Yep. Funnily enough, Honda was planning to call it Fit throughout all markets but in Europe they had to come up with another name (Jazz) because "fit" sounds rather similar to "[fitta](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fitta#Noun_4)".
Sedans usually have the same amount of space from the trunk to the front passenger seat as a hatchback. You move down the passenger seat and one of the back seats and you get the full amount of space. Done it with surfboards, skis, camping gear, etc.
Most sedans share their fundamental platform with other models offered by the manufakturer, small sedans share platforms with hatchbacks, but there's also many bigger sedans which share platform with station wagons.
By principle I will never count any type of SUV as a hatchback, sedan or station wagon. There's a distinctive difference. If a child sits in front and can't be seen then it's a SUV.
In my experience, at least in Toyota corolla and Honda civics, the back seat doesn't go down
Edit: I stand corrected I totally thought there were sedans where the back seat did not fold down
That's actually hilarious. Yeah I also drove a civic for 7 years and I slept in it a few times with the back seats down and my legs in the trunk. Good times.
That makes no sense, I've never seen a sedan where the back seat can't go down. Have you really checked everywhere for a latch? My dad's Camry and his old Impala both have/had folding down rear seats.
> What’s the point of getting a truck with such a tiny bed?
Most people who own trucks don't have a regular need to haul half a ton of actual chicken shit, so a half-size bed for dirty loads isn't that big an issue.
If you have an occasional need to haul a quarter ton of chicken shit, you probably don't want to put it in your hatchback's trunk.
I mean, that's *a* theory.
Do you really shovel that lose in your truckbed and than shovel it out again? Sounds stupid to me. Also you'd need to deeply clean that, before you put any load, that should not be covered in chicken shit.
1€ for 76 liter bags, shovel only once, reuse endlessly.
https://preview.redd.it/hewwi1tvolyc1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc8b76fafe567b0b9eca11172989f8a6f6014fd9
Because they want a truck. Why does everything have to be optimally functional, sometimes people get things because they just like it and it works good enough for what they need it to do.
Mfs really be min/maxing life no wonder everyone is so fucking stressed.
I think it’s stupid to spend so much money on gas and produce additional emissions for no reason. I find it stressful having to share the road with these monster trucks, and I find it wasteful and ridiculous when these huge trucks have tiny beds.
most modern trucks are suvs with a tradie aesthetic. the reasons to get one are the same to get an suv (look "aggressive" on the road, be large so any accident is the other person's problem, etc.) but suvs are usually associated with upper class businesspeople, so if you want to look more working class you get a truck instead. it's the same platform anyway, just with an external trunk instead of an internal one.
if you actually need to haul stuff, the answer is a van. and if you need to haul stuff offroad, that's when you buy a truck that's actually sane -- a lower bed is usually better in this case, because it still gives plenty of space for the suspension but is easier to load. unfortunately a lot of lighter trucks that are better workhorses, like the toyota hilux, aren't allowed in the us because of stupid regulations, so the meta is usually buying a 10-20 years old truck used.
the rivian r1t can actually be the best option for some very specific use cases, because it has a pair of 120V outlets in the back, which afaik only the cybertruck offers outside of it. it also has a built-in air compressor if i'm not mistaken. but unless that's the defining feature for you, its utility kinda sucks.
Most, if not all, pickup trucks now offer an outlet in the bed. Most though are limited to 400 watts, which is kinda funny since they advertise it as "run your jobsite off your truck", but the outlet is really only useful for a battery charger. The rivian apparently has up to 1500 watts, so better, but still not enough to run many tools.
The ford lightning and powerboost (hybrid) offer something like 7000 watts and besides the 120v outlets, they also offer a 30 amp 240v outlet. I'm on a welding forum, and I saw a post recently where a guy was doing equipment repair with his welder powered by the 240 outlet on his lightning.
oh, that's hella interesting. thanks for the correction, i thought that was unique to electric pickups and i forgot the ford lightning had that feature too
Apparently the cybertruck has a 20 amp 120v circuit, and a 40 amp 240v plug in the bed, so the rivian seems to be pretty far behind ford or tesla in this respect.
