Go Back  S2KI Honda S2000 Forums > General Interest > Car Talk
Reload this Page >

The big shifting of the car world

Notices
Car Talk Discussions and comparisions of cars of all makes and models.

The big shifting of the car world

 
Old 11-27-2018, 11:56 AM
  #11  
 
vader1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ST Paul
Posts: 10,870
Liked 116 Times in 86 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Kenny_Stang View Post
I am the opposite, I see the QUIKAG future happening soon... I would say we will see a significant push to this model in the next decade. I believe that by 2030 the traditional internal combustion engine will be effectively dead (new vehicles powered by ICE, not wiping out all vehicles that currently use one). They will continue to be manufactured but only in low numbers for niche (read expensive) vehicles and for those willing to pay more for the novelty (similar to the horse analogy).
Well in 12 years you will not be able to generate enough electricity or get it through the outdated grid to even power a fleet of 25% electric vehicles.

I think also a point that is missed is that as MPG(e) is pushed up with a phase in of electric vehicles, the manufacturers have less pressure to meet CAFE by pushing ICE mileage higher. They won't have to invest in engines so much as milk what they got at greater and greater payback as the price of gas falls with demand. Money will still flow towards gas powered cars for quite a while until high powered batteries become small and cheap. Right now a Tesla battery is around $15,000 towards the cost of manufacturing the car. Until you get it under half that, gas powered cars will be the preferred car purchased by the masses, unless you regulate them out of business. And that assumes that if Tesla could get the cost of the battery under say $7500 that they pass the savings to you to bring the cost down instead of padding the bottom line.

I think if anyone is thinking this is just around the corner should look at the debuts scheduled for the LA auto show this week. A few electrics, but you got a bunch of big gas powered cars like the new 3 series that will sell for nice change and are slated to run for about seven years just like the current generation. They are not all electric, and they are not autonomous.

Last edited by vader1; 11-27-2018 at 12:07 PM.
vader1 is offline  
The following users liked this post: vader1
JonBoy (11-27-2018)
Old 11-27-2018, 12:17 PM
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,261
Liked 63 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Electrical infrastructure is inferred for mass autonomous transit but who knows what might be discovered or developed as an alternate? Otherwise, you're right, the electrical infrastructure couldn't support that many vehicles that quickly. It will literally take decades to build it up properly AND also ensure a steady supply of electricity. It'd be somewhat ironic if we tried to save the planet with electric vehicles and then had to resort to coal generation to keep up because we didn't have enough hydro (or other natural sources) electricity...

One thing about a fleet is that you could charge them in the off-hours to strategically balance the demand on the grid, reducing both the costs of charging and minimizing the effect on the grid. Having everyone come home after work and crank on the air conditioning (or heat) and charge their car simultaneously would overload most systems today, even if only 5% of the vehicles were electric.
JonBoy is offline  
Old 11-27-2018, 12:43 PM
  #13  
 
TsukubaCody's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,722
Liked 90 Times in 84 Posts
Default

More jobs should offer working from home.

There's ZERO need for many office jobs to require employees to be on-site. That would save a tremendous amount of fuel.

More people need to live in cities, allow for areas to be the open, natural spaces they need to be and that also makes cars less of a need for day-to-day life.
TsukubaCody is offline  
Old 11-27-2018, 12:46 PM
  #14  
 
vader1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ST Paul
Posts: 10,870
Liked 116 Times in 86 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post

One thing about a fleet is that you could charge them in the off-hours to strategically balance the demand on the grid, reducing both the costs of charging and minimizing the effect on the grid.
Good point.

vader1 is offline  
Old 11-27-2018, 03:01 PM
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,261
Liked 63 Times in 55 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TsukubaCody View Post
More jobs should offer working from home.There's ZERO need for many office jobs to require employees to be on-site. That would save a tremendous amount of fuel.
Theoretically, you are right. Practically, it's very job- and person-dependent. Some people lack the discipline to work remotely. Sure, they'd eventually get sorted out (ie, fired for lack of productivity) but that'd be a choice for them to make, ultimately. I know a few that have said, "I need to go to work to get stuff done - I'm just not focused when I'm at home."

On the other hand, many jobs thrive on collaboration that is often spontaneous. I manage engineering teams and having to wait on someone to allow you to video conference (from your desk or, if you have a group, in a conference room) rather than dropping by and having a quick conversation is not the best way. Add in the need to draw diagrams or lay out details and it's pretty obvious that you'd struggle to match that sort of teamwork remotely. Can it be done? Yes. Is it as efficient? Not in terms of time, but it's certainly more efficient in terms of energy/equipment (not having nearly as large of a building saves a ton of heating/cooling/construction costs). Pick your poison, I guess...

A friend of mine owns a marketing company and he went office-free this year for the entire team (after a brief consultation with their clients, who said they didn't care). They no longer have a central office and every employee works from wherever they want. They occasionally meet up in a central location but otherwise, they do a quick video conference in the morning to catch up on things and make sure everyone's alive, and then they go do their work. He's saving $5K a month just in rent. He didn't purchase a second vehicle as his wife can now come and go as she pleases using their one vehicle, so that's another $600 a month in savings for him personally, not to mention fuel and insurance, depreciation, etc, that would be higher if he was driving 20 minutes to work each way....

I have a personal office at home that would easily handle my work tasks but because I handle multiple teams in a manufacturing and design environment, I have to be available to inspect and troubleshoot as required. Same goes for many of my team...
JonBoy is offline  
Old 11-28-2018, 06:52 AM
  #16  
 
WolfpackS2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,710
Liked 30 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TheDonEffect View Post
Thing is though cuvs arent fashionable, but very utilitarian and practical.
So are station wagons, but they fell out of favor. The only utilitarian advantage a CUV has over a wagon is more AWD options (but that's totally a manufacturer's choice to not offer it) and more ground clearance - though in most cases we're talking about 1-2 inches, so really how much does that even matter?

Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
Electrical infrastructure is inferred for mass autonomous transit but who knows what might be discovered or developed as an alternate? Otherwise, you're right, the electrical infrastructure couldn't support that many vehicles that quickly. It will literally take decades to build it up properly AND also ensure a steady supply of electricity. It'd be somewhat ironic if we tried to save the planet with electric vehicles and then had to resort to coal generation to keep up because we didn't have enough hydro (or other natural sources) electricity....
Or if politicians and governments were actually serious about clean power generation we could just build a lot more nuclear power plants.

Originally Posted by TsukubaCody View Post
More jobs should offer working from home.

There's ZERO need for many office jobs to require employees to be on-site. That would save a tremendous amount of fuel.

More people need to live in cities, allow for areas to be the open, natural spaces they need to be and that also makes cars less of a need for day-to-day life.
Fortunately, what we are able to do (at least in the US) revolves greatly around freedom of choice to pursue what we want, not need. I'm not in favor of being wasteful just for the hell of it, but let people do what they want and live where they want. Not what they need.
WolfpackS2k is offline  
Old 11-28-2018, 07:18 AM
  #17  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 56
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

In a few years self driving or autonomous vehicles will be to the point they are safer than human drivers. Human drivers will become the biggest danger on the road. Not long after that insurance premiums will rise to the point where having a car you drive yourself will be cost prohibitive.
jetrep is offline  
Old 11-28-2018, 07:29 AM
  #18  
 
engifineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,243
Liked 67 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jetrep View Post
In a few years self driving or autonomous vehicles will be to the point they are safer than human drivers. Human drivers will become the biggest danger on the road. Not long after that insurance premiums will rise to the point where having a car you drive yourself will be cost prohibitive.
And that will be a sad point for humanity. Personally, I am 100% willing to sacrafice a level of safety for all in turn for allowing people to enjoy the little things in life. We are not robots and to be honest 100% safety is not that high on my list of priorities We are not vulcans, and pleasure and quality of life is every bit as important as anything else. I personally am tired of this idea that we should be able to prevent every accident. It is a dumb idea and is not actually all that logical when you think about it for a while.
engifineer is offline  
The following users liked this post: engifineer
WolfpackS2k (11-28-2018)
Old 11-28-2018, 07:41 AM
  #19  
 
engifineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,243
Liked 67 Times in 58 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TsukubaCody View Post
More jobs should offer working from home.

There's ZERO need for many office jobs to require employees to be on-site. That would save a tremendous amount of fuel.

More people need to live in cities, allow for areas to be the open, natural spaces they need to be and that also makes cars less of a need for day-to-day life.
I have done a lot of math on this and you are dead right. It would be likely the biggest impact on emissions we could make. I used to work for a very large corp with tons of jobs that did not require being at the office. Since the corp was trying to push their green image, I did a bunch of math to determine roughly how many jobs could be done from home most of the time, the savings in floor space, the savings in fuel, the impact on work life balance and the fact that people are many times more willing to work more in trade for not driving an hour each way in shitty traffic. When I proposed this up the chain, I got a "thanks for your response, but we feel people need to be in the office to ensure they are being productive". In other words, old school dipshits who are poor managers that either cant grasp the global workplace, do not trust their employees or simply make poor hiring decisions leading to employees that they cannot trust.

As for collaboration time, you replace those big office buildings with much smaller ones that are full of conference rooms that people can come in to use when they need to work together. Still a huge savings over having what they have today.

Luckilly I moved onto smaller design firms which embrace remote working more. Still not as far along, but are much more open to folks working from home some days, especially during days where we are having snowstorms that grind traffic to a halt. That big corp expected people to drive in ... many times taking us 2+ hours to drive 15 miles each way. Terrible use of peoples time and putting those people at risk for no good reason when they could be working from home. Even best, many of those were IT support .. so they were totally offline for those 4 hours they spent on the road in a snowstorm. There was a lot of dumb in that management group :P

But instead, most big companies like to preach about how people should carpool or even drive less in THEIR personal time to help the environment, when they have the power to do tons more by simply trusting their people to work remote.

