Next Gen STI Canceled

[SCRAPPYDO]

Originally Posted by dwf137

God I really would love to take this quote in a PP direction... but I wont.

I had to fight that too, but in general I think we spend too much time arguing the extremes, and not the actual shades of grey. I can think of almost every single issue that is troubling humanity is because we force a one solution fits all and it only serves to divide. Become an AND society and I think many things COULD get better.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[heavyD]

An EV STI isn't the end of the world. The reality is that we don't have an STI today because Subaru simply can't build an engine that can compete with today's competitors while meeting emissions regulations. Engines are Subaru's main weakness as they just can't build them as efficient or reliable as most other automakers. Taking engine out of the equation will help overall reliability and performance.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by dwf137

Even if the process is more efficient, combustion is an incredibly inefficient way to turn stored energy into kinetic energy. Too much energy lost. Even multi-million dollar F1 cars can only convert about 50% of the energy back into kinetic energy. Average passenger cars are like 30-35%. That's a LOT of energy lost. Everyone's worried about EV's taxing the grid, but our solution is going to be to inefficiently create fuels and then put them into inefficient engines when we could have used way less energy on BEV?

everything you just said above is kind of pointless meandering trying to make one form of energy look better than the other, where you just gloss over some really big issues, and when even bigger issues are brought up, you just ignore them. good job.

Originally Posted by dwf137

It's definitely not a one size fits all solution, but I think it's a solution that fits way more people than are willing to admit it.

you could have just said this and it would have been far more compelling.

people will choose with their wallets what is going to be most convenient for them, and that's what is going to drive markets, not government, or company virtue signaling, at the end of the day, the companies are going to listen to what the wallets tell them, and then governments are going to also listen to what their biggest campaign contributors (companies) tell them.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by samagon

everything you just said above is kind of pointless meandering trying to make one form of energy look better than the other, where you just gloss over some really big issues, and when even bigger issues are brought up, you just ignore them. good job.

Maybe you could elaborate instead of being obtuse just to seem smart. BEV is the most efficient way to take electricity and move a vehicle. Taking electricity to create a synthetic fuel is inefficient, and then the process of turning that fuel into kinetic energy is then even more inefficient. So much electricity lost. Not sure what you're not understanding about that basic concept. Of course you could distract from that conversation with other topics, but you cannot argue those facts.

Originally Posted by samagon

you could have just said this and it would have been far more compelling.

I'm not here just to say things that make you happy. I'm more in the middle on this issue than you know.

Originally Posted by samagon

people will choose with their wallets what is going to be most convenient for them, and that's what is going to drive markets, not government, or company virtue signaling, at the end of the day, the companies are going to listen to what the wallets tell them, and then governments are going to also listen to what their biggest campaign contributors (companies) tell them.

Yeah I don't think that's going to play out like you expect... Government can outlaw a lot of things, and if they shut something down, it's not like you're going to some black-market to buy a brand new ICE car... Of course you could keep an old ICE car rolling, doubt they'll ever officially cut ICE cars off the road ever.

[b4wantab]

Originally Posted by dwf137

BEV is the most efficient way to take electricity and move a vehicle. Taking electricity to create a synthetic fuel is inefficient, and then the process of turning that fuel into kinetic energy is then even more inefficient. So much electricity lost.

Yes it is. So, if you are using solar to create your electricity, which is still only 15% efficient at the most, is it still bad?

I do not see how you can move away from liquid fuel infrastructure. Unless you figure out a way for me to stop for 5-10 minutes and get another 3, 4 or 500 miles range, I can't do it. Industry can't do it. Now, that liquid doesn't need to be petroleum based. It is just that the transfer capacity of a liquid is far greater than any recharging rate capacity. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

What is wrong with solar or wind power making Hydrogen and running a car on that. Solar is inefficient but free, doesn't need to be efficient. Making Hydrogen takes a lot of power. But, again the power is free and Hydrogen is abundant.

Not every step has to be efficient, just needs to work.

Peace,

Greg

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by b4wantab

Yes it is. So, if you are using solar to create your electricity, which is still only 15% efficient at the most, is it still bad?

Solar panels are only 15% efficient at converting all of the energy that comes from the sun into electricity. Electricity doesn't come from the sun, so we're not really losing anything. Really this is a red herring that means absolutely nothing in the context of what's efficient for travel.

