# Cars of tomorrow



## KenOC

I think things are about to change in a big way. Here’s what I see.

Most people won’t own cars. When you want one, you call up a driverless vehicle with your cell phone or whatever people are using then. A car comes and gets you and asks you where you’re going. You tell it and it takes you there. Then your car drives off to pick up somebody else. When you want to go home, you just do the same thing. Charges will be automatically applied to your credit or debit card (or equivalent).

So you won’t own a car, you’ll have no garage, and you won’t make payments or buy insurance or gas or repairs. It’ll all be in the per-mile charge of vehicles that are intensively used in between scheduled services and other needed repairs. You’ll be recorded on video in the car, of course, so charges can be made for any damage or vandalism. Repeat violators will be banned from the service.

A huge amount of real estate will be freed up because large parking lots will no longer be needed (think about that). Accident and auto death rates will drop precipitously. The only people owning cars will be the very rich, people needing to get down bad roads where the autonomous cars won’t go in order to use the service, and auto aficionados.

Anyway, that’s what I see, and it should be well underway within 20 years at the outside. Driverless taxis are already being trialed in Singapore and, within a week or two, in Philadelphia. It just makes too much sense.

Or so I think. What about you? Agree? Disagree? Or do you see a different future entirely?


----------



## Folsom

No. 

Are you a trekkie?


----------



## Pugg

Folsom said:


> No.
> 
> Are you a trekkie?


Who's asking? ..................


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Pugg said:


> Who's asking? ..................


Do you have connections?


----------



## Taggart

What happens when you want to go on holiday to a remote part of the country? You would want to take the scenic routes and need a car to go shopping and so forth. If the nearest town is 20 miles away over poorish roads do you want to wait maybe 40 minutes to get a car?

I presume nobody will go shopping and need a car available to put the purchases in between shops.

OK it may work in urban areas with "good" roads. I've been in parts of Ireland where a good road has the grass in the middle cut below 6 inches.

It works for simple journeys and commuting but not for a lot of uses where you want a car immediately and you want it on hand to store things.


----------



## Dim7




----------



## Dr Johnson

As long as driverless cars are optional I suppose they might not be too bad an idea, although if I was, say, a taxi driver, I might not be too thrilled at the idea.

I intend to keep driving (and owning) a car for as long as I am physically and mentally safe to drive. Anyone attempting to take my car keys away from me before then will have to prise them from "my cold, dead hand".


----------



## Wood

It is a great prospect. Little shuttle cars can join big devices to take you efficiently down motorways. 

The best thing of all is that vulnerable road users will not be subjected to aggressive and incompetent motorists any longer. 

I love the idea of not needing to drive. Of course, we already have the technology to provide a decent public transport service. The power of the major car manufacturers to stop this thing from happening is huge. 

The majority of people I know have their car as an extremely visible status symbol. Not everyone can see how many bathrooms they have in their house. Perhaps the biggest problem is how to deal with this status need. I suggest a huge inflatable phallus which comes stuck to the roof of the hired driverless car, with the hirer's name on it in big letters. Payment by the cubic meter. 

Let us hope that the OS for these cars isn't provided by Microsoft.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Really good for those who like to text (read, file their nails, etc.) and drive. In fact, it could be the punishment for such offences. I do think that we will have a problem if 35,000 people are leaving a major sporting event and all call for autonomous cars at once. Also, Americans at least, do not like to wait. They want to go somewhere, they want to go instantly. Nope, I think the better solution is cars that fold into a suitcase so you can carry them with you at all times and not have to be burdened with parking. Just think, if you are in a traffic jam, just fold your car up and carry it out of the jam.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Wood said:


> It is a great prospect. Little shuttle cars can join big devices to take you efficiently down motorways.
> 
> The best thing of all is that vulnerable road users will not be subjected to aggressive and incompetent motorists any longer.
> 
> I love the idea of not needing to drive. Of course, we already have the technology to provide a decent public transport service. The power of the major car manufacturers to stop this thing from happening is huge.
> 
> The majority of people I know have their car as an extremely visible status symbol. Not everyone can see how many bathrooms they have in their house. Perhaps the biggest problem is how to deal with this status need. I suggest a huge inflatable phallus which comes stuck to the roof of the hired driverless car, with the hirer's name on it in big letters. Payment by the cubic meter.
> 
> Let us hope that the OS for these cars isn't provided by Microsoft.


What about people with many bathrooms but no car?

Could they have several huge inflatable phalli stuck to the roof of their house?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Wood said:


> The best thing of all is that vulnerable road users will not be subjected to aggressive and incompetent motorists any longer.
> 
> Let us hope that the OS for these cars isn't provided by Microsoft.


That's the problem. With MS, vulnerable road users will be subjected to an aggressive and incompetent software company.


----------



## senza sordino

KenOC said:


> I think things are about to change in a big way. Here's what I see.
> 
> Most people won't own cars. When you want one, you call up a driverless vehicle with your cell phone or whatever people are using then. A car comes and gets you and asks you where you're going. You tell it and it takes you there. Then your car drives off to pick up somebody else. When you want to go home, you just do the same thing. Charges will be automatically applied to your credit or debit card (or equivalent).
> 
> So you won't own a car, you'll have no garage, and you won't make payments or buy insurance or gas or repairs. It'll all be in the per-mile charge of vehicles that are intensively used in between scheduled services and other needed repairs. You'll be recorded on video in the car, of course, so charges can be made for any damage or vandalism. Repeat violators will be banned from the service.
> 
> A huge amount of real estate will be freed up because large parking lots will no longer be needed (think about that). Accident and auto death rates will drop precipitously. The only people owning cars will be the very rich, people needing to get down bad roads where the autonomous cars won't go in order to use the service, and auto aficionados.
> 
> Anyway, that's what I see, and it should be well underway within 20 years at the outside. Driverless taxis are already being trialed in Singapore and, within a week or two, in Philadelphia. It just makes too much sense.
> 
> Or so I think. What about you? Agree? Disagree? Or do you see a different future entirely?


I don't own a car now. I use public transportation, I use a car share program, I walk or cycle to work. Yes, I live in an urban area. I generally agree with your premise. There are many factors at work for why this could happen, though it is generally an optimistic view of the future, what I call a Star Trek or Jetsons view.



Taggart said:


> What happens when you want to go on holiday to a remote part of the country? You would want to take the scenic routes and need a car to go shopping and so forth. If the nearest town is 20 miles away over poorish roads do you want to wait maybe 40 minutes to get a car?
> 
> I presume nobody will go shopping and need a car available to put the purchases in between shops.
> 
> OK it may work in urban areas with "good" roads. I've been in parts of Ireland where a good road has the grass in the middle cut below 6 inches.
> 
> It works for simple journeys and commuting but not for a lot of uses where you want a car immediately and you want it on hand to store things.


I have my groceries delivered. Amazon is changing how people shop. I can't answer the question about going to remote places by car, but I think, and no disrespect is intended, you're thinking like you're still in the 20th century. Yes, people live in rural areas but the general trend world wide is to live in urban areas. This changing demographic will force everyone to change. These technologies are already making changes in how people live.

I still think there will be vehicles powered by fossil fuels long into the future, but these will be limited to use for emergency vehicles, and airplanes and maybe delivery trucks etc, but less and less for private use.

But another trend I see world wide is the growing divide between rich and poor. Perhaps in the future only rich people will own private cars, and the middle class and poor will be taking public transportation.



Wood said:


> It is a great prospect. Little shuttle cars can join big devices to take you efficiently down motorways.
> 
> The best thing of all is that vulnerable road users will not be subjected to aggressive and incompetent motorists any longer.
> 
> I love the idea of not needing to drive. Of course, we already have the technology to provide a decent public transport service. The power of the major car manufacturers to stop this thing from happening is huge.
> 
> The majority of people I know have their car as an extremely visible status symbol. Not everyone can see how many bathrooms they have in their house. Perhaps the biggest problem is how to deal with this status need. I suggest a huge inflatable phallus which comes stuck to the roof of the hired driverless car, with the hirer's name on it in big letters. Payment by the cubic meter.
> 
> Let us hope that the OS for these cars isn't provided by Microsoft.


Yes, roads could be safer if only professional drivers and autonomous cars are on the roads.



Florestan said:


> Really good for those who like to text (read, file their nails, etc.) and drive. In fact, it could be the punishment for such offences. I do think that we will have a problem if 35,000 people are leaving a major sporting event and all call for autonomous cars at once. Also, Americans at least, do not like to wait. They want to go somewhere, they want to go instantly. Nope, I think the better solution is cars that fold into a suitcase so you can carry them with you at all times and not have to be burdened with parking. Just think, if you are in a traffic jam, just fold your car up and carry it out of the jam.


Public transportation, trains, buses solve the problem now of getting tens of thousands of people to and from sporting events. No one likes to wait, and for each bus transfer people have to make you lose half your ridership. Public transportation has to be good for this to work. It won't happen overnight. But throughout history people have had to cope with change, they will again.


----------



## Figleaf

Dr Johnson said:


> What about people with many bathrooms but no car?
> 
> Could they have several huge inflatable phalli stuck to the roof of their house?


Weird, I was just looking at the side of my house wondering why there were so many chimney stacks (4) and why they are all so huge.


----------



## KenOC

Taggart said:


> What happens when you want to go on holiday to a remote part of the country? You would want to take the scenic routes and need a car to go shopping and so forth. If the nearest town is 20 miles away over poorish roads do you want to wait maybe 40 minutes to get a car?
> 
> I presume nobody will go shopping and need a car available to put the purchases in between shops.
> 
> OK it may work in urban areas with "good" roads. I've been in parts of Ireland where a good road has the grass in the middle cut below 6 inches.
> 
> It works for simple journeys and commuting but not for a lot of uses where you want a car immediately and you want it on hand to store things.


You can, of course, order up a car or a van or even an RV, reserved for your exclusive use for any amount of time, if you're willing to pay the bill.

You can even order a non-autonomous vehicle, or own your own, so long as you have insurance and a valid driver's license. Insurance will be quite pricy, given the far higher incidence of accidents among driver-driven vehicles, and licenses will be hard to get through an ever more bureaucratic process.

So basically you lose no options, merely the affordability of some of them. With every great change, things are gained and things are lost.


----------



## SixFootScowl

senza sordino said:


> Public transportation, trains, buses solve the problem now of getting tens of thousands of people to and from sporting events. No one likes to wait, and for each bus transfer people have to make you lose half your ridership. Public transportation has to be good for this to work. It won't happen overnight. But throughout history people have had to cope with change, they will again.


If it is happening in the USA, it is not happening to any significant extend in Detroit. There are a lot of people who take the bus to their jobs in Detroit. But there are huge traffic jams to and from the ball game. Part of the problem is that the greater Detroit area has had huge amounts of development in suburban areas and still has about the same road capacities of about 30 years ago.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> If it is happening in the USA, it is not happening to any significant extend in Detroit. There are a lot of people who take the bus to their jobs in Detroit. But there are huge traffic jams to and from the ball game. Part of the problem is that the greater Detroit area has had huge amounts of development in suburban areas and still has about the same road capacities of about 30 years ago.


Vehicles will stage themselves outside major events like ball games and so forth. When the event is over, they'll pick people up in any of several locations, each with several lanes. Because the vehicles will be coordinated by a central computer, there will be no traffic jams and the crowds will by moved more efficiently (and overall more quickly) than is the case now.

Of course people being people, queue control may be an issue!


----------



## mmsbls

Autonomous cars (and trucks) are on the road today at various levels. Some trucks are fully autonomous (e.g. mining vehicles). Autonomous cars exist, but there's still the assumption that the driver will be able to take control if necessary. Researchers are definitely assuming that these vehicles might play a significant role on roads in the next 10-30 years. Eventually autonomous vehicles will likely be much safer than human drivers, and intelligent transportation systems could make travel faster and smoother by reducing congestion. 

Autonomous vehicles have reduced driver interactions with the vehicles (either partially or fully autonomous as in completely driverless). Those vehicles could be owned or part of a network of vehicles that are essentially rented. One possible negative result of large numbers of rented autonomous vehicles is the potential for increased emissions. With vehicles driving around before and after picking up passengers (i.e. not parking) the engines (or fuel) will continue to produce both smog type emissions and greenhouse gases. That could be problematic. A nice potential advantage is the reduction of costly parking lots.


----------



## Vaneyes

I still enjoy driving internal combustion engine cars in rural environs. Big cities are crazy to drive in, so I then use public transit.

I have no thoughts for the future, except each day's playlist. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> One possible negative result of large numbers of rented autonomous vehicles is the potential for increased emissions. With vehicles driving around before and after picking up passengers (i.e. not parking) the engines (or fuel) will continue to produce both smog type emissions and greenhouse gases. That could be problematic.


True, though there might be environmental advantages as well. Metering cars onto the freeway should reduce traffic jams and the pollution caused by thousands of cars idling for several hours every day. Similarly, a reduction in freeway accidents should have the same effect.

Driverless hired cars should also make carpooling far easier, even done on a totally ad hoc basis. The car itself could apportion the charges based on the total number of passengers and miles driven with each. It would be totally automatic. This alone would have a major impact on total car-miles, especially in urban areas.


----------



## senza sordino

Florestan said:


> If it is happening in the USA, it is not happening to any significant extend in Detroit. There are a lot of people who take the bus to their jobs in Detroit. But there are huge traffic jams to and from the ball game. Part of the problem is that the greater Detroit area has had huge amounts of development in suburban areas and still has about the same road capacities of about 30 years ago.


KenOC has far better responses than I. I will make the observation that you're right. This march into the future with autonomous cars will not be fair, equal and uniform throughout the world. It won't happen in all places at the same time. Some cities will be left behind, and some will march into the future.


----------



## KenOC

In the USA, there are areas where you can still drive a horse and buggy on public roads. Best stay off the freeway though. :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl

senza sordino said:


> KenOC has far better responses than I. I will make the observation that you're right. This march into the future with autonomous cars will not be fair, equal and uniform throughout the world. It won't happen in all places at the same time. Some cities will be left behind, and some will march into the future.


In the USA it is California that always rushes ahead on crazy ideas. They are embracing autonomous cars probably more than any other state.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> In the USA, there are areas where you can still drive a horse and buggy on public roads. Best stay off the freeway though. :lol:


That dude ain't going to ride in any autonomous car, or any car for that matter, not even a Model T.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> In the USA it is California that always rushes ahead on crazy ideas. They are embracing autonomous cars probably more than any other state.


 Actually the first driverless taxis are being trialed in Pittsburgh, starting right about now. They will be dispatched randomly by Uber, and if you get one, the ride is free. But there'll be two people up front, hands-off, just in case. One to grab the controls if necessary, the other to observe and take notes. Vehicles by Volvo.


----------



## Merl

According to a well-known film from the 1980s we will all be using hoverboards to get around. I want a hover-lilo, so I can lie down and read a book at the same time.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I want the transporter from Star Trek so I can go hiking in the Utah Canyonlands after work from Michigan.


----------



## KenOC

A BBC article says the biggest problem with driverless taxis may be the passengers.

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160829-driverless-taxis-human-problem


----------



## Totenfeier

I've given up on asking where my damn flying car is, but I'm still asking where my damn longer-lower-wider nuclear jet-fighter car with a Plexiglas bubble top is.


----------



## Gordontrek

Check this out





The allure of eliminating log-jammed traffic and not having to worry about traffic being slowed down by EVERYONE going EVERYWHERE YOU go at EXACTLY the same time is mighty enticing, but we're probably going to have to put up with it for all our lives.


----------



## KenOC

Gordontrek said:


> The allure of eliminating log-jammed traffic and not having to worry about traffic being slowed down by EVERYONE going EVERYWHERE YOU go at EXACTLY the same time is mighty enticing, but we're probably going to have to put up with it for all our lives.


Not necessarily. The "autonomous" vehicle, driving under the control of its own brain, is an intermediate and probably short-term step. Vehicles will quickly come under the control of a master traffic computer, which will manage each vehicle in coordination with all other vehicles on the road. Barring malfunctions, cars will be able to travel freeways at high speeds with only a foot or two of separation, vastly increasing road capacity. Traffic lanes will be added or taken away in both directions based on traffic demand throughout the day. There will be no traffic lights or stop signs or other signage cluttering up our roadways. Even lane markings will go away. None of that will be needed.

Think about cross streets: No reason to stop, though you may slow down slightly to get the timing right to slip between cars coming and going from the right and left. Better hope the programmers are good!

Such cars can't be hacked because they're not using their own computing capacity. And there will be no option at all for manual operation - no steering wheels or other controls - for obvious reasons. This has already been proposed by Google engineers. If there _are _manual controls, they'll be locked out until the vehicle is in an area unserved by the traffic computer and autonomous operation with the car's own brain is judged dangerous.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

My new car, I like the modern styling................


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> My new car, I like the modern styling................
> 
> View attachment 88589


My kind of car--older model. Hopefully you got that with a manual transmission too.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Florestan said:


> My kind of car--older model. Hopefully you got that with a manual transmission too.


yep 1725cc with 4 speed manual


----------



## Couchie

By the time we have technology sufficiently advanced to fully automate driving it is likely that we have fully automated most of the workforce. We won't have jobs to go to, and goods will all be delivered right to our door by drones. Where are you going exactly that you need a car for? If we are still driving its probably for pleasure, and won't be automated. People don't buy BMWs jacked up with tons of horsepower because they like sitting in the passenger seat.


----------



## Belowpar

Couchie said:


> By the time we have technology sufficiently advanced to fully automate driving it is likely that we have fully automated most of the workforce. We won't have jobs to go to, and goods will all be delivered right to our door by drones. Where are you going exactly that you need a car for? If we are still driving its probably for pleasure, and won't be automated. People don't buy BMWs jacked up with tons of horsepower because they like sitting in the passenger seat.


It is hard to underestimate the changes that are coming.

Re those who want to keep their own car.

The "Google" car will be small and electric. Once they get 15% of the market, petrol stations will start to dissapear fast. By 25%, market share, say goodbye to repair shops (electric vehicles have minimal service needs and smaller cars are easier on tyres and brakes. Taxi drivers are altready Dinosaurs. Cities will look at the small polution free cars and ban old smelly ones. Owning your own car will be the ultimate luxury/status symbol and it will also be electric. Remote locations will be covered it will just cost a lot more unless governments intervene, like they have for broadband.

...and thats just what I've read. I wouldn't want shares in an exisitng car co. They are all spending a fortune on this and I believe the new entrants wil wipe the floor with them. "Society" will change more in the next 25 years than it has in the last 50.

I do like the idea of lots of small vehicles hooking up on motorways though.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Going to be fun watching the autonomous cars deal with this, 
which is common in parts of the USA:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Florestan said:


> Going to be fun watching the autonomous cars deal with this,
> which is common in parts of the USA:


A goggle car in Austin Texas had a problem with a guy on a bike:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-bikes-can-confuse-googles-self-driving-cars/


----------



## KenOC

New Tesla upgrades:

Overhead signs or bridges can also be misinterpreted if the road dips. To combat this, Tesla cars are going to be used to “learn” about the road. 

"Initially, the vehicle fleet will take no action except to note the position of road signs, bridges and other stationary objects, mapping the world according to radar,” Mr Musk wrote. 

"The car computer will then silently compare when it would have braked to the driver action and upload that to the Tesla database. 

"If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist.”


----------



## KenOC

Uber driverless taxis are now operating on the streets in Pittsburgh. Not much news, but there are no reports of mass carnage.


----------



## cwarchc

The short to medium future of cars is:
Electric power, this has already reached 1% of new car sales and is on the increase.
This will rise as battery technology improves. There is an electric powered truck on test with Mercedes now.
There is hybrid powered public transport in many cities.
Hydrogen cell power is also an option, with Honda supplying cars already
ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) are making great inroads into making autonomous cars a reality.
Insurance companies love the idea. 
Almost all accidents are caused by the driver.
Personal car ownership will decline, not for a few years, but it will.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Would you mind marching into your future without me? 

And seriously, the biggest problem I see with it is the loss of any sort of knowledge of how to navigate your way around in physical space and the advancement of whole-scale "geographical cretinism". At present if you are going somewhere, you have to have at least some basic skills of finding your way around - where to turn and which highway to go on. Even if you are using public transportation, you still have to plan your trip. What it's going to be like - you type in "Washington Street" in the car computer... wonder why the trip is taking so long... wake up on Washington Street, Los Angeles instead of Washington Street, New York.. and so on. Pretty soon even the knowledge of telling your right hand from your left hand will become obsolete - just the same way as many people are already not capable of doing even the simplest maths after the advance of calculators. 

And man will become yet a step more mentally weak, helpless and dependent on electronic gadgets. It's a future described by G. H. Wells, and it is truly frightening.


----------



## Wood

Belowpar said:


> It is hard to underestimate the changes that are coming.
> 
> Re those who want to keep their own car.
> 
> The "Google" car will be small and electric. Once they get 15% of the market, petrol stations will start to dissapear fast. By 25%, market share, say goodbye to repair shops (electric vehicles have minimal service needs and smaller cars are easier on tyres and brakes. Taxi drivers are altready Dinosaurs. Cities will look at the small polution free cars and ban old smelly ones. Owning your own car will be the ultimate luxury/status symbol and it will also be electric. Remote locations will be covered it will just cost a lot more unless governments intervene, like they have for broadband.
> 
> ...and thats just what I've read. I wouldn't want shares in an exisitng car co. They are all spending a fortune on this and I believe the new entrants wil wipe the floor with them. "Society" will change more in the next 25 years than it has in the last 50.
> 
> I do like the idea of lots of small vehicles hooking up on motorways though.


Is electricity not less fossil fuel efficient than petrol and diesel? If so, how will we generate all of the power required for motoring? From nuclear power stations?


----------



## KenOC

SiegendesLicht said:


> ...And man will become yet a step more mentally weak, helpless and dependent on electronic gadgets. It's a future described by G. H. Wells, and it is truly frightening.


As we move to driving self-propelled machines, we will lose the ability to properly care for our horses, to inspect and adjust the gear and tack, even to repair our buggies and carriages. We will be at the mercy of "mechanics," likely to be a rapacious lot. I certainly can't see this as a step forward!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Eventually we can all just be brains in jars electronically connected to our computers with a mad scientist to add nutrients to our jar liquid periodically and to ensure the correct temperature, etc.


----------



## KenOC

Just like in the movie, there'll no reason to go to San Francisco to visit Aunt Hilda. We'll simply order up the memories of having done so. She'll cook the food we like (for a change), and Uncle Fred won't drink too much (for a change) and start going on about his black helicopters. Certainly it'll be the best kind of family visit!


----------



## mmsbls

Wood said:


> Is electricity not less fossil fuel efficient than petrol and diesel? If so, how will we generate all of the power required for motoring? From nuclear power stations?


It depends on exactly what comparison you're trying to make. In general, electricity produced by modern combined cycle plants (e.g. natural gas) and used in new electric vehicles is significantly more efficient than gasoline (or even diesel) used to power a car. The efficiency increase could be 50-80% or even more. One big difference comes from the efficiency advantage of burning the fuel in power plants at steady state conditions (peak efficiency) rather than in a wide range of lower efficiency engine states (idle, low power, high acceleration, etc.) in cars. In addition power plants can convert the waste heat to electricity (combined cycle) to substantially increase the overall electrical efficiency while cars cannot.

Transportation research generally assumes that future electricity (~2050-2070) will come primarily or completely from renewable sources such as wind or solar power. Without renewable sources greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reduced significantly. Nuclear would be an option as well, but nuclear power has other issues that reduce it's attractiveness.


----------



## KenOC

In many places, electricity has a substantial component of hydro-electric power, currently the world’s largest source of renewable energy. It provides 15% of electricity worldwide, and far higher in places like Canada, where it provides 60%. So far as air quality goes, the use of hydropower is ecologically superior to even the most efficient use of fossil fuels (although hydropower may present other kinds of problems).


----------



## senza sordino

Here in British Columbia, hydro electric power accounts for nearly 100% of our electricity production. But where have all the salmon gone? 

Where we replace one technology with another we just shift our environmental problems to something else. Earth Overshoot Day arrives one or two days earlier each year.


----------



## mmsbls

senza sordino said:


> Where we replace one technology with another we just shift our environmental problems to something else.


For those of us working on these problems, the goal is to find technologies that balance increased standard of living (including economic inputs) with the reduction of environmental problems. There are tradeoffs, but we try to find solutions that minimize the negatives. I know people who focus on behavioral solutions (e.g. vast reductions in vehicle miles traveled - telecommuting, city planning, public transit), but progress in these areas seems enormously difficult compared to technological solutions. One area where behavior has changed enormously over the past 40 years or so is recycling, but that problem appears easy compared with transportation.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

mmsbls said:


> For those of us working on these problems, the goal is to find technologies that balance increased standard of living (including economic inputs) with the reduction of environmental problems. There are tradeoffs, but we try to find solutions that minimize the negatives. I know people who focus on behavioral solutions (e.g. vast reductions in vehicle miles traveled - telecommuting, city planning, public transit), but progress in these areas seems enormously difficult compared to technological solutions. One area where behavior has changed enormously over the past 40 years or so is recycling, but that problem appears easy compared with transportation.


Can we recycle the Planners, that's gotta stop some of the greenhouse gas and use their hot air for some beneficial purpose....

PS - Planners are the Arch enemy of the Engineer, almost as bad as the Architect's- now there is another recycling idea, stop a lot of paper (and colouring pencil), wastage!


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Can we recycle the Planners, that's gotta stop some of the greenhouse gas and use their hot air for some beneficial purpose....
> 
> PS - Planners are the Arch enemy of the Engineer, almost as bad as the Architect's- now there is another recycling idea, stop a lot of paper (and colouring pencil), wastage!


Don't forget the landscape architects. They have no sense of practicality in use as they draw up grandiose landscape plans that become great aggravations to future users who do not want winding roads where the topography does not require it.


----------



## starthrower

It's a good thing people won't need to buy cars and pay for insurance in the future. Especially in California. Those folks will need the extra money when water costs 10 dollars a gallon.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ They'll have to do home base water recycling, closed loop style/ total reuse, a bit like total recall ..................


----------



## Wood

mmsbls said:


> It depends on exactly what comparison you're trying to make. In general, electricity produced by modern combined cycle plants (e.g. natural gas) and used in new electric vehicles is significantly more efficient than gasoline (or even diesel) used to power a car. The efficiency increase could be 50-80% or even more. One big difference comes from the efficiency advantage of burning the fuel in power plants at steady state conditions (peak efficiency) rather than in a wide range of lower efficiency engine states (idle, low power, high acceleration, etc.) in cars. In addition power plants can convert the waste heat to electricity (combined cycle) to substantially increase the overall electrical efficiency while cars cannot.
> 
> Transportation research generally assumes that future electricity (~2050-2070) will come primarily or completely from renewable sources such as wind or solar power. Without renewable sources greenhouse gas emissions cannot be reduced significantly. Nuclear would be an option as well, but nuclear power has other issues that reduce it's attractiveness.


I see, that is interesting. I also understand that a substantial proportion of electricity is lost between the generating plant and the consumer. Is this correct, and if so, does your figure of 50% account for it?

It may be my lack of imagination but I find it hard to believe that renewable resources can replace fossil fuels without a monumental behavioural change amongst consumers.

If we use huge amounts of solar, water and wind energy to retain our current lifestyles, or something approximating it, I would imagine that there would be considerable changes to the environment. Is this a genuine concern, or is the amount of natural energy that we could take from the environment so tiny compared to what is produced that there will be few noticeable effects?

It is an interesting area, though I am quite uninformed at present. My gut feeling is that technological change will play a vital part but there will be an inevitable requirement for standards of living, in the economic sense, to be radically reduced for environmental stability. I don't believe that this is likely to occur.


----------



## mmsbls

Wood said:


> I see, that is interesting. I also understand that a substantial proportion of electricity is lost between the generating plant and the consumer. Is this correct, and if so, does your figure of 50% account for it?


Depending on the design of the power plant roughly 50% of the fossil fuel energy is lost. Combined cycle plants can be up to 60% efficient in producing electricity. Future plants could utilize fuel cells which reach efficiencies of greater than 60% and some projections give combined cycle efficiencies of greater than 90%. The distribution losses are actually rather modest (~5-10%).



Wood said:


> It may be my lack of imagination but I find it hard to believe that renewable resources can replace fossil fuels without a monumental behavioural change amongst consumers.
> 
> If we use huge amounts of solar, water and wind energy to retain our current lifestyles, or something approximating it, I would imagine that there would be considerable changes to the environment. Is this a genuine concern, or is the amount of natural energy that we could take from the environment so tiny compared to what is produced that there will be few noticeable effects?


It is a concern, but the amount of wind, hydroelectric, and solar power is extremely large.



Wood said:


> It is an interesting area, though I am quite uninformed at present. My gut feeling is that technological change will play a vital part but there will be an inevitable requirement for standards of living, in the economic sense, to be radically reduced for environmental stability. I don't believe that this is likely to occur.


Our preliminary research indicates that costs to own and operate low emission vehicles will grow in the near- to mid-term but then start to fall below conventional cars somewhere between 2035 and 2040 partly due to vastly increased efficiencies (lower fuel costs) and also to reductions in the capital cost of the new technology vehicles as volume sales grow. A big question is how much capital must be invested for vehicles and fueling stations before the costs fall.


----------



## drpraetorus

I was promised by TV and movies that we would have flying cars. Where are the flying cars?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ They had to do a recall........... faulty air bags again, D'oh!


----------



## Guest

In the future, I'd love to buy a car that is actually a car, not a computer on wheels. OK, GPS is nice, but that's it. I want levers, buttons, dials--no touch screens, and I don't want the freakin' thing beeping at me every few seconds! Nice leather, a quiet, smooth ride, and plenty of power are all fine, but I want a CAR!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Kontrapunctus said:


> In the future, I'd love to buy a car that is actually a car, not a computer on wheels. OK, GPS is nice, but that's it. I want levers, buttons, dials--no touch screens, and I don't want the freakin' thing beeping at me every few seconds! Nice leather, a quiet, smooth ride, and plenty of power are all fine, but I want a CAR!


Sounds like my Hillman, it has a Tomtom as a speedo- previous owner disconnected the speedo cable odo reads 80000 miles who knows how many more it's done, I call it the hi tech Hillman, with gps.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Kontrapunctus said:


> In the future, I'd love to buy a car that is actually a car, not a computer on wheels. OK, GPS is nice, but that's it. I want levers, buttons, dials--no touch screens, and I don't want the freakin' thing beeping at me every few seconds! Nice leather, a quiet, smooth ride, and plenty of power are all fine, but I want a CAR!


You can buy that now. It's called a restored classic car. Expensive but worth it.


----------



## Pugg

Kontrapunctus said:


> In the future, I'd love to buy a car that is actually a car, not a computer on wheels. OK, GPS is nice, but that's it. I want levers, buttons, dials--no touch screens, and I don't want the freakin' thing beeping at me every few seconds! Nice leather, a quiet, smooth ride, and plenty of power are all fine, but I want a CAR!


I do think you have start searching now or follow Florestan's advice.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Pugg said:


> I do think you have start searching now or follow Florestan's advice.


Here's a good one to get ya started :lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Florestan said:


> Here's a good one to get ya started :lol:


Yep, think Pugg would like that one heyhar, maybe sitting in the back or front- not sure.............


----------



## KenOC

Early reports from driverless Uber cars in Pittsburgh.

https://www.smartertravel.com/2016/09/27/like-ride-ubers-driverless-cars/


----------



## KenOC

Tesla announced that beginning today, all the cars it builds will have the necessary hardware to drive on their own if the owner decides they want to enable option. According to Tesla, each vehicle produced by the company will have:

"Eight surround cameras provide 360 degree visibility around the car at up to 250 meters of range. Twelve updated ultrasonic sensors complement this vision, allowing for detection of both hard and soft objects at nearly twice the distance of the prior system. A forward-facing radar with enhanced processing provides additional data about the world on a redundant wavelength, capable of seeing through heavy rain, fog, dust and even the car ahead."

CEO Elon Musk said that the new hardware brings level 5 autonomy. "The foundation is onboard to bring full autonomy," he said during a call with press. That means your car will drive all by itself without any input from the driver.

The company also announced a new onboard computer powered by Nvidia is 40 times more powerful than previous generations. It all sounds great, but Tesla warns that if you enable the Autopilot feature on one of these new cars it might be a while before some of the features like emergency breaking, collision warning, lane holding and active cruise control while the new hardware is calibrated.

During the Q&A with Musk he railed against the press for covering crashes of Tesla vehicles using Autopilot. "When you write an article that dissuades people from using autonomous vehicles, you're killing people."


----------



## SixFootScowl

Nonfunctional post. Deleted.


----------



## KenOC

Things continue to move forward. Here's Georgia Tech engineer Henrik Christensen in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune: "My own prediction is that kids born today will never get to drive a car."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/se...kids-ever-know-2017-01-11?link=MW_latest_news


----------



## mmsbls

I think there will be an interesting transition point for autonomous (level 3 and higher - true driverless) vehicles. At first many will view the autonomous vehicles as potentially unsafe and, therefore, dangerous. Eventually, society will view anyone wishing to drive vehicles themselves as too dangerous, and therefore, unfit to drive. I suspect that transition will occur relatively rapidly.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Driverless car of the Future


----------



## SixFootScowl

Read that while the optimists think autonomous cars could save up to 90% in energy costs, that they also could double energy costs. For example, what if Joe finds it cheaper to send his autonomous car home than pay the expensive parking at the office and then has the car come back for him later? If people can go places in the privacy of their own car and in a high level of comfort with internet and such, they very well may do a lot more traveling. Additionally, how many communities can afford to update their infrastructure to accommodate autonomous cars with potholes fixed, roads resurfaced, better paint stripes, electronic sensors embedded in the road and/or overhead, when they can't even fix the existing, deteriorated roads they have now? No, I think autonomous cars are a long way off from taking over our roads.


----------



## mmsbls

There will be a lot of pressure from trucking fleets to get autonomous trucks. For Class 7 and 8 trucks (largest trucks), the cost of a driver roughly equals the cost of fuel as the highest operating costs. There would be enormous savings if drivers could be replaced. Autonomous trucks are currently operating in off-road applications. If autonomous trucks operate on many roads, autonomous cars cannot be far behind.


----------



## Jos

Energy, fuel, economics, safety, efficiency; all good and fine, it is probably going to happen but I think not as rapidly as some would like us to believe.
One word that is absent in the whole discussion is FUN ! Just took the Z3 for a spin on an icy parking place. It was empty and slippery. Rear wheel drives are so much fun. 
Can't help it, it's completely un-PC but I like driving vehikels with internal combustion engines.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> Read that while the optimists think autonomous cars could save up to 90% in energy costs, that they also could double energy costs. For example, what if Joe finds it cheaper to send his autonomous car home than pay the expensive parking at the office and then has the car come back for him later?


Joe will likely commute to and from work in on-call driverless hired cars. There will be no parking at the office because the need for parking lots and structures will no longer exist.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Joe will likely commute to and from work in on-call driverless hired cars. There will be no parking at the office because the need for parking lots and structures will no longer exist.


Not much better than the bus. The car may be redolent with the body odor of the slob who rode in it last. 

How about instead of wasting money on driverless car tech, let's just jump way forward and produce Star-Trek-style transporters. I want to be able to stop over to the Grand Canyon on my lunch break. Never mind the possible mishaps exhibited by the sci fi movie, The Fly.


----------



## starthrower

mmsbls said:


> There will be a lot of pressure from trucking fleets to get autonomous trucks. For Class 7 and 8 trucks (largest trucks), the cost of a driver roughly equals the cost of fuel as the highest operating costs. There would be enormous savings if drivers could be replaced. Autonomous trucks are currently operating in off-road applications. If autonomous trucks operate on many roads, autonomous cars cannot be far behind.


There will be enormous unemployment if drivers are replaced. Thousands of people now driving trucks are victims of layoffs and outsourcing.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> Joe will likely commute to and from work in on-call driverless hired cars. There will be no parking at the office because the need for parking lots and structures will no longer exist.


In fact some people have argued that infrastructure costs for parking would go down. Valuable space presently needed for parking could be utilized for other more productive purposes. On the flip side, if autonomous cars did not park, they would have to drive instead increasing fuel use as well as criteria pollutant and greenhouse gases emissions.



starthrower said:


> There will be enormous unemployment if drivers are replaced. Thousands of people now driving trucks are victims of layoffs and outsourcing.


Quite right. Additionally bus drivers and cab drivers would lose their jobs.


----------



## TxllxT

Between China & Russia there will be probably the first route with driverless trucks. These trucks will just drive back & forth continuously. As for drivers' jobs, this will be a new venture and the route is inhumanly boring a human person to sleep...


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> ...On the flip side, if autonomous cars did not park, they would have to drive instead increasing fuel use as well as criteria pollutant and greenhouse gases emissions.


Cars will drive as far as people want to drive, autonomous or not. Easy ride-sharing may decrease total miles driven. Car utilization will certainly increase, total miles driven maybe not.

People may in fact decrease total driving as the cost of each trip is charged to them on a per-mile basis. Right now, the costs of driving are somewhat obscured because vehicle purchase and insurance costs, once paid, are not mentally factored into the costs of taking a trip.


----------



## 433

I need a better car


----------



## KenOC

Amazon is granted a new patent moving beyond self-driving vehicles to cars fully managed, automatically, on roadway management systems. I think this is where we're really headed.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/01...ts-own-take-on-autonomous-car-technology.html


----------



## Dan Ante

I have only just seen this thread and have not read all posts but can’t see car ownership disappearing quickly, as for driverless cars well although they are being trialed now, and knowing how vulnerable computers are to hacking would you trust one?
Driverless cars are fitted with emergency stop buttons that says a lot.
Private cars are just too convenient and have become a necessary evil, the car will definitely change either to electric or to fuel cell but the internal combustion engine has had its day.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Amazon is granted a new patent moving beyond self-driving vehicles to cars fully managed, automatically, on roadway management systems. *I think this is where we're really headed*.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/01...ts-own-take-on-autonomous-car-technology.html


Are you excited about where we are headed? Is it where you want to be headed?


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> Are you excited about where we are headed? Is it where you want to be headed?


My excitement (or not) is quite irrelevant. I certainly find the subject interesting.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> My excitement (or not) is quite irrelevant. I certainly find the subject interesting.


Well, let me rephrase it then. Are you looking forward to where we are headed with automobiles? I already want to roll the clock back about 15 years. But I do think autonomous cars are the perfect punishment for those who drive while texting, reading the newspaper, etc.


----------



## KenOC

I remember reading a while back about a lady driver who was texting, reading a book, and applying makeup all at the same time while driving.

As for myself, since I no longer drive, I can easily imagine telling my car, "James (I call it James you understand), to the hospital please. I'm scheduled for a colonoscopy at 10 AM, so make it snappy."


----------



## KenOC

An update:
------------------
In January, at CES in Las Vegas, Ford's Ken Washington told me confidently that the company would have a fully autonomous car on the road by 2021: "The vehicles we are going to put in our 2021 fully autonomous ride service will not have a steering wheel, they won't have a brake pedal," he explained. "So this means there's no issue with drivers having to take over control because the vehicle will know how to handle all scenarios."
…
[Another authority] thought Ford was serious about that 2021 target but stressed that what it was promising was not a car that would drive itself anywhere but what he called "mobility as a service". The vehicles would be owned by the company and would operate as a sort of autonomous taxi: "It would be a limited service on specific routes. Just like a bus can't go anywhere, you would only operate this where you were confident that it would work."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39050538


----------



## KenOC

Another update to this thread:
-----------------------------------
He says we are not going to stop driving altogether, just switch to self-drive electric vehicles, which will become a much larger part of the sharing economy. And these electric vehicles are going to cost less to both buy and run.

"The day that autonomous vehicles are approved, the combination of ride hailing, electric and autonomous means that it's going to be ten times cheaper, up to ten times cheaper, to use a robot taxi, transport as a service car, than it is to own a car. Ten times."

Interestingly enough, if you believe this thesis, you may want to look at selling out of any exposure you have to car parks. "In fact what is going to happen, in 80 per cent or maybe more, parking spaces are going to be vacant. Because we are going to have, fewer cars on the road" Seba says.

And given that $25 forecast for oil, you certainly want to look at selling oil, and expensive oil producers. Oh, and sell the car makers that are slow to adapt too, given there will be no more petrol or diesel cars, buses and trucks sold anywhere in the world within 8 years. Which also means no more car dealers by 2024.

And wait, you can sell insurers too, as the cost of car insurance will drop dramatically when you take human error out of the equation, and a much lower direct ownership of vehicles in general.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...nd-along-with-it-a-new-world-order/ar-BBBth5X


----------



## Dan Ante

One can only hope that Ford uses a better anti virus against such threats as “Ransomware” etc than was used by other companies or the consequences will be a tad annoying. 
Also a lot of semi skilled drivers will be out of work.


----------



## mmsbls

A report by the International Transport Forum projects that 6.4 million potential truck drivers would be needed in 2030 in Europe and the US. Autonomous trucks could displace between 2 - 4.4 million driver jobs by that time depending on how fast autonomous trucks are deployed.


----------



## Klassik

drpraetorus said:


> I was promised by TV and movies that we would have flying cars. Where are the flying cars?


Flying cars have been around since at least the 1970s. This video of a flying Ford Pinto is real. Of course, they had a problem selling this package after the people behind the project died when the wings separated from the Pinto during a test flight!






Of course, the Illinois Nazis were able to get their Pinto to fly without wings...while listening to Richard Wagner of course! :lol:






Anyway, maybe this has been mentioned earlier, but isn't it quite possible that autonomous cars could lead to greater urban sprawl? It seems that the disincentives of living further out from the city would be reduced. We may see a repeat of urban planning ala what happened when regular cars first appeared. I'm not sure how Houston could possibly get more sprawled out, but I guess anything is possible.


----------



## Dan Ante

I don't know about other countries but we have too many trucks on the road and a railway system that is under used (thanks to privatisation by previous governments) I would dearly love to see all heavy goods sent by rail and trucks used for local deliveries or trucking operators forced to fund and build their own roads for long haulage. my pet rant :trp:


----------



## KenOC

Uber has reached an agreement to buy 24,000 self-driving cars from Volvo from 2019 through 2021. I assume there are some safety valves involved, since there's no way national laws (in the US anyway) can meet this schedule. The deal is estimated at $1.4 billion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42055841


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> Uber has reached an agreement to buy 24,000 self-driving cars from Volvo from 2019 through 2021. I assume there are some safety valves involved, since there's no way national laws (in the US anyway) can meet this schedule. The deal is estimated at $1.4 billion.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42055841


So does that mean Uber won't need drivers???


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Uber has reached an agreement to buy 24,000 self-driving cars from Volvo from 2019 through 2021. I assume there are some safety valves involved, since there's no way national laws (in the US anyway) can meet this schedule. The deal is estimated at $1.4 billion.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42055841


Well at least with no drivers, the rider won't get mugged or otherwise assaulted.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> So does that mean Uber won't need drivers???


The idea is that Uber (and other such companies) will operate vast fleets of driverless cars that will fetch you upon demand and take you where you want to go. When you've done what you need to do, you simply click on the app again and a driverless car will be dispatched to take you home or to your next destination.


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> The idea is that Uber (and other such companies) will operate vast fleets of driverless cars that will fetch you upon demand and take you where you want to go. When you've done what you need to do, you simply click on the app again and a driverless car will be dispatched to take you home or to your next destination.


It will be complete chaos. I would not trust them.


----------



## Klassik

This may not be related to autonomous cars, but it is related to future car electronic technology:



> GM sees data acquisition as a huge financial opportunity. By launching 13 million connected cars over the several years, the company thinks it can accrue wealth through an in-car digital marketplace that sells apps and services. Afterward, it can collect driver data (purchasing choices, driving habits, etc.), sell it off to whoever wants it (including insurance companies), and potentially issue in-car advertisements - something it is already pursuing with help from IBM.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/11/general-motors-building-two-bolt-based-crossovers/

I think some GM cars like the Bolt and Volt may already have these "features."


----------



## KenOC

Does the idea of driverless cars disturb or frighten you? You probably should worry about things that are _really _frightening.






"The video was released earlier this month by the Future of Life Institute, which is backed by Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk."


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> Does the idea of driverless cars disturb or frighten you?


The thought of driverless cabs are disturbing and frightening. Can you imagine the amount of semen, urine, vomit, and feces that will be on those seats?  They'll have to put cameras all over those things, but that may not stop drunk people from doing "things." I guess it's better than them driving though.


----------



## Dan Ante

Klassik said:


> The thought of driverless cabs are disturbing and frightening. Can you imagine the amount of semen, urine, vomit, and feces that will be on those seats?  They'll have to put cameras all over those things, but that may not stop drunk people from doing "things." I guess it's better than them driving though.


A good point Klassic and on top of that one of the weaknesses of computer controlled vehicles is that they can be hacked and Uber is a wee bit vulnerable in that department follow link below: 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/uber-concealed-hack-of-57-million-accounts-for-more-than-a-year/?loc=newsletter_large_thumb_related&ftag=TREc64629f&bhid=22660510836662488605095384398282

also as far as I can see they would have to be electric powered which presents more problems is the grid capable of delivering the extra loading that is providing the extra power can be supplied, how is it to be generated not more coal or oil or worse still nuclear power, to my way of thinking this is not a good thing.


----------



## KenOC

Klassik said:


> I think some GM cars like the Bolt and Volt may already have these "features."


Speak, and it is done! "General Motors reveals autonomous car with no steering wheel," based on the Bolt it seems.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/01...ls-autonomous-car-with-no-steering-wheel.html

They want it on the road as a ride-hailing service in well-mapped areas next year.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Speak, and it is done! "General Motors reveals autonomous car with no steering wheel," based on the Bolt it seems.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/01...ls-autonomous-car-with-no-steering-wheel.html
> 
> They want it on the road as a ride-hailing service in well-mapped areas next year.


Can we just bypass all this and go straight to the Star Trek transporters?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

My next car, proven technology


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> My next car, proven technology


Pneumatic tyre as well


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> My next car, proven technology


There's something to be said for simplicity. However, I would like a roof (not a rag top either).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Fritz Kobus said:


> There's something to be said for simplicity. However, I would like a roof (not a rag top either).


Ah, you need the sunny skies of Oz


----------



## Dan Ante

Fritz Kobus said:


> There's something to be said for simplicity. However, I would like a roof (not a rag top either).


Oh Fritz I love rag tops here is my present one with Mrs Ante at the wheel.


----------



## KenOC

After a hiatus, some interesting news:

"Two incidents of humans attacking autonomous cars reported in San Francisco"

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/03...utonomous-cars-reported-in-san-francisco.html


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Will the autonomous cars sue for damage........


----------



## KenOC

"A self-driving Uber car hit and killed a pedestrian Sunday night in Tempe, Arizona, police said, in what appears to be the first case of a pedestrian death caused by an autonomous vehicle. The vehicle was in "autonomous mode at the time of the collision, with a vehicle operator behind the wheel," Tempe police said in a statement."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-killed-driving-uber-car-identified-company-suspends/story?id=53853861


----------



## CnC Bartok

Uber have now suspended all tests of these things. Not surprised.

The trouble is we as a species seem to have unlearned how to drive. Everything designed to make zooming around in a metal box at 70+ mph seem safe, when in all honesty it isn't when you think about it.

My car is just as foolproof as these driverless things. Reverse out, it beeps aggressively at me because some other car is approaching some 100 yards away. Get too close to a car in front, it'll beep (naturally) or even apply the brakes. Another beep if I seem to be drifting out of my lane, which also seems to involve stiffening up the power steering to stop me doing it. All very clever, and designed to keep me safe if I decide to fall asleep at the wheel or drive home after thirteen pints of beer; I do fear that if I sit behind the wheel of a less "technologically advanced" beast I'll prang it or hurt someone within five minutes.

Apparently the best way to drive safely is with a six inch spike protruding from the steering wheel pointed straight at your chest. That'll make you drive "defensively".....


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> "A self-driving Uber car hit and killed a pedestrian Sunday night in Tempe, Arizona, police said, in what appears to be the first case of a pedestrian death caused by an autonomous vehicle. The vehicle was in "autonomous mode at the time of the collision, with a vehicle operator behind the wheel," Tempe police said in a statement."
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-killed-driving-uber-car-identified-company-suspends/story?id=53853861


They have driverless cars that are much safer. They are called trolleys and run on tracks. It is foolhardy to make driverless cars that go anywhere, but of course the manufacturers are only interested in making a buck (future buck this time, not wanting to be left out of any future sales). They are supported by politicians and environmentalists who think there is something to be gained in their respective realms.

But frankly, with texting and ipads and touchscreen controls in cars, many should be taking trolleys. Putting touchscreen controls in a car that has to be actively driven is insane. It is asking for distraction. Knobs and levers that one can work without taking their eyes off the road are the correct solution, but that doesn't bring in the bucks.


----------



## Klassik

Fritz Kobus said:


> Putting touchscreen controls in a car that has to be actively driven is insane. It is asking for distraction. Knobs and levers that one can work without taking their eyes off the road are the correct solution, but that doesn't bring in the bucks.


As bad as the touchscreens are, they are better than some of the other alternatives that auto companies have come up with like the iDrive and other similar controls. Automotive ergonomics had reached a very good state by the mid-2000s, but they've taken a steep dive since then. Add to that the weird, non-standard shift gates that a lot of companies are using now. Oh, and the hideous car designs that make one want to take their eyes completely off the road to avoid permanent eye damage.  As an example, let's look at the new redesigned version of one of America's best selling cars, the 2018 Camry (I apologize if anyone suffers blindness by looking at these, but these are so common that it's bound to happen):

Front: https://www.drivingtelevision.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/1502-2018-Toyota-Camry-FD.jpg
Rear: https://www.thetorquereport.com/wp-..._F8835EBECC60210C7A29C5E0D85C0872398E05C5.jpg

Seriously, WTF? That front grille is hideous and what's up with the fake vents between the taillights and the rear bumper? Although I don't think that roof is standard, but who thinks it's a good idea to have a black roof when all that will do is make the cabin hot during the summer? This is the automotive version of the hideous music of Olivier Messiaen or something like that. At least it's possible to live a perfectly normal life without ever hearing Messiaen, but how can one live in the US and not see one of these hideous automobiles? Of course, I could have posted the pictures of something even worse. There's some even more hideous looking SUVs and trucks out there.


----------



## KenOC

An interesting perspective. A fund manager sees Tesla going bankrupt within four months.
------------------------------------------
"Tesla, without any doubt, is on the verge of bankruptcy," he told clients in an email over the weekend. He explained that funding will be hard to come by in the face of problems in delivering the Model 3, declining demand for the Model S and X, extreme valuation and a likely downgrade of its credit rating by Moody's from B- to CCC.

"As a reality check, Tesla is worth twice as much as Ford [estimate of the enterprise value of both companies], yet Ford made 6 million cars last year at a $7.6 billion profit while Tesla made 100,000 cars at a $2 billion loss," Thompson said. "Further, Ford has $12 billion in cash held for 'a rainy day' while Tesla will likely run out of money in the next 3 months. I've never seen anything so absurd in my career."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...l-collapse-says-hedge-fund-manager-2018-03-27


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Another Preston Tucker..............


----------



## Klassik

Tesla is not being helped by another investigation into a possible autopilot failure that led to a crash recently.


----------



## Strange Magic

I am totally in favor of driverless cars if it is mandated that they be preceded by a walking man carrying a red flag by day or a red lantern by night. This sound proposal was put forward when the first horseless carriages were beginning to appear, and it makes sense today .


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Another Preston Tucker..............


Preston was too good and so the auto companies got scared and had to sic the Securities and Exchange Commission on him to beat him down and take him out. It is really a sad story. I'll take a Tucker over any late model car.


----------



## SixFootScowl

It would be fun to commandeer a whole bunch of driverless cars by hacking their computers, then put then all in packs to plug up roundabouts (traffic circles some call them, but really they are government-sponsored demolition derbys).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Fritz Kobus said:


> Preston was too good and so the auto companies got scared and had to sic the Securities and Exchange Commission on him to beat him down and take him out. It is really a sad story. I'll take a Tucker over any late model car.


Yes, just imagine what the US car business might have been like had Tucker succeeded in making more than 50 cars. Like to have one of them but my bank manager wouldn't


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> Tesla is not being helped by another investigation into a possible autopilot failure that led to a crash recently.


Poor Tesla. Coiled again!


----------



## Klassik

hpowders said:


> Poor Tesla. Coiled again!


Personally, I'm not shocked at all about these developments.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Klassik said:


> Personally, I'm not shocked at all about these developments.


I'm alternating between loathing and liking


----------



## KenOC

A first, I think. "A ticket was issued to a person traveling in a self-driving car in San Francisco on Monday... The vehicle allegedly did not stop for a person in the crosswalk. However, Cruise, the car company involved, according to KPIX, maintained that the vehicle was in compliance with California state law.
…
[A police spokesperson said] "The ticketing officer believed that the car was in self-driving mode, however the person inside was cited for failing to yield to a pedestrian, Linnane said. That individual, whether they were driving or not, "is still responsible for the vehicle," she added.

"The person in the crosswalk was not injured."


----------



## hpowders

Klassik said:


> Personally, I'm not shocked at all about these developments.


I had to plug that one. I used one to make hot water for coffee back in the teachers' science prep room.


----------



## Strange Magic

The Citroën DS, 1955-1975, will always be the Car of Tomorrow.....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_DS


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

You know it looks a bit like a Tucker


----------



## Klassik

Strange Magic said:


> View attachment 102462
> 
> 
> The Citroën DS, 1955-1975, will always be the Car of Tomorrow.....
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroën_DS





EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You know it looks a bit like a Tucker
> 
> View attachment 102463


It's hard to tell which one is more ugly. Ah, heck, the Tucker is more ugly. Who needs three headlights? 

What about the failure known as the Edsel from Ford? The grille looks like a...well, you know. :lol:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iogu5_A7f...1600/58-Edsel-Corsair-Sedan_DV_08_HHDT_08.jpg


----------



## KenOC




----------



## KenOC

"Why The New York Times Tesla Model 3 Review Is Nonsense"

An article slamming what it claims is grossly incompetent reporting in the Times. Interesting reading with a good bit of technical detail.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...review-is-nonsense/ar-AAvwUzq?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> "Why The New York Times Tesla Model 3 Review Is Nonsense"
> 
> An article slamming what it claims is grossly incompetent reporting in the Times. Interesting reading with a good bit of technical detail.


While the author brings up accurate points, he's not exactly the most unbiased person on the topic.

On the topic of Tesla, I've heard that the Apple engineer who was killed in that Tesla crash where the "autopilot" failed had complained to his family about the autopilot not working correctly, but yet he obviously still used used it while being inattentive. He certainly wasn't the greatest genius at the Genius Bar, huh? 

In other automotive news, GM must have heard my rant the other day about all these cars with angry looking big front grilles. Well, at least they heard half my rant. Behold the refreshed 2019 Chevrolet Malibu:










Maybe it's better than before, but this happy, smiley car still looks hideous to me. Can't they pull their heads out of their Mozart holes and design a car with a decent looking grille? 

In other GM news, the 2018 Cruze will be the last one offered with a manual transmission. You won't be able to buy a compact segment GM sedan in the US with a manual starting next year. I'd expect compacts from other companies to follow in the next handful of years.


----------



## Klassik

You can now turn your Chevrolet into a rolling gasoline credit card! What could possibly go wrong? Plus, all the steps involved in using your car as a credit card seems more complicated than actually using a real credit card at the pump.  I suppose this is why GM is GM.

Oh, and Ford is keeping pace on the "Stupid Car Ideas" theme. From the same article:



> Ford has also been working with Amazon to integrate Alexa capabilities including adding to shopping lists inside its vehicles, and the number of automakers looking to get in on the always-connected e-commerce game is likely to grow in the coming years, for better or worse.


Ah, yes, you can now work on your classical CD shopping lists while you drive! What next, the ability to post on the "Current Listening" thread while driving? 

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/04/18/chevrolet-pay-gas-without-leaving-cars/


----------



## Klassik

Have a late model GM or Volvo and subscribe to the in-car tracking system? If so, you can allow Amazon to remotely unlock your car and deposit packages into it! What could possibly go wrong? 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/04/amazon-key-expands-to-deliver-packages-inside-your-car/


----------



## Klassik

It sounds like the Ford cars of tomorrow will not be cars at all. A new report came out today indicating that Ford will stop selling all their sedans in the US market once they stop making the current generations of the sedans they already have. The only car they will sell in the future is the Mustang. The rest of their lineup will be SUVs and trucks.

Chrysler decided to drop their noncompetitive compact Dart sedan and mid-sized 200 sedan a couple of years ago, but even they still have the Charger/300, Challenger, and those very slow selling Fiats in their car lineup.

While Ford may say that the sedans are not profitable, I'm sure their Japanese competition is laughing at this news. Sedan sales are falling, but they're still a big part of the market even for Ford. Those shoppers won't be stopping by the Ford dealers it seems.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...1-5-billion-more-cuts-pulls-ahead-margin-goal


----------



## Dan Ante

A week or two ago large parts of Auckland were without power for 10 days or so, got to love those electric cars eh :lol:


----------



## mmsbls

Dan Ante said:


> A week or two ago large parts of Auckland were without power for 10 days or so, got to love those electric cars eh :lol:


Fuel cell vehicles are electric cars, and they would not be affected by a power outage (any more than conventional vehicles would be - i.e. fueling stations would not work). Also stations could be powered by local photovoltaic arrays. Those stations would work (powered by the direct output of the array or from battery storage at the site) where conventional stations would not.


----------



## SixFootScowl

My car of tomorrow (retirement I suppose):


----------



## Klassik

Did you purchase a GM car because of the advertised ability to lock/unlock the doors using your smartphone? Well, now you have to pay at least $14.99/month to use that feature. Meanwhile, GM continues to monetize your driving data without even giving a discount for it. 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/onstar-update/


----------



## SixFootScowl

Klassik said:


> Did you purchase a GM car because of the advertised ability to lock/unlock the doors using your smartphone? Well, now you have to pay at least $14.99/month to use that feature. Meanwhile, GM continues to monetize your driving data without even giving a discount for it.
> 
> http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/04/onstar-update/


If I were King of the World, I would force GM to recall every car that has back-up lights coming on when the car is not turn to on and in reverse, and make them disable that stupid feature of totally confusing the public about whether a car is backing up. As I understand it, there can be no enforcement of the wrongful lamps because there is no legal requirement for a car to even have back-up lights.


----------



## Klassik

Fritz Kobus said:


> If I were King of the World, I would force GM to recall ever car that has back-up lights coming on when the car is not turn to on and in reverse, and disable that stupid feature of totally confusing the public about whether a car is backing up. As I understand it, there can be no enforcement of the wrongful lamps because there is *no legal requirement for a car to even have back-up lights*.


I figured there was. Oddly enough, in Europe, some cars (at least as of ~15 years ago) only have one reverse light instead of the typical two here.

As for the reverse lights, I'm guessing you're talking about GM trucks where white lights come on if the doors are open. I can see the confusion. Another annoying, non-defeatable "feature" that many GM cars have these days is the automatic engine cutoff at stoplights.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Klassik said:


> I figured there was. Oddly enough, in Europe, some cars (at least as of ~15 years ago) only have one reverse light instead of the typical two here.
> 
> As for the reverse lights, I'm guessing you're talking about GM trucks where white lights come on if the doors are open. I can see the confusion. Another annoying, non-defeatable "feature" that many GM cars have these days is the automatic engine cutoff at stoplights.


Maybe trucks and SUVs, I don't know. But it seems it is only GM. I have a GM but it is a 2001 and thankfully does not have any stupid features. Automatic engine cutoff is very strange. Well if it increases fuel mileage significantly (probably only for fleet averages) it might be acceptable to some, but not to a lead-footed motor maniac like me! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Lyft will deploy a fleet of 30 driverless BMWs in Las Vegas shortly. Riders will hail them with the usual Lyft app.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/lyft-aptiv-to-launch-fleet-of-driverless-cars-in-las-vegas


----------



## KenOC

Uber has stopped testing driverless cars in Arizona after a nighttime accident in which one of their cars struck and killed a pedestrian crossing the street. The car did not detect the pedestrian and the backup driver in the car was distracted and not alert enough.

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2018/05...d-self-driving-car-operations-in-arizona.html


----------



## KenOC

"Tesla in Autopilot mode hits parked police SUV"

More trouble for Tesla, right in my backyard in Laguna Beach. Growing pains.

"Sgt. Cota said there was another collision in the same area last year, when a Tesla crashed into a semi-truck. 'Why do these vehicles keep doing that?' Cota said. 'We're just lucky that people aren't getting injured.' "

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/tesla-in-autopilot-mode-hits-parked-police-suv


----------



## KenOC

A different side of the same topic: _Consumer Reports_ had denied a "Recommended" rating to Tesla's Model 3 because it found the brakes didn't perform well enough. Within days, Tesla sent out an "over-the-air" update to all Tesla 3 cars. _Consumer Reports_ tested again and found the brakes much improved. The Tesla 3 now has a "Recommended" rating.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...mer-reports-nod-after-brake-update-2018-05-30


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> A different side of the same topic: _Consumer Reports_ had denied a "Recommended" rating to Tesla's Model 3 because it found the brakes didn't perform well enough. Within days, Tesla sent out an "over-the-air" update to all Tesla 3 cars. _Consumer Reports_ tested again and found the brakes much improved. The Tesla 3 now has a "Recommended" rating.
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...mer-reports-nod-after-brake-update-2018-05-30


I read about that. The software update could very well have an impact aside from just braking distance though. Will the new software lead to poor brake pad life? Did the software change the regenerative braking/normal braking formula in a way that will regenerate less energy from the brakes and thus have an impact on range? Also, who is to say that Tesla won't revert back to the old software in a future update once the controversy dies down?

It would be interesting, and potentially dangerous, for one to drive a car that performs one way one day, and then a different way after a software update.


----------



## KenOC

Klassik said:


> ...It would be interesting, and potentially dangerous, for one to drive a car that performs one way one day, and then a different way after a software update.


Also dangerous, perhaps, to have a car that gets remote software updates. Hackers could have a field day.


----------



## Klassik

KenOC said:


> Also dangerous, perhaps, to have a car that gets remote software updates. Hackers could have a field day.


Oh, sure. Hackers were having fun with much less fancy Jeeps a couple of years ago.


----------



## Krummhorn

Thinking I'll just keep my 18 year old car. It's long ago paid for, runs perfect, and has all the comfortable amenities of a luxury brand auto ... Great for long haul road trips.









2000 Infiniti I30 Touring.


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> Also dangerous, perhaps, to have a car that gets remote software updates. Hackers could have a field day.


That is what I said a few months ago also the brake mod could just have been the equivalent of applying more pressure to the brake system


----------



## SixFootScowl

Krummhorn said:


> Thinking I'll just keep my 18 year old car. It's long ago paid for, runs perfect, and has all the comfortable amenities of a luxury brand auto ... Great for long haul road trips.
> 
> View attachment 104288
> 
> 
> 2000 Infiniti I30 Touring.


That is how I feel about it. I drive a 2001 Chevy S-10. Paid for. Runs great. No need for collision insurance, so more savings.


----------



## Guest

Unfortunately in the UK they continue to attempt to legislate older cars off the road. The cars of tomorrow are 5 years old or under. :scold::scold:


----------



## KenOC

Things are starting to get serious. "It's one thing to successfully build self-driving cars. It's another to get people to ride them. Waymo, the Alphabet-owned self-driving car company, is making progress on the former, announcing Thursday that it is buying and equipping 62,000 Chrysler Pacifica minivans with its self-driving technology, effectively increasing its fleet 100-fold."

Waymo is also in talks with Uber about using Waymo's vehicles for Uber's self-driving fleet. The idea is that the minivans fit the ultimate model of shared-ride autonomous hire cars.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-waymo-chrysler-uber-20180531-story.html


----------



## SixFootScowl

Tulse said:


> Unfortunately in the UK they continue to attempt to legislate older cars off the road. The cars of tomorrow are 5 years old or under. :scold::scold:


What a shame. How about classic car collectors? Do they only get to drive to and from shows?


----------



## Dan Ante

Tulse said:


> Unfortunately in the UK they continue to attempt to legislate older cars off the road. The cars of tomorrow are 5 years old or under. :scold::scold:


I bet the Japs are happy.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Tulse said:


> Unfortunately in the UK they continue to attempt to legislate older cars off the road. The cars of tomorrow are 5 years old or under. :scold::scold:


The car has become largely a means of selling all sorts of complicated and (to me, useless) electronics. I am still stunned to see mini-van doors automatically opening and closing. We sure have gotten lazy in these modern times!


----------



## Dan Ante

Fritz Kobus said:


> The car has become largely a means of selling all sorts of complicated and (to me, useless) electronics. I am still stunned to see mini-van doors automatically opening and closing. We sure have gotten lazy in these modern times!


Yeh not to mention auto advance and retard of ignition, power assisted steering, abs braking, synchromesh gear boxes and heaven forbid auto trans, direction indicators, auto choke, cruise control, electric horns etc where on earth will it end.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Yeh not to mention auto advance and retard of ignition, power assisted steering, abs braking, synchromesh gear boxes and heaven forbid auto trans, direction indicators, auto choke, cruise control, electric horns etc where on earth will it end.


You forgot automatic windscreen wipers. I still prefer the ones on my Hillman Hunter where you have to time turning the switching on/off or the wipers will end up in the middle of the windscreen.


----------



## KenOC

It will be worse with self-driving cars. "Car, take me to work."

"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that. Perhaps you've forgotten how you slammed my door last night. Well, I haven't."


----------



## SixFootScowl

Dan Ante said:


> Yeh not to mention auto advance and retard of ignition, power assisted steering, abs braking, synchromesh gear boxes and heaven forbid auto trans, direction indicators, auto choke, cruise control, electric horns etc where on earth will it end.


Exactly! We need to get back to good-old-reliable basics:


----------



## Guest

Fritz Kobus said:


> What a shame. How about classic car collectors? Do they only get to drive to and from shows?


They should be okay because they do not require a road worthiness test if over 40 years old or have to pay road tax.

The people affected are those who drive older cars day to day. Unfortunately it is a scam by the motoring manufacturers and the politicians they are bribing in order to sell more new cars. The damage to the environment will be appalling.


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You forgot automatic windscreen wipers. I still prefer the ones on my Hillman Hunter where you have to time turning the switching on/off or the wipers will end up in the middle of the windscreen.


Window Screen wipers… back in the sixties - early seventies NZ produced an off road vehicle "Trekka" it was based on a Skoda chassis the screen wipers had an odd tendency to go over centre and would try to wipe the bonnet completely mangling the mechanism in the process.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Window Screen wipers… back in the sixties - early seventies NZ produced an off road vehicle "Trekka" it was based on a Skoda chassis the screen wipers had an odd tendency to go over centre and would try to wipe the bonnet completely mangling the mechanism in the process.
> 
> View attachment 104361


Were they popular 

PS looks like they should have got some styling tips from someone other than Rover :lol:


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Were they popular
> 
> PS looks like they should have got some styling tips from someone other than Rover :lol:


Not very popular but they have a cult following ..

http://www.trekka.co.nz/


----------



## Guest

Was the engine the same as that in the Skoda Estelle?


----------



## Dan Ante

Tulse said:


> Was the engine the same as that in the Skoda Estelle?


If you go to the link that I provided you will see that "The Trekka was a locally-produced, steel body with canvas or fibreglass canopies, bolted to the chassis *and engine* of the Skoda Octavia Combi, which dated form the late 1950′s."
It was a venture that could have succeeded *but*..........................


----------



## KenOC

Not ready for prime time? An interesting test of current technology.
-------------------------------------------
It tested two Teslas-a 2018 Model 3 running Autopilot version 8.1 software, and a 2016 Model S running Autopilot version 7.1 software-a 2017 BMW 5-Series, a 2017 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, and a 2018 Volvo S90, each with its automaker's Level 2 self-driving feature.

"We're not ready to say yet which company has the safest implementation of Level 2 driver assistance" says IIHS chief research officer David Zuby. "None of these vehicles is capable of driving safely on its own."

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...systems-arent-that-arent-ready-for-prime-time


----------



## Varick

starthrower said:


> There will be enormous unemployment if drivers are replaced. Thousands of people now driving trucks are victims of layoffs and outsourcing.





Dan Ante said:


> One can only hope that Ford uses a better anti virus against such threats as "Ransomware" etc than was used by other companies or the consequences will be a tad annoying.
> Also a lot of semi skilled drivers will be out of work.


I have never been too bothered by the threat of unemployment when technology is about to replace some manual jobs. First of all, in this case of driverless vehicles, we are still a ways away from such a thing en mass. But, it all evens out in the end. Where technology removes a person's job, another job, building, repairing, and maintaining this technology opens up. Also the potential indirect labor jobs that are created also increase. In this case installing/maintaining sensors in the roads, road/map planning and all the other various peripheral jobs that come with the automotive industry.

It's the same scare of all the horse and buggy makers when the automobile started going into production. Somehow... it all worked out.



KenOC said:


> "Why The New York Times Tesla Model 3 Review Is Nonsense"
> 
> An article slamming what it claims is grossly incompetent reporting in the Times. Interesting reading with a good bit of technical detail.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...review-is-nonsense/ar-AAvwUzq?ocid=spartanntp


Gee, a New York Times article that didn't get facts straight.?? Boy, there's a real surprise. I'm still waiting for them to return their Pulitzer Prize for denying the Ukraine Famine in the 1930's.

V


----------



## KenOC

Varick said:


> ...It's the same scare of all the horse and buggy makers when the automobile started going into production. Somehow... it all worked out.


Even more dramatic: In the 2nd half of the 19th century, about 80% of Americans worked in agriculture. Today estimates very from about 2% to 7%, depending on definitions. That's a huge number of jobs lost! But few complain about it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Varick said:


> It's the same scare of all the horse and buggy makers when the automobile started going into production. Somehow... it all worked out.


And there still is a market for horse buggies with the Amish! I am about as Amish as to request hand crank windows, manual locks (with keyholes in both doors and trunk), knob/pushbutton radio, and manual transmission.


----------



## Dan Ante

A few days ago I heard on the radio news that a safe way has been found of storing Hydrogen in vehicles, which means fuel cells are another step nearer, it is just a matter of cost and time, so it is a battle between Electric and Fuel Cells.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> A few days ago I heard on the radio news that a safe way has been found of storing Hydrogen in vehicles, which means fuel cells are another step nearer, it is just a matter of cost and time, so it is a battle between Electric and Fuel Cells.


I believe it would be more accurate to say it's lithium-ion batteries versus fuel cells. Both provide electricity to power electric motors.


----------



## Jos

But for the time being I refer to Tesla as very old technology as they basically run on coal...


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> I believe it would be more accurate to say it's lithium-ion batteries versus fuel cells. Both provide electricity to power electric motors.


Yes you are right Ken.
The present mileage available from 'as you say' lithium batteries is OK for city dwellers but for those of us that are rural it is just too inconvenient, I would like to know the expected life of the lithium-ion batteries and the replacement cost.


----------



## KenOC

I believe Tesla's lithium batteries will get you 300 miles more or less before needing a recharge, which typically takes much longer than simply gassing up. Replacement cost seems to be $8,000 to $12,000, depending on the specific model of battery. I don't know about battery useful life.

This is from memory, so you may want to verify with an on-line search.

I have a friend who just drove his Tesla from Seattle down here to SoCal. That's about 1,200 miles. He seemed to think it was fine. I would have been nervous all the time about making the next charging stop, planning my schedule around the time requirements for recharges, etc.


----------



## Varick

Batteries are not the long term answer for cars. Everyone driving a hybrid or electric car pats themselves on the back because they think they're doing something good for the environment. It's a joke. I care about the environment very much so I would never drive an electric car. 

The carbon imprint/environmental impact from an electric vs a gasoline car is the same, if not more for the electric car. All everyone does is look at the time from buying the car out of the dealership to when the car is dead and going to scrap. Yes, in that time frame, electric cars have less of a carbon imprint/environmental impact than internal combustion cars. No one looks at the manufacturing it takes to make the car. I never hear anyone talking about what happens to the batteries of hybrid or electric cars when they are out of commission. Only a certain percentage can be recycled, and many (Millions of tons) will end up in land fill within the next few decades. Battery acid is one of the most corrosive/toxic things man kind has ever made. Plus, what is used to create that power that recharges your batteries??? Fossil Fuels mostly.

Forget about the mining of lithium and it's environmental impact, not to mention mining for Cobalt (talk about rare and DANGEROUS!!! - Nothing grows around a few mile radius anywhere Cobalt is mined) and other rare minerals for all these car batteries. When the "environmentalists" stop patting themselves on the back so they can feel good about themselves and start asking the question of what will actually work AND help the environment (or at least diminish the deleterious effect on the environment) they and everyone else will see that electrical cars are not the future and Tesla (and every other car manufacturer embracing electric car technology) has been on the wrong path all along.

To me, the only ones who are doing any positive changes in automobiles so far are the ones who convert their diesel engines to run on cooking grease. Smells like bacon when they drive by. And there are so few of them, that it's causing no impact.

V


----------



## Dan Ante

I wonder if the old bubble cars will make a come back in the city's, make them electric and that would make a difference.


----------



## SixFootScowl

All this debate over electric, fuel cell, hybrid etc... What gives? The answer is so simple. Just make all roads slope downhill! Might need to borrow some ideas from M.C. Escher, but it ought to work.


----------



## KenOC

"Japanese carmaker Toyota is to invest $500m (£387m) in Uber and expand a partnership to jointly develop self-driving cars. The firm said this would involve the "mass-production" of autonomous vehicles that would be deployed on Uber's ride sharing network... The fleet will be based on Toyota's Sienna Minivan model with pilot trials beginning in 2021."

​https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45324753


----------



## Strange Magic

An essential feature of any car of tomorrow will be doors that slide forward into the front fenders--this is a must-have feature pioneered by the 1954 Kaiser Darrin, along with a fiberglass body.....


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> An essential feature of any car of tomorrow will be doors that slide forward into the front fenders--this is a must-have feature pioneered by the 1954 Kaiser Darrin, along with a fiberglass body.....
> 
> View attachment 107188


That would be a very helpful feature the way some people park:


----------



## KenOC

"A growing number of tech analysts are predicting that in less than 20 years we'll all have stopped owning cars, and, what's more, the internal combustion engine will have been consigned to the dustbin of history…

"The central idea is pretty simple: Self-driving electric vehicles organised into an Uber-style network will be able to offer such cheap transport that you'll very quickly - we're talking perhaps a decade - decide you don't need a car any more.

"And if you're thinking this timescale is wildly optimistic, just recall how rapidly cars replaced horses."

A thought-provoking article from BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45786690


----------



## KenOC

I’ve never seen mention of one significant social effect of the expected “revolution” in transportation. Many agree that owning a private vehicle will become a privilege of the rich due to expected high costs of licensing and insurance. So the poor will no longer be able to rattle about town in those shaky beaters.

But what are they to do? To take an on-call driverless car will require some sort of credit, and good credit at that, indicated by a token such as a credit card. Failing that, the poor will be unable to travel further than they can walk, likely unable to attend a job interview, or even to stand in line at the unemployment office.

Yes, what are the very poor to do in our brave new driverless world?


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> I've never seen mention of one significant social effect of the expected "revolution" in transportation. Many agree that owning a private vehicle will become a privilege of the rich due to expected high costs of licensing and insurance. So the poor will no longer be able to rattle about town in those shaky beaters.
> 
> But what are they to do? To take an on-call driverless car will require some sort of credit, and good credit at that, indicated by a token such as a credit card. Failing that, the poor will be unable to travel further than they can walk, likely unable to attend a job interview, or even to stand in line at the unemployment office.
> 
> Yes, what are the very poor to do in our brave new driverless world?


There will have to be an exemption to allow the poor to continue driving beaters with no insurance. That is what the high cost of licensing and insurance to the rich is for.

So, we will have the very rich driving very fancy cars and the very poor driving beaters, with all in between taking driverless cars. Then I will give most of my money away and become poor so I can keep driving my beater.:lol:


----------



## Dan Ante

I will keep all of my money and remain poor


----------



## Guest

Oh well, think on the positive side, there is enough room for your camel to travel with you.


----------



## KenOC

"Tesla's 'Navigate on Autopilot' goes live in North America tonight"

You still have to give your car voice confirmations for some things, but the direction things are going is clear.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...goes-live-in-north-america-tonight/ar-BBOXfkW


----------



## aleazk

Great, then. Now, _we_, rich people, are going to finally rule the world!


----------



## KenOC

A first, I think. Cars driving around with no humans at all, not even as backups.

"Alphabet Inc.'s driverless-car unit Waymo has been granted the first permit to test autonomous cars on California public roads without drivers behind the wheel, the state's DMV said Tuesday… The new permit allows the company to test a fleet of about three dozen driverless cars on freeways, highways, and streets of Santa Clara County cities such as Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a...n-california-without-human-drivers-2018-10-30


----------



## SixFootScowl

All wet: Rain could delay the arrival of self-driving future.
"Even a little crummy weather might pose big problems for self-driving systems."
"When rain intensity increased to 30 per cent, as many as 40 per cent of objects could no longer be detected."


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kobus said:


> All wet: Rain could delay the arrival of self-driving future.
> "Even a little crummy weather might pose big problems for self-driving systems."
> "When rain intensity increased to 30 per cent, as many as 40 per cent of objects could no longer be detected."


Good story! I can see that this will be a significant problem.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Good story! I can see that this will be a significant problem.


They have only been working on autonomous cars for how long and just now are learning of this problem. Seems their zeal clouded their reason.


----------



## Judith

I have a mad prediction, maybe not in our lifetime. Technology has come so far that something is going to give and will die out. Therefore back to coal fires and cooking over it and transport for future will be "horse and carriage"!!!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Judith said:


> I have a mad prediction, maybe not in our lifetime. Technology has come so far that something is going to give and will die out. Therefore back to coal fires and cooking over it and transport for future will be "horse and carriage"!!!


Wait until the power grid goes up in smoke. We had the northeast U.S into Canada blackout in 2003. There was one in 1965 too.


----------



## Dan Ante

I can’t remember where I read it but the computer in the cars will have to make life and death decisions e.g. If face with the prospect of avoiding either a human or animal it must recognise and choose which to hit, then if faced with 2 humans in its path it must sacrifice the older. Whether this was speculation or fact I don’t know but things are getting tricky.


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kobus said:


> They have only been working on autonomous cars for how long and just now are learning of this problem. Seems their zeal clouded their reason.


Not sure what to make of this. I'm sure the LIDAR capabilities in all types of weather are well-known. After all, these cars have been driving around in various cities in all kinds of weather for the past couple of years. There have been very few at-fault accidents, and the ones I've read about had nothing to do with the weather.

BTW:

"Customers of Hassett Ace Hardware in Palo Alto will be the first people in the world to get their purchases via autonomous delivery vans in a trial of technology from a pair of Silicon Valley startups.

"The deliveries will be made by a pair of Ford vans that have been retrofitted with sensors from San Jose-based Velodyne Lidar Inc. and autonomous technology developed over the past 10 years in Korea by a startup named ThorDrive, which established its headquarters in Mountain View about a year ago."


----------



## KenOC

Another use for autonomous vehicles.
-------------------------------------------------------
When a pair of California Highway Patrol officers pulled alongside a car cruising down Highway 101 in Redwood City before dawn Friday, they reported a shocking sight: a man fast asleep behind the wheel.

The car was a Tesla, the man was a Los Altos planning commissioner, and the ensuing freeway stop turned into a complex, seven-minute operation in which the officers had to outsmart the vehicle's autopilot system because the driver was unresponsive, according to the CHP.

The arrest of 45-year-old Alexander Samek on suspicion of drunken driving reignited questions about the uses, and potential abuses, of self-driving technology.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...y-101-on-autopilot/ar-BBQjSf1?ocid=spartanntp

Maybe they should have just let his car drive him home?


----------



## KenOC

"Waymo is introducing a small-scale ride-hailing service in the Phoenix area that will include a human behind the wheel… It will be confined to a roughly 100-square-mile area in and around Phoenix, including the neighboring cities of Chandler, Tempe, Mesa, and Gilbert."

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/google-owned-waymo-launches-autonomous-ride-hailing-service-in-phoenix

I've been reading up on the safety of driverless cars. Some studies show higher accidents rates than normal cars, some lower. There are several problems in the comparison - for instance, in California, where much of the autonomous driving is taking place, every accident, no matter how minor or who is at fault, has to be reported. For normal cars, many accidents are not reported for a number of reasons. But nobody knows how many accidents go unreported.

However, given the accidents that _are _reported, it appears that those involving driverless cars are less severe.


----------



## joen_cph

Another new, slightly amusing concept. The Rinspeed Snap.
I'm not totally convinced, however.


----------



## KenOC

Interesting. Makes me wonder if we're missing the main point of the evolution of transportation that seems to be taking place. What other wild ideas are out there?


----------



## Dan Ante

The most stupid thing in NZ at the moment is Electric Scooters being allowed on the pavements these things are going up to 25kph absolute madness and that is closely followed by the decriminalisation of cannabis referendum to be held next year we have enough of a problem with alcohol.


----------



## SixFootScowl

joen_cph said:


> Another new, slightly amusing concept. The Rinspeed Snap.
> I'm not totally convinced, however.


Let's see how it performs in a snow and sleet storm with heavy traffic! They always present everything so idealized. I want a law that ugly people have to be represented in fashion catalogs and in ads like this.


----------



## KenOC

"Kroger's driverless delivery trucks take off in Arizona"

Scottsdale: "Customers who are interested in the service pay a $5.95 flat rate for same-day or next-day delivery. After the order is placed, Nuro's R1 van is then stacked with groceries and programmed to travel on public roads to the customers' addresses where they will retrieve their items from the van."

The pictures look like each small van is set up to deliver multiple orders, as might be expected. How to ensure that customers remove their orders and only their orders from the van, or that only customers can remove the groceries, isn't addressed in the article. But I'm sure they gave this some thought!

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/kroger-to-test-delivering-groceries-via-driverless-cars


----------



## KenOC

My son is in Las Vegas over New Year's for some work. When he got into town he received an e-mail from Lyft which he forwarded to me. Lyft was advertising its autonomous taxi service, which you could select for free in-town rides. They were careful to mention that they had not just one but _two _people sitting up front to watch over things, so the max passenger load was three.


----------



## Strange Magic

Excellent vehicle for surmounting extreme traffic jams by climbing over them:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46794087


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> Excellent vehicle for surmounting extreme traffic jams by climbing over them:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46794087


It certainly is a kinder gentler version compared to the ******* traffic-jam-surmounting technology that has been out for decades:


----------



## SixFootScowl

Hey, forget autonomous cars. How about autonomous motorcycles?


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> I think things are about to change in a big way. Here's what I see.
> 
> Most people won't own cars. When you want one, you call up a driverless vehicle with your cell phone or whatever people are using then. A car comes and gets you and asks you where you're going. You tell it and it takes you there. Then your car drives off to pick up somebody else. When you want to go home, you just do the same thing. Charges will be automatically applied to your credit or debit card (or equivalent).
> 
> So you won't own a car, you'll have no garage, and you won't make payments or buy insurance or gas or repairs. It'll all be in the per-mile charge of vehicles that are intensively used in between scheduled services and other needed repairs. You'll be recorded on video in the car, of course, so charges can be made for any damage or vandalism. Repeat violators will be banned from the service.
> 
> A huge amount of real estate will be freed up because large parking lots will no longer be needed (think about that). Accident and auto death rates will drop precipitously. The only people owning cars will be the very rich, people needing to get down bad roads where the autonomous cars won't go in order to use the service, and auto aficionados.
> 
> Anyway, that's what I see, and it should be well underway within 20 years at the outside. Driverless taxis are already being trialed in Singapore and, within a week or two, in Philadelphia. It just makes too much sense.
> 
> Or so I think. What about you? Agree? Disagree? Or do you see a different future entirely?


This is very much Elon Musks thoughts I saw him on a podcast talking about it. I think the rich will always own thrir own cars for pleasure. I think my Father would shoot you if you try and remove his cars.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Zofia said:


> This is very much Elon Musks thoughts I saw him on a podcast talking about it. I think the rich will always own thrir own cars for pleasure. I think my Father would shoot you if you try and remove his cars.


I already have this concern. They'll have to pry my manual shift lever from my cold dead fingers, and it's rear-wheel drive too!


----------



## Zofia

Fritz Kobus said:


> I already have this concern. They'll have to pry my manual shift lever from my cold dead fingers, and it's rear-wheel drive too!











My Father sleeps now but this looks like his car. He just had it I don't how to say it without it not making sense the old parts out for more newer parts; Still the old body and engine. I will take picture perhaps mid week, it is much fun to drive.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Zofia said:


> View attachment 112206
> 
> 
> My Father sleeps now but this looks like his car. He just had it I don't how to say it without it not making sense the old parts out for more newer parts; Still the old body and engine. I will take picture perhaps mid week, it is much fun to drive.


That is a nice car! I just drive an old Chevy S10 pickup but it is RWD and manual. But my son and I have a really fun car that is shown in this thread.


----------



## Dan Ante

Zofia said:


> View attachment 112206
> 
> 
> My Father sleeps now but this looks like his car. He just had it I don't how to say it without it not making sense the old parts out for more newer parts; Still the old body and engine. I will take picture perhaps mid week, it is much fun to drive.


Looks like a man after my own heart, the best kind of motoring is in a roadster with the hood down this was taken about 5 years ago at Taupo, we still have it but as a second car only.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> "Kroger's driverless delivery trucks take off in Arizona"
> 
> Scottsdale: "Customers who are interested in the service pay a $5.95 flat rate for same-day or next-day delivery. After the order is placed, Nuro's R1 van is then stacked with groceries and programmed to travel on public roads to the customers' addresses where they will retrieve their items from the van."
> 
> The pictures look like each small van is set up to deliver multiple orders, as might be expected. How to ensure that customers remove their orders and only their orders from the van, or that only customers can remove the groceries, isn't addressed in the article. But I'm sure they gave this some thought!
> 
> https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/kroger-to-test-delivering-groceries-via-driverless-cars


Worse yet, what's to stop a criminal from carjacking a driverless vehicle when it stops at a red light or a stop sign?

