OT - Walter Rohrl not a fan of electric cars
01-20-2019, 01:18 AM
#106
I love it!I think some of you are seriously misunderstanding what Rohrl is saying.
No one, including myself will for a second doubt the fact that the Taycan will drive and perform well.
Rohrl is simply impressed with how well Porsche has done with the Taycan but that doesn’t change or mean anything beyond that.
Röhrl believes that EV’s are fundamentally flawed and I along with many others outside of the California tech bubble culture agree with him 100%.
The fact that he’s impressed with the car has nothing to do with his acceptance or belief in it.
Take the Vatican and St Peters Basilica for instance: Thousands of tourists walk through there daily and are blown away by the beauty and sheer awe of the church’s architecture. It would be a huge mistake to assume,however, that their high praise of the Church itself has anything to do with whether or not they believe in Christianity.
They built it and it’s an incredible achievement but that doesn’t mean you have to agree with why it was built or what it represents.
Last edited by limegreen; 01-20-2019 at 11:32 AM.
01-20-2019, 11:29 AM
#108
However, if you insist on it , let me tell you that horses have MORE in common with EV’s than ICE due to their inability to sprint for long distances and their extended rest times required between use.
01-20-2019, 11:53 AM
#109
I think that horses have more in common with ICEs given the amount of crap that comes out of the tailpipe! Bottom line is some people embrace change while others reject it. Such is the human condition. Thankfully, this has not stopped progress.
01-20-2019, 01:56 PM
#110
I suppose it all depends on what is considered actual progress...
01-22-2019, 05:55 AM
#111
Rennlist Member
most EV's these days have a 8 year unlimited mile drive train warranty - the data to date demonstrates that EV's are far less expensive to maintain, and the parts that they do share with ICE automobiles are all in the 100,000-250,000 miles category - all things break given enough time - brakes for example with regenerative braking wear far less than on a gas car....the only data we have from the Tesla Model S fleet is some taxi Tesla's have had brake jobs done at 250,000 miles, and a new battery at 200,000 miles (not due to failure but they wanted the 8% battery range loss back after 200,000 miles cause they were a taxi - the range loss is largely attributed to that particular car being charged exclusively by superchargers for it's entire 200,000 mile usage, not a common scenario) - I've yet to meet any Tesla owner who's done a brake job, and the local Sunnyvale shop says across the entire fleet of Silly-con valley teslas brake jobs are uncommon, but they didn't have any data, the mechanics say they can't remember doing any brake jobs…it's very very uncommon.
there is ample evidence that EV's have lower maintain costs and the systems are simpler, yes they are modular, but that means if they break you simply replace them saving on vast billable hours attempting to diagnose...
there is NO evidence EV's suffer from the maintenance costs associated with an ICE, and there is evidence to date demonstrates they are actually far less costly.
my brakes for example at 52,000 miles on my P85D have worn to 13 mm, 14 mm was factory zero miles upon delivery
the battery cooling system for the battery on the Chevy Bolt for example is a sealed system and first recommended maintenance is 150,000 miles to swap the fluid - $75 service including labor at your local Chevy dealer - this is the _ONLY_ factory maintenance in the owner's manual for the Chevy Bolt - other than rotating the tires which wear the same rate as gas cars.
the fluids that are present in EV's last longer due to less thermal stress - they aren't subject to the extreme heat of an ICE engine and last quite a bit longer due to that fact.
if you break it down the stuff present on an EV that it shares with an ICE car isn't the stuff that commonly breaks, and it also lacks nearly all the stuff that you maintain on a ICE car (exhaust systems, catalytic converters, O2 sensors, thermostats, clutches, power steering pumps, spark plugs, coils, fuel injectors, fluids, water pump, fuel pump, starter, oil pumps, belts, hoses, transmissions, oil, air compressor, timing belts/chains, valves, and the entire complexity of 800 or so parts in a flat 6 911 engine, alternator just to name a few things missing in action on an EV)
in the ROLF category however EV's do share the failure rate of 12 volt batteries that ICE cars do - nearly all EV's I'm ware of have a 12 volt battery. This battery shares two main purposes:
Chevy Bolt is in category #2
Tesla did have a high failure rate early in the Model S life span of the DC to DC converter which was causing people to experience a high rate of dead 12 volt batteries - they seems to have gotten their arm's around that problem and there is nothing on the forums these days indicating a high rate of failure - all of the initial problems were fixed under warranty.
The Chevy Bolt has a 1600 watt DC to DC inverter which runs continuously if the car is "on" and not in park - this means in a power outage you can hook up your favorite 1500 DC/AC inverter from Amazon for $89 and have 60 kWh of AC power during a power outage - there is a whole thread about it on the Bolt forums - it make the Bolt an excellent camping vehicle.
so when your 12 volt battery fails just like it does on a ICE car you can't "start" your EV, just like a gas car, and it needs to be jumped just like a gas car. I'm on my 3rd 12 volt battery in my P85D, and my 2nd 12 volt battery in my Bolt (warranty replacement) - but the failure rate of 12 volt batteries is definitely the same as gas cars, and has a similar impact, but you can't pop-the-clutch and push start an EV
Tires, windshield wipers all wear on EV's, the rest of the stuff is simpler and last longer on EV's has been my experience in the past 5 years - and the Leaf fleet which is nearly 7 years old at this time are showing virtually no mechanical issues, other than Nissan's problems with the battery - but that is a design issue on Nissan's part - the cost to maintain a Leaf is way way way cheaper than the equivalent Nissan gas cars - I know I was talking to a Nissan dealership service manager last week and they have noticed the dramatically lower service revenue associated with the Leaf - I was there to get a new key fob that had been run over in the driveway.
there is ample evidence that EV's have lower maintain costs and the systems are simpler, yes they are modular, but that means if they break you simply replace them saving on vast billable hours attempting to diagnose...
there is NO evidence EV's suffer from the maintenance costs associated with an ICE, and there is evidence to date demonstrates they are actually far less costly.
my brakes for example at 52,000 miles on my P85D have worn to 13 mm, 14 mm was factory zero miles upon delivery
the battery cooling system for the battery on the Chevy Bolt for example is a sealed system and first recommended maintenance is 150,000 miles to swap the fluid - $75 service including labor at your local Chevy dealer - this is the _ONLY_ factory maintenance in the owner's manual for the Chevy Bolt - other than rotating the tires which wear the same rate as gas cars.
the fluids that are present in EV's last longer due to less thermal stress - they aren't subject to the extreme heat of an ICE engine and last quite a bit longer due to that fact.
if you break it down the stuff present on an EV that it shares with an ICE car isn't the stuff that commonly breaks, and it also lacks nearly all the stuff that you maintain on a ICE car (exhaust systems, catalytic converters, O2 sensors, thermostats, clutches, power steering pumps, spark plugs, coils, fuel injectors, fluids, water pump, fuel pump, starter, oil pumps, belts, hoses, transmissions, oil, air compressor, timing belts/chains, valves, and the entire complexity of 800 or so parts in a flat 6 911 engine, alternator just to name a few things missing in action on an EV)
in the ROLF
category however EV's do share the failure rate of 12 volt batteries that ICE cars do - nearly all EV's I'm ware of have a 12 volt battery. This battery shares two main purposes:- it's a bridge to the off the shelf parts most EV's use that are 12 volt to match the rest of the industry - it's a compatibility component for the rest of the automotive industry supply chain
- it's the main "switch" control power system for the main traction 400 volt DC battery - so that the car is not energized with 400 volt DC current unless it's being actually used - the 12 volt system runs the ECU which controls the main relay to enable/disable the 400 volt subsystem - if the ECU lacks 12 volt power it's dead and can't tell the main battery to turn on…so yes you do need to occasionally jump start an EV even if the main battery is completely full - we'll see what Porsche does in this space.
- only while it's plugged in and being charged
- continuously from the main large battery
Chevy Bolt is in category #2
Tesla did have a high failure rate early in the Model S life span of the DC to DC converter which was causing people to experience a high rate of dead 12 volt batteries - they seems to have gotten their arm's around that problem and there is nothing on the forums these days indicating a high rate of failure - all of the initial problems were fixed under warranty.
The Chevy Bolt has a 1600 watt DC to DC inverter which runs continuously if the car is "on" and not in park - this means in a power outage you can hook up your favorite 1500 DC/AC inverter from Amazon for $89 and have 60 kWh of AC power during a power outage - there is a whole thread about it on the Bolt forums - it make the Bolt an excellent camping vehicle.
so when your 12 volt battery fails just like it does on a ICE car you can't "start" your EV, just like a gas car, and it needs to be jumped just like a gas car. I'm on my 3rd 12 volt battery in my P85D, and my 2nd 12 volt battery in my Bolt (warranty replacement) - but the failure rate of 12 volt batteries is definitely the same as gas cars, and has a similar impact, but you can't pop-the-clutch and push start an EV
Tires, windshield wipers all wear on EV's, the rest of the stuff is simpler and last longer on EV's has been my experience in the past 5 years - and the Leaf fleet which is nearly 7 years old at this time are showing virtually no mechanical issues, other than Nissan's problems with the battery - but that is a design issue on Nissan's part - the cost to maintain a Leaf is way way way cheaper than the equivalent Nissan gas cars - I know I was talking to a Nissan dealership service manager last week and they have noticed the dramatically lower service revenue associated with the Leaf - I was there to get a new key fob that had been run over in the driveway.
I have taken to firing up my various ICE cars just for the novelty - knowing that they are being eclipsed in performance, safety and efficiency.
Reminds me of patting an old trusty workhorse on the head while sadly knowing that he'll go off to the meat packing plant soon.
Goodness, I am going to miss the smell of burning race fuel and the thunderous music that emanates from flat sixes, V8's and V12's at full throttle!
Belchfire motors vs the silent swoosh of electron cars with their vertical power curve. My older friend who is a internal combustion engineer always made jokes abut his fantasy engine "infinite power in zero time". From a functional viewpoint those motors are nearly here, and they are not ICE's.
The new electron cars and their perfectly accurate record of every nuance of usage vs the analog fire breathing monster that keeps its history a secret.
Some push their brains into the void of the new and undiscovered, while others enjoy the old and familiar.
It's all good!
01-22-2019, 02:54 PM
#112
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I love it!I think some of you are seriously misunderstanding what Rohrl is saying.
No one, including myself will for a second doubt the fact that the Taycan will drive and perform well.
Rohrl is simply impressed with how well Porsche has done with the Taycan but that doesn’t change or mean anything beyond that.
Röhrl believes that EV’s are fundamentally flawed and I along with many others outside of the California tech bubble culture agree with him 100%.
The fact that he’s impressed with the car has nothing to do with his acceptance or belief in it.
.
I don't think most (if any) posting here mis-understand what Walter is saying. We simply don't agree with him. No rofl needed here, sorry.
You and he are as entitled to your opinion as those of us who like and enjoy EV's. For me, it is absolutely perfect for what I do. My wife and I have had two cars at least (now 3) since we got married. In the entire time since we've moved to Houston, I've driven 4 cars now as a daily driver. Only ONE time has my daily driver made it more than 100 miles from downtown Houston. And pretty much that was because it was a lease and I was under my mileage allowance and had some to burn. Anytime we've left the metropolitan area, we've either flown or driven my wife's car, which is what we primarily bought it for. And it does it very well. So for me, an EV with 250 plus mile range is a perfect daily commuter. I've only charged it publicly three times, solely for the entertainment value of it. It's better in traffic and the fuel cost is less than half, and that's in the winter when EV's are inefficient and gas is cheap. In the summer I would wager it will be 1/4 of the "fuel" cost.
If an EV doesn't fit your use case, I understand. But for myself, and many others, it's far superior to an ICE vehicle.
What's the "fundamental flaw"?
Last edited by Needsdecaf; 01-22-2019 at 06:30 PM.
01-22-2019, 08:18 PM
#113
When presented with mobility technology that is logical, practical , easily implemented and offers real gain over ICE in performance applications then I’ll be first to welcome it with open arms.
The basis for leaving something old for somthing new usually requires the new option being an improvement.
EV at it’s best is a lateral step over ICE but in reality it’s more like a backwards step, especially in a performance or sports car application which is the Taycans intention because Porsche is attempting to make an electric sports car not produce a Nissan Leaf fighting driving appliance.
01-26-2019, 08:59 PM
#114
Burning Brakes
I know this is a little off topic relative to Walter Rohrl's comments, but in the electric vs. ICE debate, I'm surprised nobody has addressed the 800 pound gorilla in the room - the fact that 63% of the electricity generated in the united states comes from fossil fuels:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This isn't going to change anytime soon; it will likely take many decades for a major shift in large scale power generation methodology, if history is any guide. So electric cars should really be considered "natural gas/coal burners", at least for the foreseeable future. And the problem becomes more pronounced if electric cars do an about-face and actually start selling is appreciable numbers, as this will put a huge strain on the power grid that renewable sources of electricity won't be able to address. So, if the premise is that conversion from ICE's to electric cars will help slow down climate change, I'm not seeing how this works. I have nothing against electric cars; I currently commute to work in a vanpool, but if our vanpool were to disband, I would buy an electric car for commuting in a heartbeat, because my company provides free charging stations, so my fuel cost would essentially be zero. But to me, any significant environmental benefit of electric cars is many decades away, and well before they actually do make sense from a net CO2 production standpoint, I'm willing to be cellulosic biofuels, which are effectively carbon-neutral, and could potentially be adopted without people even having to replace their current cars, will become a reality, making electric cars largely irrelevant. Just my two cents.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This isn't going to change anytime soon; it will likely take many decades for a major shift in large scale power generation methodology, if history is any guide. So electric cars should really be considered "natural gas/coal burners", at least for the foreseeable future. And the problem becomes more pronounced if electric cars do an about-face and actually start selling is appreciable numbers, as this will put a huge strain on the power grid that renewable sources of electricity won't be able to address. So, if the premise is that conversion from ICE's to electric cars will help slow down climate change, I'm not seeing how this works. I have nothing against electric cars; I currently commute to work in a vanpool, but if our vanpool were to disband, I would buy an electric car for commuting in a heartbeat, because my company provides free charging stations, so my fuel cost would essentially be zero. But to me, any significant environmental benefit of electric cars is many decades away, and well before they actually do make sense from a net CO2 production standpoint, I'm willing to be cellulosic biofuels, which are effectively carbon-neutral, and could potentially be adopted without people even having to replace their current cars, will become a reality, making electric cars largely irrelevant. Just my two cents.
01-26-2019, 11:50 PM
#115
Rennlist Member
I know this is a little off topic relative to Walter Rohrl's comments, but in the electric vs. ICE debate, I'm surprised nobody has addressed the 800 pound gorilla in the room - the fact that 63% of the electricity generated in the united states comes from fossil fuels:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This isn't going to change anytime soon; it will likely take many decades for a major shift in large scale power generation methodology, if history is any guide. So electric cars should really be considered "natural gas/coal burners", at least for the foreseeable future. And the problem becomes more pronounced if electric cars do an about-face and actually start selling is appreciable numbers, as this will put a huge strain on the power grid that renewable sources of electricity won't be able to address. So, if the premise is that conversion from ICE's to electric cars will help slow down climate change, I'm not seeing how this works. I have nothing against electric cars; I currently commute to work in a vanpool, but if our vanpool were to disband, I would buy an electric car for commuting in a heartbeat, because my company provides free charging stations, so my fuel cost would essentially be zero. But to me, any significant environmental benefit of electric cars is many decades away, and well before they actually do make sense from a net CO2 production standpoint, I'm willing to be cellulosic biofuels, which are effectively carbon-neutral, and could potentially be adopted without people even having to replace their current cars, will become a reality, making electric cars largely irrelevant. Just my two cents.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
This isn't going to change anytime soon; it will likely take many decades for a major shift in large scale power generation methodology, if history is any guide. So electric cars should really be considered "natural gas/coal burners", at least for the foreseeable future. And the problem becomes more pronounced if electric cars do an about-face and actually start selling is appreciable numbers, as this will put a huge strain on the power grid that renewable sources of electricity won't be able to address. So, if the premise is that conversion from ICE's to electric cars will help slow down climate change, I'm not seeing how this works. I have nothing against electric cars; I currently commute to work in a vanpool, but if our vanpool were to disband, I would buy an electric car for commuting in a heartbeat, because my company provides free charging stations, so my fuel cost would essentially be zero. But to me, any significant environmental benefit of electric cars is many decades away, and well before they actually do make sense from a net CO2 production standpoint, I'm willing to be cellulosic biofuels, which are effectively carbon-neutral, and could potentially be adopted without people even having to replace their current cars, will become a reality, making electric cars largely irrelevant. Just my two cents.
grid load is also a common cry that comes up but so far that seems to be a surmountable problem and if you are refining less gasoline there is more existing grid capacity for charging since gasoline refinement is rather energy intensive.
commercial scale efficient power plants trounce the relative efficiency of gasoline cars...and the grid over time is getting cleaner.
EV’s can be zero emission - ICEs will never be zero emission - in the case of solar/nuclear/renewables they are zero emission.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 01-27-2019 at 12:06 AM.
01-27-2019, 12:01 AM
#116
Rennlist Member
https://rennlist.com/forums/taycan-a...al-threat.html
this thread has extensive discussion and data - recommend a through read
western US energy mix is 40% fossil fuel 60% renewables...
EV’s are less impact across the board in nearly all cases.
post #513 lays out efficiency of EV’s in terms of mpg state by state.
post #75 lays out the math comparing pure fossil fuel ICE vs pure fossil fuel EV powered by an oil fired power plant for 135,000 miles...if you agree burning less fossil fuel is the goal the EV is a clear winner even with a 100% oil based electrical grid - the calf’s were done with a model S - the model 3 is more efficient than the S so the numbers are even more in favor of the EV as EV’s get better.
this thread has extensive discussion and data - recommend a through read
western US energy mix is 40% fossil fuel 60% renewables...
EV’s are less impact across the board in nearly all cases.
post #513 lays out efficiency of EV’s in terms of mpg state by state.
post #75 lays out the math comparing pure fossil fuel ICE vs pure fossil fuel EV powered by an oil fired power plant for 135,000 miles...if you agree burning less fossil fuel is the goal the EV is a clear winner even with a 100% oil based electrical grid - the calf’s were done with a model S - the model 3 is more efficient than the S so the numbers are even more in favor of the EV as EV’s get better.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 01-27-2019 at 12:31 AM.
01-27-2019, 12:02 AM
#117
However if you look carefully
This assumes that the rest of the world is following the USA in mistakes, for example here in Ontario where I live the mix is:
https://www.powerstream.ca/regulator...upply-mix.html or look at the entire country:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/electricity/20068
The point is too many times the opponents to BEVs carefully pick their test points. but when I plug in the numbers for where I live their arguments are just a pile of hogwash.
https://www.powerstream.ca/regulator...upply-mix.html or look at the entire country:
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/electricity/20068
The point is too many times the opponents to BEVs carefully pick their test points. but when I plug in the numbers for where I live their arguments are just a pile of hogwash.
01-27-2019, 12:41 AM
#118
Rennlist Member
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyi...re-in-america/
covers how EVs are more efficient today even with fossil fuel power - from that commie liberal science is a liberal conspiracy rag called Forbes.
covers how EVs are more efficient today even with fossil fuel power - from that commie liberal science is a liberal conspiracy rag called Forbes.
01-27-2019, 03:03 AM
#119
Burning Brakes
I know this is a little off topic relative to Walter Rohrl's comments, but in the electric vs. ICE debate, I'm surprised nobody has addressed the 800 pound gorilla in the room - the fact that 63% of the electricity generated in the united states comes from fossil fuels .... So, if the premise is that conversion from ICE's to electric cars will help slow down climate change, I'm not seeing how this works.
Detractors of EVs spew a lot of 'exhaust' on lies and misconceptions. Many of these were discredited back in the 1990s - yet continue to be 'put out there' by detractors. Here in California, where about half the EVs in the U.S. reside, there is essentially zero use of coal. (A small percentage comes from out-of-state but that is disappearing in the next couple of years.) Modern combined cycle nat gas plants are inherently cleaner than coal and can operate at 60+% efficiency. And there is an ever growing amount of renewables which didn't exist 10 years ago. Even in states which burn a lot of coal, it is better to use EVs than to burn gas in an ICE.
When you actually start doing the math - from "well to wheel" - EVs make lots of sense. Pumping crude, transporting it, pumping it, (especially) refining it, more pumping, transporting again, and pumping it again uses a lot of power. Some have estimated that the amount of energy used to just refine a gallon of gas could move the average EV over 20 miles. Then burning it in a typical ICE - which is at best 20-30% efficient... Frankly it is stupid to simply burn our natural resources now that alternatives exist. Lets use oil for things like lubricants, plastics, and jet fuel (which still needs the extremely high energy density of liquid fuel to be viable.)
01-28-2019, 02:29 AM
#120
Self power sourcing
And then there are people like me who already own our own solar panels, battery storage and invertor so we can charge for free.
Okay, the recycled solar panels costed me $400, the battery storage I built myself for about $700 and the invertor was on sale at Canadian Tire for $250 - so my present power setup costs about $1350 and it will supply power for the next 20-25 years. It probably would last longer but at my age I will probably die before this system gives out. At present gas is about a dollar a liter here, and a liter gets me about 10 kilometers on either of my gas car/truck.
$1350 = about 13,500 kilometers travel distance, far less than one year's travel for me. So how am I being bad using electricity.
Earl Colby Pottinger (Tesla, Bollinger, Rivian and other BEVs fan)
Okay, the recycled solar panels costed me $400, the battery storage I built myself for about $700 and the invertor was on sale at Canadian Tire for $250 - so my present power setup costs about $1350 and it will supply power for the next 20-25 years. It probably would last longer but at my age I will probably die before this system gives out. At present gas is about a dollar a liter here, and a liter gets me about 10 kilometers on either of my gas car/truck.
$1350 = about 13,500 kilometers travel distance, far less than one year's travel for me. So how am I being bad using electricity.
Earl Colby Pottinger (Tesla, Bollinger, Rivian and other BEVs fan)