Originally Posted by b4wantab

I do not see how you can move away from liquid fuel infrastructure. Unless you figure out a way for me to stop for 5-10 minutes and get another 3, 4 or 500 miles range, I can't do it.

I don't disagree. I've said it many times, you can dig up my quotes if you want, I'm not getting rid of my ICE 3-row SUV any time soon. But my daily and regional driving, it can all be done with EV, just as it can be for most other people in this country.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by dwf137

Maybe you could elaborate instead of being obtuse just to seem smart. BEV is the most efficient way to take electricity and move a vehicle. Taking electricity to create a synthetic fuel is inefficient, and then the process of turning that fuel into kinetic energy is then even more inefficient. So much electricity lost. Not sure what you're not understanding about that basic concept. Of course you could distract from that conversation with other topics, but you cannot argue those facts.

I gave more than enough facts, I presume since you didn't refute them, or provide your own data that you have no challenge to that data, and your best argument against oil is

combustion is an incredibly inefficient way to turn stored energy into kinetic energy

which it might be, but it's not really that important unless you are trying to score points on the internet.

you can say that all the things I have written so far in this thread are distractions and other topics, but it really is one big topic.

the reality is:
we do have 46 years of proven oil reserves, and more on the way.
a very large number of people live in places that make it pretty impossible to charge a BEV
every other product you use in your life today is either infused with, or created with the help of oil, or oil byproducts
- replacements for those things rely on growing things when we barely have enough land to grow what we eat today, and in order to even grow what we need today it also requires oil, or oil byproducts.

but the best you have is that ICE isn't efficient at converting potential energy to kinetic energy.



and at the end of the day, none of any of the posturing matters, the best solution is a wholistic solution that employs a number of various options. all of the virtue signaling happening by companies and governments is for **** because people are going to make their own decisions that will probably end with a mix of everything being the best way forward.

a bit of good old oil based gasoline, a bit of synthetic fuel made from carbon capture, and a bit of BEV, and also some other source that we haven't yet developed.

so you can stop ignoring the whole problem, and stop trying to make a complex diverse topic so singular. I get it, that's the only way you can make your narrative make sense, but it's not a simple singular topic like that.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by samagon

I gave more than enough facts, I presume since you didn't refute them, or provide your own data that you have no challenge to that data, and your best argument against oil is

You need to take a step back here or something. I was responding to this:

Originally Posted by samagon

biofuels and synthetic fuels are in very much infancy compared with batteries or oil based fuels. someone will come up with more efficient ways to create the processes.

Any sort of combustion based fuel is inefficient, and the majority are made with a ton of electricity.



The rest of my posts speak towards my feelings on oil, you can stop projecting your view of people who like EV's onto me, because I have zero intent to get rid of ICE cars... I am specifically referring to your suggestion that synthetic fuels are going to be a solution moving forward. They may be a solution for some things like aviation and long haul driving once we run out of oil, but daily commuting, nah.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by dwf137

You need to take a step back here or something. I was responding to this:.

which was only a single sentence from my entire post (which was in response to you quoting and responding to another single sentence from an entire post on the much broader subject at hand).

Originally Posted by dwf137

Any sort of combustion based fuel is inefficient, and the majority are made with a ton of electricity.

and I'm saying the energy cost to create liquid fuel used in combustion doesn't matter, certainly if that energy comes from so called 'renewable' sources.

Originally Posted by dwf137

The rest of my posts speak towards my feelings on oil, you can stop projecting your view of people who like EV's onto me, because I have zero intent to get rid of ICE cars... I am specifically referring to your suggestion that synthetic fuels are going to be a solution moving forward. They may be a solution for some things like aviation and long haul driving once we run out of oil, but daily commuting, nah.

it may not be your intent, but you present like you are someone who might go and lay in the freeway and protest because you feel that oil is the devil.

but, after reading that last sentence, I have come to a different conclusion, in an effort to not say things like 'you lack critical thinking skills', or 'you have very small imagination' that might be seen as a personal attack, I'll keep that to myself and we can just end the conversation.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by samagon

but, after reading that last sentence, I have come to a different conclusion, in an effort to not seem like I am attacking you, I'll keep that to myself and we can just end the conversation.

