pp000830

Progressivism with speculative automotive technology as its saber blade classically suffers from an irrationally positive outlook on how the human condition will work in the future. Just Like other extremely optimistic views of the future Socialism, and Communism some things work out, some play out very differently. I remember when Obama told Putin that his view of geopolitics was so over and Putin reminded him that whoops power comes from the barrel of a gun. So it goes with the view of the future of automotive technology.

Here's a fact: Gasoline is cheap, easy to transport safely, has huge BTU content. If we didn't have it someone would need to invent it. With modern cars, emissions are down to nill and the only price or availability issues with it are political constructs. Coal fired (power plant) electric cars have huge environment and cost issue and don't meet the needs of the vast majority of our citizens who drive beyond Silicon Vally.

I sometimes think of the statement coming out of technologists today as I did with my daughter when she was 14, The internal logic behind her conclusions were unassailable, however, she was missing key pieces of information external to her arguments that render her conclusions invalid.



1. You need great data about our roads. Google was the pioneer with G Maps, but Uber and other ridesharing services are the future.

Really?

2. You need powerful technology to power the driverless cars. Guess what each Telsa has?

You can only hemorrhage BILLIONS of dollars a year for so long before you investors run for the fire doors. A classic case of irrational exuberance.
Spending Billions of dollars of other people's money to keep afloat in the form of government tax inducements and emission credit transfer payments from the likes of Ford/GM/Chrysler... to build cars the majority of citizens can't afford and doesn't come close to meeting their needs is problematic. The only way to do this is in a totalitarian state economy where the quality of life of the subjects is irrelevant and you never run out of other peoples money until the whole house of cards falls as we learned from the Soviets.

3. You need scalable manufacturing to scale point 1 and 2 to the masses. Elon Musk and his Teslas are the pioneers.

And not run out of cash, as you have to pay employees, they can't buy groceries with stock options.

Millennials and beyond when once activated will accelerate the switch to driverless technology very quickly.

My son loves his GT-4 and my daughter loves her Beetle just fine. When you have a family a dedicated minivan, loaded with kid supplies and a car seat, is a compelling purchase. I guess the people in the tech sector are going to have a problem when they have families and they are forced to load and unload 100 pounds of kid supplies in and out of that spiffy ride share if it fits at all.

4. You need a large market who see value in the technology

Uber utterly fails outside of the largest urban markets as drivers can't yield a living so the idea that Uber like service or ride share will meet the market's needs in Desmoines IA where F150 is the ride of choice, are you kidding me?

" I am sure we will have an EV/driverless vehicle in our garage, along with our "vintage" cars. I am also sure we will continue to love our "vintage" cars, buy them, and drive them because these are the experiences that ground us as a cohort, but eventually, we will age out like the cars. I will at least try to teach my young kids these simple pleasures as they grow up during this time and if they pick it up as a hobby like us car nuts then great!"

If you have a mundane traffic heavy commute, it is a game changer.
Yes, I agree if your trip is mostly on the highway and you are not in a hurry.
I am not a "car nut" is this the view Progressive technologists have of others?

jfischet

someone might need this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_Clinic

Detoxx

Self driving technology regulation is moseying along through gov.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN1AC2K0

pp000830

I love Monty Python!
To me, an argument with someone is the sincerest way to flatter them as to engage them in something akin to an argument suggests that what they think is highly valued and very important to you.
If I only could, as my son would say, monetarize my argumentative proclivity I could be a rich man!

No foul intent with my posting,
Hope it's taken that way.
Andy

samurai_k

Ditto. Love the Monty reference.

Wow I see 1000+ hits already on this thread! I guess we have raised some eyebrows on this spirited discussion.

pp000830

I kind'a see self-driving electric cars as I see the newest computer controlled dishwashers & clothes dryers. Through federal regulation to save water, a need that only exists in large part for people who live in deserts such as Southern CA, these machines no longer do the best job of washing dishes or clothing. They also are technologically complex with electronics that fail and must be replaced at very high cost. The washers regularly have a bad smell as they grow bacteria. In our home, my son was getting skin rashes when he washed his clothing at his home in a new machine. He came to our house and did his laundry for a week or so in our 20-year-old washer and his rash cleared up. A classic example where the original purpose and function of a modern convenience is hijacked by Progressive Technologists to address a problem that only exists in limited geography.

In the case of Porsche, They want to design a car that can be sold nation wide. To do this they must meet the irrational emissions requirements of the California Air Resource Board, an unelected omnipotent body that vastly increases the cost of manufacturing and purchasing a car to basically meet the need of one place in the US, LA. LA is uniquely subject to trapping gasses near the ground because of its population, it being boxed in between the ocean on one side and mountains on the other while being a desert. It is also a place where five or more lane highways act as slow moving parking lots and the idea of a self-driving car seems perfectly reasonable.

The founders of our nation invented the Electoral College and designed Congress so one highly populated state can't over run the needs or desires of less populated states. In commercial matters such as selling cars these controls are not present and the needs and desires of many in the case of automotive technology are overrun by the needs and desires of the few. Raising cost & complexity. In some cases making things such as buying a car out of reach of those who strive to jump on the first rung of improving their quality of life through personal mobility.

Hey, how's that South Central LA 2-1/2 hour Bus, err... ride share to work cleaning the home of that Palos Verde Tesla owner workin' for you?

goofballdeluxe

^^^^^ From my understanding, electric cars are less complex with fewer moving parts than their internal combustion brethren. Internal combustion has many flaws, in fact, the UK just passed a law banning their use in Great Britain as of 2040. Electric is the future, whether we like it or not. Internal combustion is tired old 19th century tech.

Also, CA and CARB are far from perfect, but as Los Angeles native born in the 1960s, one thing I can say for sure is the air is far less polluted than it was when I was a kid. There is a reason that many states voluntarily adopt CA's unique and strict car emissions standards: they work.

CA is the 6th biggest economy on the planet, and it's needs and contribution to our country's well-being put it in a position to mandate terms that many folks who don't live here probably don't appreciate. Yes, it's far from perfect, but there's a reason it's the most populated state; it's a place many dream of coming to.

And only people in the sticks think anyone drives from South Central to Palos Verdes, and a local who knows his/her way around seldom deals with too much traffic. Plus, everyone here has their teeth and no one is married to their sister either! LOL

Detoxx

I see it more of a safety issue, in very simple terms is an autonomous car safer than a human behind the wheel. In very quick order if not already autonomous cars will be safer. I believe this will be what drives regulation with respect to this more than anything else. The big question comes with regards to insurance, however if automakers adopts volvo's policy, the automakers will be responsible for their cars that are in an accident. If this happens this is a game changer. So much to ponder and discuss but in essence it comes to safety, what safer an infallible human or a computer.

pp000830

Interesting:

Detoxx

Looks like I better get ready for my 4.5 yr old boy to get expelled from kindergarten. I remember the time when teacher could rap knuckles with a ruler for not paying attention or parents could spank their kids without worrying CPS would be called. Time marches on and stops for no one and as such we adapt to these changes. Unfortunately we live in a very litigious society that drives many IMO "stupid laws" for the betterment of society as a whole. I welcome technology such as autonomous cars as I see the benefits outweighing the consequences. However that does not mean I don't and in the future won't lament the good old days. I absolutely love my 993 but wonder how much longer it will be practical and feasible to drive in the sense of financials as I see it insurance and government regs will make it more and more costly in order to get these cars like these off the road.

Tlaloc75

What does this have to do with the original topic? What's the connection?

Edward

That the UK passed anything speaks only of its political drive and social mores. It speaks nothing of facts WRT what is or is not truly the case. And one ought not conflate "complexity v. simplicity" with what is "effective." E.g.: the sundial is far simpler than a Timex, but one unequivocally works far better, is portable, has become very cheap, and enjoys an incredible working lifespan. True, complexity brings its potential caveats, but equally true is we embrace complexity when it offers tangible rewards; history bears this out. Remember when "coal is dead" or "pushrods are done" was echoed, oh 4+ decades ago? Some tech does end, no doubt. But worthwhile tech, seemingly outdated, clearly finds new breath when it actually works well.

Yes, standards work...to a point. Those in science, econ, and of course the school 'o hard knocks know the law of diminishing returns. As an Angelino for my life, I am likewise intimately aware of the smog alerts that were commonplace in ca.1970s LA basin. So yes, air today with more cars and more people is cleaner than yesteryear: this is very good! But when one is extracting the last 0.04ppm of anything, that gets exponentially expensive! Not to mention the health gain from that "clean up" is arguably beneficial and often not demonstrable in research (but sure flies well in politics). And add to these issues the fact that the element we are extracting may be toxic in one sense, but utterly expected in another. C02 is toxic if that is what you're breathing; but life on this rock without C02 is impossible. Like an alcohol-swabbed q-tip taking off that last micron of mold from underneath the padding of carpet in the corner that meets the front door, the word "clean" --or more accurately, "cleaner"-- can be very misleading.

A "dream" of others not here because they have seen the glitz from afar. A great many of those who have been here for decades and have lived through the innumerable detrimental changes --particularly at the hands of political ideologues who "know better"-- have been making a steady exodus for decades ...and taking their earned wealth with them (yes, earned!). Witness the beaten path of businesses leaving CA; it's indisputable. Additionally the countless many "middle class" who had earned their livings well here who are finding a state that has steadily been squeezing them out of said livelihood, eventually reaching a point where the plusses of California climate and lifestyle become drowned by a rising tide of taxes, fees, and regulation. Simple eye-opener: look at who's coming v. who's leaving.

Anyone who does not have to deal with the unspeakably bad traffic in SoCal (or the myriad traffic hotspots around CA) are simply fortunate. But those lucky enough cannot claim it is because they are side-street gurus. Sorry man, just not so. I know every inch of many places down here --say, in Hollywood!-- and traffic is traffic, man! Knowing "the streets" simply means that you shaved 6 minutes off of 90 of what really is only 14! That is reality for most. Sorry, but those who claim otherwise are the fortunate few who have an easy commute (of which I am now, thankfully), the very privileged few who can afford to live/work closely, or the deluded. The bulk of the workin-stiff blokes get what we get on a daily basis: dense traffic, for hours throughout the day.
Oh, and the teeth/sister comment, well I'll just leave that one up to you.

BTW, all in the spirit of good discussion, mind you ...I mean that!

Edward

pp000830

Nothing, just a misplaced URL on my part but now that someone responded I am reluctant to remove it.

goofballdeluxe

...delete!

goofballdeluxe

Pretty sure the air in L.A. is still pretty foul, but I understand your point