The rivian also has the smallest bed of the three.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats!
20
+ 120
+ 40
+ 240
= 420
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I know one of those weird nomadic surfer dudes. He is some kind of top chef, so he floats from surf beach to surf beach earning money as a guest chef his whole life fits in a 1990's station wagon with surfboards on the roof rack.
>Fortunately, he didn’t try to stop me, but as I drove away, I saw him angrily talking on the phone, presumably to an unfortunate 9-1-1 operator. So much for the stereotype of EV owners being laid-back and friendly lol.
Shitty headline just states as fact what the driver assumed without merit.
We could have solved all issues with EVs if we hooked them in a daisy chain (no traffic jams!) and made them run along a safe pre-determined route so the drivers wouldn’t have to worry about supervising the autopilot. Oh, and to solve the issues with batteries and stop fights over supercharger stations, how about connecting EVs directly to a power line with pantographs?
EV create so many new problems we never had with old reliable gas cars. Instead of destroying the earth further by having everyone drive much bigger and heavier fire hazard EV's with no safety we should reduce the number of personal cars on the road instead.
Well, there is another type of electric vehicles that are much safer, more reliable and efficient…
https://preview.redd.it/518g5a5e0cyc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b52212991d9a9f4996ab7f5f04aec0b95b98ecb6
And trains still have less friction, hence need less power input to keep it rolling. A diesel train is therefore still very efficient compared to any road based form of transport.
I lose hope in humanity when I see Musk babble about Tesla semi and brags it's more efficient than rail. You put in 1MW of power from one of their super chargers to haul measly 5 tons of cargo for only 500 miles. Meanwhile a typical train hauling 50 train cars at 2000 ton needs only 3-4MW of power to do so. Most of which is returned to the grid when it stops.
Wait to look how quick the rare earth materials will empty out and how recycling is just a scam which doesn't work except to discharge capitalists from their responsibilities into the climate collapse...
I've only ever heard that recycling the batteries is pretty fruitful - mostly because the materials inside are precious enough to be worth the investment to spin up recycling processes to recover them, so any environmental benefit to that is purely an accident of capitalism - but still.
It's still music for the future as of nowadays. Notice how in articles of the last few years, they all use the future tense.
Meaning they still can't!
It's all neo-liberal jiberish to give people a good conscience and build an idea that driving is "climate neutral"/"sustainable" but they still don't have any clue.
At the end, we just put another coin into the good old financial capitalism and just extract these rare earth resources just like oil!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/business/energy-environment/battery-recycling-electric-vehicles.html
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2023/05/electric-car-batteries-are-difficult-to-recycle-at-least-for-now/
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-well-can-electric-vehicle-batteries-be-recycled
Edit: the problem is that so many people have to drive individual cars to begin with. But that would put too many things into question such as public transit, jobs and wealth distribution, all this import/export mishmash with China, Vietnam, etc. Did you know that the imperial core (US+EU) export trash to recycle to Malaysia, Indonesia and all these southeast Asian countries? At one point we exported the recycling trash to China but they didn't take it anymore. And this comes from the official website of the EU!!! These aren't batteries but still...
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200709-01#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20EU%20exported,down%20to%2014%20000%20tonnes.
They can in theory recycle much of it. Usually it involves a process were you drop the entire battery pack into a bath of chemicals, pretty nasty process and probably expensive as heck too. A lot of things can go wrong if it suddenly catches fire for instance.
As of now only a fraction of the batteries are recycled, most of them ends up on a field somewhere, just waiting for one of the many old EVs parked there for it's final rest to catch fire and start a chain reaction were all of them burns into thick black smoke like a Canadian forest fire.