It was just the expansion of the topic that felt like I was being attacked... I specifically quoted one sentence of your post for a reason, that was the only topic I was responding to. Like many things and most people, I fall in the middle on this topic, it's frustrating when people expand the topic without actually knowing my thoughts on the issue.

Ignoring how inefficient synthetic fuels are when talking about regional driving (less than 150 miles), is a critical mistake. If one vehicle power source gets 4x the number of miles per unit of electricity, there's clearly an impact to the electric grid. When various states are shutting down power and telling people to conserve electricity because they don't have enough juice to support the load, a fuel source that demands more electricity isn't going to work. Remember that aside from the majority of Texas, most states are tied together so synthetic fuel generation in wyoming (for example) may impact electricity availability for most of the western states.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by dwf137

It was just the expansion of the topic that felt like I was being attacked... I specifically quoted one sentence of your post for a reason, that was the only topic I was responding to. Like many things and most people, I fall in the middle on this topic, it's frustrating when people expand the topic without actually knowing my thoughts on the issue.

Ignoring how inefficient synthetic fuels are when talking about regional driving (less than 150 miles), is a critical mistake. If one vehicle power source gets 4x the number of miles per unit of electricity, there's clearly an impact to the electric grid. When various states are shutting down power and telling people to conserve electricity because they don't have enough juice to support the load, a fuel source that demands more electricity isn't going to work. Remember that aside from the majority of Texas, most states are tied together so synthetic fuel generation in wyoming (for example) may impact electricity availability for most of the western states.

just as much a waste as having a BEV with battery capacity to go 300 miles in cars that don't go more than 40 miles (the average commute in the USA) and a PHEV would allow 5 cars to travel most days on battery only instead of 1 BEV, or is it more of a waste than that?

ok, I'm done now.

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by b4wantab

Yes it is. So, if you are using solar to create your electricity, which is still only 15% efficient at the most, is it still bad?

I do not see how you can move away from liquid fuel infrastructure. Unless you figure out a way for me to stop for 5-10 minutes and get another 3, 4 or 500 miles range, I can't do it. Industry can't do it. Now, that liquid doesn't need to be petroleum based. It is just that the transfer capacity of a liquid is far greater than any recharging rate capacity. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

What is wrong with solar or wind power making Hydrogen and running a car on that. Solar is inefficient but free, doesn't need to be efficient. Making Hydrogen takes a lot of power. But, again the power is free and Hydrogen is abundant.

Not every step has to be efficient, just needs to work.

Peace,

Greg

Hydrogen is an odd duck. You fill three or so tanks with it. Then you convert that hydrogen into electricity to charge an onboard battery pack. Then you take that stored energy and power an electric car...

Why not just charge a BEV, period? Hydrogen is so complicated and the infrastructure is worse than chargers.

[dwf137]

Originally Posted by samagon

just as much a waste as having a BEV with battery capacity to go 300 miles in cars that don't go more than 40 miles (the average commute in the USA) and a PHEV would allow 5 cars to travel most days on battery only instead of 1 BEV, or is it more of a waste than that?

ok, I'm done now.

All for plug in hybrids. I've said on here I think that's where our government needs to move to instead of BEV only. I'd like to see some plug-in hybrids with better power and range though, that's the main reason I chose not to get one, I'd be in hybrid mode almost all the time with the way I drive, whereas I can mash the pedal in my EV all I want and not worry about it. Plus, I frequently drive more than 50 miles a day because of my work taking me to clients offices. Give me a 100 mile plug-in hybrid with 200+hp in ev mode and I'd be game, that just doesn't exist. Rav-4 prime is getting there, but unobtanium.

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by dwf137

All for plug in hybrids. I've said on here I think that's where our government needs to move to instead of BEV only. I'd like to see some plug-in hybrids with better power and range though, that's the main reason I chose not to get one, I'd be in hybrid mode almost all the time with the way I drive, whereas I can mash the pedal in my EV all I want and not worry about it. Plus, I frequently drive more than 50 miles a day because of my work taking me to clients offices. Give me a 100 mile plug-in hybrid with 200+hp in ev mode and I'd be game, that just doesn't exist. Rav-4 prime is close, but unobtanium.

So you want to haul around a 40 kWh battery AND a gas engine, just to get 100 miles of range? RAV4 Prime has a 18.1 kWh battery pack and goes 42 miles.

