# Daimler Trucks North America is going electric



## begreen (May 7, 2019)

DTMA, the maker of Freightliner trucks and Thomas school buses is converting its Portland factory to making electric trucks. The first should be rolling out in 2021. They are starting to make electric school buses at their High Point, NC factory. “The road to emissions-free transportation is going to be driven with battery-electric vehicles,” CEO Nielsen said. “I believe the future is electric.”
https://electrek.co/2019/04/24/daimler-electric-trucks-portland/


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 7, 2019)

School buses may fit right in for electric drive. Since they do a defined route every day and sit for long periods in between when they could be charging, also overnight.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 8, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> School buses may fit right in for electric drive. Since they do a defined route every day and sit for long periods in between when they could be charging, also overnight.


Fleets in general will see the most benefit from electrification.


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 8, 2019)

'Emissions free transportation"  I had to suppress a snort (I'm at work and get enough funny looks).  Unless they're solar powered, emissions are produced to provide that transportation.


----------



## begreen (May 8, 2019)

Solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are emissions-free. Washington state will ban coal power in five years and power from natural gas in 25 years.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 8, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> 'Emissions free transportation"  I had to suppress a snort (I'm at work and get enough funny looks).  Unless they're solar powered, emissions are produced to provide that transportation.


The NC Freightliner plants are solar powered. I used to drive by one every day. I think the Gaffney SC plant is also on solar.


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 9, 2019)

begreen said:


> Solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are emissions-free. Washington state will ban coal power in five years and power from natural gas in 25 years.



Just because govt mandates something, doesn't mean it'll happen.  WA is also ripping dams out like there's no tomorrow. How much renewable power is being lost? How many nuke plants are being built right now?

I'm all for emission free transportation, but to make it possible we need to get serious about alternatives not just mandating it.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 9, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> Just because govt mandates something, doesn't mean it'll happen.  WA is also ripping dams out like there's no tomorrow. How much renewable power is being lost? How many nuke plants are being built right now?
> 
> I'm all for emission free transportation, but to make it possible we need to get serious about alternatives not just mandating it.


Mandates are serious. Look at what happened when the EPA created emissions mandates for wood stoves...


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 9, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> Mandates are serious. Look at what happened when the EPA created emissions mandates for wood stoves...



A state banning fossil fuels for energy production is silly, since power lines don't stop at the state border.  All it will do is put local utilities out of business and raise prices.  

Also, let's not conflate local rules with national regulations.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 9, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> A state banning fossil fuels for energy production is silly, since power lines don't stop at the state border.  All it will do is put local utilities out of business and raise prices.
> 
> Also, let's not conflate local rules with national regulations.



It has to start somewhere. Often times the fed follows suit when enough states do something. California has been pushing clean air for decades and it's making a difference. There are more options than 100% change and doing nothing.


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 9, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> It has to start somewhere. Often times the fed follows suit when enough states do something. California has been pushing clean air for decades and it's making a difference. There are more options than 100% change and doing nothing.


 
"Doing Something" isn't the best choice.  Often times people make very bad decisions when they do that, because we MUST do SOMETHING!  It tends to be emotional and not rational.  It might feel good, but what good is it actually doing?

Where are the nuke plants?  Is WA pushing for permits?  Where will all this soon to be banned energy production be coming from?  Unless there are concrete plans to make up for the lost production, it's just politics.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 9, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> "Doing Something" isn't the best choice.  Often times people make very bad decisions when they do that, because we MUST do SOMETHING!  It tends to be emotional and not rational.  It might feel good, but what good is it actually doing?
> 
> Where are the nuke plants?  Is WA pushing for permits?  Where will all this soon to be banned energy production be coming from?  Unless there are concrete plans to make up for the lost production, it's just politics.



Are you really suggesting that doing nothing to reduce pollution is the right choice? Please explain your rationale if so. I'm not sure I understand what your point is. Are you just bashing electric vehicles and alternative energy? Did you post messages on this thread to start a fight?


----------



## CaptSpiff (May 9, 2019)

SpaceBus said:


> Are you really suggesting that doing nothing to reduce pollution is the right choice? Please explain your rationale if so. I'm not sure I understand what your point is. Are you just bashing electric vehicles and alternative energy? Did you post messages on this thread to start a fight?


