[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

You continue to tap dance around your ongoing refusal to answer my question. This is your fourth dodge of my question.

You are correct about Newsome’s executive order. To be honest, I do not take it very seriously. It is likely to be overturned (for better or worse) by the current federal administration, or revoked by Newsome or his successor if and when it becomes clear that the goals cannot be met, etc. But who knows, maybe it will stand, to California’s climate-improving benefit.

Many of those complaining today about EV mandates, are likely to be dead of natural causes, or no longer driving, by the time that the 2035 rule comes to fruition, if it does. And even then, used cars can be resold, and contemporaneously-owned cars can continue to be driven.

I have answered your question. What part of my response are you not satisfied with?

[Mavus]

https://www.motor1.com/news/737684/b...on-engine-ban/


these same politicians that are passing these laws are taking private jets and then helos to Davos.

What about cruise ship ban?

How about plastics ban?

What about banning cargo ships and planes esp private jets?

Shouldn’t we ban Monsanto and criminal FDA that allows food chemicals?

Why not support hydrogen powered vehicles?

the list goes on …


EVs are not new. We’ve had them for the last 100y. They work in some cases but not all cases. Diesel is still king when it comes to large machines and towing and there is no replacement for it.

When we talk about EVs we should consider service life and repairs. You can buy many 20y+ old ice vehicles and repair them. Is that going to be the case with EVs and who will be able to repair them?

F150, Silverado and Ram are some of the best selling vehicles in US. Are those customers buying EV trucks now?

How many EV manufacturers are profitable?

Many many questions need to be resolved esp re infrastructure.


Interesting summary from Rimac on the high end market that may impact BMW M also

https://www.motor1.com/news/718973/r...ric-hypercars/

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I don’t oppose EV’s. Show me where I said that. In fact, I explicitly stated the existence of EV’s have merit AND I even said I would be more inclined to own one (…as a tertiary vehicle) if it met my range expectations. That said, I am under no illusions that me buying an EV is that much greener an option than an ICE. I DO oppose being directed/mandated to buy them.

You just stated my position better than I could have.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You’re being intellectually obtuse here in the spirit of being contrary rather than actually considering the example I’ve presented.

California, the state I work in, has an EV mandate looming; Newsom’s Executive Order. That mandate is fairly common knowledge, and it seeks to establish that 100% of the vehicles sold here are EV’s.

Now, before you argue that it isn’t in play yet (..or that the implantation is staggered over the next 10 years), that is besides the point. We often challenge legislation before it actually takes effect, so this is no different. It is the mere proposal and intended implementation that is concerning. I’m sure you’ve had issues with an impending piece of legislation prior to it taking effect at some point in your adult life.

+1 on the obtuse observation!

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Mavus

https://www.motor1.com/news/737684/b...on-engine-ban/


these same politicians that are passing these laws are taking private jets and then helos to Davos.

What about cruise ship ban?

How about plastics ban?

What about banning cargo ships and planes esp private jets?

Shouldn’t we ban Monsanto and criminal FDA that allows food chemicals?

Why not support hydrogen powered vehicles?

the list goes on …


EVs are not new. We’ve had them for the last 100y. They work in some cases but not all cases. Diesel is still king when it comes to large machines and towing and there is no replacement for it.

When we talk about EVs we should consider service life and repairs. You can buy many 20y+ old ice vehicles and repair them. Is that going to be the case with EVs and who will be able to repair them?

F150, Silverado and Ram are some of the best selling vehicles in US. Are those customers buying EV trucks now?

How many EV manufacturers are profitable?

Many many questions need to be resolved esp re infrastructure.


Interesting summary from Rimac on the high end market that may impact BMW M also

https://www.motor1.com/news/718973/r...ric-hypercars/

So many, many questions that it’s so much easier to just ignore and not address.



BMWbiker, where do you live in New York? Do you live in the city? You said yourself earlier that EVs don’t fit your needs as they are at this point in time. I fairly routinely make road trips between 1,000 and 2,000 miles. Refueling that takes more than about ten minutes from the time I pull into the station until I pull out is of zero interest to me.

I live in the city of Chicago. My ballpark estimate is AT LEAST 50% of cars in Chicago street park in front of vintage apartment buildings or houses. I have yet to see anyone anywhere propose a truly viable plan for how those cars are going to be charged. I think a lot of people who think EVs are going to become the primary mode of transportation have never lived in a city where virtually every single street that isn’t a major thoroughfare and lots of them that are is lined with parked cars.

The infrastructure that supports the fleet of vehicles on the road today grew organically over a period of over a century and now we have a group who seems to think with some legislation we’re going to create an entirely new infrastructure to support a technology that is basically in its infancy and still isn’t ready for prime time and we’re going to do it within ten to twenty years. In my view it’s pretty much the definition of insanity and ignores the very real limitations that exist in the world regardless of whether we want to acknowledge and face them.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I have answered your question. What part of my response are you not satisfied with?

You have not yet answered it. That’s five dodges, and counting.

It’s your right not to answer it. It’s my right to point out that you have not done so.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

You have not yet answered it. That’s five dodges, and counting.

It’s your right not to answer it. It’s my right to point out that you have not done so.

My goodness dude. I’m asking you, what have I not answered? What question specifically are you referring to? You are frustrating to have discourse with.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

So many, many questions that it’s so much easier to just ignore and not address.



BMWbiker, where do you live in New York? Do you live in the city? You said yourself earlier that EVs don’t fit your needs as they are at this point in time. I fairly routinely make road trips between 1,000 and 2,000 miles. Refueling that takes more than about ten minutes from the time I pull in to the station until I pull out is of zero interest to me.

I live in the city of Chicago. My ballpark estimate is AT LEAST 50% of cars in Chicago street park in front of vintage apartment buildings or houses. I have yet to see anyone anywhere propose a truly viable plan for how those cars are going to be charged. I think a lot of people who think EVs are going to become the primary mode of transportation have never lived in a city where virtually every single street that isn’t a major thoroughfare and lots of them that are is lined with parked cars.

The infrastructure that supports the fleet of vehicles on the road today grew organically over a period of over a century and now we have a group who seems to think with some legislation we’re going to create an entirely new infrastructure to support a technology that is basically in its infancy and still isn’t ready for prime time and we’re going to do it within ten to twenty years. In my view it’s pretty much the definition of insanity and ignores the very real limitations that exist in the world regardless of whether we want to acknowledge and face them.

Your points about the practicality of EV ownership for many, is why I do not yet own one myself.

If I could charge one at home, and/or work, and if I didn’t routinely go on extended trips where chargers are few and far between (or worse), in all likelihood I would be leasing a nice i4 right now.

Friends of mine who meet those criteria, love their EVs. They have ready access to free electricity. They use their cars mostly for commuting or for running errands. For those who do drive extended distances, they have mapped where the reliable chargers are located. They love the quiet driving, the absence of gasoline, the instantaneous torque, and more.

Frankly, we could choose to improve our public transit systems, but that won’t happen.

[BMWbiker]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

My goodness dude. I’m asking you, what have I not answered? What question specifically are you referring to? You are frustrating to have discourse with.

This:

Then what is your position on mass subsidies and tariffs in support of American manufacturers and fossil fuels producers?

Is this the sixth dodge? Let’s see.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMWbiker

Is this the sixth dodge? Let’s see.

I previously posted:

Well my position on that is well beyond automotive discussion. Succinctly, I support increasing national industry, job creation for Americans, rebuilding the middle class, and less foreign dependence. We’ve had industry in this country before, but Americans were jettisoned in favor of cheap labor overseas (…and increasingly plump pockets for those entities).

Sooooo, I support the tariffs, etc. that will/are intended to prioritize industry/manufactiring and growth IN AMERICA. How was any of that difficult to understand?

[Cortexiphan]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I’m not anti-EV, but I am pro-choice and I advocate for less government involvement on these matters.

Okay, so by that logic, I assume you’d also support eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which are significantly higher than those for EVs. Because if we’re talking about a truly level playing field—no subsidies for anything—the choice becomes pretty clear.

Without government intervention:
• A gallon of gas would cost around $12.75 (yes, really—look it up).
• The average cost of residential electricity in the U.S. is about $0.15 per kWh. Fast charging on the way averages around $0.48 per kWh.

Now let’s compare two similarly priced cars: the BMW M440i (gas) and the i4 M50 (electric).
• The M440i averages about 25 mpg, so that’s roughly $0.52 per mile in fuel.
• The i4 M50 gets about 3 miles per kWh, so that’s around $0.05 per mile in electricity. If fast-charged on the way, (90%+ of Americans would need this only a few times a year) - cost would be around $0.16 per mile.

So… without government interference, which one do you really think people would choose?

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Sooooo, I support the tariffs, etc. that will/are intended to prioritize industry/manufactiring and growth IN AMERICA. How was any of that difficult to understand?

It’s VERY difficult to understand how real, thinking people can form all their opinions by blindly following one man—someone who doesn’t even understand what a trade deficit is—instead of listening to actual economists or experts.

These tariffs aren’t based on strategy. They are impulsive power plays, designed to make countries and corporations beg and pledge for political alliances, all to feed one man-child’s obsession with control.

The outcome? Higher prices for Americans, trade wars that hurt our own farmers and manufacturers, and no real industrial gain—just self-inflicted economic damage so one guy could cosplay as a king.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Cortexiphan

Okay, so by that logic, I assume you’d also support eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which are significantly higher than those for EVs. Because if we’re talking about a truly level playing field—no subsidies for anything—the choice becomes pretty clear.