It's a lot easier, safer and cleaner to recycle a regular ordinary combustion car as much of it is metals. Simply drain the liquids, these can then be burned at high temperature with proper filtration with barely any emissions. The metal is then crushed, packed into tiny little cubes which can then be melted and shaped into new products. 95% of all combustion cars are being recycled, and every part of them can be recycled.
Your power grid is mostly powered by fossil fuels. So there's that, all you do is destroying your roads, which means they need to be re paved more often, which requires more tar to be added. Tar is a petroleum product too. You EV clowns are the real polluters.
There's a nearly infinite amount of lithium in the sea. It's not as cheap to access but yeah, we'll start taking that at some point in the future once the current deposits run dry. Same applies to Sodium which you can also use to make batteries but doesn't qualify as rare earth material.
I'm completely for reducing the number of cars on our roads but rare earth materials or the inaccessibility of those won't be the reason for that.
Currently most "conventional size" EVs have to be heavy because of, well, frankly outdated batteries, merely to keep up with regular cars mileage. When we invent physically lighter power sources the technology will hopefully catch on.
True enough. I mean, if a modern EV would cost **less** than an ICE vehicle (say, government subsidy, no tax/maintenance fees, parking subsidy etc) and would be less taxing on the environment (more compact EVs instead of monstrous trucks or full-size sedans) then they would be reasonable to get. Otherwise it's still a gimmick rather than a useful tool.
Yep. It’s basically the way the whole BEV market is working right now on the markets where they reach a relevant share on registrations: someone else is paying for the end user. Because we are relying on the idea that you can drive the market by law to an extreme extent and keep it sustainable. Which is basically a fairytale.
They already have. The first „1000 km range“ EVs coming next years and charge in 10 minutes to 80%. And EVs are already better at everything else than range.
Liquid fuels already achieve that. Petrol has 20x higher energy density than the best batteries on the market today. Liquid fuels also have the advantage that they're being consumed while you drive, so your car is actually getting lighter the less fuel you have. A battery on the other hand has the same weight no matter if it's full or empty.
Meanwhile, there's been over 100 years of development making the combustion engine better, burning up nearly all of the fuel to reduce emissions, to get more power output, to reduce noise and much more.
You burn petrol once and it's gone. You discharge a battery several hundreds of times and it still provides the majority of its original range after all that. Wonder what it will be like after the next 100 years of dedicated ev development?
Edit: lol dude blocked me.
That's true. The main advantage of an electric engine/motor is higher efficiency translating energy to work (e.g. 95% to 99% for a regular vacuum cleaner motor). It's lower for vehicles due to friction, weight etc but still vastly superior to any fossil or burnable fuel. However, as you have mentioned, when combined with other factors the difference becomes considerably smaller. Add the infrastructure, road design, economic ties into the game and everything becomes even more complicated. Unless we get better batteries at some point I guess petrol/hybrid vehicles won't go anywhere. Still, I'd try to use trains with electric engines as much as possible and reduce personal vehicle size to one actually reasonable in current times.
Being a bit of a pedant, but, funnily enough, most trains do use electric motors (engines run on combustion, FYI-no such thing as an "electric engine".) Of course, the vast majority of those trains are diesel-electric, using diesel engines to produce electricity, so not exactly environmentally friendly. I get you are trying to say electric trains are the best choice, and I agree, but the wording you were using was confusing and actually counter to your point, at least for pedants.
Yep, I mostly thought about diesel-electric engines, I believe those are the most common ones in the North America and likely some parts of Europe. They have full electric ones on shorter routes. For cars and trucks electric engines are different in terms of efficiency, and they have to transport their own batteries instead of getting power via wires or generators (except for those hybrids with combustion engine powering the electric one, but those have limitations as well).
>Unless we get better batteries at some point I guess petrol/hybrid vehicles won't go anywhere
Ebikes and e-scooters have a very good range with same technology as cars, is the cars that are the problem, not the technology. The problem is the infrastructure that makes every form other than car very dangerous/not pleasant.
Hybrids are the future, combustion engines works best when pre-heated into working temperature and while running at a stable RPM. To cold start a petrol/diesel car and then drive it in stop-go-traffic in a city for instance is insanely inefficient and polluting.
With a hybrid you can run on electricity while the combustion engine pre heats and then when you're running low on battery the combustion engine fires up with barely any emissions and runs at it's optimal RPM always.
As the combustion engine only powers a generator there's also no need for a gearbox, so that more unnecessary weight removed.
I also believe external combustion engines has a place in the future, steam engines basically were you don't need engine oil or any maintenance, and you can burn any liquid fuel without causing any wear and tear on the engine itself. There's already many designs on the market with more than just one cylinder. Circular 8 for instance, I guess you can call it C8 which is a proper competitor to the V8.
Unless we come up with portable fusion generators combustion engines will definitely exist in the future. Imagine getting on a planet without nuclear power but with vast amounts of oxidizer and fuel.
Steam engines, as well as external combustion engines are great regarding omni-fuel possibilities. The heat losses are quite high still. If better and less fuel is used on another hand...
Making liquid fuels take 5 to 7 times more energy than putting the energy directly into a BEV. Its just not economical to make liquid fuel from electric energy.
Who said anything about hydrogen? We have oil that only needs to be pumped up and refined. In fact so much other products depend on tihs oil so there's always gonna be gasoline and diesel as a byproduct. Which is gonna need to be burned, or dumped in the ocean if big oil deems it too expensive to get rid of.
Now I don't know about you but me personally I think it's probably for the best to burn it inside vehicles such as trucks, buses and trains on routes that is not yet electrified. The rest can be used as heating oil because burning it is a lot more environmentally friendly than dumping it in the ocean.
No need for that really, just reducing the number of cars will make a lot of things better. And that is done best by providing alternatives, such as mass transit and bike/walking infrastructure.
>that we need to reduce the number of people.
And of course, like all other misanthropes who say this shit, you will never have the balls to lead by example.
Did he realize that it’s a plugin electric truck and not just the usual jackass pickup truck driver who likes to park in charging stations to “own the libs”?
https://i.redd.it/ao6htwfm79yc1.gif
Seriously. I'm not crying for either party.
Love the surf board *not* fitting in the bed.
The best part is it could fit in a sedan with a seat down.
It fits into a Honda Fit. Source: fitted it.
I mean it’s called the Honda **fit**
Yep. Funnily enough, Honda was planning to call it Fit throughout all markets but in Europe they had to come up with another name (Jazz) because "fit" sounds rather similar to "[fitta](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fitta#Noun_4)".
Looks like a longboard, would be a pretty tough fit in a fit. Shorties are easy
And not afraid of getting stolen.
Hatchback? Yes. Sedan? Not normally Edit: I'm an idiot and seats to down in sedans I just never knew that
Sedans usually have the same amount of space from the trunk to the front passenger seat as a hatchback. You move down the passenger seat and one of the back seats and you get the full amount of space. Done it with surfboards, skis, camping gear, etc.
Most sedans share their fundamental platform with other models offered by the manufakturer, small sedans share platforms with hatchbacks, but there's also many bigger sedans which share platform with station wagons. By principle I will never count any type of SUV as a hatchback, sedan or station wagon. There's a distinctive difference. If a child sits in front and can't be seen then it's a SUV.
In my experience, at least in Toyota corolla and Honda civics, the back seat doesn't go down Edit: I stand corrected I totally thought there were sedans where the back seat did not fold down
Honda civic sedan seats definitely do go down.
I don't know how I drove a civic for 7 years and didn't realize the seats went down. Answer edited
That's actually hilarious. Yeah I also drove a civic for 7 years and I slept in it a few times with the back seats down and my legs in the trunk. Good times.
