This would be a wonderful book for our students to read, but of course our teachers would not allow it since they have a narrative of their own. I remember making a presentation to 5th graders about global warming and the teacher was shocked that I presented both the negative and positive aspects of global warming. Needless to say, I was not invited to speak at their school again.
Yeah, a woman is gonna drop her drawers and try to piss on her Tesla access door. I would pay money to see that ! Or she could piss in her Stanley or Yeti mug and pour it like a Lady. LOL !
Pretty much the Goldilocks scenario and clearly useful. I would consider an EV for local or local+ use like this, but not as an extended trip car.
Most EVs are not driver’s cars. That’s true of most ICE cars, too. Our Blackwings are an exception to that. As are Lucid’s EVs.
I totally get the point...and to a large extent agree. However the cost of burning these fuels has become pretty clear (and will become even more clear in the decades to come). We need to reign it in and transition to other means of power that are becoming available. It wont happen overnight but it does need to happen quicker than it is.We're lucky that so many technologies are maturing and available now that can actually (potentially) make a difference....even if just a little.Regardless we're going to have to adapt and deal with a warmer (and more chaotic) world and there will be costs (in $ and more than just $)
A rational open minded person in a free society would welcome hearing both the positives and negatives about any technology. But instead any negatives about these new energy sources are largely suppressed. This alone should concern people and make them wonder what’s going on behind the curtain. For example, what’s behind California’s ban on existing and new nuclear reactors? The facts show that the new energy technologies will barely make a dent in their future energy needs for the foreseeable future.
Well said. I want freedom to choose and I want unbiased scientific research and not political scientific research. I have no issues with EVs existing, I just don't want to be forced into them and I certainly don't want ICE cars being eliminated.
I think Toyota has/had it right - plug in hybrids are the answer. Give us 40-50 miles of electric range (well within most commutes and weekend errand trips) with the ICE onboard for longer trips. This would slash our gas and emissions. I like what Porsche is doing (Cayenne plug in with either the 6 or 8), I just don't have the budget for another $100k+ car and I'm not giving up my BW
Agree with your statement about (some/many?) EV drivers and certain attitudes. And also agree with some of your other points.
I think hybrids are an excellent choice for many. We had one and I frustrated a lot of drivers by accelerating slowly so that I could stay in the electric mode. Of course, I drove in the right lane. We were still honked at and given the middle finger many times.I think Toyota has/had it right - plug in hybrids are the answer. Give us 40-50 miles of electric range (well within most commutes and weekend errand trips) with the ICE onboard for longer trips. This would slash our gas and emissions. I like what Porsche is doing (Cayenne plug in with either the 6 or 8), I just don't have the budget for another $100k+ car and I'm not giving up my BW
Yep, this was the most surprising thing when we bought our Model 3. I expected a pretty lame car to drive but it is quite fun city driving. The steering is smaller than my 4BW and the rack is super quick. Also, the instant torque makes a lot of the driving feel effortless.
Your statement is inaccurate. There is not overwhelming data about rising global temps with correlation to human industrial activity. The problem is that science is no longer unbiased. Many studies are funded with a political agenda.
Agree that "science" isn't necessarily unbiased in all cases...but in this case the data seems pretty clear.
My guess is anointed, crotchety, old white men in penguin suits that always seem to think they know what is best for the general population. Then they force their beliefs onto us.
Agreed, we knew we were an ideal customer, which is why we adopted early on when the Model 3 was release and tax credit was available with no income restrictions. We purchased the least expensive model at the time. After tax credit is was $36k, so pretty much same as buying a loaded Toyota Camry at the time. My wife doesn't want to go back to ICE, she prefers the driving dynamics, tech, no more visits to the gas station, etc. It works for our use case.
LOL...I agree that hybrids make alot of sense. Folks need to chill out on the road. Also got to understand that not everyone is skilled to drive fast and would you want them doing it. Slow drivers - in certain situations can certainly frustrate me...but generally more important things to worry about. The road will always open up at some point...and if your really in a hurry you can (usually) pass....thats why we got these fast cars isn't it?
Not trying to be rude, but you may want to do more research. The issue is that since the 1970s this story has been repeated so many times that pretty much everyone in the general population doesn't question it. The truth is that there are a large number of scientists with the same data that conclude much different hypothesis. I'm not saying they are 100% correct, just that the data is not as clear cut as we are told.
It's great that all of us can have a discussion about controversial topics such as man made climate change and EVs and present various different opinions without being rude or calling names. This is what Americans should do on all subjects. I find the vast majority of car enthusiasts are respectful even when discussing different viewpoints about our cars and other topics.