Without government intervention:
• A gallon of gas would cost around $12.75 (yes, really—look it up).

Sure enough. If you go by the AI blurb that comes up when you Google the price of U.S. gas without subsidies this is what comes up:

“AI Overview

The price of gasoline in the United States would likely be significantly higher without current subsidies, although estimates vary. One source suggests that without subsidies, gasoline would cost about $12.75 per gallon. Some experts, like those at the Center for Investigative Reporting, estimate the true cost of gasoline, including externalities like environmental damage, to be closer to $15 per gallon.” I’m sure you would be in favor of including those intangible factors that bring it up to $15.


But, then if you look at little further you find things like this from Oceana, an environmental organization which supports eliminating subsidies:

“OCEANA - Protecting the World's Oceans

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices.

FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that have found that repealing oil and gas subsidies would have only a marginal impact on gas prices.. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alan Krueger estimated in 2009 that “eliminating [oil and gas subsidies] would have an insignificant effect on world oil prices.” Analysis by the think tank Resources for the Future arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would increase the world oil price by just 10 cents per barrel in 2030. This minimal increase in cost would translate to an extra expenditure of $2.17 per year on petroleum products for the average U.S. consumer. At the same time, the U.S. government – by eliminating unnecessary subsidies for oil and gas – would be saving on the order of $10 billion per year that could be invested in other national priorities like defense, transportation, or alternative energy. A Congressional Research Service report corroborates these findings. Gilbert Metcalf, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the U.S. Department of Treasury, also has said that removing U.S. tax subsidies for oil and companies will have an “imperceptible” effect on world oil supply.

The reason why eliminating subsidies would not raise gas prices is simple – the U.S. produces only a small portion of world oil, so any change in U.S. oil production would have an insignificant effect on the world oil market, which drives oil prices and therefore gasoline prices.”
https://usa.oceana.org/oil-gas-subsidies-myth-vs-fact/


As someone with a bachelor’s degree in economics this pretty accurately describes how I have seen the world oil market affect the price of fuel in the United States over the last thirty plus years. Our fuel prices are substantially more affected by the world oil market than by any policies affecting only the U.S. oil market.


Like most big EV proponents you are always very keen to point out all of the perceived advantages of EVs, but like most you also never talk about the environmental impacts of producing EVs; battery production and disposal and the electric motor production. It’s pretty universally accepted that today’s EVs need to be on the road for eight to ten years to offset the emissions produced during their production versus the emissions produced by building and operating an ICE vehicle.

Folks also don’t like to talk about the fact that 60% of electricity is still produced using fossil fuels. It’s so much more pleasant to pretend that electricity just magically appears and has no environmental effect on the environment and is totally “carbon neutral”. There hasn’t been a new nuclear power plant built in the United States in forty five years. In the last ten years three new nuclear reactors have gone into service at currently existing nuclear power plants. But the number of reactors has declined from a peak of 112 down to 94 today.

Oh, and now this little “side” issue that is starting to get people’s attention. The way heavy EVs eat through tires. An environmental impact of its own. I just got a new set of tires a couple of weeks ago at Discount Tire and there was a Tesla parked next to my car as the guy was doing the walk around on my car. I asked him if it is true about how they go through tires. He said it surely is. They replace tires on EVs significantly more frequently than on ICE cars.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Sure enough. If you go by the AI blurb that comes up when you Google the price of U.S. gas without subsidies this is what comes up:

“AI Overview

The price of gasoline in the United States would likely be significantly higher without current subsidies, although estimates vary. One source suggests that without subsidies, gasoline would cost about $12.75 per gallon. Some experts, like those at the Center for Investigative Reporting, estimate the true cost of gasoline, including externalities like environmental damage, to be closer to $15 per gallon.” I’m sure you would be in favor of including those intangible factors that bring it up to $15.


But, then if you look at little further you find things like this from Oceana, an environmental organization which supports eliminating subsidies:

“OCEANA - Protecting the World's Oceans

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices.

FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that have found that repealing oil and gas subsidies would have only a marginal impact on gas prices.. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alan Krueger estimated in 2009 that “eliminating [oil and gas subsidies] would have an insignificant effect on world oil prices.” Analysis by the think tank Resources for the Future arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that [b]eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would [...]

Well stated.

[THEROK]

Let’s be honest. The M3/4 hasn’t sounded good since the M4 badge’s inception over a decade ago.

This thing looks awesome. There’s something fun about knowing you can annihilate any dino juice variant and they know they can’t do a damn thing about it. Churlish internet car forum types go tribal with a bunch of either or nonsense.

Enjoy both worlds. I am.