          Why do people keep assuming that EVs need to work for all? No car “works for all.”

          Also, remember that most households have more than one car. That won’t change with EVs.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I drive less than 40 miles in a day. However, if I want to drive to Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Milwaukee, or other places, I do so without a problem. If I owned a Leaf, I would not be able to do that.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          And if you have to cope with the greater distances involved living in rural areas West of the Mississippi, charging stations became scarcer and scarcer, and further between.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Right. When I used to live in Tucson, on occasion I would have to drive to Douglas, Gila Bend, Bisbee, Wilcox, and Florence. There is nothing but cactus and mountains out there. Owning an electric car out there would be a problem.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Yup.

      • 0 avatar
        Chocolatedeath

        You do know people lie to their insurance company to get a better rate right?

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        you forgot the words “on average”. the electric vehicle has to meet the peak need day to be a suitable replacement for what we have now.

        • 0 avatar
          redav

          No car meets anyone’s “peak need,” even the one they currently own. We just get so used to the limitations that we accept them without considering them to be limitations: needing a moving truck for large, bulky items; taking a second car to get everyone at the office to lunch; not being able to take your car bouldering to get to that mountain cabin; etc. That’s the reality of distributions with long tails.

          The question instead is: What percentage of total trips does a vehicle need to satisfy to be viable? Similarly: What alternatives are there for those remaining trips?

          If a household has only one car, then it is less likely they will tolerate a lower percentage of trips covered. If a family is already used to renting a car for vacation, they are more likely to not consider such trips against an EV.

          EV makers have a tough job of including enough range to satisfy enough buyers’ percentage of trips to make it marketable, all while not adding too much (cost, weight). The idea of picking your range goes a long way to address that, as do range extenders. The trailer extender idea that people have jury-rigged is excellent–it permits extra range when needed, but detaches to avoid excess weight when it isn’t.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    Always rely on TTAC to meta-troll the troll but somehow end up ironic with half their comments. I’m in between these positions to some extent, I certainly think part of the resentment towards Tesla is faux populism (pricing near the top of mainstream luxury has its drawbacks) but it also has to do with small-c conservatism that is about protecting the status quo and the status quo is ICE and to a lesser extent the idea of nostalgia in general.

    Range anxiety is getting old, if you’re commuting 300+ miles daily there is something wrong with your commute. IF you need to travel farther than that in a singular day then the option of renting a vehicle becomes prominent. The other arguments really don’t hold that much weight since as it stands there is a good reason to move towards solar & wing power while moving towards electric cars. Right now, SA has made oil cheap again but that will end sooner rather than later especially once they finish crippling the shale oil drillers.

    Please though, keep telling us all how you’re going to run out and be intentionally wasteful with your resources to spite a guy who called you out for being intentionally wasteful with your resources….

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Who said they commute 300 miles per day? Range anxiety is a legit concern for electric cars which typically carry a range of 70-110 miles.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        >> Range anxiety is a legit concern for electric cars which typically carry a range of 70-110 miles.

        It depends on where you live and your situation. Even with a longer commute, if you have charging at both home and work, there really isn’t a problem.

        For me, range anxiety has been a joke. Even on a -4F day, I made a 50 mile one way trip. I just plug-in at the destination. With a 100+ mile range, and if you’re only going 50 miles, there’s not a lot of anxiety. Heavy traffic can be an EVs best friend. Crawling along at less than 25 mph does wonders for range.

        For me, if there was a need to pick up a charge along the way, I pass four CHAdeMO chargers on my route and numerous level 2s. You just punch up the nearest charging stations on the nav system, then select the best one and you’re guided to it. Supermarkets, furniture stores, malls, hotels – we have plenty available.

        What was your situation? What kind of EV and where did you live that you encountered range anxiety?

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        We’re discussing Tesla, Teslas come with a 250+ pack and a longer range pack. So your argument is both irrelevant and somewhat intentionally alarmist. Most daily commutes end up between 20-30 miles total, which still puts you well under the magic number for the cheaper EV solutions. If you owned a volt and drove to work and had basic EV recharge access you may never use the gas in the fuel tank unless you intentionally took a weekend drive.

        The range anxiety argument is used as a defense more than a valid argument.

    • 0 avatar

      I commute 75-100 miles a day (depends if i need to pickup and drop off the kids at the inlaws) a Tesla would be fine most days but no reasonably priced electric would be. I also drive 300+ miles 2-3 times a month for work.

  • avatar
    Chan

    Oh, OK, so he is advising the American public, every one of us, to go out and buy a car with a $70,000 base price.

    Also, does this joker know how most of our electricity is produced? It has something to do with fire and smoke and burning something something blah.

    Tesla makes some impressive electric cars but this guy is on some serious World Peace Weed to try to convince us that electric cars are affordable mainstream products that car nuts are refusing to accept. Let’s even take a cheaper example, the Nissan Leaf. It would still be a near-$40k thing if not for heavy government incentives. $40k is not affordable for a car whose trunk space accepts two-and-a-half sustainable organic canvas grocery bags. Even $30k, the purported “average new car transaction price,” is not “affordable” to the average American salary.

    Hold on now……I must have misunderstood him. Perhaps his message was for each of us to go out and buy one share of Tesla stock.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      >> $40k is not affordable for a car whose trunk space accepts two-and-a-half sustainable organic canvas grocery bags.

      Hmmm, speaking of making shit up… It holds a hell of a lot more than that. I’ve even put a road bike in it’s case (without wheels) in the back and was able keep the rear seats up with the case vertical. Still had room for luggage.

  • avatar
    TW5

    In the future, we won’t tolerate “ecologically-conscious” a-holes driving to work in their 4,000lb living rooms. Everyone will be required to drive to work in their 1-person commuting pod. Luxury will be outlawed! Frivolous and wasteful.

    People who present the future as the moral high ground are always anchoring themselves to a set of ideals that will eventually be labeled as the immoral past. Plus, petroleum products are not inherently bad. If someone creates renewable fossil fuels (carbon neutral), what will Barnard do?

    Barnard is a fool. He needs to go to the Kentucky Derby and tell all of the landed gentry about the invention of the horseless carriage. Trolling hypermasculine troglodytes subjecting us to their dystopian blood sport. The nerve! *spit*

    • 0 avatar
      Chan

      I agree with your general premise, but I disagree with two things:
      1. 4000-lb. living rooms. Have you checked the weight of a Suburban lately? Those things are closing in on 6000 pounds. I almost feel bad for its tires.
      2. Your implication that a 1-person commuting pod cannot be “luxurious.”

      I’d rock a one-seater commuting pod if it’s relatively roomy and comfy, with good visibility and a built-in coffee machine. And fragrant, buttery-smooth diamond-quilted leather. Leather everywhere.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        I was trying to imply that luxury is inherently wasteful and energy inefficient. Perhaps the most inefficient aspect of luxury items is the limited quantities in which expensive luxury goods are built. So wasteful!

        Barnard aspires to own luxury items. He’s an earth killer in green clothing!!!

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      pfft, in the future, we won’t even commute. We’ll telecommute.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    I don’t think we will ever see a 100% replacement of ICE with EVs across the board. In some areas, EVs will make the most sense. In others, ICE will make more sense. However, with continued development and cost reduction, I do think with EVs and eventually FCEVs will become more practical and affordable competitors to ICEs.

    I am seriously considering a hybrid for my next car. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had affordable 200-300 mile EVs by the time I replace that car.

    Which brings me to one of my main concerns with EVs: for those of us that don’t get our electricity from nuclear or renewable sources, what is being done to reduce emissions at the power plant?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      When in CA I always get a kick when I see a Roadside Assistance truck with a HUGE AC-generator on the side of the road recharging an EV just enough to get them to where they were going.

      So pure-EV is a crack-pipe dream at this point in time. But it is always a good second or third vehicle for short-trip errands.

      So Tesla has its own on-board gasoline-fired battery-charging generator, as does the Volt, but just how many Americans can afford a Tesla or 2016 Volt?

      Gasoline will be with us for at least the next two hundred years, longer if we don’t run out of oil and natgas by then.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Most of our coal plants are going off-line in the next two decades. That’s the plain reality. We’ve proven that wind power has little real detriment to migratory birds and any noise issue is completely psychosomatic. Combined with more and more solar power coming on line, we’re going to simply become a society of nuclear turned towards fusion reactors along with plain renewables. Coal will soldier on for a time, but it’s going off in the next two decades.

    • 0 avatar
      Speed3

      Natural gas is quickly replacing coal. The price of solar is falling quickly and becoming cost competitive without any subsidies in pets of the sunbelt as we speak.

      Even if the electricity is still generated from dirty coal plants, and the net carbon emissions remain the same (as with ICE vehicles) there is still a positive benefit. The total pollution would stay the same but be emitted away from city centers. That has significant health benefits.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        LeMansteve is absolutely correct that different types of power will fill niches. Semis will continue to be diesel, big trucks (garbage, delivery, buses, etc.) may be natural gas, commuter & city cars will be EVs. To really push his point home, plains will never be battery electric due to the weight penalty of batteries.

        Just like we see specialized cars for different functions–trucks, efficient compacts, minivans, sports cars–we will see power sources specialize as well.

        Xeranar is right about coal. It’s going away. Grid power is getting cleaner. I priced solar recently, and I was shocked at how cheap it got over the last few years. Per the PVWatts calculator & The Open PV project, I can realistically install solar power in my home for under $0.15/kWh (and possibly as low as $0.12/kWh). At that price, there’s almost no reason not to install a system. Bloomberg ran an article claiming that renewables are beginning to drop the utilization rate of traditional power plants, which means those sources (natural gas, coal) will start to get more expensive compared to renewables. I’m confident that the cleanliness of the power grid will continue to improve, and that’s a big plus for EVs–when the grid improves, so do they.

        Another reason I’m on board with EVs is that I can make their fuel on my own rooftop with PV. I won’t refine gasoline or hydrogen in my garage.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Absolutely right from an “arch of history” standpoint as many have said.

    The bile is coming from the fact that we’re nowhere near that day now. (Closer than we were yesterday, but not as close as we’ll be tomorrow.)

    When I can buy an electric car with the specs of a current V6 Camry (including price, passenger room, luggage space, and “range”) then the Electric Car will have truly arrived.

    However when that day comes I’ll keep my classic Mustang and my trusty old 2004 F150. I will gladly buy an electric car meeting those specs for family daily use.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The Camry V6 truly is the best option for most Americans much of the time. And if a person lives in flat country, the I-4 Camry is a great alternative.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        If the V6 were the best option, you would think that more than 10-15% of Camry buyers would get the V6 when spending their own money.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          There is a HUGE price difference between the I4 and V6 Camry, so many who can’t afford the extra cost have to settle for an I4.

          In my area they are routinely selling an I4 LE for <$20K. But the V6 is only available in XSE and XLE trim for well north of $32K.

          And if a person lives in flat-country, the I4 will do just fine. It's in the mountain twisties where the V6 really shines.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            You know, here in Ohio I see -many- V6 Accord models, and very few V6 Camry versions. I have a feeling this is because when you’re up in the V6 Camry range, those people just say “You know what, Avalon.” and spend that little extra.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Corey, that is exactly what happened in the case of my best friend. He bought a 2015 Avalon Limited in Las Cruces on sale for <$30K out the door.

            That's how I became the proud owner of one 1989 V6 Camry in exchange for one brand new Benjamin.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            You might be right, Corey,

            I just get a little nervous when I see a retired federal government employee telling people what product is best for them. That sort of logic can lead to Soviet style centralized control of production.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        You seriously need to get over this V6 thing. Even I, who is well known on here for truly and epically loathing the Camry, thinks the I4 is waaaay more than adequate in that car. It has the straight line performance of a decent sports car from 25 years or so ago. Putting that V6 in a Camry is like putting a sexy little black dress on the local crack whore. A complete and utterly useless waste. Toyota needs to just give them all to Lotus.

        The only person who has allegedly ever driven a Camry enthusiastically is Jack Baruth, and I am not sure he didn’t make the whole thing up to get clicks!

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Exactly. Electric cars are not actually ready for primetime, and the shortcomings of electric cars, not the unconscioncable behaviors of the general public, give Barnard an opportunity to eco-preach. If electric cars were superior, they would already have been adopted.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Don’t be pedantic gentlemen. I could have said V6 Altima/Accord/Camry/etc…

        Point is they’ll need to match the family sedans of today before the electric car is ready for prime time.

  • avatar
    cretinx

    “In the future, there isn’t room for people who think that burning million-year-old dead plants and blowing a ton of pollution and carbon into the atmosphere in order to go slower is a good thing”

    Where does he thing the power for the electricity these cars use to charge up come from? Unicorn farts and moonbeams?

    COAL POWER PLANTS – ya dangus.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    Tesla made a $140,000 SUV that you can’t put sh!t in because the second row doesn’t fold down, won’t talk about the range if you actually tow anything with it and hasn’t mentioned how you will charge this thing on a trip if you are towing a trailer, that’s all I have to say about that. Also the guy that wrote the stuff in the article is a douche.

  • avatar
    raph

    Always with the “effciency” of an electric motor. Everybody loves to talk about that yet ignore the difference between an engine and a motor. The former makes its own power the latter doesn’t.

    I’m sure a coal, oil or gas fired boiler returns some decent effciency over an internal combustion engine but I doubt they are 100% effcient.

    It would be interesting to see how effcient generating the power and delivering it to the full electric vehicle shakes out ( including any losses incurred charging the battery ).

    I’m sure Banard will be one of those insufferable twits in the future who will no doubt champion autonomous track cars calling anybody who would rather operate the vehicle themselves an enemy of performance.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    A truth about cars is that automotive enthusiasts are a backwater of folks who deny climate change and who think the greatest meaning in life comes from operating outdated automobile technology. Auto enthusiast sites are one place where these enthusiasts reinforce each others’ views, like beer-hall wisdom. They’re not even on side with the people who make the cars.

    Ev’s and hybrids, and the people who like and drive them, have taken a lot of crap over the years from these folks. It seems these folks can dish it out but they can’t take it.

    They also try to claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is not a car enthusiast, and by their logic, should not participate here. Which exposes their turf-fight insecurities.

    Their ignorant crap, as exemplified in these comments, has delayed the adoption of ev’s and hybrids and thus unnecessarily damaged the planet we all share. These so-called “enthusiasts” are rapidly becoming the equivalent of flat-earthers.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      Yeah, and their poo stinks, too.

      But that doesn’t make the pie-in-the-sky evangelists any less funny or visibly compromised in their motivations.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “…folks who deny climate change…”

      I find myself in good company as a skeptic of climate change:

      Dr Freeman Dyson, the British-born, naturalised American citizen who worked at Princeton University as a contemporary of Einstein and has advised the US government on a wide range of scientific and technical issues, said:

      “I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”

      “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”

      “I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.”

      “I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence.”
      .
      .

  • avatar
    Richard Chen

    This is a response to a Qurora (Q&A by tech folks, for tech folks) question which was re-published by Slate. The Quora question: “Why is it my techie nerd friends all love Teslas, but none of my true car buff friends have any interest in them? Is this a problem for Tesla?”

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-my-techie-nerd-friends-all-love-Teslas-but-none-of-my-true-car-buff-friends-have-any-interest-in-them-Is-this-a-problem-for-Tesla/

    This isn’t exactly long form journalism, and the B&B shouldn’t fall for this clickbait.

  • avatar
    NeilM

    If the referenced article had been written by John Barnard I might care.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Last week me and my V8 X5 charged up Interstate 80, loaded with cargo, climbing 6000 feet to Lake Tahoe at a steady 78MPH. I don’t think the Model S could do that without the battery overheating.
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Reminder: the original X5 was the most recalled vehicle in American history. So maybe we shouldn’t condemn all electric vehicles forever just because the current one may not work for our lifestle.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “…the original X5 was the most recalled vehicle in American history.”

        An irrelevant statement meant to belittle my choice of vehicle. Thanks.

        “…we shouldn’t condemn all electric vehicles forever…”

        Also irrelevant since no one is condemning all electric vehicles forever.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          No, the point is that BMW has improved the X5 over the years. Who knows, maybe electric vehicles will improve too?

          Your choice of vehicles is all yours, Master Baiter, and I don’t seek to influence or belittle it.

          • 0 avatar
            WhiskeyRiver

            Remember when The Wall Street Journal published a piece on the study of road rage and aggressive driving habits back in 2013? I’ll save you the google search:

            “…in the U.K., motorists were asked to identify the make and color of the car from which they have most frequently suffered road-rage incidents…The study of 2,837 motorists found men between the ages of 35 and 50 driving blue BMWs were most likely to be reported as having engaged in road-rage behaviors such as aggressive driving and swearing.”

            Fast forward to 2015 and the new uber A-hole driver owns a Tesla.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Odd, I see no reply box on Whiskeyriver’s comment below(?).

            Here on the west coast, I see at least one Tesla every time I use my car. I’ve never seen a Tesla being driven aggressively or carelessly. BMW’s, on the other hand…

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            @brandloyalty: the Reply button is only available 4 levels down (I think I counted that right). If you wanna reply to someone at that level, you just go up to the closest button, preface your comment wih “@name” and hope for the best.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    The Tesla Model X has fail written all over it. It’s simply not good enough and a large part of that has to do with the fact that they chose to use batteries that weren’t good enough for an all-electric SUV. The next generation of batteries, currently in testing, would have done the job. However, Tesla couldn’t wait that long so it’s not as if they had a choice in the matter.

    If Tesla survives into the mid 2020s then the battery game will have changed enough by then that they will be a dominant player. Right now, they are a niche player that appeals to tech nerds who can afford them. There is nothing special about a model X or a model S that can’t be had better for half the cost from a gasoline competitor. Sure, they are faster, but it’s net neutral because you’re trading that speed for range and convenience. Also, in theory electric cars are more reliable than gasoline cars, but Teslas have had their fair share of reliability issues.

    Personally, I think this guy is a moron. Internal combustion will have its place into the next decade and it will likely be into the 2030s before pure battery electric over-takes gasoline in total sales. Until batteries can replace gasoline without creating inconveniences, hybrids and plug in hybrids are the smarter choice.

  • avatar

    “There’s just room to put them out to pasture with old YouTube videos and maybe analog amplifiers to make the sound fuzzy and distorted.”

    Class D amps sound fine, but audio buffs and writers seems to indicate that what advantages they have over non-digital amps have to do with subtle details like transparency, not distortion.

    Analog amps have been operating below audible levels of distortion since vacuum tube days.

  • avatar

    “In the future, there isn’t room for people who think that…”

    In the here and now, people who think like this frighten me, though I wouldn’t say there is no room for them. That would make me feel at least a little bit authoritarian.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    It has suddenly struck me that Tesla has – in the last year or so – become the poster child for EVs.

    Q: Why?
    A: 1. The Model S performance and beauty can’t be denied.
    2. The price, and subsequent class envy of those who can afford one.
    3. Sales. Of the ~49k BEVs sold in 2015 YTD, Tesla has sold about 35% of them (about 17k).

    Until this year, Nissan was the sales leader, and still holds the lead for worldwide sales since 2010. But Tesla makes a more desirable EV, and presents a bigger target for the haters, irrational as they may be.

    I don’t fall into either the two camps described by the writer. After having a Leaf for 3 years, I’m sold on EVs. But I also like a little grease under my nails, and have nostalgia for cars of any era. Now that I’m back to an ICE and a hybrid in my driveway, I’ll admit that the increased maintenance on them is annoying. The low maintenance on an EV is very compelling.

    But there is plenty to criticize about EVs:
    1. Battery degradation with time, charge cycles, and temperature extremes.
    2. Non-portability of emergency power if you run out of juice. Even though you never see EVs stranded on the side of the road for this reason, it’s because their drivers constantly have to plan their journeys.
    3. Long-term viability of an old EV. People can restore a Model T to running order, but it’s no easy task to restore a 1917 Detroit Electric Model 68. What will people do with a 20-year-old Leaf?
    4. Depreciation. My former Leaf is now sitting in a used car lot, stickered at $9k. $9k for a detailed 3-year-old car with 27k miles and new tires. Its MSRP was $38k. Tesla lives in a bubble on this point.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Saw a Model S on the Ohio Turnpike earlier this year just outside Toledo — nobody around it.

      Somehow I’d wager it didn’t make it to the Supercharger just off the T-Pike an exit down from mine!

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Is the Model T considerably easier to restore than a century-old EV because of the technology, or because Ford sold about 28 million of the things, so there’s been consistent demand to keep the supply of parts high?

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “Mike Barnard, a writer at Slate.com…”

    He isn’t. Slate republished his response to a question about Tesla that was posted at Quora.

    His thesis misses the obvious: EVs have been around for over a century, and there are good reasons why they haven’t gained traction during that time.

    When you figure out why that is the case, then it becomes easier to understand why Tesla is not a game changer. And if the issues that have held EV’s back for more than 100 years are finally resolved, then Tesla will have little more than a branding advantage that won’t be all that difficult for other automakers to challenge.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    There are some inescapable issues with any battery-powered, EV-car technology:

    1) A battery must carry along both “fuel” and “oxidizer”, forming a redox reaction; whereas any combustion engine (internal or otherwise) can take advantage of the oxygen in the atmosphere.

    2) All known advanced-battery technologies (not lead-acid) and electric motors use precious metals and rare-earth elements, which we are rapidly depleting, or single-sourcing from China, which has a monopolistic position.

    3) Battery-powered EV’s are typically much heavier than ICE vehicles of the same size and capacity, and typically suffer from poorer performance in handling and braking.

    4) Battery-powered EV’s are inherently much more expensive (not counting subsidies) than comparable ICE vehicles of the same size and capacity.

    5) EV’s are moderate-climate vehicles, whose comfort and endurance (“range”) is optimum for temperatures between freezing and about 80 degrees F. These vehicles are not reliably suitable for long winter travels at, say, -15 degrees F, or for long desert travels at, say 100 degrees F.

    6) As battery technology approaches limits, attempts to make super-capacitors as a substitutes have stalled by charge-density problems. It’s just very hard to get electrons to want to be closely next to each other.

    7) Recharging an EV has not been shown to occur in about 5 minutes, the typical time for refueling gasoline in an ICE vehicle with a 20-gallon tank.

    8) The largest-selling vehicles in America are not cars: they are trucks. Three out of five of the best-selling vehicles were pickups from the three Detroit manufacturers. EV technology has shown no or little adaptability for use in trucks at this point, and I expect VERY rapid battery depletion from an EV-version of a Ford F-150 trying to haul 1,900 lbs, while towing a 10,000-lb RV 5th wheel or horse trailer.

    9) ICE technology, surprisingly, continues to make strides forward, with upcoming innovations including variable displacement engines, ultra-sonic fuel “atomization”, multiple-fuel charge systems, and laser-firing as a spark-plug replacement. Other advances include the use of bio-fuels that are CO2-neutral; or the Audi “E-gas” approach, which harvests CO2 from the atmosphere to make motor fuels. Additionally, large-scale use of CNG will also reduce environmental impact by a factor of two (CO2 production). Forced induction will be virtually universal, with BOTH supercharging and turbocharging on the same vehicle (as Volvo has demonstrated.)

    So, will fossil-fuel ICE’s ever be replaced? Possibly, about 100 years from now, but it won’t be pure EV’s that does it. It may well be H2 fuel-cells; H2-combustion engines (as in BMW’s “Hydrogen 7”); simple biodiesel engines that can run on renewable soybean oil; and even bio-butanol made from the fermentation of algae, to be a “gasoline” substitute. Pure Battery-powered EV’s will still serve inner city, urban, short-travel, moderate temperature requirements.

    ======================

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Imagefont: I was doing just fine. Just wondering if you had suddenly switched to decaf and were still in the...
  • ajla: Ok. Hope you feel better after that rant. UConnect is still a decent system though.
  • Imagefont: I was merely pointing out that Dodge, errr Stellantis, makes junk. These antiquated, over powered, over...
  • ToolGuy: Tim’s photography makes me want to sell every vehicle I have (and move to a mostly-deserted tropical...
  • conundrum: @ajla: Well said! Of course, the possibility exists that the floor sweepings and dumpster reject parts are...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber