TheSamba.com :: View topic

Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:56 pm

There have been too many replies for me to read them all so if I'm bringing up a concern that has already been addressed, let me know. Considering the weight of EVs, what about the safety factor in a crash? I'm thinking of the other vehicle and not the EV. I read an article on simulated crashes and it appears the extra weight of an EV can cause much greater damage to the person in the non-EV. The fact that the batteries may be located between the frame rails does not change the momentum of a 6000 pound vehicle hitting a 3500 vehicle head on. I know there are 6000 pound ICE vehicles but the extra weight of an EV compared to a similar ICE vehicle is always there.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:25 pm

MASS x ACCELERATION = FORCE.

Science.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:29 pm

Bonesberg55 wrote: There have been too many replies for me to read them all so if I'm bringing up a concern that has already been addressed, let me know. Considering the weight of EVs, what about the safety factor in a crash? I'm thinking of the other vehicle and not the EV. I read an article on simulated crashes and it appears the extra weight of an EV can cause much greater damage to the person in the non-EV. The fact that the batteries may be located between the frame rails does not change the momentum of a 6000 pound vehicle hitting a 3500 vehicle head on. I know there are 6000 pound ICE vehicles but the extra weight of an EV compared to a similar ICE vehicle is always there.

Crumple zones, magical sensors, and etc.

People get weird that I drive 70s buses and bugs in 2022 because big ass heavy cars and dum dums driving around not paying attention.

In 1974 my bug was no match for a Ford LTD and a driver who picked up a few roadies from the drive-thru liquor store. No seatbelt required, searching the radio for a good song to impress your date that wants to get sexy. Odds are better now my 1974 makes it hitting a modern car. All the other shit happens. Just differently.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:57 pm

Bonesberg55 wrote: There have been too many replies for me to read them all so if I'm bringing up a concern that has already been addressed, let me know. Considering the weight of EVs, what about the safety factor in a crash? I'm thinking of the other vehicle and not the EV. I read an article on simulated crashes and it appears the extra weight of an EV can cause much greater damage to the person in the non-EV. The fact that the batteries may be located between the frame rails does not change the momentum of a 6000 pound vehicle hitting a 3500 vehicle head on. I know there are 6000 pound ICE vehicles but the extra weight of an EV compared to a similar ICE vehicle is always there.

There's always someone bigger and heavier on the road. Situational awareness is called for.

The Nissan Leaf doesn't brake as well as the Honda Fit that it replaced in emergency stops. And the Fit didn't have great brakes.

I'm impressed how much you are considering the other people on the road. Tip of the hat.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 6:34 pm

Pruneman99 wrote: MASS x ACCELERATION = FORCE.

Science.

Tesla >> econobox

Darwin

Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:49 pm

Abscate wrote: Pruneman99 wrote: MASS x ACCELERATION = FORCE.

Science.

Tesla >> econobox

Darwin

That's a pretty insensitive comment. :roll: People that drive econoboxes obviously can't/won't throw a pile of money at a Tesla.

So that's Darwinism?

Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:29 pm

Xevin wrote: steve244 wrote: This just in:
We're being lied to about electric vehicles.
https://www.motortrend.com/features/truth-about-electric-cars-ad-why-you-are-being-lied-to/
Thanks, that’s the kind of information I’m looking for. That doesn’t me I fully trust everything thing on the internet but it’s part of researching what is true and what is BS. Some good take aways in that article.
[email protected] wrote: . . .That motortrend article sited every far left rag out there. Not one datapoint was made from a middle ground organization NPR? you couldn't get any further left than those folks
Sorry Xevin, but skills is right. That Motortrend article had a few too many holes in it to be taken at face value. The guy who wrote it appears to have gotten all his information from a New York Times article, who got their information from a single college thesis written by some students at the U of Michigan. The study was funded by the Ford Motor Company (take what you will from that). Several mistakes were made in this study, for which they later had to publish a corrigendum.

The article also bases a lot of its rhetoric on the assumption that in the near future, all of our energy needs will come from renewable sources. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this assumption is one of the key pillars supporting the pro-EV argument.

P.S. Did anyone else notice that the cobalt mine in Idaho is owned by an Australian company? Seems like the American slice of this pie is gettin' smaller and smaller every day.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:44 pm

Floating VW wrote: Xevin wrote: steve244 wrote: This just in:
We're being lied to about electric vehicles.
https://www.motortrend.com/features/truth-about-electric-cars-ad-why-you-are-being-lied-to/
Thanks, that’s the kind of information I’m looking for. That doesn’t me I fully trust everything thing on the internet but it’s part of researching what is true and what is BS. Some good take aways in that article.
[email protected] wrote: . . .That motortrend article sited every far left rag out there. Not one datapoint was made from a middle ground organization NPR? you couldn't get any further left than those folks
Sorry Xevin, but skills is right. That Motortrend article had a few too many holes in it to be taken at face value. The guy who wrote it appears to have gotten all his information from a New York Times article, who got their information from a single college thesis written by some students at the U of Michigan. The study was funded by the Ford Motor Company (take what you will from that). Several mistakes were made in this study, for which they later had to publish a corrigendum.

The article also bases a lot of its rhetoric on the assumption that in the near future, all of our energy needs will come from renewable sources. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this assumption is one of the key pillars supporting the pro-EV argument.

You and I see the same things in the article. However it brings up a couple bullet points worth investigating. Maybe valid, maybe not. I don’t believe everything I read on the internet. I do try to be objective until I’m not :wink:
I appreciate people offering up information to explore. I’m no expert on any of this.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 8:51 pm

There has been and always will be vehicles of all different sizes and weights colliding on the roads. Nothing new to see or discuss here folks, nothing specifically EV related move along...

Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:13 pm

Onceler wrote: Electric vs. gasoline efficiency

Man, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you, that's not my intention, at all.

But these graphs really need to be exposed for what they are. Every single one of the numbers shown here was cherry-picked to make ICE look a lot worse, and EV's look a lot better, than they really are. The numbers are not exactly lies, it's just that they're not always true.

We already discussed most of this a few pages ago. 16% efficiency for an ICE is only true if you look at the worst ICE on the road. The best ICE is over 50% efficient. Where is that number on the chart? Conversely, only the best EV's are 87-91% efficient; the worst are much lower. And that 87-91% is only when you include that magical "regenerative braking". 22% is pretty good! Except for when you don't do any braking, 'cause then it's 0%. That's also not on the graph.

They did, at least, include the losses incurred at the charging station. Unfortunately, they forgot to include the losses at the power plant and transmission lines, which are kind of important since that's where an EV's "original fuel" actually comes from.

Thu Dec 08, 2022 9:24 pm

Xevin wrote: You and I see the same things in the article. However it brings up a couple bullet points worth investigating. Maybe valid, maybe not. I don’t believe everything I read on the internet. I do try to be objective until I’m not :wink:
I appreciate people offering up information to explore. I’m no expert on any of this.
Well said.

The Force is strong with this one.

Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:57 am

steve244 wrote: You're serious, aren't you.

Scary.

What's scary is you drink this stuff up without question or hesitation. Jim Jones would have been proud

Bottoms up

Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:54 am

EV gives you the ability , in the future , to move transportation energy from fossil to non fossil fuel sourcing. It also gives you the chance to sequester Carbon at the power plant.

It’s that simple , and they are here now because:

They are more economical for a large segment of commuters

Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:41 am

Abscate wrote: EV gives you the ability , in the future , to move transportation energy from fossil to non fossil fuel sourcing. It also gives you the chance to sequester Carbon at the power plant.

It’s that simple , and they are here now because:

They are more economical for a large segment of commuters

This conjures up visions of some hardcore Orwellian caste systems…. Let’s just sprinkle in some CBDC…

Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:45 am

Xevin wrote: In 1974 my bug was no match for a Ford LTD

Brings back memories - my parents bought a brand new LTD in the 70s and we nicknamed it "The battleship" because that thing was so big, solid and heavy.

Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:14 am

Some info on why Co2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat

Quote: This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-w...-radiation

Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:40 am

In an open atmosphere, that heat is almost instantly released back to the air. Unlike water vapor which is the real greenhouse gas.

Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:54 am

[email protected] wrote: steve244 wrote: You're serious, aren't you.

Scary.

What's scary is you drink this stuff up without question or hesitation. Jim Jones would have been proud

Bottoms up

slurp, slurp.

[email protected] wrote: I like premium, and have no problem setting someone's credit card or check book on fire.

Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:56 am

Pruneman99 wrote: Abscate wrote: Pruneman99 wrote: MASS x ACCELERATION = FORCE.

Science.

Tesla >> econobox

Darwin

That's a pretty insensitive comment. :roll: People that drive econoboxes obviously can't/won't throw a pile of money at a Tesla.

So that's Darwinism?

I know I was deeply offended.

Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:01 am

The extra greenhouse gases cause extra heating