I hear him saying "stop decommissioning the hydro-dams and build more nuc plants as part of a smart green energy policy". That will leave more options of shutting down the real polluters. Unlike Germany which rushed to shutter its' Nuc plants and is now struggling to shutter its coal plants.

Or maybe that's what I want to hear.  ;-)


----------



## begreen (May 10, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> Just because govt mandates something, doesn't mean it'll happen.  WA is also ripping dams out like there's no tomorrow. How much renewable power is being lost? How many nuke plants are being built right now?
> 
> I'm all for emission free transportation, but to make it possible we need to get serious about alternatives not just mandating it.


WA state took out one 100yr old, 2 dam system on one river. Not exactly a landslide rush. This was out on the Olympic Peninsula. The 2 dams were very remote and didn't generate that much power. Both dams output combined only provided 38% of the power required for the paper mill in Pt. Angeles. Better sources had replaced them.  The ecological benefits have incredible and ongoing. Nukes are a touchy subject in this state due to one of the biggest nuclear boondoggles in history, that we are still paying off. Touchy subject, but I am in favor of fast-tracking modern PBR and HTGR solutions. Point being, it's another emissions free option.


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 10, 2019)

begreen said:


> WA state took out one 100yr old, 2 dam system on one river. Not exactly a landslide rush. This was out on the Olympic Peninsula. They were remote and didn't generate that much power. Both dams output combined only provided 38% of the power required for the paper mill in Pt. Angeles. Better sources had replaced them.  The ecological benefits have incredible and ongoing.



My apologies.  I am currently dealing with America Rivers now due to work and they don't operate in good faith.  I took their numbers at face value.  I should have known better.



begreen said:


> Nukes are a touchy subject in this state due to one of the biggest nuclear boondoggles in history, that we are still paying off. Touchy subject, but I am in favor of fast-tracking modern PBR and HTGR solutions. Point being, it's another emissions free option.



Those are both nuclear options.  It would behoove us as a nation to get these technologies up and running BEFORE we take mature ones offline.  There will be a market reaction and it will hurt consumers in huge ways.
All this talk of banning fossil fuel energy without these others in place is nothing more than politics.  It's dangerous.


----------



## Ashful (May 10, 2019)

I’ve always seen a large US fleet of electric vehicles as the missing puzzle piece in us really getting more heavily into renewable and independent energy.  Let’s face it, nukes and hydro share a common problem, no throttle.  The plan in the 1950’s - 1970’s was to build nukes up to base load, and then throttle up to the daytime peaks with coal and other fossils.

But with converting 60% - 80% of the 250+ million vehicles on American roads over to electric, we have one heck of a battery bank, there.  It’s a market ripe for companies to sell management rights to utilities, such that they can manage the overnight (charging) load, and optimize their base-load performers (nukes and hydro) to that load.  It’s a win-win.

* Full disclosure, nukes can be throttled, but not on any time scale acceptable for managing day/night transitions.  Think 3-day time constants.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 10, 2019)

Like them or not Nuke plants are emission free unless they malfunction. Even when the sun dont shine ,and the wind dont blow. The science has come a long way since those operating now, were built but people are gun shy over the few accidents in the past. In a study of deaths by fuel source Nukes came out best and coal came out worst.  https://www.newscientist.com/articl...il-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/


----------



## mellow (May 10, 2019)

Well they better hurry up and get batteries up to speed running on algae.


----------



## begreen (May 10, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> "Doing Something" isn't the best choice.  Often times people make very bad decisions when they do that, because we MUST do SOMETHING!  It tends to be emotional and not rational.  It might feel good, but what good is it actually doing?
> 
> Where are the nuke plants?  Is WA pushing for permits?  Where will all this soon to be banned energy production be coming from?  Unless there are concrete plans to make up for the lost production, it's just politics.


Off on a tangent here. It was stated -  _"Unless they're solar powered, emissions are produced to provide that transportation."_ That is factually incorrect. There are other sources of emissions-free power and they were noted. What works best will be regional solutions.  In WA state it's quite unlikely that the new mandate will put PSE or Avista out of business. This is not a surprise to them. They started the RFP process last year for renewable resources. PSE is now reviewing some 97 proposals. They also note that another emissions-free source of power is conservation. PSE estimates energy efficiency programs saving about a 500MW over the next 20yrs.