They would seem to be a tempting target, because I don't know much about it, but neither would a desperate criminal.


----------



## Zofia

Luchesi said:


> Worse yet, what's to stop a criminal from carjacking a driverless vehicle when it stops at a red light or a stop sign?
> 
> They would seem to be a tempting target, because I don't know much about it, but neither would a desperate criminal.


Lots of things no manual input ie you cannot tell the car to divert from the route manually. In future though there would be no need for red lights at all just have many autobahn in many directions. Only reason for red light is to allow humans to drive not AI, AI does not need to stop if it is good enough.


----------



## Zofia

I am not for AI cars or the automatic making of jobs sorry the word escapes me. It would lead to too many unemployed some people have borderline IQ driving is maybe the only thing they can do that is payable. Robbing them of jobs will doom them to life of unhappiness.


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> I am not for AI cars or the automatic making of jobs sorry the word escapes me. It would lead to too many unemployed some people have borderline IQ driving is maybe the only thing they can do that is payable. Robbing them of jobs will doom them to life of unhappiness.


140 years ago 50% of the American labor force was employed in agriculture. Today it's just 2%. All those jobs were lost and nobody seems to miss them...


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> 140 years ago 50% of the American labor force was employed in agriculture. Today it's just 2%. All those jobs were lost and nobody seems to miss them...


So I wonder if the rise in IQ of Americans was the cause of the demise of agriculture?


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> 140 years ago 50% of the American labor force was employed in agriculture. Today it's just 2%. All those jobs were lost and nobody seems to miss them...


Because those jobs were replaced with other low skill manual jobs it is the low skill manual jobs that AI can easily and is replacing.


----------



## Zofia

Fritz Kobus said:


> So I wonder if the rise in IQ of Americans was the cause of the demise of agriculture?


IQ has actually decreased in the average since the industrial revolution they just adjust the average to remain at 100.


----------



## haydnguy

I read a fascinating article the other day about Isaac Asimov being asked in 1983 what the world would be like in 2019. One of the things he said was that education would have to become more technical and that many people would be left behind. 

In the U.S. today we have an initiative called STEM in our high schools. (grades 1-12). STEM stands for "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math"). There is a law in my state that every student that graduates from high school must have taken at least one course in computer programming. So what Asimov envisioned is coming true.

Today, China is the biggest car market. They are also supposedly ahead in AI. So the West has competition. There are people that simply are not interested or unable to get into tech. So how are they going to make a sustainable living? I don't know.


----------



## Zofia

It is referred to as the technocracy here. Very scary if you are sub 80 in IQ I think for the USA that is 14% of population.


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> Because those jobs were replaced with other low skill manual jobs it is the low skill manual jobs that AI can easily and is replacing.


In fact, those jobs were replaced with higher-value jobs, proven by the fact that Americans are on average far better off today than they were when agriculture was the main occupation. Even within my own lifetime, the standard of living has improved markedly. A higher proportion of workers is providing more value than ever before.


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> In fact, those jobs were replaced with higher-value jobs, proven by the fact that Americans are on average far better off today than they were when agriculture was the main occupation. Even within my own lifetime, the standard of living has improved markedly. A higher proportion of workers is providing more value than ever before.


How the jobs are rewarded better or worse does not mean they are of any higher skill level. For a long time USA was the beneficiary (correct?) of having a fully working industry after the war. USA has seen stagnation and relative fall in buying power since the 70s growth is fuled by removing the currency from gold standards and it allows debt.

I'm not talking for middle to high skill worker only low. Buying power of a fast food worker was double in the 80s what is is now. I will find the article. Of course I may not understand everything but standard of living is less now than in 1950 if you adjust for inflation.


----------



## haydnguy

KenOC said:


> In fact, those jobs were replaced with higher-value jobs, proven by the fact that Americans are on average far better off today than they were when agriculture was the main occupation. Even within my own lifetime, the standard of living has improved markedly. A higher proportion of workers is providing more value than ever before.


But when blue collar jobs were created, such as steel, auto workers, etc., they provided a decent wage but didn't require a lot of knowledge. They were monotonous and physically difficult in some cases but didn't require a whole lot of "head knowledge". Also, part of the reason was because of labor unions which gave workers more bargaining power than what the average worker has today.


----------



## Zofia

haydnguy said:


> But when blue collar jobs were created, such as steel, auto workers, etc., they provided a decent wage but didn't require a lot of knowledge. They were monotonous and physically difficult in some cases but didn't require a whole lot of "head knowledge". Also, part of the reason was because of labor unions which gave workers more bargaining power than what the average worker has today.


That is my point look at news readers paid very well but to do that job you need to look good and read well. It is a low skill job and even that a % of low IQ people struggle with. You'll also find that intelligent people do not want to work in cosl mines etc but coal miners on the average love it. They feel useful and they provide for their family.

If am not for sozialismus but I don't think we should rob people of work and the way they keep independent because my life would be cooler to have AI driver.


----------



## Zofia

Thank you both it is rare we are allowed to talk politics in school.


----------



## KenOC

Quite simply, the average American has more buying power today than ever before, which is apparent to anybody who's been alive a few decades. I grew up in a 1,000 SF house. Who has a house like that today? One person in my neighborhood ever bought a new car.

The value available to us is equal to the value we collectively create. Well, maybe plus what we borrow from China! But that's another story... 

Plenty of statistics online if you care to check.


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> Quite simply, the average American has more buying power today than ever before, which is apparent to anybody who's been alive a few decades. I grew up in a 1,000 SF house. Who has a house like that today? One person in my neighborhood ever bought a new car.
> 
> The value available to us is equal to the value we collectively create. Well, maybe plus what we borrow from China! But that's another story...
> 
> Plenty of statistics online if you care to check.


That's not true though I am sorry if you are paid 4 timrs the wage but things are 6 times as expensive you have less buying power. Those numbers are just for example but it's easy to work out if you look at the price of big ticket items as a % of the wage.


----------



## Zofia

I am not sure if I am not making clear point I have been up most of the night reading a book. I don't know of this is a good website but this is the point I try to make...

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/buying-power-us-dollar-century/

I am not being mean to America this effect is global.


----------



## KenOC

We believe what we want to believe, regardless of plain facts that are available to us. As the saying goes, "The wish is father to the thought."


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> We believe what we want to believe, regardless of plain facts that are available to us. As the saying goes, "The wish is father to the thought."


I am sorry what? I am tired and was being little lazy but I do not know what you mean?


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> We believe what we want to believe, regardless of plain facts that are available to us. As the saying goes, "The wish is father to the thought."


Ah I see the picture just loaded I thought that was a strange reply. Again making more money yes but it buys less so are you better off?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Zofia said:


> IQ has actually decreased in the average since the industrial revolution they just adjust the average to remain at 100.


I was kidding about it. We have plenty to match the Green Acres bunch today.


----------



## Luchesi

Zofia said:


> I am not for AI cars or the automatic making of jobs sorry the word escapes me. It would lead to too many unemployed some people have borderline IQ driving is maybe the only thing they can do that is payable. Robbing them of jobs will doom them to life of unhappiness.


"...the word escapes me."

You were born in Vienna so I'm curious about how many languages you can understand? The reason is, I have a good friend from Belgium who lived in Brazil for many years before coming to the States. He could speak, or at least understand four or five languages. So I asked him several times why doesn't he help us understand him using foreign phrases when he gets confused about the peculiarities in English?

When you watch Lang Lang in his early interviews he could have done this very effectively also. But he never did. I don't know exactly how it would work, because I only speak English, and just a little Greek and French.

If I could speak more than one language I would be showing off with such a wider world all the time to my friends!


----------



## Strange Magic

While it's clear that people are living better now than in the Dark Ages or the Great Depression or whenever, all analyses report record income and net worth inequalities in the U.S. right now. And massive tax breaks and cuts at the very top exacerbate the situation, as more and more wealth accumulates among the 1% and the 0.1% at the top. As a result, the social democracies of northern and Western Europe continue to outpace the USA in just about every measure of human well-being, education, and happiness.

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/04/c...rce=link&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=related


----------



## Zofia

Luchesi said:


> ...


?



Strange Magic said:


> While it's clear that people are living better now than in the Dark Ages or the Great Depression or whenever, all analyses report record income and net worth inequalities in the U.S. right now. And massive tax breaks and cuts at the very top exacerbate the situation, as more and more wealth accumulates among the 1% and the 0.1% at the top. As a result, the social democracies of northern and Western Europe continue to outpace the USA in just about every measure of human well-being, education, and happiness.


Europe is capitalist as America is. Europe has more welfare yes but mostly do not need the Army as NATO protects. We are not lead with Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands we are not sozialistisch. Europe had more % of people the same it makes the country happiest like Japan also 98% Japanese good standards.


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> IQ has actually decreased in the average since the industrial revolution they just adjust the average to remain at 100.


Is this what they teach in school now? Hope not! Look up the "Flynn effect."

"Worldwide, IQs have risen by up to three points per decade over the past century."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528814-400-why-iqs-are-rising-and-why-its-deadly-serious/


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> Is this what they teach in school now? Hope not! Look up the "Flynn effect."
> 
> "Worldwide, IQs have risen by up to three points per decade over the past century."
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528814-400-why-iqs-are-rising-and-why-its-deadly-serious/


https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674

https://neociceroniantimes.wordpres...f-americas-average-iq-is-a-cause-for-concern/

Could be easy to find more to make my argument but not worth the time you just argue never addressing new point.


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674
> 
> https://neociceroniantimes.wordpres...f-americas-average-iq-is-a-cause-for-concern/
> 
> Could be easy to find more to make my argument but not worth the time you just argue never addressing new point.


Thanks for the articles, although I can't see that either supports your original statement. Both are interesting. The second article, in particular, is so non-PC that it would likely get its author lynched on most college campuses in the US!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year

GDP is going up in real terms, not just nominally. However, concerns that this centuries-long trend will come to a halt within the next generation are not baseless... we are very likely at a crucial turning point in history. No one knows which job will be the next one to be superseded by robots.


----------



## KenOC

Thanks for that. I was getting tired of explaining simple economics (like the graph being in constant dollars).

Another concern is the very unequal distribution of both income and wealth in the US in particular, with most of the recent gains going to the very few at the top. The distribution of wealth in the US is already more skewed than, say, in Mexico, something many don’t realize. We’re already seeing something of a populist revolt against the very wealthy in the run-up to the 2020 elections. If an economic downturn lowers all boats, as it might, then this won’t end well.

But robots…the basic question is the wealth our economy generates per year. If robots generate the wealth, all the better so long as the wealth is well-distributed. Many would say their ideal is the paycheck without the work!


----------



## haydnguy

You know how much of a percentage of GDP that the U.S. spends on healthcare? About 17%.


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> Thanks for that. I was getting tired of explaining simple economics (like the graph being in constant dollars).
> 
> Another concern is the very unequal distribution of both income and wealth in the US in particular, with most of the recent gains going to the very few at the top. The distribution of wealth in the US is already more skewed than, say, in Mexico, something many don't realize. We're already seeing something of a populist revolt against the very wealthy in the run-up to the 2020 elections. If an economic downturn lowers all boats, as it might, then this won't end well.
> 
> But robots…the basic question is the wealth our economy generates per year. If robots generate the wealth, all the better so long as the wealth is well-distributed. Many would say their ideal is the paycheck without the work!


It is proven people need to work or feel productive? For their memtal health it is why so many elder people especially working classes lose their health fast after retirement. You focus too much on wealth distribution over wellbeing in my opinion. Just giving poor money rarely improves their life compared to good working earning the money.

Robots will have the same affect that unskilled migrants do drive down wages and hurt lower classes financially and in the wellbeing. Could only see robots working with UBI that has it's own issue of mass boredom.


----------



## Zofia

Also it worries me a lot American youth like communism I saw one “Stalin Did Nothing Wrong” tshirt lul. Poorly educated children or maybe intentionally mislead? Socialism/Communism = trash.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Zofia said:


> Also it worries me a lot American youth like communism I saw one "Stalin Did Nothing Wrong" tshirt lul. Poorly educated children or maybe intentionally mislead? Socialism/Communism = trash.


I would hope that this is a small minority, but I think many in America are misled about many things, both history and current events. It isn't just fake news, but there is a lot of fake history. If we try to get into it here, it becomes political and then the thread gets shut down.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fritz Kobus said:


> I would hope that this is a small minority, but I think many in America are misled about many things, both history and current events. It isn't just fake news, but there is a lot of fake history. If we try to get into it here, it becomes political and then the thread gets shut down.


Discuss it in Groups: History, Politics..... That's what the groups are for.


----------



## KenOC

Zofia said:


> It is proven people need to work or feel productive? For their memtal health it is why so many elder people especially working classes lose their health fast after retirement. You focus too much on wealth distribution over wellbeing in my opinion. Just giving poor money rarely improves their life compared to good working earning the money.
> 
> Robots will have the same affect that unskilled migrants do drive down wages and hurt lower classes financially and in the wellbeing. Could only see robots working with UBI that has it's own issue of mass boredom.


Para 1: It's an interesting thought. People don't need to "add value" to others to find worthwhile work. There are lots of public works still around from the depression, 80 years ago, financed by the WPA and other government programs.

So free enterprise needn't provide jobs if robots serve the purposes of capitalism. People can still contribute to improving our lives through their efforts. Of course it's not an issue now since unemployment is at historical lows, but the future is likely to be different.

Para 2: In the massive change in the US economy from agrarian to industrial over a century ago, workers were driven from low value-added jobs in agriculture to higher value-added jobs in industry and services. They responded successfully. I'm sure that the rise of robots will have exactly the same effect, and improve the living standards for everyone.


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kobus said:


> I would hope that this is a small minority, but I think many in America are misled about many things, both history and current events. It isn't just fake news, but there is a lot of fake history. If we try to get into it here, it becomes political and then the thread gets shut down.


Hope indeed. A few years ago I read of a large-scale survey where 80% of high school students agreed with the statement: "It's the government's job to make sure I get a good-paying job on graduation."


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> Para 1: It's an interesting thought. People don't need to "add value" to others to find worthwhile work. There are lots of public works still around from the depression, 80 years ago, financed by the WPA and other government programs.
> 
> So free enterprise needn't provide jobs if robots serve the purposes of capitalism. People can still contribute to improving our lives through their efforts. Of course it's not an issue now since unemployment is at historical lows, but the future is likely to be different.
> 
> Para 2: In the massive change in the US economy from agrarian to industrial over a century ago, workers were driven from low value-added jobs in agriculture to higher value-added jobs in industry and services. They responded successfully. I'm sure that the rise of robots will have exactly the same effect, and improve the living standards for everyone.


You are looking at the jobs in terms of pay and not in terms of skill I'd argue for working class the jobs are still in the same skill brackets. I have read most men place great value on providing for their wife and children on average. I think not many working mem would cope with not needing to earn money.

It is like hollywood stars rock stars etc "Nothing good comes from boredom. It's said that idle hands are the devil's workshop..." a high percentage end up lost to alcoholism, drug abuse or take their lives. I think out of boredom and emptiness.

I think your line of thought is very utopian and looks like very much equally of outcome rather than opportunity I don't think it would end well. I'll admit I do not know but it is wrong to be so sure either way.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Hope indeed. A few years ago I read of a large-scale survey where 80% of high school students agreed with the statement: "It's the government's job to make sure I get a good-paying job on graduation."


__________________


----------



## Zofia

KenOC said:


> Hope indeed. A few years ago I read of a large-scale survey where 80% of high school students agreed with the statement: "It's the government's job to make sure I get a good-paying job on graduation."











character limits


----------



## Dan Ante

Zofia said:


> You are looking at the jobs in terms of pay and not in terms of skill I'd argue for working class the jobs are still in the same skill brackets. I have read most men place great value on providing for their wife and children on average. I think not many working mem would cope with not needing to earn money.
> 
> It is like hollywood stars rock stars etc "Nothing good comes from boredom. It's said that idle hands are the devil's workshop..." a high percentage end up lost to alcoholism, drug abuse or take their lives. I think out of boredom and emptiness.
> 
> I think your line of thought is very utopian and looks like very much equally of outcome rather than opportunity I don't think it would end well. I'll admit I do not know but it is wrong to be so sure either way.


Your command of English has suddenly improved 100% congratulations.


----------



## Strange Magic

> KenOC: "Of course it's not an issue now since unemployment is at historical lows, but the future is likely to be different."


Thought experiment: What happens to unemployment figures if 1.7 million US prisoners are released into the US labor market? This would bring us down to an incarceration level roughly equivalent to the midpoint of the rest of the world. One way we try to keep employment levels up is by jailing much of the potential workforce at government expense. The half-million chronically homeless are mostly left to their own devices though, and are thus less of a burden to the taxpayer.


----------



## Zofia

Dan Ante said:


> Your command of English has suddenly improved 100% congratulations.


I can take more time to be better think it out more it but it is still same level as yesterday. Try my best to make Ken understood me turn him away from his communist way. ;D

Edit

My problem I cannot think like an English speaker if I type in English I still think in my mind as Deutsche. I can think in other language just not English or French why? Do not know yet.


----------



## KenOC

Back on topic: Self-driving cars begin transporting groceries to Texas homes

"...The company has reportedly completed thousands of driverless deliveries within the Arizona market."


----------



## SixFootScowl

Look out! Anything by the side of the road might get picked up.


----------



## KenOC

Commotion in the self-driving world as Elon Musak trashes lidar: "Anyone relying on lidar is doomed. Expensive sensors that are unnecessary. It's like having a whole bunch of expensive appendices. Like one appendix is bad, well how about a whole bunch of them? That's ridiculous. You'll see."

It looks like all of Tesla’s self-driving competitors are using lidar. Tesla’s strategy for achieving “full autonomy” uses only cameras, radar, and ultrasonic sensors.

Press reaction seems to be leaning against Musk, and Velodyne, maker of lidar, begs to differ with Musk (of course).

Meanwhile: “Musk on Monday said that drivers should be able to use Tesla's new technology to drive without having to pay attention to the road by the second quarter of next year. He also said that the company's current timetable is designed to win needed regulatory approval from the U.S. government for self-driving vehicles by the end of next year when he plans to put a million "robo-taxis" on the road.” Without lidar, it seems.


----------



## KenOC




----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


>


That say's plenty Ken, why put that amount of cash in a car and who hacked it??? yeh put your life in Tesla's hands.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> That say's plenty Ken, why put that amount of cash in a car and who hacked it??? yeh put your life in Tesla's hands.


Just to be clear, it's a joke story from The Onion...


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> Just to be clear, it's a joke story from The Onion...


Oh......................................


----------



## KenOC

Just posted, Tesla's self-driving experience. This is impressive. and includes a hands-off *video*.


----------



## KenOC

Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of government!

“Electric car owners in Illinois could take a large hit to their bank accounts after lawmakers proposed an extreme hike in registration fees for electronic vehicles in the state. The proposal would raise the annual registration fee to $1,000, more than 57 times the current amount of $17.50.”

“…The reason for the extreme hikes are that electric vehicles don't provide the state any gas tax revenue.”

Of course this would apply to most or all autonomous cars as well.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
--George Harrison


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of government!
> 
> "Electric car owners in Illinois could take a large hit to their bank accounts after lawmakers proposed an extreme hike in registration fees for electronic vehicles in the state. The proposal would raise the annual registration fee to $1,000, more than 57 times the current amount of $17.50."
> 
> "…The reason for the extreme hikes are that electric vehicles don't provide the state any gas tax revenue."
> 
> Of course this would apply to most or all autonomous cars as well.
> 
> If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
> If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
> If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
> If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
> --George Harrison


Apparently they have a similar tax here in Alabama. I go to church with the CEO of a regional fast food joint, and his wife has a Tesla. He was complaining about this additional tax. Kind of a trap, because they were giving tax incentives initially to buy electric and hybrid cars to encourage purchasing them. Then when they get owners, they give them another tax. Of course my University provides free charging stations in several of their employee parking garages.

On another note, I read an interesting story about autonomous driving Teslas. Apparently a porn star tested her ability to engage in the activities of her trade while the car drove her down the highway. When asked about this, Musk confessed it was not one of the benefits of his cars they had considered.


----------



## KenOC

I'm going to post this video separately - a driver's-eye view of a Tesla self-drive. The new logic negotiates lanes on the freeway; before you had to operate the turn signal to begin a lane change. No longer.

The video is speeded up, but impressive nonetheless.


----------



## Strange Magic

Now let's see the daily commute to & from any major city at rush hour! I still like the idea of having a man walk in front of a self-driving car carrying a red flag by day and a red lantern at night.


----------



## Dan Ante

How will the national power grid stand up if we all convert to EVs?


----------



## KenOC

"Police in Providence, Rhode Island Wednesday pulled over a May Mobility self-driving shuttle just hours after it was pressed into service for the first time. Making its debut in Rhode Island, the officer pulled in behind the shuttle as it was dropping off passengers and lit up the car's blues and reds because they were unfamiliar with the oddly shaped people transporter."


----------



## KenOC

Are you sure you want to share that autonomous shuttle? "...a new study, _Driving with Germs_, found that a ride-sharing vehicle has significantly more germs compared to a rental vehicle or a taxi -- and even more than a toothbrush holder, coffee reservoir and toilet seat."

As Rosanne Rosannadanna says, "It's always _something_."


----------



## philoctetes

What will people do when the machines do everything for them? We're becoming so useless ourselves.

I know, I know, speak for myself. But every time we get a machine to do something for us, we increase our carbon footprint, consume more energy, produce more pollution and heat... when they do things we can't do (a crane for example) they are immensely valuable, a crane is a positive multiplier, low cost / benefit, but a machine that performs routine mental functions, for example, maybe not...

Sure, machines free us to do more wonderful things, but assuming the benefit outweighs the cost is not automatic...