I am also 100% onboard with tons more nuclear power. Most people outside of pure layman that have not read up on the facts know that overall, it is not that unsafe and we can solve the spent fuel issues with more work in that area. It is certainly better than filling our waters with mercury from burning coal along with its other issues. And it way better than this joke of ethanol fuel, which really is not a viable solution at all (it is worse that petroleum in the US where we make it from corn). And it actually would remove the coal burning issues from supporting electric vehicles in places without abundant geothermal sources.

But, people will fight against nuclear forever and big companies are scared of change, so we will keep hearing how we should all go on less trips and vacations to make up for their waste

engifineer is offline  
Old 11-28-2018, 09:54 AM
  #20  
 
TsukubaCody's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,722
Liked 90 Times in 84 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by engifineer View Post
I have done a lot of math on this and you are dead right. It would be likely the biggest impact on emissions we could make. I used to work for a very large corp with tons of jobs that did not require being at the office. Since the corp was trying to push their green image, I did a bunch of math to determine roughly how many jobs could be done from home most of the time, the savings in floor space, the savings in fuel, the impact on work life balance and the fact that people are many times more willing to work more in trade for not driving an hour each way in shitty traffic. When I proposed this up the chain, I got a "thanks for your response, but we feel people need to be in the office to ensure they are being productive". In other words, old school dipshits who are poor managers that either cant grasp the global workplace, do not trust their employees or simply make poor hiring decisions leading to employees that they cannot trust.

As for collaboration time, you replace those big office buildings with much smaller ones that are full of conference rooms that people can come in to use when they need to work together. Still a huge savings over having what they have today.

Luckilly I moved onto smaller design firms which embrace remote working more. Still not as far along, but are much more open to folks working from home some days, especially during days where we are having snowstorms that grind traffic to a halt. That big corp expected people to drive in ... many times taking us 2+ hours to drive 15 miles each way. Terrible use of peoples time and putting those people at risk for no good reason when they could be working from home. Even best, many of those were IT support .. so they were totally offline for those 4 hours they spent on the road in a snowstorm. There was a lot of dumb in that management group :P

But instead, most big companies like to preach about how people should carpool or even drive less in THEIR personal time to help the environment, when they have the power to do tons more by simply trusting their people to work remote.

I am also 100% onboard with tons more nuclear power. Most people outside of pure layman that have not read up on the facts know that overall, it is not that unsafe and we can solve the spent fuel issues with more work in that area. It is certainly better than filling our waters with mercury from burning coal along with its other issues. And it way better than this joke of ethanol fuel, which really is not a viable solution at all (it is worse that petroleum in the US where we make it from corn). And it actually would remove the coal burning issues from supporting electric vehicles in places without abundant geothermal sources.

But, people will fight against nuclear forever and big companies are scared of change, so we will keep hearing how we should all go on less trips and vacations to make up for their waste
Beautiful. Thank you for this, this is the point I was trying to mkae but much more clearly stated & with more info to back it up.

Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
Theoretically, you are right. Practically, it's very job- and person-dependent. Some people lack the discipline to work remotely. Sure, they'd eventually get sorted out (ie, fired for lack of productivity) but that'd be a choice for them to make, ultimately. I know a few that have said, "I need to go to work to get stuff done - I'm just not focused when I'm at home."

On the other hand, many jobs thrive on collaboration that is often spontaneous. I manage engineering teams and having to wait on someone to allow you to video conference (from your desk or, if you have a group, in a conference room) rather than dropping by and having a quick conversation is not the best way. Add in the need to draw diagrams or lay out details and it's pretty obvious that you'd struggle to match that sort of teamwork remotely. Can it be done? Yes. Is it as efficient? Not in terms of time, but it's certainly more efficient in terms of energy/equipment (not having nearly as large of a building saves a ton of heating/cooling/construction costs). Pick your poison, I guess...

A friend of mine owns a marketing company and he went office-free this year for the entire team (after a brief consultation with their clients, who said they didn't care). They no longer have a central office and every employee works from wherever they want. They occasionally meet up in a central location but otherwise, they do a quick video conference in the morning to catch up on things and make sure everyone's alive, and then they go do their work. He's saving $5K a month just in rent. He didn't purchase a second vehicle as his wife can now come and go as she pleases using their one vehicle, so that's another $600 a month in savings for him personally, not to mention fuel and insurance, depreciation, etc, that would be higher if he was driving 20 minutes to work each way....

I have a personal office at home that would easily handle my work tasks but because I handle multiple teams in a manufacturing and design environment, I have to be available to inspect and troubleshoot as required. Same goes for many of my team...
I'm not saying every job should be made remote. I could easily work remote, as could my entire department, if they really want someone on-site they could have one person from the department come in each day just in case. Many departments in many businesses are like that, I'm not saying every single person can be remote, but every bit helps.

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k View Post
Fortunately, what we are able to do (at least in the US) revolves greatly around freedom of choice to pursue what we want, not need. I'm not in favor of being wasteful just for the hell of it, but let people do what they want and live where they want. Not what they need.
Oh you want to drive to work? That's something people look forward to, sitting on the highway in traffic? Suburban folks are more boring than I knew.
TsukubaCody is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands