Electric Vehicles

[Devstrike]

I am actually curious in a what if scenario if Consumer demand with their buying power does not match up with States wanting to ban ICE as well as them demanding to buy what does not meet the federal guide lines by the time 2035 hits. Does a Middle ground compromise happen? Or do people start registering new ICE vehicles at family/relatives in less emission restrictive states that still will allow new ICE like Texas.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Just for the sake of completeness…

• The CARB regulation bans SALE of NEW ICE
• It does not ban operation of ICE already owned
• It does not ban the sale of USED ICE

Ive been told by at least 3 people in this thread that the above is incorrect.

You know they are incorrect, I know they are incorrect but as with much of the EV debate he who shouts loudest gets more attention than he who actually knows what he is talking about.

[silversleeper]

Originally Posted by Devstrike

I am actually curious in a what if scenario if Consumer demand with their buying power does not match up with States wanting to ban ICE as well as them demanding to buy what does not meet the federal guide lines by the time 2035 hits. Does a Middle ground compromise happen? Or do people start registering new ICE vehicles at family/relatives in less emission restrictive states that still will allow new ICE like Texas.

Since I live in California and have looked at some of these work arounds and have had to work around Camaro Mods and seen the laws and politics which is what makes the laws I'll comment.
It all comes down to getting votes. If there is enough segment that believes in global cooling or warming and they can sell them on "doing something" also known as virtue signaling they DO placate those voters at the expense of common sense and financial sense. Their solution can do little in the bigger picture and have undue financial burdens on normal people.
I'll throw out an example. A friend had a low mi great condition big box truck with a diesel. They needed it for business and the state said those older engines didn't meet some crazy standard. It wasn't used daily in a smog problem area like LA that doesn't always have winds to disperse pollution. Way back in the old west times it was called smokey something by Native Americans because of natural forest fires often cause smoke to linger there. The friend didn't replace the truck because $100k+ for a new one plus higher insurance was not a good choice. The political leader did not give a f. IDK if the friend was even smart enough to vote different next time, for certain the virtue signal segment was happy.
You can't do the out of state work around because the law is something like 14days to register the vehicle. They will match up the registration to your license. If it's totally registered and insured by someone else it's not legal also with the insurance and might not be worth the risks.
That's why the "law" doesn't impact cars that are already owned. Too many lost voters. It's not about common sense. There will be enough new car buyer voters as time draws closer so the political leader will change their position. Pushing the date off later or making some change to the law for certain.
Don't underestimate what level of stupid a decision and law will be made. It doesn't come down to IQ or even AI, it's votes which are increasingly being made by idiots. I am not so optimistic as knowing how it really works is depressing.

[JamesMyBoy]

As far as I can see, it really doesn't matter that much what the law says in order to force us all to buy EVs. The Federal Government/EPA will (one way or the other) price us out of fossil fuels. Looking at the way things seem to be going (with respect to oil prices and world supply) our choices are going to be made for us!

[silversleeper]

Originally Posted by JamesMyBoy

As far as I can see, it really doesn't matter that much what the law says in order to force us all to buy EVs. The Federal Government/EPA will (one way or the other) price us out of fossil fuels. Looking at the way things seem to be going (with respect to oil prices and world supply) our choices are going to be made for us!

When I visit Nebraska and other states along the way I'm shocked at the prices at eg Loves or CENEX. It's 3.xx gal not $6 gal like I just paid yesterday to fill a big gas tank. I will have to fill it at LA today for $7.xx and $8 until I can drive to a cheaper area. Gas prices can play a big part if you are swayed to get a BEV.

[Evergreen6]

The federal government subsidizes fossil fuels. It would be nice if there weren't groups like OPEC+ banding together to reduce supply so fuel prices stay jacked up. And of course, every sneeze, hiccup and tear shed by the oil companies and their refineries that they just can't have their way, meanwhile raking in billions and billions in record profits. It must be really hard making that much money. By all means, kick and scream at every notion of creating a competitive automobile industry so people can relieve themselves of being cash slaves at the pump.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Just for the sake of completeness…

• The CARB regulation bans SALE of NEW ICE
• It does not ban operation of ICE already owned
• It does not ban the sale of USED ICE

Originally Posted by docwra

Ive been told by at least 3 people in this thread that the above is incorrect.

You know its incorrect, I know its incorrect but as with much of the EV debate he who shouts loudest gets more attention than he who actually knows what he is talking about.

So what exactly IS correct? I’ve read every word of the legislation. The above is my interpretation based on that reading. Please point to information that defines the legislation differently. FWIW, I am no fan of this legislation. It makes absolutely no sense to hold manufacturers responsible for what people are allowed to buy. Same problem I had with the original 1993 ZEV mandate. And that changed a lot since the day it was first signed into law.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

The federal government subsidizes fossil fuels.

No, it doesn't.

There are the usual business write-offs, etc that all businesses get, but no subsidies.

None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

No, it doesn't.

There are the usual business write-offs, etc that all businesses get, but no subsidies.

None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Forget it, Jimmy. Any dollar that isn't taxed on an oil company, depreciation, losses, even taxes on profits paid to foreign governments, counts as a "subsidy" in their minds.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

No, it doesn't.

There are the usual business write-offs, etc that all businesses get, but no subsidies.

None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Taxpayer dollars going to oil companies = subsidy. Sorry, I know it's hard to argue.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

So what exactly IS correct?.

Definitely not me typing "its" rather than "they" in my post
Ive edited now, apologies.

What youve written is accurate IMO. While there is a big push to get people into EVs, even if tech and infrastructure have improved 1000% theres no way ICE cars are going to magically disappear in 2035 like some suggest. People have a choice now and will have a choice then.

What I dont agree with is encouraging cleaner technology by phasing legislation against older tech is wrong.
If by 2035 100% of EV power is clean and cars charge in 5 minutes its no different from mandating catalytic converters or the Euro 6 requirement we have here these days (you guys are going to love that one when it reaches the US )

Most of Europe has restrictions on the age of cars that can be driven in major cities, a lot of places have cheaper parking for EVs and higher fees for bigger vehicles.
Same question applies to 2035: is this a sensible move to protect public health or an infringement on civil liberties?

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by docwra

Definitely not me typing "its" rather than "they" in my post
Ive edited now, apologies.

What youve written is accurate IMO. While there is a big push to get people into EVs, even if tech and infrastructure have improved 1000% theres no way ICE cars are going to magically disappear in 2035 like some suggest. People have a choice now and will have a choice then.

What I dont agree with is encouraging cleaner technology by phasing legislation against older tech is wrong.
If by 2035 100% of EV power is clean and cars charge in 5 minutes its no different from mandating catalytic converters or the Euro 6 requirement we have here these days (you guys are going to love that one when it reaches the US )

Most of Europe has restrictions on the age of cars that can be driven in major cities, a lot of places have cheaper parking for EVs and higher fees for bigger vehicles.
Same question applies to 2035: is this a sensible move to protect public health or an infringement on civil liberties?

Literally nobody is saying ICE's will disappear in 2035. Some states may choose to not allow new ICV's to be sold new, except for the existing carve outs for basically everything other than passenger vehicles and some light duty trucks.

I also don't consider anyone from the UK to be an expert on Freedom, but hey, while you're at it, can you identify in the US constitution where anyone is guaranteed the right to purchase a new ICE vehicle?

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by docwra

Ive been told by at least 3 people in this thread that the above is incorrect.

You know they are incorrect, I know they are incorrect but as with much of the EV debate he who shouts loudest gets more attention than he who actually knows what he is talking about.

I think y'all are missing the point. The point is that eliminating the sale of new ICEs in the largest car market in the US, which also transcends to other states who adopt the CARB limits means development and ongoing research to make ICEs better is likely done except essentially for specialty cases. In fact, many manufacturers have already said they are switching to full EV, Cadillac, Volvo, Jaguar, and others. So while it's not a ban on ICE, it's a ban on future development because no one in their right mind will develop ICEs when they know they won't be allowed to be sold new in 10 years. Governments are forcing this based on EVs that aren't truly better for the environment overall in the long run than a decently efficient ICE car. EVs don't last as long, require many more raw precious materials. Sure, from a carbon standpoint they pay off over time when comparing one vehicle on a shorter time period (e.g., 5-7 years), but overall environmental positive effects in the LONG RUN have yet to be proven that I've seen.

As I stated in this thread before: In 20 years a 2024 Honda Civic will still be getting 40+ mpg on the highway and have some good life left assuming it was taken care of, while someone who bought a 2024 EV will be on their 3rd one since they are disposable (assuming 10-year life span). You can't tell me that building 3 EVs in that time frame is better for the environment.

Besides, EVs have no soul. The soul of a sports car is its engine, plain and simple. Engines are one of the main differentiators between a great sports car and a regular car. An EV Lamborghini would have a very similar drivetrain to an EV Kia, albeit with more hp. That isn't the case with ICE. ICE has distinct separation (e.g., high revving V-12 or V-10s, LT6, etc.) and makes them special in comparison to the run of the mill powerplants in "regular" cars. Those differences and the soul can't be replicated with a big screen or sound through speakers.

[docwra]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Besides, EVs have no soul. The soul of a sports car is its engine, plain and simple.

But where do you draw the line?
Ive had plenty of diesel/petrol workhorses, Id have preferred electric power in all of those in every situation apart from time critical 400+ mile journeys.
Id swap the W12 in my VW Phaeton for an EV in a second as it would be smoother, quieter and massively better on fuel.
Ive got an MR-S roadster ..... I like the way it goes on cam and the noise is definitely involving, but instant torque and twice the power would be rather nice too.
I actually have an Audi etron, theres no way Id go from over 60mpg to ~17mpg by swapping it for a slower ICE Q7.

In my Z28? No way, but its hardly an average vehicle, its a car built round an engine specifically to go round racetracks very fast.
My point is for most applications "soul" is irrelevant, and regardless of legislation special ICE cars arent going anywhere.

"Are EVs actually cleaner?" has come up many times in this thread, all Ill say is right now the UK is only using 24% fossil fuels for power generation; Ive no idea why someone would buy 3 EVs but only one Honda Civic in 20 years either