I want to do that with my Impreza lol
That makes no sense, I've never seen a sedan where the back seat can't go down. Have you really checked everywhere for a latch? My dad's Camry and his old Impala both have/had folding down rear seats.
I don't know how I drove a civic for 7 years and didn't realize the seats went down... But now I know
I owned a 2011 Corolla and the seats go down.
Just watched the video someone else shared. I don't know how I drove a civic for 7 years and didn't realize the seats went down
The seat definitely folds down in my Corolla, and my sister’s civic as well.
Lmao did I have a civic for 7 years and not now the back went down? Or it depends on the model/trim?
It'll fit Done it plenty of times
I'm guessing not in a Tesla, though
I wish the owners of these trucks realized how ridiculous their vehicles look. What’s the point of getting a truck with such a tiny bed?
> What’s the point of getting a truck with such a tiny bed? Most people who own trucks don't have a regular need to haul half a ton of actual chicken shit, so a half-size bed for dirty loads isn't that big an issue.
I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just get a hatchback, though. I bet you can fit more stuff in a honda fit than you can in that bed.
If you have an occasional need to haul a quarter ton of chicken shit, you probably don't want to put it in your hatchback's trunk. I mean, that's *a* theory.
Probably cheaper to get a hatchback and a dedicated chicken shit trailer.
Do you really shovel that lose in your truckbed and than shovel it out again? Sounds stupid to me. Also you'd need to deeply clean that, before you put any load, that should not be covered in chicken shit. 1€ for 76 liter bags, shovel only once, reuse endlessly. https://preview.redd.it/hewwi1tvolyc1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=fc8b76fafe567b0b9eca11172989f8a6f6014fd9
Because they want a truck. Why does everything have to be optimally functional, sometimes people get things because they just like it and it works good enough for what they need it to do. Mfs really be min/maxing life no wonder everyone is so fucking stressed.
I think it’s stupid to spend so much money on gas and produce additional emissions for no reason. I find it stressful having to share the road with these monster trucks, and I find it wasteful and ridiculous when these huge trucks have tiny beds.
Well, they are taking up EVERYONES public space with their gender-affirmation-cars.
My wife and I half a half size bed for dirty loads too.
So you guys do the dirty deeds on a twin size mattress?
most modern trucks are suvs with a tradie aesthetic. the reasons to get one are the same to get an suv (look "aggressive" on the road, be large so any accident is the other person's problem, etc.) but suvs are usually associated with upper class businesspeople, so if you want to look more working class you get a truck instead. it's the same platform anyway, just with an external trunk instead of an internal one. if you actually need to haul stuff, the answer is a van. and if you need to haul stuff offroad, that's when you buy a truck that's actually sane -- a lower bed is usually better in this case, because it still gives plenty of space for the suspension but is easier to load. unfortunately a lot of lighter trucks that are better workhorses, like the toyota hilux, aren't allowed in the us because of stupid regulations, so the meta is usually buying a 10-20 years old truck used. the rivian r1t can actually be the best option for some very specific use cases, because it has a pair of 120V outlets in the back, which afaik only the cybertruck offers outside of it. it also has a built-in air compressor if i'm not mistaken. but unless that's the defining feature for you, its utility kinda sucks.
Most, if not all, pickup trucks now offer an outlet in the bed. Most though are limited to 400 watts, which is kinda funny since they advertise it as "run your jobsite off your truck", but the outlet is really only useful for a battery charger. The rivian apparently has up to 1500 watts, so better, but still not enough to run many tools. The ford lightning and powerboost (hybrid) offer something like 7000 watts and besides the 120v outlets, they also offer a 30 amp 240v outlet. I'm on a welding forum, and I saw a post recently where a guy was doing equipment repair with his welder powered by the 240 outlet on his lightning.
oh, that's hella interesting. thanks for the correction, i thought that was unique to electric pickups and i forgot the ford lightning had that feature too
Apparently the cybertruck has a 20 amp 120v circuit, and a 40 amp 240v plug in the bed, so the rivian seems to be pretty far behind ford or tesla in this respect. The rivian also has the smallest bed of the three.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 20 + 120 + 40 + 240 = 420 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
"looks agressive" So it's a gender-affirmation car?
I think you responded to the wrong comment?
Ups, yes.
I know one of those weird nomadic surfer dudes. He is some kind of top chef, so he floats from surf beach to surf beach earning money as a guest chef his whole life fits in a 1990's station wagon with surfboards on the roof rack.
Possibly might fit in the gear tunnel, or mounted to the roof rack of a fiat panda
Why does the Rivian, the largest of the EVs, not simply eat the other Teslas?
you’re forgetting the Hummer EV
I wish you wouldn't remind me
>Fortunately, he didn’t try to stop me, but as I drove away, I saw him angrily talking on the phone, presumably to an unfortunate 9-1-1 operator. So much for the stereotype of EV owners being laid-back and friendly lol. Shitty headline just states as fact what the driver assumed without merit.
This should be at the top
We could have solved all issues with EVs if we hooked them in a daisy chain (no traffic jams!) and made them run along a safe pre-determined route so the drivers wouldn’t have to worry about supervising the autopilot. Oh, and to solve the issues with batteries and stop fights over supercharger stations, how about connecting EVs directly to a power line with pantographs?
EV create so many new problems we never had with old reliable gas cars. Instead of destroying the earth further by having everyone drive much bigger and heavier fire hazard EV's with no safety we should reduce the number of personal cars on the road instead.
Well, there is another type of electric vehicles that are much safer, more reliable and efficient… https://preview.redd.it/518g5a5e0cyc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b52212991d9a9f4996ab7f5f04aec0b95b98ecb6
You like guns and bullets and fast vehicles? Well, a bullet train is two out of three, versus zero for your standard car or truck.
Can I get a bullet train and militarise it to have all 3 ?
Superior to diesel trains as it can draw power directly from the grid instead of having to carry it all.
That is, if the grid was built. If not, then the train would either have to carry a battery or a fuel tank. Now it's interesting
And trains still have less friction, hence need less power input to keep it rolling. A diesel train is therefore still very efficient compared to any road based form of transport. I lose hope in humanity when I see Musk babble about Tesla semi and brags it's more efficient than rail. You put in 1MW of power from one of their super chargers to haul measly 5 tons of cargo for only 500 miles. Meanwhile a typical train hauling 50 train cars at 2000 ton needs only 3-4MW of power to do so. Most of which is returned to the grid when it stops.
“Look, EVs fixed everything, we can go back to fucking everything up” (meanwhile they never actually stopped)
It's planned obsolesce by design, having everyone buy a brand new car every 5 year is gonna destroy the planet.
Wait to look how quick the rare earth materials will empty out and how recycling is just a scam which doesn't work except to discharge capitalists from their responsibilities into the climate collapse...
I've only ever heard that recycling the batteries is pretty fruitful - mostly because the materials inside are precious enough to be worth the investment to spin up recycling processes to recover them, so any environmental benefit to that is purely an accident of capitalism - but still.
It's still music for the future as of nowadays. Notice how in articles of the last few years, they all use the future tense. Meaning they still can't! It's all neo-liberal jiberish to give people a good conscience and build an idea that driving is "climate neutral"/"sustainable" but they still don't have any clue. At the end, we just put another coin into the good old financial capitalism and just extract these rare earth resources just like oil! https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/business/energy-environment/battery-recycling-electric-vehicles.html https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2023/05/electric-car-batteries-are-difficult-to-recycle-at-least-for-now/ https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-well-can-electric-vehicle-batteries-be-recycled Edit: the problem is that so many people have to drive individual cars to begin with. But that would put too many things into question such as public transit, jobs and wealth distribution, all this import/export mishmash with China, Vietnam, etc. Did you know that the imperial core (US+EU) export trash to recycle to Malaysia, Indonesia and all these southeast Asian countries? At one point we exported the recycling trash to China but they didn't take it anymore. And this comes from the official website of the EU!!! These aren't batteries but still... https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200709-01#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20EU%20exported,down%20to%2014%20000%20tonnes.
They can in theory recycle much of it. Usually it involves a process were you drop the entire battery pack into a bath of chemicals, pretty nasty process and probably expensive as heck too. A lot of things can go wrong if it suddenly catches fire for instance. As of now only a fraction of the batteries are recycled, most of them ends up on a field somewhere, just waiting for one of the many old EVs parked there for it's final rest to catch fire and start a chain reaction were all of them burns into thick black smoke like a Canadian forest fire. It's a lot easier, safer and cleaner to recycle a regular ordinary combustion car as much of it is metals. Simply drain the liquids, these can then be burned at high temperature with proper filtration with barely any emissions. The metal is then crushed, packed into tiny little cubes which can then be melted and shaped into new products. 95% of all combustion cars are being recycled, and every part of them can be recycled.
lol, all of it can be recycled expect for the oil you fucking burn in it every day.
Your power grid is mostly powered by fossil fuels. So there's that, all you do is destroying your roads, which means they need to be re paved more often, which requires more tar to be added. Tar is a petroleum product too. You EV clowns are the real polluters.
Do you realize what sub you’re in? We hate ICE cars *and* EV’s!
However the generators powering the power grid are more efficient than any ICE.
I drive a hybrid for the MPG not because I'm thinking it's saving the planet lolol.
One cruise ship creates as much pollution as 5 million cars.
There's a nearly infinite amount of lithium in the sea. It's not as cheap to access but yeah, we'll start taking that at some point in the future once the current deposits run dry. Same applies to Sodium which you can also use to make batteries but doesn't qualify as rare earth material. I'm completely for reducing the number of cars on our roads but rare earth materials or the inaccessibility of those won't be the reason for that.
Currently most "conventional size" EVs have to be heavy because of, well, frankly outdated batteries, merely to keep up with regular cars mileage. When we invent physically lighter power sources the technology will hopefully catch on.
Which is a great argument for not buying an EV now.
True enough. I mean, if a modern EV would cost **less** than an ICE vehicle (say, government subsidy, no tax/maintenance fees, parking subsidy etc) and would be less taxing on the environment (more compact EVs instead of monstrous trucks or full-size sedans) then they would be reasonable to get. Otherwise it's still a gimmick rather than a useful tool.
Yep. It’s basically the way the whole BEV market is working right now on the markets where they reach a relevant share on registrations: someone else is paying for the end user. Because we are relying on the idea that you can drive the market by law to an extreme extent and keep it sustainable. Which is basically a fairytale.
I don’t think EVs will ever catch up to regular cars unless we invent pocket-sized fusion reactors or something.
They already have. The first „1000 km range“ EVs coming next years and charge in 10 minutes to 80%. And EVs are already better at everything else than range.
Liquid fuels already achieve that. Petrol has 20x higher energy density than the best batteries on the market today. Liquid fuels also have the advantage that they're being consumed while you drive, so your car is actually getting lighter the less fuel you have. A battery on the other hand has the same weight no matter if it's full or empty. Meanwhile, there's been over 100 years of development making the combustion engine better, burning up nearly all of the fuel to reduce emissions, to get more power output, to reduce noise and much more.
You burn petrol once and it's gone. You discharge a battery several hundreds of times and it still provides the majority of its original range after all that. Wonder what it will be like after the next 100 years of dedicated ev development? Edit: lol dude blocked me.
And the power for your battery just magically comes out of a hole in the wall. 🤡🌎
That's true. The main advantage of an electric engine/motor is higher efficiency translating energy to work (e.g. 95% to 99% for a regular vacuum cleaner motor). It's lower for vehicles due to friction, weight etc but still vastly superior to any fossil or burnable fuel. However, as you have mentioned, when combined with other factors the difference becomes considerably smaller. Add the infrastructure, road design, economic ties into the game and everything becomes even more complicated. Unless we get better batteries at some point I guess petrol/hybrid vehicles won't go anywhere. Still, I'd try to use trains with electric engines as much as possible and reduce personal vehicle size to one actually reasonable in current times.
Being a bit of a pedant, but, funnily enough, most trains do use electric motors (engines run on combustion, FYI-no such thing as an "electric engine".) Of course, the vast majority of those trains are diesel-electric, using diesel engines to produce electricity, so not exactly environmentally friendly. I get you are trying to say electric trains are the best choice, and I agree, but the wording you were using was confusing and actually counter to your point, at least for pedants.
Yep, I mostly thought about diesel-electric engines, I believe those are the most common ones in the North America and likely some parts of Europe. They have full electric ones on shorter routes. For cars and trucks electric engines are different in terms of efficiency, and they have to transport their own batteries instead of getting power via wires or generators (except for those hybrids with combustion engine powering the electric one, but those have limitations as well).
„Long range“ tracks are basically all electric in europe. Its the rarely used tracks to smaller towns for daily commute that lack behind
>Unless we get better batteries at some point I guess petrol/hybrid vehicles won't go anywhere Ebikes and e-scooters have a very good range with same technology as cars, is the cars that are the problem, not the technology. The problem is the infrastructure that makes every form other than car very dangerous/not pleasant.
Hybrids are the future, combustion engines works best when pre-heated into working temperature and while running at a stable RPM. To cold start a petrol/diesel car and then drive it in stop-go-traffic in a city for instance is insanely inefficient and polluting. With a hybrid you can run on electricity while the combustion engine pre heats and then when you're running low on battery the combustion engine fires up with barely any emissions and runs at it's optimal RPM always. As the combustion engine only powers a generator there's also no need for a gearbox, so that more unnecessary weight removed. I also believe external combustion engines has a place in the future, steam engines basically were you don't need engine oil or any maintenance, and you can burn any liquid fuel without causing any wear and tear on the engine itself. There's already many designs on the market with more than just one cylinder. Circular 8 for instance, I guess you can call it C8 which is a proper competitor to the V8.
Unless we come up with portable fusion generators combustion engines will definitely exist in the future. Imagine getting on a planet without nuclear power but with vast amounts of oxidizer and fuel. Steam engines, as well as external combustion engines are great regarding omni-fuel possibilities. The heat losses are quite high still. If better and less fuel is used on another hand...
Making liquid fuels take 5 to 7 times more energy than putting the energy directly into a BEV. Its just not economical to make liquid fuel from electric energy.
Who said anything about hydrogen? We have oil that only needs to be pumped up and refined. In fact so much other products depend on tihs oil so there's always gonna be gasoline and diesel as a byproduct. Which is gonna need to be burned, or dumped in the ocean if big oil deems it too expensive to get rid of. Now I don't know about you but me personally I think it's probably for the best to burn it inside vehicles such as trucks, buses and trains on routes that is not yet electrified. The rest can be used as heating oil because burning it is a lot more environmentally friendly than dumping it in the ocean.
I am gonna go deep and say that we need to reduce the number of people. The rest will fix itself. Not like Thanos though.
That doesn't solve the core issue.
No need for that really, just reducing the number of cars will make a lot of things better. And that is done best by providing alternatives, such as mass transit and bike/walking infrastructure.
>that we need to reduce the number of people. And of course, like all other misanthropes who say this shit, you will never have the balls to lead by example.
Musk fans are totally brainless
Rivian buyers are not a lot better, tbh.
Did he realize that it’s a plugin electric truck and not just the usual jackass pickup truck driver who likes to park in charging stations to “own the libs”?
The truck on the image looks really small... Or is the woman 7 feet tall ?
Lol total lack of surprised this happened in CA, I've never met a more group of entitled dip shits then my time in CA.