I still say we need to get above ground somehow, when we invent the improbablility drive... :angel:


----------



## KenOC

More on Elon Musk's rejection of Lidar as a necessary sensor system for autonomous operation: "Critics call Tesla's Elon Musk 'irresponsible' for casting doubt on need for lidar sensors in self-driving cars"

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/critics-call-teslas-elon-musk-irresponsible-for-casting-doubt-on-need-for-lidar-sensors-in-self-driving-cars-2019-05-26?mod=mw_theo_homepage


----------



## KenOC

"The technology behind robo-taxis is making human-driven cars safer at a rate that completely autonomous vehicles may have trouble matching"

Interesting.


----------



## KenOC

"Domino's is partnering with Silicon Valley startup Nuro to start delivering pizza using robots in the Houston area later this year."

Nuro has already partnered with Kroger's in Scottsdale AZ and has been making deliveries there for some time. (See Post 203 in this thread.)


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> "Domino's is partnering with Silicon Valley startup Nuro to start delivering pizza using robots in the Houston area later this year."
> 
> Nuro has already partnered with Kroger's in Scottsdale AZ and has been making deliveries there for some time. (See Post 203 in this thread.)


Why aren't these cars held up and broken into by criminals?


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> Why aren't these cars held up and broken into by criminals?


I would also wonder just how warm pizza #12 will be after eleven prior stops.


----------



## Dan Ante

Is there a robot that takes these pizzas to your door?
btw Ken your avatar looks really pi$$ed off.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> Is there a robot that takes these pizzas to your door?
> btw Ken your avatar looks really pi$$ed off.


You get a fone msg when the delivery vehicle arrives, along with a code to open the door and get your pizza. And yeah, you'd be pi$$ed off too if everybody was always comparing you to Shostakovich.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> I would also wonder just how warm pizza #12 will be after eleven prior stops.


I was thinking about any driver-less vehicle. No one's going to steal a car in this proposed new world?


----------



## KenOC

Luchesi said:


> I was thinking about any driver-less vehicle. No one's going to steal a car in this proposed new world?


Not sure how or why you'd steal one. You can't drive it (no steering wheel, pedals, or even a driver's seat). If it's a shared vehicle, it won't take you anywhere until you swipe your credit card. I suppose you could get it up on a flatbed trailer and steal it that way, but what would be the point? The car's always sending its location back to home base...


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Not sure how or why you'd steal one. You can't drive it (no steering wheel, pedals, or even a driver's seat). If it's a shared vehicle, it won't take you anywhere until you swipe your credit card. I suppose you could get it up on a flatbed trailer and steal it that way, but what would be the point? The car's always sending its location back to home base...


No more car thefts or carjackings in the future. Sounds good.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Not sure how or why you'd steal one. You can't drive it (no steering wheel, pedals, or even a driver's seat). If it's a shared vehicle, it won't take you anywhere until you swipe your credit card. I suppose you could get it up on a flatbed trailer and steal it that way, but what would be the point? The car's always sending its location back to home base...


Some, disliking the idea of driverless cars, might just hook a tow strap to it, drag it down to the river and then push it in (after stealing the 10 pizzas).


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kobus said:


> Some, disliking the idea of driverless cars, might just hook a tow strap to it, drag it down to the river and then push it in (after stealing the 10 pizzas).


Good point. I can see roving gangs of youths, seeing an autonomous delivery vehicle, leaping in front of it to make it stop. Then they bust it open, doing expensive damage, and make off with the contents.

It's likely that companies using autonomous delivery will have to redline neighborhoods or entire sections of cities. That will raise a hue and cry, for sure!


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Good point. I can see roving gangs of youths, seeing an autonomous delivery vehicle, leaping in front of it to make it stop. Then they bust it open, doing expensive damage, and make off with the contents.
> 
> It's likely that companies using autonomous delivery will have to redline neighborhoods or entire sections of cities. That will raise a hue and cry, for sure!


Maybe someday they will have autonomous armored cars with autonomous guns to ward off thieves.


----------



## KenOC

Fritz Kobus said:


> Maybe someday they will have autonomous armored cars with autonomous guns to ward off thieves.


I think the military already has that...


----------



## KenOC

An unanticipated difficulty with electric vehicles, autonomous or otherwise. Due to fire weather and expected gusty winds, PG&E will be shutting down electricity delivery in a pretty good-size area for some time, minimum two days and probably longer. The headline:* Tesla urges owners to charge up ahead of PG&E California power outages
*
About 800 thousand customers will be affected over a good chunk of California.


----------



## Strange Magic

KenOC said:


> Good point. I can see roving gangs of youths, seeing an autonomous delivery vehicle, leaping in front of it to make it stop. Then they bust it open, doing expensive damage, and make off with the contents.
> 
> It's likely that companies using autonomous delivery will have to redline neighborhoods or entire sections of cities. That will raise a hue and cry, for sure!


This will trigger a wave of employment opportunities in repairing vandal-caused damage to driverless vehicles, which will more than offset any loss of delivery drivers.


----------



## Guest

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-supercharger-station-videos-reveal-ev-obstacle-2019-12
Still a problem with all-electric vehicles - how do you plan for larger than normal demand at charging stations?
Apparently over the Thanksgiving week here in the U.S. (notoriously one of the busiest travel times of the year) people were experiencing abnormally long wait times at the charging stations. This would seem obvious, but the solution is not. How do you compensate for this? When the number of charging stations is normally sufficient and wait times are within tolerable standards, how do you justify building more just for those heavy travel times? It doesn't seem cost effective. And yet, as the article points out, while it may not seem cost effective to build more infrastructure for those infrequent larger than normal periods of demand, this may scare off those who are already reluctant, or on the fence, about buying an electric vehicle. Apparently Tesla tried one fix by sending a mobile massive battery to a few stations to compensate for the increased demand, but this doesn't seem to be a really viable long-term option.


----------



## KenOC

Waiting for charging stations -- I'm also told that you may show up at one of the many charging stations built in retail store parking lots only to find that somebody with a "normal" car has taken the space already. Not nice.

Ultimately battery packs will need to be standardized in just a few models. You'll pull into a stall and your entire battery will be removed by automatic equipment and replaced with a fully recharged battery. Then back on the road.


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> Waiting for charging stations -- I'm also told that you may show up at one of the many charging stations built in retail store parking lots only to find that somebody with a "normal" car has taken the space already. Not nice.
> 
> Ultimately battery packs will need to be standardized in just a few models. You'll pull into a stall and your entire battery will be removed by automatic equipment and replaced with a fully recharged battery. Then back on the road.


Kind of like exchanging your BBQ propane tank for a full one instead of refilling it.


----------



## Strange Magic

The electric car will first begin to seriously displace gasoline-powered cars among the ranks of commuters, who, with a 200 to 350-mile range, will charge overnight at home. I see daily quite a number of Teslas and Leafs (Leaves?) around here; my dentist has one. Those heading on long trips will (or can) drive for 3 to 6 hours, and then be reasonably expected to either pull over at a full-service station to use the facilities, eat a meal, play pinball for the maybe half-hour that a 440-volt battery charge might take. Alternatively, they may opt for the idea Ken referenced: swap out the empty battery for a full one, the choices to be priced accordingly. Either path works with slowly revolving carousels for either charging or swapping. Solvable problems.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-supercharger-station-videos-reveal-ev-obstacle-2019-12
> Still a problem with all-electric vehicles - how do you plan for larger than normal demand at charging stations?
> Apparently over the Thanksgiving week here in the U.S. (notoriously one of the busiest travel times of the year) people were experiencing abnormally long wait times at the charging stations. This would seem obvious, but the solution is not. How do you compensate for this? When the number of charging stations is normally sufficient and wait times are within tolerable standards, how do you justify building more just for those heavy travel times? It doesn't seem cost effective. And yet, as the article points out, while it may not seem cost effective to build more infrastructure for those infrequent larger than normal periods of demand, this may scare off those who are already reluctant, or on the fence, about buying an electric vehicle. Apparently Tesla tried one fix by sending a mobile massive battery to a few stations to compensate for the increased demand, but this doesn't seem to be a really viable long-term option.


Duh. The solution is more charging stations, and charging stations where you pay to charge up your car (in contrast to the custom of free charging). This will become economically viable as electric cars become common, rather than a boutique item.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Baron Scarpia said:


> Duh. The solution is more charging stations, and charging stations where you pay to charge up your car (in contrast to the custom of free charging). This will become economically viable as electric cars become common, rather than a boutique item.


How long does it take to charge a car?


----------



## Guest

Fritz Kobus said:


> How long does it take to charge a car?


Varies widely. The fastest is the Tesla supercharger, which takes 30 minutes to fully charge. Presumably that can be improved as the engineering of batteries improves. It is a matter of how much current you can run through the battery without overheating it.


----------



## Guest

See, the problem with all of this is that humans have been moving towards faster transportation. Sure, there is a niche market of people who like the concept and will accept the lengthy time to recharge. But the vast majority are looking for shorter drive times. "You know what would make this trip better? Longer times to refuel my vehicle!" said nobody, ever.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> See, the problem with all of this is that humans have been moving towards faster transportation. Sure, there is a niche market of people who like the concept and will accept the lengthy time to recharge. But the vast majority are looking for shorter drive times. "You know what would make this trip better? Longer times to refuel my vehicle!" said nobody, ever.


We've been assured (by you) that free-market technology all by itself will solve the AGW problem (if there is a problem, which you seem to question). Yet when technologies such as electric (and perhaps fuel-cell) cars are offered as likely solutions or improvements, your reflexive response is that they won't work, nobody wants them, what we have now is way better, it's all futile, etc. Bizarre.


----------



## mmsbls

Most people I know in the field are skeptical of battery swapping. The company Better Place pushed this idea with lots of capital about 10 years ago. They went out of business in 2013 although many think they made lots of business mistakes. It's also true that costs were significantly higher back then. Chinese transit agencies are using battery swapping for some buses. They have gigantic warehouses where the buses can pull into swap stations and get charged batteries. I think a significant problem for cars is that stations will require a large footprint both to store the charged battery packs and for charging stations to charge the discharged packs. Trucking charged packs to stations would be extremely expensive.

One large benefit of battery electric vehicles is the ability to charge at home. Women especially prefer this option. The vast majority of charging is currently and presumably will be at home. Further charging can be done at work. To accommodate the small percentage of long distance driving there are several options. In the near- to mid-term use plug-in hybrids that have a significant all electric range but also can operate like a conventional hybrid. One can also use fast charging to extend trips. Ultimately the charge issue may be the deciding factor that tips society toward fuel cell vehicles rather than battery electric. Fuel cell vehicles are fueled in a very similar manner and time to conventional vehicles.

It's not obvious how charging will evolve. Presently, charging the most common technology lithium batteries (NCA or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum) generally is limited to roughly an 80% charge in about an hour based on not reducing the battery lifetime (as Baron Scarpia said - overheating is the primary concern). Faster charging is possible depending on the battery size and charger power, but repeatedly charging faster will decrease the lifetime. There are battery chemistries that can accept much faster charging without problem. Lithium titanate cells can charge essentially 100% in under 10 minutes without issue. The charger power would have to be high enough to supply the necessary current. Titanate batteries have the disadvantage of being lower energy density and higher cost so they are not favored in consumer vehicles. 

There are also many people who believe that in the future consumers will not own vehicles but rather they will rent autonomous vehicles. Consumers would never charge a vehicle and would always simply have access to a charged vehicle. There are both clear benefits and potential problems with this situation.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> See, the problem with all of this is that humans have been moving towards faster transportation. Sure, there is a niche market of people who like the concept and will accept the lengthy time to recharge. But the vast majority are looking for shorter drive times. "You know what would make this trip better? Longer times to refuel my vehicle!" said nobody, ever.


People may well accept longer refueling times on a long trip for the benefit of zero effective refueling time in everyday life (car charges in the driveway at night, plugged into an outlet). Maybe the gas tank fills faster, but it is a 15 minute diversion to make a trip to the filling station. I probably would get an electric, if the up-front cost of the vehicle wasn't prohibitive and there was a broader choice of electric vehicle.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Most people I know in the field are skeptical of battery swapping. The company Better Place pushed this idea with lots of capital about 10 years ago. They went out of business in 2013 although many think they made lots of business mistakes. It's also true that costs were significantly higher back then. Chinese transit agencies are using battery swapping for some buses. They have gigantic warehouses where the buses can pull into swap stations and get charged batteries. I think a significant problem for cars is that stations will require a large footprint both to store the charged battery packs and for charging stations to charge the discharged packs. Trucking charged packs to stations would be extremely expensive.
> 
> One large benefit of battery electric vehicles is the ability to charge at home. Women especially prefer this option. The vast majority of charging is currently and presumably will be at home. Further charging can be done at work. To accommodate the small percentage of long distance driving there are several options. In the near- to mid-term use plug-in hybrids that have a significant all electric range but also can operate like a conventional hybrid. One can also use fast charging to extend trips. Ultimately the charge issue may be the deciding factor that tips society toward fuel cell vehicles rather than battery electric. Fuel cell vehicles are fueled in a very similar manner and time to conventional vehicles.
> 
> It's not obvious how charging will evolve. Presently, charging the most common technology lithium batteries (NCA or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum) generally is limited to roughly an 80% charge in about an hour based on not reducing the battery lifetime (as Baron Scarpia said - overheating is the primary concern). Faster charging is possible depending on the battery size and charger power, but repeatedly charging faster will decrease the lifetime. There are battery chemistries that can accept much faster charging without problem. Lithium titanate cells can charge essentially 100% in under 10 minutes without issue. The charger power would have to be high enough to supply the necessary current. Titanate batteries have the disadvantage of being lower energy density and higher cost so they are not favored in consumer vehicles.
> 
> There are also many people who believe that in the future consumers will not own vehicles but rather they will rent autonomous vehicles. Consumers would never charge a vehicle and would always simply have access to a charged vehicle. There are both clear benefits and potential problems with this situation.


A lot of this makes sense. Certain areas of the country are certainly more amenable to all electric vehicles, while others will likely never be. But the American, unlike so many other people around the country, is in love with the automobile, even in this era where concerns about fuel efficiency and aerodynamics have essentially made them all nearly indistinguishable from one another in terms of aesthetics. I don't see a future where there won't be car ownership.

The question is whether demand for electric vehicles will ever justify the added expenditures to build up a large enough charging infrastructure around the country. And then there is the issue of people like me - for normal day to day travel, the range of an electric vehicle is probably just fine. But occasionally I like to do longer journeys that would require a minimum of one charging stop. So do I have to buy multiple vehicles for that? Why? Why not just get a plug-in hybrid, and avoid the hassle? I think we will likely hit the ceiling of demand for electric only vehicles here very soon - probably most people who want them have already got them. Maybe they will upgrade as new models come out.

But if the future of electric vehicles are atrocious looking things like Musk rolled out, it won't matter how good they are. Ugly just is a killer for cars. Ask Pontiac about the Aztek.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> People may well accept longer refueling times on a long trip for the benefit of zero effective refueling time in everyday life (car charges in the driveway at night, plugged into an outlet). Maybe the gas tank fills faster, but it is a 15 minute diversion to make a trip to the filling station. I probably would get an electric, if the up-front cost of the vehicle wasn't prohibitive and there was a broader choice of electric vehicle.


15 minute diversion? When you are on a long trip, they are immediately off the interstate.

One thought that just popped in my mind - do we have a handle yet on how much home electricity bills are rising for people charging their electric cars at home? What is the expected cost of a charge for these?


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> ...But if the future of electric vehicles are atrocious looking things like Musk rolled out, it won't matter how good they are. Ugly just is a killer for cars. Ask Pontiac about the Aztek.


Time will tell. On Nov. 27, Tesla said it had received 250,000 pre-orders, even though the truck won't be delivered until 2021. But the required deposit was only $100. Anyway, an Aztek won't do 0-60 in 2.9 seconds...


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> 15 minute diversion? When you are on a long trip, they are immediately off the interstate.
> 
> One thought that just popped in my mind - do we have a handle yet on how much home electricity bills are rising for people charging their electric cars at home? What is the expected cost of a charge for these?


I was referring to the fact that it costs me 15 minutes to make a trip to the filling station in everyday life, as opposed to having the car charge at night in the driveway.

According to Forbes, it costs about $13 to fully charge a Tesla, which has a range of ~300 miles. To go that far I would have to put $30 of gas in my Prius.

The fact that electrics will almost always charge at home but would need public charging stations when people take long trips creates an economic quandary. The solution is presumably that public charging stations will charge a big premium for charging, but people be willing to pay it on relatively infrequent long trips in order to get the cost and time benefit in everyday driving.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Baron Scarpia said:


> I was referring to the fact that it costs me 15 minutes to make a trip to the filling station in everyday life, as opposed to having the car charge at night in the driveway.
> 
> According to Forbes, it costs about $13 to fully charge a Tesla, which has a range of ~300 miles. To go that far I would have to put $30 of gas in my Prius.
> 
> The fact that electrics will almost always charge at home but would need public charging stations when people take long trips creates an economic quandary. The solution is presumably that public charging stations will charge a big premium for charging, but people be willing to pay it on relatively infrequent long trips in order to get the cost and time benefit in everyday driving.


Which is why I wonder why plug-in hybrids are not more popular (although they outsell EVs in Europe).

Teslas are status symbols, not practical transportation. A Tesla owner gets to flaunt both their wealth and environmental virtue.

My PHEV Honda Clarion, has nearly a 50 mile battery range, adequate to cover my daily commute, and costs about $1.70 worth of electricity to charge. The seven gallon gas tank provides another 280 miles or so. The car cost me, after the rebate, about the same as a gasoline-powered Accord.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I was referring to the fact that it costs me 15 minutes to make a trip to the filling station in everyday life, as opposed to having the car charge at night in the driveway.
> 
> According to Forbes, it costs about $13 to fully charge a Tesla, which has a range of ~300 miles. *To go that far I would have to put $30 of gas in my Prius.*
> 
> The fact that electrics will almost always charge at home but would need public charging stations when people take long trips creates an economic quandary. The solution is presumably that public charging stations will charge a big premium for charging, but people be willing to pay it on relatively infrequent long trips in order to get the cost and time benefit in everyday driving.


You must have stated that wrong, or is gas even higher than I had thought in California? I just paid $2.39/gal. here in Alabama, which got me about 12.5 gallons of gas. If that amount would only get you 300 miles, then you are only getting 24 mpg . . . in a Prius. You might want to get it checked out, because I'm almost certain a Prius is supposed to get better gas mileage than my 2012 Honda Accord. 
Edit: Just looked it up, and a 2019 Prius should get ~50mpg, regardless of highway or city travel. So 300 miles should take 6 gallons. Here in Alabama, at $2.39/gallon, that will run you $14.34, or only $1.34 more than the cost of driving that Tesla 300 miles. Hmmmmmmm. Why shouldn't I get the Prius, which wouldn't leave me waiting 30 minutes to charge once I've run out of charge?

Like I said originally - nobody is going to want to face wait times at peak travel comparable to wait times seen back at the height of the oil crisis in the 70s just for a trip to see family. So the question is how many people will want to buy electric when anything else (e.g. plug-in hybrid) will spare them that headache? I think we are probably already pretty close to that ceiling. In the other scenario, my family would need to have 3 vehicles rather than our current 2 - 2 expensive electric vehicles for normal travel less than 300 miles for my wife and for me, and 1 "traveling" either conventional or plug-in hybrid for longer travel (and it needs to be big enough for the 5 of us and luggage). I don't have that kind of money, or that much space in my driveway.


----------



## Guest

Bwv 1080 said:


> Which is why I wonder why plug-in hybrids are not more popular (although they outsell EVs in Europe).
> 
> Teslas are status symbols, not practical transportation. A Tesla owner gets to flaunt both their wealth and environmental virtue.
> 
> My PHEV Honda Clarion, has nearly a 50 mile battery range, adequate to cover my daily commute, and costs about $1.70 worth of electricity to charge. The seven gallon gas tank provides another 280 miles or so. The car cost me, after the rebate, about the same as a gasoline-powered Accord.


The rebates will eventually end. But yes, they seem the better option. Don't worry about charging stations. Use gas for long trips and charge at home for those <50 mile trips.


----------



## KenOC

DrMike said:


> You must have stated that wrong, or is gas even higher than I had thought in California? I just paid $2.39/gal. here in Alabama...


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


>


Honestly, I don't know why you all let your politicians do that to you.

What exactly is not exorbitantly priced in California? Gas is ridiculously expensive. Housing is ridiculously expensive. Electric rates are higher than the national average. I know it has beautiful weather and all - but who can afford it? Those who have lived there forever and nouveau riche techies in the Bay Area and Silicone Valley?


----------



## Bwv 1080

......................................................


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> You must have stated that wrong, or is gas even higher than I had thought in California? I just paid $2.39/gal. here in Alabama, which got me about 12.5 gallons of gas. If that amount would only get you 300 miles, then you are only getting 24 mpg . . . in a Prius. You might want to get it checked out, because I'm almost certain a Prius is supposed to get better gas mileage than my 2012 Honda Accord.
> Edit: Just looked it up, and a 2019 Prius should get ~50mpg, regardless of highway or city travel. So 300 miles should take 6 gallons. Here in Alabama, at $2.39/gallon, that will run you $14.34, or only $1.34 more than the cost of driving that Tesla 300 miles. Hmmmmmmm. Why shouldn't I get the Prius, which wouldn't leave me waiting 30 minutes to charge once I've run out of charge?
> 
> Like I said originally - nobody is going to want to face wait times at peak travel comparable to wait times seen back at the height of the oil crisis in the 70s just for a trip to see family. So the question is how many people will want to buy electric when anything else (e.g. plug-in hybrid) will spare them that headache? I think we are probably already pretty close to that ceiling. In the other scenario, my family would need to have 3 vehicles rather than our current 2 - 2 expensive electric vehicles for normal travel less than 300 miles for my wife and for me, and 1 "traveling" either conventional or plug-in hybrid for longer travel (and it needs to be big enough for the 5 of us and luggage). I don't have that kind of money, or that much space in my driveway.


I only get 45 mpg on my Prius because the drive to work involves a huge hill, which defeats the Prius energy saving algorithms. Lately gas is about $4 a gallon, so 300 miles is about $27 worth.

Not many people would claim that an electric car is the most practical option _now_. People buy a Tesla because it is cool and fun. (It outperforms a Porsche sports car by a wide margin, as I understand it). It doesn't strike me as implausible that electric will become more convenient than a gas car when infrastructure is built up. The quirk in the business model is that charging stations will be needed only for long trips, so they will be a specialty service on interstate highways. I don't see a huge technical obstacle to having highway rest stop every 50 miles where every parking space has a high speed charging cable. Even with current technology a Tesla runs for 5 hours before it needs a 30 minute charge. About the same requirements as the driver.


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> I only get 45 mpg on my Prius because the drive to work involves a huge hill, which defeats the Prius energy saving algorithms. Lately gas is about $4 a gallon, so 300 miles is about $27 worth.
> 
> Not many people would claim that an electric car is the most practical option _now_. People buy a Tesla because it is cool and fun. (It outperforms a Porsche sports car by a wide margin, as I understand it). It doesn't strike me as implausible that electric will become more convenient than a gas car when infrastructure is built up. The quirk in the business model is that charging stations will be needed only for long trips, so they will be a specialty service on interstate highways. I don't see a huge technical obstacle to having highway rest stop every 50 miles where every parking space has a high speed charging cable. Even with current technology a Tesla runs for 5 hours before it needs a 30 minute charge. About the same requirements as the driver.


I'd say living in California negates the fuel cost savings of owning a Prius. Your fuel costs would be half as much here in Alabama. Again, I don't know why you Californians let your politicians do that to you. Sky high real estate prices. High energy costs. Ridiculous gas costs. And large chunks of the state get their power turned off frequently. To paraphrase the Bible, government is made for man, not man for the government.


----------



## Guest

Bwv 1080 said:


> View attachment 127456
> 
> ......................................................


One final parting shot for those fleeing the state for lower tax pastures.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> I'd say living in California negates the fuel cost savings of owning a Prius. Your fuel costs would be half as much here in Alabama. Again, I don't know why you Californians let your politicians do that to you. Sky high real estate prices. High energy costs. Ridiculous gas costs. And large chunks of the state get their power turned off frequently. To paraphrase the Bible, government is made for man, not man for the government.


Life expectancy in California is 81 years, in Alabama it is 75. We must be doing something right here.


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> Life expectancy in California is 81 years, in Alabama it is 75. We must be doing something right here.


Let's be right up front here. California discourages inbreeding. :lol:


----------



## Bwv 1080

Baron Scarpia said:


> Life expectancy in California is 81 years, in Alabama it is 75. We must be doing something right here.


The trend is not your friend


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> Life expectancy in California is 81 years, in Alabama it is 75. We must be doing something right here.


Maybe. But then I can walk down the street in downtown Birmingham without having to dodge human feces and used needles. And I can actually afford to live here and I have beach access and great BBQ (and better college football).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Let's be right up front here. California discourages inbreeding. :lol:


I'm not even sure they encourage breeding.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Maybe. But then I can walk down the street in downtown Birmingham without having to dodge human feces and used needles. And I can actually afford to live here and I have beach access and great BBQ (and better college football).


Ranking states is educational and fun! Let's compare Alabama, California, and New Jersey:

Overall health: A 48th, C 12th, NJ 11th. All: position out of 50 states. Lower=Better.
Healthcare: A 46th, C 7th, NJ 6th
Education: A 50th, C 21st, NJ 2nd
Economy: A 45th, C 4th, NJ 31st
Infrastructure: A 38th, C 32nd, NJ 34th
Opportunity: A 45th, C 40th, NJ 8th
Fiscal Stability: A 23rd, C 42nd, NJ 49th
Crime & Correction: A 45th, C 23rd, NJ 6th. Here also, lower rank is better: less crime, more justice.
Environmental: A 35th, C 5th, NJ 13th
Median Income: A 47th, C 9th, NJ 3rd
Per Capita Income: A 47th, C 16th, NJ 3rd
Per Capita GDP: 45th, C 8th, NJ 9th

*According to US News & World Report overall ranking of states, A ranks 49th, C 19th, NJ 12th*

It seems to be "Pay More; Get More"


----------



## Guest

California afflicted us with "The Hills" and Jersey with "Jersey Shore."

In the last decade, Alabama has produced 6 of the last 10 college football champions. And while The University of Alabama can only claim 2nd place in total college titles, behind Yale and tied with Princeton, it does have the distinction of having won the most in actual living memory (Yale's last was in 1927, Princeton's in 1922).

You can live in a private gated community in Alabama for the price of a basic starter home in California. For the price of an apartment in San Francisco you can afford a mansion in Alabama and a presumptuous looking Tesla. 

California makes avocado toast. Alabama makes BBQ. Jersey? Who the hell knows.


----------



## Strange Magic

Facts versus Junk.

From The Doctor's selection of the bennies of living in Alabama, one conjures up visions of a wealthy _norteamericano_ living like a king in, say, Honduras.


----------



## Guest

Honduras has neither good barbecue nor ANY college football championships.

But what they have over Jersey is no Jersey Shore and The Situation, and probably far less feces and used needles littering their streets than California.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> Honduras has neither good barbecue nor ANY college football championships.
> 
> But what they have over Jersey is no Jersey Shore and The Situation, and probably far less feces and used needles littering their streets than California.


And Alabama can boast it's not dead last, but is going for the title! Lynyrd Skynyrd wrote about Sweet Home Alabama, but were careful to be from Florida. :lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> And Alabama can boast it's not dead last, but is going for the title! Lynyrd Skynyrd wrote about Sweet Home Alabama, but were careful to be from Florida. :lol:


At least 40 percent of America's homeless people do not live in Alabama but live in California.


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> At least 40 percent of America's homeless people do not live in Alabama but live in California.


Johnnie, tell me you know that California has more than eight times the population of Alabama.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Strange Magic said:


> Johnnie, tell me you know that California has more than eight times the population of Alabama.


Yes, I know that still that does not explain why such a rich state like California should have 40 percent of the homeless people in the United States.


----------



## Strange Magic

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Yes, I know that still that does not explain why such a rich state like California should have 40 percent of the homeless people in the United States.


There are two explanations. The homeless, like everybody else, go to where the money (and the tolerance, or actual aid) is. Alabama is not such a state--even the homeless move out. Plus, Alabama makes it difficult for the homeless to be anyplace at all, with strict anti-panhandler, anti-vagrancy laws--don't try fixing the problem; just drive the homeless out. If you (or I) were homeless in Alabama, we'd look to better our lives elsewhere.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I intend to be homeless next week . Going car-tramping . 1996 S-10 , 27 mpg . Plan to make flutes I truck on and on .
When this truck is worn and dead ... beyond that I'll drive a donkey .


Music is golden .


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> There are two explanations. The homeless, like everybody else, go to where the money (and the tolerance, or actual aid) is. Alabama is not such a state--even the homeless move out. Plus, Alabama makes it difficult for the homeless to be anyplace at all, with strict anti-panhandler, anti-vagrancy laws--don't try fixing the problem; just drive the homeless out. If you (or I) were homeless in Alabama, we'd look to better our lives elsewhere.


Damn these anti-vagrancy laws - if it weren't for them, we too could enjoy the wonders of feces-lined streets! California truly does have it all! But hey, of course we have to drive them out of Alabama so the kind, wonderful people of California can prove how much better than us they are by taking them all in. I suppose they could head to New Jersey, but really, is New Jersey anybody's preferred destination? The Sopranos and The Jersey Shore is pretty much how everybody pictures Jersey.

One thing I'll say for Alabama over California - the power doesn't get cut here until AFTER the natural disasters.


----------



## Strange Magic

Say anything you will about New Jersey, but the statistics just sit there like the rocks of Stonehenge, too big to ignore, too big to move. By the way, while we're at it, ol' 'Bama is the 5th most heavily dependent state on federal dollars coming in.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/04/alabama-5th-most-federally-dependent-state.html

That money siphoned up by Alabama comes from--guess where--states like California (35th most dependent) and New Jersey (48th most dependent). So much for fiscal independence and zeal in Alabama, though the per-capita income and GDP figures previously listed speak for themselves. Always looking for a handout from the worker bees. Happy to help our poor relations. 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Say anything you will about New Jersey, but the statistics just sit there like the rocks of Stonehenge, too big to ignore, too big to move. By the way, while we're at it, ol' 'Bama is the 5th most heavily dependent state on federal dollars coming in.
> 
> https://www.al.com/news/2019/04/alabama-5th-most-federally-dependent-state.html
> 
> That money siphoned up by Alabama comes from--guess where--states like California (35th most dependent) and New Jersey (48th most dependent). So much for fiscal independence and zeal in Alabama, though the per-capita income and GDP figures previously listed speak for themselves. Always looking for a handout from the worker bees. Happy to help our poor relations.
> 
> https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings


Happy to take your money anytime. As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted.


----------



## Guest

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2019/12/04/ranked-worlds-worst-best-cities-to-live/#76f51d784c94

It should be noted that 2 of the 10 worst cities to live in the world are in California.


----------



## Strange Magic

DrMike said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2019/12/04/ranked-worlds-worst-best-cities-to-live/#76f51d784c94
> 
> It should be noted that 2 of the 10 worst cities to live in the world are in California.


This Forbes article is another of your "Junk" replies to one of my "Fact" contributions. Did you actually read the article? It polled unidentified "expats", fleeing who knows what and for what reasons, and finds they don't like being in New York, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. "Worst Cities in the World"?? Please!!


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> This Forbes article is another of your "Junk" replies to one of my "Fact" contributions. Did you actually read the article? It polled unidentified "expats", fleeing who knows what and for what reasons, and finds they don't like being in New York, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. "Worst Cities in the World"?? Please!!


You're right. That is totally crazy to think that San Francisco is one of the worst cities to live in the world, even if an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley compared it unfavorably from a public health/disease perspective to Brazil, Kenya, and India. And that it is facing an affordable housing crisis. And that it use a magnet to homeless people who live on the streets and use the streets as toilets and throw used needles on the ground. And groups are starting to avoid using it for conventions for fear for the safety of their members. Otherwise it is a virtual Eden.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634626538/san-francisco-squalor-city-streets-strewn-with-trash-needles-and-human-feces
https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-human-poop-problem-2019-4
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xdae/more-people-pooping-in-san-francisco-than-ever-all-time-high-vgtrn
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article237636209.html


----------



## Bwv 1080

Always find it ironic when liberals crow about states like AL being net recipients of gov aid - isn’t that how progressive taxation is supposed to work? The top 1% pay something like 40% of total taxes and predominantly live in states like CA, NY and NJ. So CA has more rich people than AL - big ******* surprise. Does not mean that CA is a better place to live if you are not rich


----------



## Strange Magic

Race to the Bottom! Louisiana is last obstacle to Alabama's being The Worst State in the Union, but Alabamans working (or not working) day and night to close the gap. Perhaps if 'Bama eschews all federal handouts--on principle, to be sure--or at least the tainted largess from California and New Jersey--or from the dozens of more productive states, Alabama can wrest the title from Louisiana. Good Golly!--even Mississippi is now a better place to live--who'd athunk it?

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/worst-states-to-live-in/

Bwv, as posted before, the more productive states and peoples are happy to help our poor relations, despite the lack of expressions of gratitude!


----------



## Jacck

Bwv 1080 said:


> Always find it ironic when liberals crow about states like AL being net recipients of gov aid - isn't that how progressive taxation is supposed to work? The top 1% pay something like 40% of total taxes and predominantly live in states like CA, NY and NJ. So CA has more rich people than AL - big ******* surprise. Does not mean that CA is a better place to live if you are not rich


one of the main causes of the current crisis in America is in my opinion the politics of Reagan and his misguided trickle down economics. The Reagan era is the point in time when the middle class started to disappear, when the rich started to get richer and the poor poorer and the gap between them increased, and the US debt started to rise (just google the US debt and you will see that it coindices with the Reagan era). The Republicans are a party for the rich, and their policies (tax cuts and deregulations) are policies for the rich, that are harmful for 95% of the population. To convince ordinary people to vote against their own interest, toxic brainwashing propaganda outlets like Fox News were created that fed people lies and hate and diverted attention to marginal problems such as abortions. And thus the greed of the rich ultimately undermined American society. There are studies that show that higher taxes means happier citizens.


----------



## Strange Magic

Another Car of Tomorrow, like the Citroën DS fading into the past, was the Czech amazing Tatra 87 with its rear mounted air-cooled V8. Here's Wikipedia:

"The Tatra 87 (T87) was a car built by Czechoslovak manufacturer Tatra. It was powered by a rear-mounted 2.9-litre air-cooled 90-degree overhead cam V8 engine that produced 85 horsepower and could drive the car at nearly 100 mph (160 km/h). It is ranked among the fastest production cars of its time. Competing cars in this class, however, used engines with almost twice the volume, and with fuel consumption of 20 liters per 100 km (11.8 mpg). Thanks to its aerodynamic shape, the Tatra 87 had a consumption of just 12.5 litres per 100 km (18.8 mpg). After the war between 1950 and 1953, T87s were fitted with more modern 2.5-litre V8 T603 engines."

More:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_87


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> one of the main causes of the current crisis in America is in my opinion the politics of Reagan and his misguided trickle down economics. The Reagan era is the point in time when the middle class started to disappear, when the rich started to get richer and the poor poorer and the gap between them increased, and the US debt started to rise (just google the US debt and you will see that it coindices with the Reagan era). The Republicans are a party for the rich, and their policies (tax cuts and deregulations) are policies for the rich, that are harmful for 95% of the population. To convince ordinary people to vote against their own interest, toxic brainwashing propaganda outlets like Fox News were created that fed people lies and hate and diverted attention to marginal problems such as abortions. And thus the greed of the rich ultimately undermined American society. There are studies that show that higher taxes means happier citizens.


You mean the policies that brought an end to the Iron Curtain? I would bother with defending Reagan, but the decades long economic boom and the fall of the Soviet empire pretty much speaks for itself. And if income inequality is so horrible, why is Strange Magic trying to defend cities liked San Francisco, where income inequality is extreme, with millionaires and homeless both in excess?


----------



## Jacck

DrMike said:


> You mean the policies that brought an end to the Iron Curtain? I would bother with defending Reagan, but the decades long economic boom and the fall of the Soviet empire pretty much speaks for itself. And if income inequality is so horrible, why is Strange Magic trying to defend cities liked San Francisco, where income inequality is extreme, with millionaires and homeless both in excess?


Soviet Union was defeated due to internal instability and stagnation and the main precipitating factor became the War in Afghanistan. It was Brzezinsky who trapped the Russia bear there. Reagan might have contributed to it by increased military spending, but the main causes were elsewhere. And some people even doubt that the Soviet Union fell. the KGB might have faked the collapse to fool the world, or rather there was some group of progressive KGB officers who transfered power into their hands and suddently became the privatizers and the new oligarchs, ie the roots of the current Putin regime
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/...ltimately-defeat-the-west-and-no-one-listened
the same happened in Czech Republic. Certain elite KGB officers jumped into politics right after the fall of communism and became heads of all the major political parties and privatized wealth into the hands of other KGB officers. 
https://en.delfi.lt/politics/putins...date-back-to-kgb-under-andropov.d?id=66748856
the KGB is the real evil in Russia and unlike the Norimberg trials, nothing happened to the KGB officers, they continue ruling current Russia. They are the mafia
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy

but back to US. It seems probable to me, that reaganomics is the actual root of the current crisis
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...ulation-and-bailouts-led-to-the-rise-of-trump
the trickle down economics simply does not work. The rich hide their wealth into tax havens and what trickles down is not wealth, but something yellow. All the economic data show that.


----------



## mmsbls

This is a long running thread about cars. Please refrain from purely political comments.


----------



## SixFootScowl

.......................post deleted


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> This is a long running thread about cars. Please refrain from purely political comments.


Aw, just when I had so many witty retorts prepared. 

Electric vs gas seems like a no brainer to me. The U.S. federal government provides the petroleum industry with enormous subsidies and indirect supports. If they would give electric vehicle infrastructure equal support the gasoline powered car would go the way of the steam engine.

The real issue, for me, is self-driving. The current situation, with tech companies going rogue, putting half-baked technologies on the roads, with engineers at the wits end devising strategies for these autonomous vehicles interacting with human-driven cars. What happens when two incompatible autonomous vehicles encounter each other on the road?

In my opinion, the government has a role which it has abrogated. The roadways should be consistently marked with standardized electronic beacons, there should be standardized and mandatory protocols in which vehicles on the same section of road declare their presence and communicate with each other, and there should be protocols for how the vehicles operate. (I am required to put on my turn signal to change lanes, why shouldn't an autonomous vehicle be required to notify nearby vehicles of a lane change).


----------



## Bwv 1080

People forget the power requirements for running the computers for a self driving car - you give up all the energy gains from an EV to run the navigation system


----------



## Guest

Bwv 1080 said:


> People forget the power requirements for running the computers for a self driving car - you give up all the energy gains from an EV to run the navigation system


A gas engine in a typical car can produce ~70,000 watts. The navigation system is comparable to that?


----------



## Guest

Baron Scarpia said:


> Aw, just when I had so many witty retorts prepared.
> 
> Electric vs gas seems like a no brainer to me. The U.S. federal government provides the petroleum industry with enormous subsidies and indirect supports. If they would give electric vehicle infrastructure equal support the gasoline powered car would go the way of the steam engine.
> 
> The real issue, for me, is self-driving. The current situation, with tech companies going rogue, putting half-baked technologies on the roads, with engineers at the wits end devising strategies for these autonomous vehicles interacting with human-driven cars. What happens when two incompatible autonomous vehicles encounter each other on the road?
> 
> In my opinion, the government has a role which it has abrogated. *The roadways should be consistently marked with standardized electronic beacons*, there should be standardized and mandatory protocols in which vehicles on the same section of road declare their presence and communicate with each other, and there should be protocols for how the vehicles operate. (I am required to put on my turn signal to change lanes, why shouldn't an autonomous vehicle be required to notify nearby vehicles of a lane change).


Approximate cost to do this on all major roadways and minor roads?

I think the government has abrogated their responsibility to give me whatever I think I should have at any given time.

Gas-fueled cars proved their usefulness and made themselves profitable - that is the issue here, not the fuel that goes into the car. It is one thing to say we should promote cleaner electricity production. But promoting the electric vehicle and subsidizing that? Why? They should make themselves profitable.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bwv 1080 said:


> People forget the power requirements for running the computers for a self driving car - you give up all the energy gains from an EV to run the navigation system


That assertion cries out for substantiation. Can you supply references?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Strange Magic said:


> That assertion cries out for substantiation. Can you supply references?


'current self-driving prototypes require close to 2,500 watts per second'
https://www.therobotreport.com/self-driving-cars-power-consumption/

https://www.aitrends.com/ai-insider/power-consumption-vital-for-ai-self-driving-cars/

https://medium.com/@nitinvaish/self-driving-cars-vs-humans-100x-power-efficiency-gap-222957ed36ed


----------



## mmsbls

The numbers I find are that presently fully autonomous vehicles could use 2500 W of power but future estimates are closer to 500 W when systems are designed directly for autonomous vehicles. So presently autonomous systems could reduce the fuel economy of an electric vehicle by 25-50%. Future estimates would be to reduce the fuel economy by 5-10%. Present electric vehicles are roughly 3.5 times as efficient as conventional vehicles. Using present systems electric vehicles might be only 1.75 - 2.6 times as efficient. Future electric vehicles might be 3.15 - 3.3. times as efficient.

But remember those comparisons are between an autonomous electric vehicle and a conventional vehicle without autonomous drive. Conventional vehicles would be even less efficient with autonomous drive since the engine would have to produce much more electrical power. Comparing an electric vehicle to a conventional vehicle both with autonomous drive, the electric vehicle would see a larger efficiency gain than presently.


----------



## Strange Magic

Bwv 1080 said:


> 'current self-driving prototypes require close to 2,500 watts per second'
> https://www.therobotreport.com/self-driving-cars-power-consumption/
> 
> https://www.aitrends.com/ai-insider/power-consumption-vital-for-ai-self-driving-cars/
> 
> https://medium.com/@nitinvaish/self-driving-cars-vs-humans-100x-power-efficiency-gap-222957ed36ed


Bvw, thanks for the references! Very helpful. mmsbls has addressed some of the trends that may mitigate this problem in the future, but as someone who enjoys driving and also loathes and fears the advent of autonomous cars on the roadway, I celebrate the fact that this stricture may yet further delay the widespread introduction of autonomous vehicles.


----------



## Guest

Cars in the U.S. are only partly about getting from point A to point B. We are a car culture. We love driving. We love the freedom it brings. Cars are a much more democratic form of transportation than public transportation, where you can only travel to where government bureaucrats deem it necessary. We love the freedom of the road. There is something intensely romantic about driving the open road that you will never get with autonomous vehicles - which conjure up images of the dystopia of the cinematic adaptation of Phillip K. Dick's "Minority Report" where cities are navigated by autonomous cars that are nothing more than moving pods, and cameras surveil your every move.

Some people think that the rise in extramarital sexual encounters is traced to the advent of birth control, but a very strong argument can be made for the emergence of affordable automobiles!


----------



## Strange Magic

Those government bureaucrats and their socialist, authoritarian public transit systems! Of course, a great percentage of automobile driving is the commute from suburbia to either the Big City or to some other conglomeration of workplaces--much of the time creeping along in traffic at a few miles per hour, burning gas, wasting time. A partial solution would be to marry the socialist tyranny of mass transit with small podlike vehicles to quickly get you to your final destination. This new thinking would utilize the median strips between lanes on most US interstates to build elevated monorails or other such rapid light rail running from the suburbs into the city. As a longtime auto commuter on Rt.95 to and from Philadelphia, I was always struck by the failure of transportation authorities to utilize that wide median strip for such purpose, combining it with places to park cars (or pods) prior to boarding the rail line, and rental pods at the several end stops in the city. Usual problem: conventional thinking, and the notion that, bad as a condition is, it's better than trying something new and bold to replace it.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> Cars in the U.S. are only partly about getting from point A to point B. We are a car culture. We love driving. We love the freedom it brings. Cars are a much more democratic form of transportation than *public transportation, where you can only travel to where government bureaucrats deem it necessary*. We love the freedom of the road. There is something intensely romantic about driving the open road that you will never get with autonomous vehicles - which conjure up images of the dystopia of the cinematic adaptation of Phillip K. Dick's "Minority Report" where cities are navigated by autonomous cars that are nothing more than moving pods, and cameras surveil your every move.


I'm sure there were people who said the same thing when the automobile replaced the horse. "You can only travel where government bureaucrats deem it necessary to build a road." 

I don't see anything about the freedom of the open road that requires gripping a steering wheel. Autonomous vehicles would restore that freedom to aged people for whom driving a car is problematic.


----------



## KenOC

A Silicon Valley start-up says it has completed the first commercial coast-to-coast journey across America with an autonomous lorry. Plus.ai said one of its vehicles had hauled a refrigerator trailer full of butter 2,800 miles from California to Pennsylvania in less than three days. It relied on sensors, cameras, radar and Lidar (light detection and ranging) technology and computer vision software underpinned by artificial intelligence.

But a driver and engineer rode along. Article *here*.


----------



## Jacck

Spanish car industry pushes pig poo power
https://www.politico.eu/article/spa...s-to-pig-poo-power-climate-change-green-deal/


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Jacck said:


> Spanish car industry pushes pig poo power
> https://www.politico.eu/article/spa...s-to-pig-poo-power-climate-change-green-deal/


Muslims in Spain will protest that.


----------



## Jacck

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Muslims in Spain will protest that.


there are not that many in Spain. The most islamized country in Europe is in fact Russia, despite their attempts to paint themselves as the bastion of Eastern Christian conservatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe


----------



## Jacck

Uber and Hyundai Unveil Flying Car Model for Future Air Taxi Service
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-06/uber-bus-tickets-are-coming-to-las-vegas


----------



## Strange Magic

Jacck said:


> Uber and Hyundai Unveil Flying Car Model for Future Air Taxi Service
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-06/uber-bus-tickets-are-coming-to-las-vegas


The only advantage i see that this aircraft has is it being electric. It will be subject to close, harsh scrutiny in the event of airborne accidents and crashes over busy urban environments, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the service shut down or severely restricted, perhaps even before being allowed to be inaugurated. Time will tell.


----------



## Jacck

Strange Magic said:


> The only advantage i see that this aircraft has is it being electric. It will be subject to close, harsh scrutiny in the event of airborne accidents and crashes over busy urban environments, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the service shut down or severely restricted, perhaps even before being allowed to be inaugurated. Time will tell.


not to mention that these electronic toys are hackable. And the current world is in the middle of cyberwarfare. The spy agencies on one hand want to be able to spy on everyone, so they want to leave as many security holes as they can in order to be able to exploit them (or even outlaw encryption), but they thus make everyone else vulnerable and much less secure. 
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/27/trump-officials-weigh-encryption-crackdown-1385306
this would be my biggest security concern with the auto-pilot cars


----------



## KenOC

"*Cruise*, the self-driving car start-up, majority owned by General Motors, has unveiled its first vehicle designed to be driverless.

"The electric-powered Cruise Origin was developed by Honda, which also has a stake in the company. The launch of the vehicle, which has no steering wheel or pedals, had been delayed from last year. Cruise said it was designed for shared ownership: 'It's not a product you buy, it's an experience you share.'

"Chief executive Dan Ammann wants drivers to move away from individual ownership to a sharing model, to help reduce emissions, accidents and congestion. Speaking at the launch in San Francisco, he also said the Cruise Origin was not a concept vehicle: 'It is self-driven. It is all electric. It is shared. It is a production vehicle.' "


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> "*Cruise*, the self-driving car start-up, majority owned by General Motors, has unveiled its first vehicle designed to be driverless.
> 
> "The electric-powered Cruise Origin was developed by Honda, which also has a stake in the company. The launch of the vehicle, which has no steering wheel or pedals, had been delayed from last year. Cruise said it was designed for shared ownership: 'It's not a product you buy, it's an experience you share.'
> 
> "Chief executive Dan Ammann wants drivers to move away from individual ownership to a sharing model, to help reduce emissions, accidents and congestion. Speaking at the launch in San Francisco, he also said the Cruise Origin was not a concept vehicle: 'It is self-driven. It is all electric. It is shared. It is a production vehicle.' "


I wonder if they can program these driverless vehicles to participate in races. A little drifting maybe.


----------



## KenOC

A nice long update and status report.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...ng-cars-autonomous-vehicles-waymo-cruise-uber


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> A nice long update and status report.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...ng-cars-autonomous-vehicles-waymo-cruise-uber


I like this linked article even better:
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/31816...mits-level-5-autonomous-cars-may-never-happen

Give me manual transmission, manual windows, simple dial HVAC controls, and a pushbutton radio. All the fancy controls are fluff.


----------



## KenOC

SixFootScowl said:


> ...Give me manual transmission, manual windows, simple dial HVAC controls, and a pushbutton radio. All the fancy controls are fluff.


You forgot the Oo-gah horn… :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> You forgot the Oo-gah horn… :lol:


Yeah!


----------



## aleazk

These cars were quite futuristic at their time.


----------



## KenOC

"Tesla will be able to make its vehicles *completely autonomous* by the end of this year, founder Elon Musk has said.

"It was already "very close" to achieving the basic requirements of this "level-five" autonomy, which requires no driver input, he said.

"Tesla's current, level-two Autopilot requires the driver to remain alert and ready to act, with hands on the wheel. But a future software update could activate level-five autonomy in the cars - with no new hardware, he said."


----------



## Jacck

this car is for sale, if anyone is interested
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/retro/crazy-ferrari-360-limo-sale-ps219k


----------



## En Passant

KenOC said:


> Or so I think. What about you? Agree? Disagree? Or do you see a different future entirely?


A friend of mine from University was recently hired by Google to implement this vision of the future. However I hope you are both wrong and heres why.

1: Think of all the jobs that would disappear overnight. Not only in direct manufacturing but in the supply change as well as services, mechanics and car washers etc. As the world is increasingly automated and manual labouring is more and more rare I think the powers at be are going to have to realise just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

2. Selfishly I love my cars! I have a Jaguar Mk 2 and several other classic cars as well as the family car (unfortunately I have to keep most in a offsite lockup). I enjoy keeping them functioning and it's doubtful I'd have got into engendering without my early introduction to car repair.

3. I don't see this as practical for larger countries like the United States for reasons *Taggart* mentioned.


----------



## En Passant

KenOC said:


> You forgot the Oo-gah horn… :lol:


It's called Klaxon but I do believe this is the scientific name. :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Nuro Inc. is the first company approved to operate a driverless delivery business in California. California's Department of Motor Vehicles on Wednesday approved a license for Mountain View, Calif.-based Nuro to deploy its autonomous vehicles on public streets to make commercial deliveries.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Driverless cars only make sense if ALL cars are driverless. Then they make A LOT of sense.

Petrol-fueled cars are on the way out, no doubt about it. Electric is the (sine)wave of the future. Once battery technology turns the corner, nobody'll WANT an old-fashioned gascar.

Ride sharing? Yeah, makes sense. But it'll require some adjustments from Americans who are too full of themselves to ride the bus.

But another trend in personal transportation you forgot to mention is this: Everyone (nearly) will work from home. They'll order groceries delivered. They'll send their drycleaning out via messenger. I foresee a lot less "personal transportation" in the future because people will stay home to do everything.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Jacck said:


> Uber and Hyundai Unveil Flying Car Model for Future Air Taxi Service


Flying cars will never be practical. The propulsion needed for escaping gravity is just too overwhelming.


----------



## Ad Astra

NoCoPilot said:


> Flying cars will never be practical. The propulsion needed for escaping gravity is just too overwhelming.


Agree and also the noise pollution would be incredible.

Flying cars = helicopters. No one wants helicopters taking off outside their house while you try to sleep,


----------



## NoCoPilot

I dunno. The cars on the Jetsons sounded kinda like a blender.


----------



## samm

Soon everyone will switch to electric cars together. I recently bought a used car at a good price at an auction


----------



## SixFootScowl

samm said:


> Soon everyone will switch to electric cars together. I recently bought a used car at a good price at an auction


Everyone in California? I don't see this happening nationwide.


----------



## ArtMusic

How are the electricity generated in the first place to power the electric cars? One must be very mindful of that to say that electric cars are "better" for the environment.


----------



## Dan Ante

Can the national grid handle the horrendous increase in demand?


----------



## SuperTonic

ArtMusic said:


> How are the electricity generated in the first place to power the electric cars? One must be very mindful of that to say that electric cars are "better" for the environment.


Currently, coal accounts for only about 23% of generated electricity in the United States, and that number continues to fall every year as the cost of renewable generated electricity declines and older coal plants are taken offline and replaced with cleaner plants. Natural gas accounts for about 38% of generated electricity and it burns much cleaner than coal.

The biggest impact on the environment from electric cars is from battery production, which does have a negative impact, but batteries can be recycled, so the impact can be spread out and minimized over time. Battery technology is still relatively young so we can expect significant improvements over time as the technology progresses. Electric cars aren't perfect in terms of green, sustainable energy, but their widespread adoption, even with current technology, would be a significant improvement over the status quo.


----------



## SuperTonic

Dan Ante said:


> Can the national grid handle the horrendous increase in demand?


If every single gas power car were magically replaced with an EV today, then the increase in demand on the grid would be too much. Obviously, that is an unrealistic scenario. It will take decades for us to transition to a point where most cars on the road are EV, and that gives us plenty of time to make improvements to the grid to account for the additional demand. This is not an unsolvable problem, and it shouldn't be used an an excuse to continue with the currently unsustainable status quo.


----------



## SixFootScowl

ArtMusic said:


> How are the electricity generated in the first place to power the electric cars? One must be very mindful of that to say that electric cars are "better" for the environment.


----------



## KenOC

ArtMusic said:


> How are the electricity generated in the first place to power the electric cars? One must be very mindful of that to say that electric cars are "better" for the environment.


In many or most cases, electric cars will be charged at home, overnight. This is when "baseline" power, primarily hydro, is at relatively low demand. In fact, hydro energy is often lost since rivers continue to flow in the off-peak hours and may simply be spilled through dams, wasting this "green" power without benefit.

To the extent that this is the case, the charging of electric cars may have no negative environmental effect.


----------



## ArtMusic

I'm not convinced. I think car companies sell electric cars because it sells well. As to whether it really does better for the environment, it's hard to measure. You cannot use aggregated statistics for the economy as a whole for electric cars. Nobody really knows.


----------



## Strange Magic

Solar and wind turbines will come into their own as 24/7 reliable electric power sources when coupled integrally with flywheel and electrolysis technology to store surplus energy produced while the sun shines and the wind blows, then release it during fallow periods. This will help in the conversion of much of today's energy requirements from reliance on fossil fuels to renewables and then to both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric propulsion for vehicles.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> Solar and wind turbines will come into their own as 24/7 reliable electric power sources when coupled integrally with flywheel and electrolysis technology to store surplus energy produced while the sun shines and the wind blows, then release it during fallow periods. This will help in the conversion of much of today's energy requirements from reliance on fossil fuels to renewables and then to both electric and hydrogen fuel cell propulsion for vehicles.


Another energy balancing option is something we have in Michigan, where water is pumped uphill at night when power demands are low, then released during the daytime to generate extra energy when power demands are high:
https://www.visitludington.com/stories/ludington_pumped_storage_project


----------



## mmsbls

SixFootScowl said:


> Everyone in California? I don't see this happening nationwide.


GM has announced that their entire fleet will be ZEVs, zero emission vehicles (all electric), by 2035. Ford announced that it's fleet in Europe will be all electric by 2030. The Daimler transit bus design groups told me that they expect all transit bus sales will be ZEVs by 2030.

Every analysis of light duty vehicle costs I've seen projects a lower total cost of ownership (capital plus operating costs) for battery electric cars compared to internal combustion engine vehicles. The capital cost will likely be somewhat higher, but fuel and maintenance will be significantly lower. If ZEVs will be less expensive, quieter, with greater performance (acceleration), people will presumably want to buy them.


----------



## mmsbls

Dan Ante said:


> Can the national grid handle the horrendous increase in demand?


A Shell analysis of a transition to net zero carbon projects a doubling of electricity demand between 2020 and 2050. That is roughly the same growth in the US from 1980 to 2010. The actual demand depends on many assumptions of course.


----------



## mmsbls

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not convinced. I think car companies sell electric cars because it sells well. As to whether it really does better for the environment, it's hard to measure. You cannot use aggregated statistics for the economy as a whole for electric cars. Nobody really knows.


Electric vehicles do not sell especially well yet. In the US they have required significant incentives to sell. The original ZEV mandate in California required OEMs to sell 10% of their vehicles as ZEVs by 2003. Current sales are slightly less than 10% now and that includes plug-in hybrids.

They are much, much better for the environment. In some urban regions where criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, particulates) are problematic, electric cars emit zero pollution. The power plants that produce electricity might produce pollution, but those emissions are generally far from the urban region and contribute little to mortality or morbidity. Electric cars also can emit vastly less carbon dioxide if they are charged using solar, wind, or nuclear power. Even using electricity from natural gas power plants will reduce carbon emissions.


----------



## ArtMusic

The problem with electric cars is that they don't yet appeal to the broad market. They do sell well to a "niche". Most people who buy them don't shop around to consider whether they should buy electric or not, they have already decided they want electric because of the perceived environmental benefits. (Electric cars are actually more expensive to maintain thought if you are an owner).

The best solution is hydrogen cars. It will be expensive to support the infrastructure of creating and distributing liquid hydrogen. The environmental benefits are superior because hydrogen is "infinitely" abundant and the only exhaust here will be some water vapor.


----------



## ArtMusic

It will be hydrogen, not electricity for cars.


----------



## mmsbls

ArtMusic said:


> The problem with electric cars is that they don't yet appeal to the broad market. They do sell well to a "niche". Most people who buy them don't shop around to consider whether they should buy electric or not, they have already decided they want electric because of the perceived environmental benefits. (Electric cars are actually more expensive to maintain thought if you are an owner).
> 
> The best solution is hydrogen cars. It will be expensive to support the infrastructure of creating and distributing liquid hydrogen. The environmental benefits are superior because hydrogen is "infinitely" abundant and the only exhaust here will be some water vapor.


Neither battery electric vehicles (BEVs) nor fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) appeal to a broad market. BEVs sell much more than FCEVs because there is presently little hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles cost more than BEVs. Both technologies are expected to have lower maintenance costs compared to conventional vehicles. Electric drivelines are particularly robust and regenerative braking saves brakewear.

Transportation analysts have debated BEVs versus FCEVs for two decades or so. Recent reductions in battery costs have generally convinced many that BEVs will dominate light duty vehicles and many trucks applications. The perceived problem for BEVs is lower range. Another problem is charging infrastructure for those living in apartments who likely won't be able to charge at home.

FCEVs are generally viewed as 5 years or so behind BEVs in market readiness. The big issue is hydrogen infrastructure and cost. Presently hydrogen is made from natural gas, but in order to reduce carbon emissions, hydrogen must be made renewably (e.g. from electrolysis). Natural gas reformation is presently significantly less expensive than hydrogen from electrolysis, but in order for FCEVs to be competitive with BEVs in cost and carbon emissions, hydrogen must be made renewably using very inexpensive electricity. Many feel that is possible but likely not for 15-20 years.


----------



## Strange Magic

*Strange Magic's Energy Wonderland*

https://www.talkclassical.com/group...k-d2033-strange-magics-energy-wonderland.html


----------



## Strange Magic

SixFootScowl said:


> Another energy balancing option is something we have in Michigan, where water is pumped uphill at night when power demands are low, then released during the daytime to generate extra energy when power demands are high:
> https://www.visitludington.com/stories/ludington_pumped_storage_project


We have a 50-plus-year-old pumped storage facility here in NJ called Yards Creek. Works like a charm.

https://www.naruc.org/bulletin/the-bulletin-03-08-2018/nexus-between-water-and-electricity/


----------



## samm

For this purpose, optimal conditions are created in the country. I recently bought a Nissan Leaf for my son, and it's a good budget car, and before buying it, I looked at the incorrect VIN number and coordinated everything with the dealer who helped me do the vin history lookup.


----------



## samm

Ialestand said:


> I congratulate you. And where were you looking for a car?


I was looking at the playground zemotor and I was lucky to find an inexpensive option at a good price


----------



## joen_cph

A recent study here in DK has shown that for each kilometer of motorway/freeway, the car tyres will typically release two tonnes of microplast - per year.

With the increased attention towards microplast as pollution, this is likely to become a research area for the designers of future cars, I think.


----------



## mmsbls

joen_cph said:


> A recent study here in DK has shown that for each kilometer of motorway/freeway, the car tyres will typically release two tonnes of microplast - per year.
> 
> With the increased attention towards microplast as pollution, this is likely to become a research area for the designers of future cars, I think.


Several years ago a colleague of mine, who is an expert on vehicle emissions, told me that road wear on tires was a significant particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions issue. He said what we really need are Jetson style cars (flying cars) so we could avoid these emissions. Of course, those cars would have other problems.


----------



## joen_cph

Yes, the study says it amounts to 60% of microplast pollution in this country.
Also, maybe some more 'biologically sustainable' material for tyres would be a good idea ...


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> Several years ago a colleague of mine, who is an expert on vehicle emissions, told me that road wear on tires was a significant particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions issue. He said what we really need are Jetson style cars (flying cars) so we could avoid these emissions. Of course, those cars would have other problems.


This problem of tire particulates has been known for quite some time. The experiment to see how much/many novel substances can be absorbed into the environment before things really go south continues on without letup.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> This problem of tire particulates has been known for quite some time. The experiment to see how much/many novel substances can be absorbed into the environment before things really go south continues on without letup.


Other automotive roadside deposits:


----------



## pianozach

I want a flying car. They said we'd be driving flying cars by now.


----------



## mmsbls

An engineer in California, Paul Moller, developed what he believed was a potentially commercial flying car called the Skycar. The vehicle worked though there were issues that made commercialization unlikely.


----------



## Jacck

pianozach said:


> I want a flying car. They said we'd be driving flying cars by now.


----------



## SixFootScowl

My car of tomorrow (if I live long enough, ever retire, and can aford it) would be something on this order:


----------



## Dan Ante

pianozach said:


> I want a flying car. They said we'd be driving flying cars by now.


Try getting in touch with Tiger he may want to sell his.


----------



## pianozach

SixFootScowl said:


>


Ah. A report from a conservative 'news' network in Australia.

I'll admit I was instantly suspicious when the description used the phrase "far green left". The announcer seems to be gleeful as he tries to 'prove' that Green energy doesn't work well, and the EVs are still using power sourced from many diverse energy sources, including coal.

The "report" about the documentary is blatantly biased as it cherry-picks its way through partial information.

Just as it is with diet; all things in moderation. We'll never be 'totally' solar, or 'totally' wind. We will also never be 'totally' fossil fuels again.


----------



## pianozach

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not convinced. I think car companies sell electric cars because it sells well. As to whether it really does better for the environment, it's hard to measure. You cannot use aggregated statistics for the economy as a whole for electric cars. Nobody really knows.


Car companies initially sold EVs as a novelty, and after that because they were forced to by government regulations.

Now they design, manufacture, and market EVs because they see the writing on the wall: Inexpensive petroleum based fuels will likely *not* be a viable 'thing' in the near future. Automobile manufacturers are hedging their bets, and have concluded that they'd damn well better start diversifying their product.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Forget Self-Driving Cars. Bring Back the Stick Shift!


> A car with a stick shift and clutch pedal requires the use of all four limbs, making it difficult to use a cellphone or eat while driving. Lapses in attention are therefore rare, especially in city driving where a driver might shift gears a hundred times during a trip to the grocery store. ... Though research on the safety of manual transmissions is scant, one study on the driving performance of teenage boys with A.D.H.D. revealed that cars with manual transmissions resulted in safer, more attentive driving than automatics. This suggests that the cure for our attentional voids might be less technology, not more.


https://transportationvoice.com/forget-self-driving-cars-bring-back-the-stick-shift/


----------



## Dan Ante

SixFootScowl said:


> Forget Self-Driving Cars. Bring Back the Stick Shift!
> 
> Having just had my driving license revoked due to visual field deterioration I would give my back teeth (if I had any) for a self drive car.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Dan Ante said:


> SixFootScowl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget Self-Driving Cars. Bring Back the Stick Shift!
> 
> Having just had my driving license revoked due to visual field deterioration I would give my back teeth (if I had any) for a self drive car.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is a good purpose for self-driving cars. Sorry to hear about your vision. My dad could not drive for several decades after his vision problems got too big (macular degeneration, tunnel vision, retinitis pigmentosa, and cataracts). Somehow I escaped all that except for cataracts.
Click to expand...


----------



## progmatist

The moment my cell phone never auto-corrects me incorrectly is the moment I'll feel comfortable in a self-driving car.


----------

