Feds plan to melt ICE | Page 6 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Feds plan to melt ICE

EVs are not the silver bullet. Especially when 87% of the energy is still coming from fossil fuels.

Part of the solution
Brian P said:
That's a typical rubbish clickbait article. It fails to mention that this action is consistent with much of the rest of the world. And that action is being taken because climate change due to human-caused CO2 emissions is a real thing.

National Post is owned by Postmedia. They're right-leaning.
Click to expand...
Just another perspective other than the CBC
Or Toronto Star.

Climate change has little to do with being left or right politically leaning.

It affects us all
 
STARSHIP said:
EVs are not the silver bullet. Especially when 87% of the energy is still coming from fossil fuels.

Part of the solution

Just another perspective other than the CBC
Or Toronto Star.

Climate change has little to do with being left or right politically leaning.

It affects us all
Click to expand...
Where did you get the 87% value from?

Because this here says different…

CER – Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Canada

Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Canada
www.cer-rec.gc.ca www.cer-rec.gc.ca

1703102896330.png
 
FullMotoJacket said:
LMAO. According to leaked internal documents, emails, and texts, FOX has no qualms about broadcasting lies. That's kind why Rupert had to pay Dominion $787M.
Click to expand...
Let me try this another way.
You say it's false because it's on Fox, and you don't trust Fox. Fine, but that's a lazy argument.
The real source is the mechanical engineer giving the interview. Fox is just the platform. All legacy media lies. What they lie about depends on their alliances, usually political. That's why you would never see this guy given screen time on CNN, whether it's tru or not. I suggest you stop automatically dismissing something because it's on Fox, and disprove the true source. And for the Liberals, that doesn't mean discrediting the man, that means discrediting the information the man is giving.
 
Whether we like it or not, and whether the human race is around to witness it, the planet earth is a marvelous self-regulating device.
We're wetting our pants over what has basically happened in the last 200 years, let me break it to you - in the grand scheme of things we're just a carbunkle on history.
Maybe a meteor will take us out like it did the dinosaurs, maybe a horrific plague will decimate the population ?
At the end of the day, all we are is dust in the wind - dudes....
 
TK4 said:
Whether we like it or not, and whether the human race is around to witness it, the planet earth is a marvelous self-regulating device.
We're wetting our pants over what has basically happened in the last 200 years, let me break it to you - in the grand scheme of things we're just a carbunkle on history.
Maybe a meteor will take us out like it did the dinosaurs, maybe a horrific plague will decimate the population ?
At the end of the day, all we are is dust in the wind - dudes....
Click to expand...
I agree, 100%.
 
WestBrantKid said:
So... It's wrong because it's on Fox? This is a meaningless argement. It's like when someone says, "Did you get your degree at YouTube University? Haw Haw!"
If you can't argue the information, argue the source?
Click to expand...

Fox News cherrypicks who they want to put on air. (So do other mass-media outlets.)

For matters like this, you have to go with the scientific consensus, not what one cherrypicked person says. The scientific consensus is that humanity is doing a lot of damage via excessive CO2 emissions, and yes, while the earth is ultimately self-regulating, the results for our children may be an earth that does not sustain the types of life that we are familiar with.

And yes, transportation is responsible for only a portion of mankind-caused CO2 emissions. We, collectively, have to work on the other sources, too.

More reliable source than Fox News: IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 
Brian P said:
Fox News cherrypicks who they want to put on air. (So do other mass-media outlets.)

For matters like this, you have to go with the scientific consensus, not what one cherrypicked person says. The scientific consensus is that humanity is doing a lot of damage via excessive CO2 emissions, and yes, while the earth is ultimately self-regulating, the results for our children may be an earth that does not sustain the types of life that we are familiar with.

And yes, transportation is responsible for only a portion of mankind-caused CO2 emissions. We, collectively, have to work on the other sources, too.

More reliable source than Fox News: IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Click to expand...
I agree about Fox, but the same applies to CNN, CBC, Global, NBC, and all other media platforms. This is why we need to do the thing we get shamed for: research.
I also agree that you need to trust the science (not the political science, as I call it, meaning what politicians claim is science). It's easy ti find a scientist that say something, then another that contradicts him. This is why we need to do the thing we get shamed for: research.
I respect your opinion if you have done some research, but we can also disagree and debate even though I did my research. That means we have different methods, and/or sources.
My sources also say that we actually need more co2 in the atmosphere, and that we are coming out of an ice age. Climate changing is real. "Climate change" is not, if you get my meaning. And the change is much slower than we are lead to believe. Slow enough that we will evolve with it like we did 10,000 years ago, and 100,000 years ago.
My research also tells me we can no longer trust UN and the WHO.
Something that's obvious is that the government is breaking us with this carbon tax while not helping the environment at all.
 
WestBrantKid said:
I agree about Fox, but the same applies to CNN, CBC, Global, NBC, and all other media platforms. This is why we need to do the thing we get shamed for: research.
I also agree that you need to trust the science (not the political science, as I call it, meaning what politicians claim is science). It's easy ti find a scientist that say something, then another that contradicts him. This is why we need to do the thing we get shamed for: research.
I respect your opinion if you have done some research, but we can also disagree and debate even though I did my research. That means we have different methods, and/or sources.
My sources also say that we actually need more co2 in the atmosphere, and that we are coming out of an ice age. Climate changing is real. "Climate change" is not, if you get my meaning. And the change is much slower than we are lead to believe. Slow enough that we will evolve with it like we did 10,000 years ago, and 100,000 years ago.
My research also tells me we can no longer trust UN and the WHO.
Something that's obvious is that the government is breaking us with this carbon tax while not helping the environment at all.
Click to expand...
1703110657583.png
 
WestBrantKid said:
You say it's false because it's on Fox, and you don't trust Fox. Fine, but that's a lazy argument.
Click to expand...

I never said that. Don't put words into my mouth.
 
mimico_polak said:
Where did you get the 87% value from?

Because this here says different…

CER – Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Canada

Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles – Canada
www.cer-rec.gc.ca www.cer-rec.gc.ca

View attachment 65039
Click to expand...
Where did you get that from?
This here says different. We'd better start building nuclear reactors.
on-fg02.png
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0435.jpeg
    IMG_0435.jpeg
    303.3 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
I know this thread originated from EV mandates and try to avoid hijacking but, I try to keep an open mind.

I don’t subscribe to the default that climate change is the end of the world. The bad gets the headlines as fear is a strong motivator.

I think this video provides a little more balanced thinking but, I can change my mind with more information and sources that show different perspectives.

 
I might posit that the far bigger threat is uncontrolled population growth.
250 years ago when everything was powered by coal the air pollution was at times deadly as well as simply unbearable.
The only saving grace was that there were fewer people to contribute, and many of the 'undeveloped' countries didn't have a significant impact. More people equals more garbage, more pollution, more human waste, less potable drinking water - the list goes on.
China's attempt at zero population growth, right or wrong, was step to address that issue.
 
Brian P said:
That's a modern-complicated-vehicle-with-modern-complicated-controls thing, not necessarily an EV thing. (Software/navigation/etc too complicated for its own good)

Both VW and GM are going through software headaches on their newer vehicles, too ... and it isn't just the EVs.



I've heard that Rivians are tough on tires. That's a suspension-design issue ... not an EV issue! And here's why ...

Rivians have on-the-fly adjustable ride height and 4-wheel-independent suspension with an upper and lower wishbone design.

(1) It is really hard to design those for zero bump steer ... the steering link never exactly coincides with the main suspension arms. This means it can only have zero toe at one specific ride height. At any other ride height, it's going to have non-zero toe. It is also often necessary to design-in some roll understeer into the geometry to ensure proper stability at high speed. But you can't do that without introducing bump steer, which means ... non-zero toe at any ride height other than some nominal setting. That's not good for tire wear.

(2) Another thing, those suspensions aren't designed with a zero camber curve. (Equal-length and parallel upper and lower arms. The upper arm is always shorter. I've seen the Rivian's suspension layout. It uses the conventional layout with a shorter upper arm.) There is good reason for this ... when you have body-roll in a corner, the negative camber with suspension compression partially offsets the body roll that the tire sees, so the contact patch stays flatter on the ground for more grip. BUT. It means, you only have zero camber (or close to it) at or near one specific ride height (or in a fairly narrow range where the upper and lower arms are close-enough to being parallel. If you run it in the low suspension mode for less drag at highway speed (which I'm pretty sure it does automatically), the wheels are going to have negative camber, and because all 4 corners are like this, it's going to be like this on all four!

I'm afraid that high tire wear is going to be inherent with any double-wishbone-type suspension that has significant ride-height-adjustment capability unless it has been specifically designed with parallel equal-length upper and lower control arms and tie-rods ... but then, cornering and high-speed-stability will be compromised.

Look for the cybertruck to have the same issue because it has the same design features.

Of course, it doesn't help that the darn thing weighs 7000 lbs, but that's not a horrendous amount more than a combustion-engine 4x4 extended-cab pickup with all the luxury bells and whistles. They're no lightweights, either. This is more a criticism that pickup trucks have all gotten too big and heavy in general.

N.B. The Ford Lightning doesn't have air-ride ... and it uses a pure-trailing-arm independent rear suspension, which in the automotive world is something that went obsolete decades ago. BUT. That suspension design, at least ideally, has zero toe and camber change with suspension movement. If you load up the truck, it shouldn't eat rear tires. Compare, for example, to the old Ford Twin-I-Beam front suspension ... which has high camber change with suspension motion ... and is a notorious front-tire-eater.



My Bolt weighs 1600 kg. That's only slightly more than a VW Golf, not enough to make a meaningful difference for road wear.

If you're worried about roadway wear, we need to have a discussion about people using enormous trucks and SUVs to move one person to and fro, before discussing its powertrain.
Click to expand...
I did put in the disclaimer that I understand it's a truck and as such inherently heavier. A friend of mine has an F250 diesel and it's pretty bad on tires as well. Not every 20k Rivian bad, but still it's every 50k bad.
The solution is to limit pickups to construction companies and farms. Or in the very least, any vehicle over 4500lbs should require a very difficult to obtain drivers license. I hate pickups and can't understand why they're the new chic grocery getter.
 
My take on EV in Canadian Market for 2035 (not in short term):

- Other Provincial Govt will cut incentive as more EV competition enters the market.

- Govt will NOT ban ICE vehicles (or they will lose power). However, they will be incentivize people to "Buy New" (i.e.- EVs) by taxing older vehicle very heavily. Most people won't be able to afford to keep ICE vehicles on the road then.

- Insurance companies will probably have extremely high premiums on ICE vehicles, because they can't connect to them. Hence not knowing their driving behaviour. With EV's, it will be connected to a server where Insurance companies can track you, and your behaviour.

So pretty much, people will be forced into EVs due to economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom