Auto companies prepping for "nightmare" of dual US vehicle standards

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
The fringier use cases will, like all technologies, be the last to implement. Tens of millions of people could benefit from iterative development of existing tech. Just like how the automakers iterated to meet current fuel efficiency standards that they previously described as impossible or the cost of which would hugely burden consumers.

People cannot afford iterative changes in time to meet the ecological deadline. So one solution is to bite the bullet as we did in lesser crises and fund like we did prior wars or economic catastrophes. Vehicles of modular design can be built which are extremely affordable or even free to those not in the stratosphere regarding wealth and income. Once efficiencies increase to make replacement ecologically responsible then we swap parts. In the beginning we can work with hybrid technology and when advances make upgrades prudent, powerplants are replaced. If the cost of this cycle becomes greater than replacement, the vehicle is swapped and the costs subsidized or eliminated as individual circumstances dictate.

It's only money and that is insignificant. I think Bill Gates would give his fortune to save a dying loved one. That's where we are now. Pay or die.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
So let me ask a simple question to anyone in this thread and let's get your honest answer. Let's say that companies would spend $N in achieving the 54MPG CAFE standard. Would we not be better off spending that same $N on building out infrastructure to remove the primary obstacles that remain in more widespread electric vehicle adoption instead of trying to gain the increasingly more difficult fuel efficiency gains for ICE vehicles? At what point can you just admit we're reaching a point of diminishing returns on that front?
Probably, I could honestly see locking CAFE at 50MPG and push the rest of our financial girth into pushing electrics. There's a point of diminishing returns with ICE which is kind of the reason we're developing electrics to begin with. We're already doing dumb shit to game the system like having engines turn off at stop lights, shutting down pistons during x phases of the moon, and putting shift restrictions between certain RPMs (no thanks chevy, I'd prefer to drive my car).

I do not, however, think we should enable manufacturers to keep making the same shitty polluters we've been pushing for the last 30 years. Giving financial incentive to companies to destroy the environment for profit should *never* be a goal. I'm sure it was hard enough getting the CAFE standards passed to begin with thanks to lobbying money.

If it's 'too hard' to hit 50MPG for the fleet, maybe that should be the incentive to switch to electric, which have an incredibly high MPG; over 100 for all of Tesla's models last I checked. It's real easy to keep those low MPG pickups on the fleet if all your 'normie people' vehicles are electrics.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
People cannot afford iterative changes in time to meet the ecological deadline.
This, IMO, is something that doesn't get enough coverage. I may be labeled a 'chicken little' by some people but I personally feel as though we're midway through an ecological disaster that frankly, humanity may not recover from. If we have to make people uncomfortable by forcing a few changes down everyone's throats in order to survive the next 200 years, I say so be it. I'd be comfortable with a mandatory buy-back on all ICE vehicles (and I do mean all), assuming the electric vehicle industry had the capacity to fill necessary orders for new vehicles (I know they wouldn't, right now).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
People cannot afford iterative changes in time to meet the ecological deadline. So one solution is to bite the bullet as we did in lesser crises and fund like we did prior wars or economic catastrophes. Vehicles of modular design can be built which are extremely affordable or even free to those not in the stratosphere regarding wealth and income. Once efficiencies increase to make replacement ecologically responsible then we swap parts. In the beginning we can work with hybrid technology and when advances make upgrades prudent, powerplants are replaced. If the cost of this cycle becomes greater than replacement, the vehicle is swapped and the costs subsidized or eliminated as individual circumstances dictate.

It's only money and that is insignificant. I think Bill Gates would give his fortune to save a dying loved one. That's where we are now. Pay or die.

"Affordable modular design vehicles" would require us to acknowledge some basic truths. Like that "affordable" has been one of the constraints we've sacrificed to achieve other goals like safety. And it's coming to the point with the sheer amount of required safety equipment and electronics in modern cars that they'll simply be unaffordable for the working class and soon even the middle class. Yeah, I like automatic assisted braking and pedestrian detection as much as anyone but adding those as a required standard means someone making $30k (or even maybe $40k) can't afford the car anymore. Which means they keep buying old, fuel guzzling clunkers they can afford.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Tesla Roadster (2020): Electric range 1,000 kilometres (620 mi)
The future is knocking. It says hello.

That's great! I spent what could responsibly afford on my last vehicle, a used one for 11k. Where do I go to buy that? Oh, I haven't any money to buy anything like countless Americans. OK, how about that trade in for oh, $100 a month, maintenance included?

I'm not fighting with you but I am saying that at least three things must happen. One is the technology, two is actual production in quantities not seen so far and three, making it affordable for everyone. Many people can use public transportation true, but if that was a mandate the economy would collapse overnight. Sometimes you can't get there from here. A partial solution is that every area be accessible to low or no cost Uber type services sufficient that the highest possible usage is accounted for. Multiple people could be picked up and professional systems used for the most efficient routing with allowances for priorities. Someone who needs to see a doc on short notice would be higher up the list than a casual shopper at Wallyworld or Tiffanies.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
They don't seem to care is my point.

The only way (IMO) is to push consumers in a certain direction. Ultimately they are the driving force in the market - regardless of what you WANT to happen.

The price of gas (no doubt) plays a factor. When it was $4-5/gallon consumers were much more likely to complain at the pump and (IMO) buy more fuel efficient cars.

A good start would be to increase the Federal Excise Tax for gasoline - which hasn't been adjusted for even inflation (let alone an actual increase) since 1993 @ 18.4 cents per gallon.

We also need to bring back tax credits/incentives for buying electric.

I do agree with all of this. Problem with our stupidity (All humans in general and, perhaps, Americans in particular), are out very short attention spans. We simply don't learn. This assumption that the energy/gas crisis has passed, and will never return, is just preposterously stupid.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
That's great! I spent what could responsibly afford on my last vehicle, a used one for 11k. Where do I go to buy that? Oh, I haven't any money to buy anything like countless Americans. OK, how about that trade in for oh, $100 a month, maintenance included?

Think of that as a proof of concept. It can be produced. It is real, it exists.

Next up is production and price savings. I'm willing to bet that, over the next 20 years, the price of that sort electric range can be brought down into regular consumer vehicles.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
"Affordable modular design vehicles" would require us to acknowledge some basic truths. Like that "affordable" has been one of the constraints we've sacrificed to achieve other goals like safety. And it's coming to the point with the sheer amount of required safety equipment and electronics in modern cars that they'll simply be unaffordable for the working class and soon even the middle class. Yeah, I like automatic assisted braking and pedestrian detection as much as anyone but adding those as a required standard means someone making $30k (or even maybe $40k) can't afford the car anymore. Which means they keep buying old, fuel guzzling clunkers they can afford.

You seem to be sticking to obsolete (for this purpose) thinking. The government funds by various means the development, production and delivery of vehicles to the public. Private industry is permitted to participate under draconian constraints for violations.

I don't keep the fuel guzzler because I have to turn it in but will have a replacement provided.

Do you know what the latest (and by now lowball) cost estimate for a 2C increase is to the US economy over the next 20 years? Take a stab at it.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Engines are becoming more and more efficient. Perhaps you haven't noticed? These big trucks, while not boasting the same efficiency as smaller cars, are using similar engines that are more efficient than they were before.

Also, this is a uniquely American thing. The rest of the world, which is vastly greater than the US market, roundly prefers efficient, smaller cars. American doesn't need stupid giant cars for any particular mythical reason--we are just collectively very stupid.

Also, the Auto Industry is being as predictably stupid as they always are: they hate new regulations because "it is too hard! and it is too expensive!" ...but it never is. It just never is. If they stopped bitching and started developing, they'd actually be saving on costs, that translate to the consumer, and hell, if they did this decades ago, we'd already be in a much better place. We simply would be. Accepting the Auto Industry argument that new regulations spell doom for them (for reasons) is like believing the Tobacco Industry's claims that 9 in 10 doctors recommend cigarettes for better health. They do this every other decade, and they are always wrong.
To be honest, I haven't seen shit for overall improvements. My 2006 Acura TSX gets 34mpg.

A 2019 Toyota carola is up to 36mpg I think? That's a pathetic increase for 13 years.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Think of that as a proof of concept. It can be produced. It is real, it exists.

Next up is production and price savings. I'm willing to bet that, over the next 20 years, the price of that sort electric range can be brought down into regular consumer vehicles.

The "next 20 years" is 14 years shorter then when Obama would have mandated 54MPG CAFE. That such a standard was technically infeasible in that timeframe (or perhaps ever absent a widespread switchover from ICE technology) doesn't seem to have mattered to them or most folks on this board.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
Do you know what the latest (and by now lowball) cost estimate for a 2C increase is to the US economy over the next 20 years? Take a stab at it.
I'd guess, at minimum, it'd cost less for the US Govt to simply contract Tesla to build 300M model 3's and hand them out, no questions asked. That's only about 9T for the 30k model.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
"Affordable modular design vehicles" would require us to acknowledge some basic truths. Like that "affordable" has been one of the constraints we've sacrificed to achieve other goals like safety. And it's coming to the point with the sheer amount of required safety equipment and electronics in modern cars that they'll simply be unaffordable for the working class and soon even the middle class. Yeah, I like automatic assisted braking and pedestrian detection as much as anyone but adding those as a required standard means someone making $30k (or even maybe $40k) can't afford the car anymore. Which means they keep buying old, fuel guzzling clunkers they can afford.

Should probably take out the airbags and seatbelts too. Also skipping the windshield would be a considerable savings.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
The "next 20 years" is 14 years shorter then when Obama would have mandated 54MPG CAFE. That such a standard was technically infeasible in that timeframe (or perhaps ever absent a widespread switchover from ICE technology) doesn't seem to have mattered to them or most folks on this board.
It's not like if you didn't meet the standard, they took you out back and shot you. The idea was to give financial incentive to change shit as fast as possible, whether by inventing some new tech that let you keep burning gas, or switching to hybrids/electrics.

You don't get industry to move without lighting a financial fire under their ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MagnusTheBrewer

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Should probably take out the airbags and seatbelts too. Also skipping the windshield would be a considerable savings.

It would have been shorter and more honest to say you don't give a damn what other people need or want and you'd prefer people go without cars then go without amenities that you can afford but they can't. If they can't afford the passenger avoidance (PA) tech for example they'll either go without or buy an older car which will get worse MPG. If you think that's a better outcome than allowing them to buy a car without PA then I guess that's one less person in the traffic jam ahead you, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,116
14,484
146
You going to pass a law to repeal Jevon's Paradox as well? Honestly what the last 40 years or so is telling us loud and clear is that regardless of CAFE folks will buy whatever car they need for utility sake first and foremost (passenger capacity, hauling capacity, range, etc) with gas mileage being an extremely distant concern. That you think you can speak for the "best option for every single human in the U.S." is just a neon sign advertising your hubris. That wouldn't change if you put the CAFE standard at a billion MPG, people won't buy cars that don't meet their needs, period full stop. You wishing they had different needs that coincide with your preferences doesn't make it so.

Glen if you ever want to buy a new truck we are going to make you buy one that’s more efficient and there’s nothing you can do about it. You’re going to have choke down better MPG or more HP per MPG or both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
To be honest, I haven't seen shit for overall improvements. My 2006 Acura TSX gets 34mpg.

A 2019 Toyota carola is up to 36mpg I think? That's a pathetic increase for 13 years.

While I assume that a 2006 TSX will have more performance than any kind of standard Corolla...what are the comparable hp and torque on those two?

Sometimes, an engine design just works really well, dependably, and the makers stick with it. And even in those generations, you see incremental increases in performance with very little change in fuel rating, on the same engine platform: say you might see the same displacement from year to year, but more performance, or a greater hp/liter rate with newer models--which is actually a HUGE increase in efficiency that, I suspect, is rarely accounted for in the data.

Of course, you also have to consider vehicle weight across similar performance engines.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I'd guess, at minimum, it'd cost less for the US Govt to simply contract Tesla to build 300M model 3's and hand them out, no questions asked. That's only about 9T for the 30k model.

Well, we're looking at about 65 trillion and that's far far too low because there's "what happens after what happens after" consideration. What I'm talking about is that climate is a crisis multiplier. You have direct consequences such as crop failure which leads to failure in the agriculture sector which leads to increased costs and shortages which leads to unemployment increasing to cut costs which leads to further economic catastrophe and on and on. Like climate change itself, the adverse economic effects would be subject to ever-increasing positive feedback which makes the dubious estimate of 92 trillion to break the fatal cycle a mere pittance.

Oh, everyone gets to die, because that increase rate is being driven by things like melting permafrost, which is one factor driving up the heat content of oceans again at an increasing rate. The major oxygen producing organism, phytoplankton are already dying accounting for changes in whale migration. At some point, the O2 levels become too low to support higher life and that's us. Once this is observed in lower O2 percentages then only God can fix it. There is no human agency that can stop which is, in essence, a planetary sized runaway train. The math of chaotic system demands that the central tendency, the "attractor" so to speak will move to a higher energy point before it establishes equilibrium and that is certainly going to be at a point beyond sustainability of human and higher life.

So when I say we have perhaps 20 to 30 years I am not exaggerating. We may already be beyond the point of no return, but I have to hope we can complete (not start) work in the next couple of decades if it costs 500 trillion.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
Well, we're looking at about 65 trillion and that's far far too low because there's "what happens after what happens after" consideration. What I'm talking about is that climate is a crisis multiplier. You have direct consequences such as crop failure which leads to failure in the agriculture sector which leads to increased costs and shortages which leads to unemployment increasing to cut costs which leads to further economic catastrophe and on and on. Like climate change itself, the adverse economic effects would be subject to ever-increasing positive feedback which makes the dubious estimate of 92 trillion dollars a mere pittance.

Oh, everyone gets to die, because that increase rate is being driven by things like melting permafrost, which is one factor driving up the heat content of oceans again at an increasing rate. The major oxygen producing organism, phytoplankton are already dying accounting for changes in whale migration. At some point, the O2 levels become too low to support higher life and that's us. Once this is observed in lower O2 percentages then only God can fix it. There is no human agency that can stop which is, in essence, a planetary sided runaway train. The math of chaotic system demands that the central tendency, the "attractor" so to speak will move to a higher energy point before it establishes equilibrium and that is certainly going to be at a point beyond sustainability of human and higher life.

So when I say we have perhaps 20 to 30 years I am not exaggerating. We may already be beyond the point of no return, but I have to hope we can complete (not start) work in the next couple of decades if it costs 500 trillion.
No disagreements from me on the above. Next 50 years are gonna be exciting.