Another source emissions-free power is tidal. Being far north our tidal swing is large. France, S. Korea and Scotland have large tidal power generation systems.


----------



## semipro (May 10, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Like them or not Nuke plants are emission free unless they malfunction.


Only if you don't consider heat an emission.  
Nukes using nearby water bodies for cooling have in some cases driven temps up to where dissolved oxygen levels aren't sufficient to sustain all marine life resulting in fish kills. 
Those large air plumes emitted by cooling towers are warming the atmosphere too.


----------



## begreen (May 10, 2019)

semipro said:


> Only if you don't consider heat an emission.


That's an important concern. Seems like a good opportunity for cogeneration applications where heat is needed for industrial or perhaps agricultural uses.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 10, 2019)

I used to live an hour east of a nuclear plant cooled by a man made lake. I'm no meteorologist, but it seemed to me like the storms were stronger when the steam from the plant mixed with the incoming thunderstorms.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 10, 2019)

begreen said:


> That's an important concern. Seems like a good opportunity for cogeneration applications where heat is needed for industrial or perhaps agricultural uses.


I wonder how many homes could be heated with the waste heat from nuke plants. Should be greenhouses around the plants,at least in fall winter and spring could draw off heat. They are doing that locally with the culm burning electric plants.


----------



## brenndatomu (May 10, 2019)

begreen said:


> The road to emissions-free transportation is going to be driven with battery-electric vehicles,


Whatever.  It may be a small piece of the puzzle, but not a large piece anytime soon.
The emissions are just moved from the trucks tailpipe, to the battery factory, the power plant, and the hazardous waste dump once the battery's are junk...and then there is the whole issue of "the grid" already being at full capacity, sometimes overloaded in the summertime...oooh yeeeaaaah, sounds like yet another great idea brought to us by the united tree huggers and lemmings association!


----------



## Ashful (May 10, 2019)

brenndatomu said:


> Whatever.  It may be a small piece of the puzzle, but not a large piece anytime soon.
> The emissions are just moved from the trucks tailpipe, to the battery factory, the power plant, and the hazardous waste dump once the battery's are junk...and then there is the whole issue of "the grid" already being at full capacity, sometimes overloaded in the summertime...oooh yeeeaaaah, sounds like yet another great idea brought to us by the united tree huggers and lemmings association!



As the self-elected forum spokesperson for the “not a tree hugger” contingent of this forum, you are way off base, here.  Power plants generate many times the energy per emissions of an ICE, even accounting for all transmission losses.  Summer peak demand is a non-issue, it occurs in the afternoon, and peak charging is overnight.

... and who is dumping expensive EV batteries in the garbage?  Don’t you want that core charge back?


----------



## begreen (May 10, 2019)

Right, the solution is not to pretend everything is great and we're going back to the 1950s. Bottom line is we need to be a whole lot smarter and innovative about our needs for power and the impact these needs have on the planet. There are some boneheaded options showing up too, not all designs are fully thought through on their long term impact on the planet. But there are also some good ones. Conservation is one place major progress can be made. No one said it's happening overnight, but it is certainly happening. China started late in the game and they already have over twice the wind generation capacity of the US. They have full cities in which most public transportation is now electric. Can be done, especially with a much lower military budget. But then again, there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere now, that more radical approaches may need to be considered.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 11, 2019)

Overnight car charging will solve more problems than it creates. Like evening out the peak load for power plants and the problem of ramping up for daytime load and back down overnight. Lots of unused capacity at night. Will be very different rates for charging overnight and charging during peak hours.


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 11, 2019)

begreen said:


> Off on a tangent here. It was stated -  _"Unless they're solar powered, emissions are produced to provide that transportation."_ That is factually incorrect. There are other sources of emissions-free power and they were noted. What works best will be regional solutions.  In WA state it's quite unlikely that the new mandate will put PSE or Avista out of business. This is not a surprise to them. They started the RFP process last year for renewable resources. PSE is now reviewing some 97 proposals. They also note that another emissions-free source of power is conservation. PSE estimates energy efficiency programs saving about a 500MW over the next 20yrs.
> 
> Another source emissions-free power is tidal. Being far north our tidal swing is large. France, S. Korea and Scotland have large tidal power generation systems.



Yes, but what percentage of the grid is using these power sources?  A small minority.  The VAST majority of your power comes from carbon creating sources.  What may happen in the future really doesn't matter.  What matters is what is happening now.  How many of these sources that you cite are actually in production?  How many of these proposed plans actually are in the pipeline?  How far out are they?

Let's not kid ourselves.  When you plug in your EV you're polluting just as much if not more than an ICE, unless you're using your own PV power (not grid tied).  

The plans that you cite are just kicking the can down the road.  We need to do better NOW.   Do your politicians have plans to make up for the lost production?  If so, what are they?  Where are the permits and plans to complete them in the timeline they mandated?

I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it that way.  I'm frustrated with the political class that says "I care, so we're mandating X,Y,Z with NO plans to make it happen in a realistic way".  Does anyone hold them accountable?  Or do we just love the platitudes?


----------



## begreen (May 11, 2019)

We're in a time of transitions. There are still a lot of legacy systems in place. Still, coal is rapidly being phased out. By next year it will be producing only half of what it did a decade earlier.  Renewables are picking up dramatically. This trend will continue, it has to.

That said, I agree that we are really late getting it together. National awareness of these issues started with Carter. The biggest resource we have now that can be brought on quickly is conservation. Unfortunately, the current administration is doing everything it can to discourage development and weaning off fossil fuels. This is crazy considering where we are at and the number of jobs that developing renewables and increasing energy efficiency can create. In the meantime, in spite of getting a late start, China has leap-frogged past us in alternative energy production.


----------



## semipro (May 11, 2019)

wilsoncm1 said:


> Let's not kid ourselves. When you plug in your EV you're polluting just as much if not more than an ICE, unless you're using your own PV power (not grid tied).



From a US DOE report: 

"EVs typically produce fewer life cycle emissions than conventional vehicles because most emissions are lower for electricity generation than burning gasoline or diesel. The exact amount of these emissions depends on your electricity mix, which varies by geographic location."
https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles

Also:

ICEs only get dirtier with age as they wear.  Not so EVs.  As the grid gets cleaner and more efficient so do they.  
With an EV at least you have the option of making your own "fuel".  Not so much with ICEs.  
EVs connected to the grid also allow for increased energy storage (V2G) that should enable more renewable content without peak disruption. 
ICEs have probably reached their technological prime.  No so with EVs.  Serious development has only recently occurred.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 12, 2019)

And then theres THIS!
https://www.foxnews.com/auto/illinois-1000-electric-vehicle-legislation


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 12, 2019)

semipro said:


> From a US DOE report:
> 
> "EVs typically produce fewer life cycle emissions than conventional vehicles because most emissions are lower for electricity generation than burning gasoline or diesel. The exact amount of these emissions depends on your electricity mix, which varies by geographic location."
> https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles


https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles

Exactly my point.  Areas like where I live is Coal based power with some Nuke.  




semipro said:


> Also:
> 
> ICEs only get dirtier with age as they wear.  Not so EVs.  As the grid gets cleaner and more efficient so do they.
> With an EV at least you have the option of making your own "fuel".  Not so much with ICEs.
> ...



Not arguing those facts at all.  I think EV is the way of the future.  I'm waiting for a useful 4WD EV that will fit my daily transportation needs.  Jeep's Plug-in is on my radar.


----------



## wilsoncm1 (May 12, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> And then theres THIS!
> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/illinois-1000-electric-vehicle-legislation




I'm not too bent about that, TBH.  Fuel tax pays for road construction and maintenance. If you're not paying it, you're getting a free ride.


----------



## semipro (May 12, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> And then theres THIS!
> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/illinois-1000-electric-vehicle-legislation


Our system for funding road transportation is broken. Liquid fuel taxes don't make sense anymore.
We need to move towards ether:

Usage fees based on actual degradation to the infrastructure.  Since pavement is a state DOT's most expensive asset, that means heavier vehicles would pay a lot more.  Trucks do something like 3000x the damage to pavement than do light vehicles. And yes, the increased cost of hauling things would mean costs filter down to consumers.  The real cost of consuming should be paid by those that actually do it.
General tax funds pay for transportation.  Transportation is just as critical as the DOT, DOE, EPA, FDA, etc.  Why don't we fund it like those are funded?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 12, 2019)

Then you have the fact that every few years they raise gas taxes only to be siphoned off for unrelated expenses while the roads get worse and worse. Its no wonder there is contempt for politicians.
https://www.thewestendreporter.com/penndot-audit-reveals-billions-diverted-from-gas-tax-fund/


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 12, 2019)

semipro said:


> .  The real cost of consuming should be paid by those that actually do it.


I would think 80,000 Lbs per truck can do a lot of road wear. One truck more than a large fleet of Evs.


----------



## Ashful (May 12, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> And then theres THIS!
> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/illinois-1000-electric-vehicle-legislation



This creates a real tough problem.  As begreen said yesterday, we are in a transitional period.  There are going to be some growing pains.

Raising registration fees on just EV’s is a pretty short-sighted solution to a real problem.  It will dis-incentivize the technology, which is not where we need to go.

Some might say we should just do away with the fuel tax system, and replace it entirely with a registration tax on all vehicles, to level the playing field.  The trouble is, that will lower fuel prices to a point that will also dis-incentivized the EV’s.

The long-term outlook is obvious, EV’s are going to replace ICE’s for the majority of vehicles on the road.  But getting from here to there is not going to be easy, it’s going to be an interesting decade, for all things automotive.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 12, 2019)

Ashful said:


> Some might say we should just do away with the fuel tax system, and replace it entirely with a registration tax on all vehicles, to level the playing field.  The trouble is, that will lower fuel prices to a point that will also dis-incentivized the EV’s.
> .


ID keep the fuel tax but mandate it only go for its intended purpose. 
Already a registration fee on all vehicles and it wouldnt account for miles driven or encourage fuel conservation and how many people can come up with $1000 or more in one shot.  
On one hand the Fed and some state govts subsidizes electric cars with a $7500 rebate then (some)turn around and tax it back. I think there should be no EV penalties until electric transportation is well established at which point we will all benefit from the competition between the two. Good chance that $1000 will be siphoned off for something OTHER than road repair ,especially  in such a well run state.


----------



## begreen (May 12, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> And then theres THIS!
> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/illinois-1000-electric-vehicle-legislation


That proposal is nuts. It's not even well thought out. The state would go from one incentivizing electric car to the most onerous in the world. There is no equivalent. If this was a gas car it would be like charging a $2/gallon tax. And then there the fact that there are only about 15,000 electric cars registered in Illinois. So this would raise $15M towards a $2.4 Billion dollar budget? I don't tink so Lucy.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 12, 2019)

Ashful said:


> This creates a real tough problem.  As begreen said yesterday, we are in a transitional period.  There are going to be some growing pains.
> 
> Raising registration fees on just EV’s is a pretty short-sighted solution to a real problem.  It will dis-incentivize the technology, which is not where we need to go.
> 
> ...



There are just so many ICE vehicles already on the road. They aren't just going to dissappear. Most likely the only thing that will reduce this would be more expensive fuel. Once we have a garage and PV I'd love to buy an EV. Without solar or some changes to the power company, it won't happen for me. It would cost me more to use an EV than to drive my diesel truck averaging 24MPG


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 12, 2019)

Since im at the stage in life where im buying "toys" i may add a good used volt to the fleet at some point. Iv seen some well kept used ones for 8 to 12k.  Not a bad entry fee into the EV world.  I really have very little use for a small sedan myself but it may be ideal for my daughter who will be 16 next yr.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I really have very little use for a small sedan myself but it may be ideal for my daughter who will be 16 next yr.



My son thinks he’s getting my current car when he gets his license.  A new driver in a 500 hp sedan... what could go wrong?

On that note, kids won’t need to work for gas money, in an EV world, mom and dad will be supplying that.


----------



## semipro (May 13, 2019)

Ashful said:


> On that note, kids won’t need to work for gas money, in an EV world, mom and dad will be supplying that.


Maybe. For a while there my sons were expected to pay their share of our home utility bill out of an allowance earned through chores. 
It kept their showers shorter and unneeded lights off.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2019)

semipro said:


> Maybe. For a while there my sons were expected to pay their share of our home utility bill out of an allowance earned through chores.
> It kept their showers shorter and unneeded lights off.



The kids are fine.  Environmental awareness, as it pertains to energy and water conservation, is now discussed in school.  But I need to figure out how to implement that on my wife, I find an unwatched 70” TV (or two) sitting on the Netflix homescreen every morning, and seem to spend my evenings constantly flicking off light switches as I pass thru the house doing my projects.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 13, 2019)

The performance aspect of EVs is the key to widespread adoption. Not many people including myself interested in a glorified golfcart. Tesla has done wonders in that area. But most EVs are pretty quick off the line these days. Also it seems for some reason the performance minded crowd are the ones with the extra cash and willing to part with it going by the prices of popular muscle cars.


----------



## CaptSpiff (May 13, 2019)

semipro said:


> Maybe. For a while there my sons were expected to pay their share of our home utility bill out of an allowance earned through chores.
> It kept their showers shorter and unneeded lights off.


Brilliant!

Probably for another thread, but..... What did you do? About $50 a week with an end of week (or end of month) reconciliation with a 50% payback?


----------



## semipro (May 13, 2019)

CaptSpiff said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> Probably for another thread, but..... What did you do? About $50 a week with an end of week (or end of month) reconciliation with a 50% payback?


They had a monthly allowance contingent on the timely completion of assigned chores.  I took 25% of the power bill out of their next monthly allowance. 
IIRC I didn't always carry through too well.  
They're 27/28 now but I notice they'll always turn the lights off when exiting an empty room.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> The performance aspect of EVs is the key to widespread adoption. Not many people including myself interested in a glorified golfcart. Tesla has done wonders in that area. But most EVs are pretty quick off the line these days. Also it seems for some reason the performance minded crowd are the ones with the extra cash and willing to part with it going by the prices of popular muscle cars.



I’ve only driven two EV’s, and they were both higher-end Tesla’s (P90-D and a dual-motor AWD variant of the Model 3), but I have to say they were both almost confusingly fast.  I’ve owned a lot of fast cars, even a 9-second street car in my 20’s, and these EV’s just blow the doors off any ICE I’ve ever owned in the 0 - 30 MPH range.

The higher-horsepower ICEs still match their 0 - 60 MPH times, and easily beat the EV’s on highway passing, but I do a heck of a lot more driving on country roads than highways.

What’s so surprising about the AWD EV’s, to anyone not used to them, is the lack of any time lag in the pedal response.  I’m used to fast cars, but even then there’s still a fraction of a second between pedal down and vehicle acceleration.  The EV is simply head-snapping instantaneous.

I could easily see passenger fatigue being a new topic of discussion, as high-performance EV’s become more ubiquitous.  The acceleration on a high-horsepower ICE is less violent, and comes with lots of noise and drama that subconsciously prepares the passenger, and maybe even makes the driver a little less prone to unleash.  The EV is silent and instantly violent, it could really wear on a passenger’s neck muscles and mental state, especially with aggressive young male drivers.


----------



## semipro (May 13, 2019)

Ashful said:


> The EV is simply head-snapping instantaneous.


I've launched Teslas many times with passengers onboard -- always with a warning beforehand to put their head back against the headrest. 
To do otherwise would be irresponsible.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 13, 2019)

Ashful said:


> I’ve only driven two EV’s, and they were both higher-end Tesla’s (P90-D and a dual-motor AWD .


Sounds like a tesla is in your future.


----------



## Ashful (May 13, 2019)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Sounds like a tesla is in your future.


I'm a fan, and if I were buying another sedan, I'd really be tempted to go that direction.  But, I am not sure I will ever need another sedan, the kids will be teenagers by the time I replace the one I have now.  That may be perfect timing for me to finally get the roadster I've wanted since I was a teenager, myself.

If Tesla made a sports wagon, I would consider one to replace my wife's current wagon, but sadly... they don't.  There are some nice conversions out there, for those willing to spend the money to do them, but I'm not so dead-set on Tesla that I'd be willing to shell out conversion money on top of the new car price.

https://electrek.co/2018/05/28/tesla-model-s-wagon-remetzcar/


----------



## Seasoned Oak (May 13, 2019)

Ashful said:


> That may be perfect timing for me to finally get the roadster I've wanted since I was a teenager, myself./


Must be a few tesla roadsters available yet. But nothing under 45K used.


----------



## SpaceBus (May 13, 2019)

I'm excited about the proliferation of powerful brushless electric motors for swaps. My automotive head instructor was working on an electric 240SX. They even mated an electric motor to the OEM five speed in a Ford Ranger.


----------