Plus, the annoyance of it switching from gas to ev. I had one, it wasn't the best experience. Not saying I wouldn't consider another, but...just get a BEV.

[b4wantab]

Originally Posted by Snow Drift

Hydrogen is an odd duck. You fill three or so tanks with it. Then you convert that hydrogen into electricity to charge an onboard battery pack. Then you take that stored energy and power an electric car...

Why not just charge a BEV, period? Hydrogen is so complicated and the infrastructure is worse than chargers.

Because I need to road trip that includes 1300-1400 miles in two days. I am not spending time waiting on a charge. Solar is free, Hydrogen is everywhere. Use it.

Originally Posted by Snow Drift

So you want to haul around a 40 kWh battery AND a gas engine, just to get 100 miles of range? RAV4 Prime has a 18.1 kWh battery pack and goes 42 miles.

Plus, the annoyance of it switching from gas to ev. I had one, it wasn't the best experience. Not saying I wouldn't consider another, but...just get a BEV.

The whole argument that electric is so simple, a motor and a battery. OK, why is that bad when you add such a simple system to an existing product? My next ride will be a hybrid. My 10 miles each way during the week would be electric, my 200-300 miles on the weekends would be a mix.

I don't understand the dogma around BEV. It just wouldn't work for me without compromises I am not willing to make right now. If I wanted a fourth car for just around town, yes bare-bones BEV would be good.

Peace,

Greg

[rallly 4]

I’ve worked as an economist for a decade specifically in automotive industry. EVs are not the way, they are the worst option for the environment and emissions. Synthetic fuels are a far superior option, but in all honestly ICE just fine. Anyone who believes EVs are better for the environment than a plain old fuel efficient ICE or Hybrid is simply a bumbling idiot

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by b4wantab

Because I need to road trip that includes 1300-1400 miles in two days. I am not spending time waiting on a charge. Solar is free, Hydrogen is everywhere. Use it.



The whole argument that electric is so simple, a motor and a battery. OK, why is that bad when you add such a simple system to an existing product? My next ride will be a hybrid. My 10 miles each way during the week would be electric, my 200-300 miles on the weekends would be a mix.

I don't understand the dogma around BEV. It just wouldn't work for me without compromises I am not willing to make right now. If I wanted a fourth car for just around town, yes bare-bones BEV would be good.

Peace,

Greg

You don't stop every 2-3 hours to pee and get a snack? The stops are 10-15 minutes long, longer in super cold temps, or if in the middle of no where.

[samagon]

Originally Posted by b4wantab

Because I need to road trip that includes 1300-1400 miles in two days. I am not spending time waiting on a charge. Solar is free, Hydrogen is everywhere. Use it.



The whole argument that electric is so simple, a motor and a battery. OK, why is that bad when you add such a simple system to an existing product? My next ride will be a hybrid. My 10 miles each way during the week would be electric, my 200-300 miles on the weekends would be a mix.

I don't understand the dogma around BEV. It just wouldn't work for me without compromises I am not willing to make right now. If I wanted a fourth car for just around town, yes bare-bones BEV would be good.

Peace,

Greg

lol, my friend's sister drove from Austin to Houston for his kid's birthday. about halfway through the birthday she asked where she might go that is close by to charge for the return trip that afternoon. she had an Audi Q4 Etron sportback, it had about 20 miles of range left.

I'm guessing they ended up at Whole Foods, and had a snack there while waiting for the charge. not the best lunch place in Houston, but aside from Ikea (which they said was too far to travel), it's probably the best food/chargo combo out there.

anyway, looking at Audi's specs for an 80% charge they can get that done in 36 minutes, but with 80% would that have gotten them nearly the 200 miles they needed to get home when the 100% range is 240 miles? it was hot, so AC on full blast for the whole trip, lots of construction, and plenty of traffic on a Saturday afternoon. my money is that they had to stop somewhere between here and there on the way back for another 36 minute break on what should be a leisurely 2 hour drive.

mind boggling. I do commend and respect anyone willing to have such commitment to a cause.

[Russ_G93]

EV's are great, when you live in a house or work for a company with no possibility of being let go for the next 6 years that include chargers in the parking lot. About 65% of Americans are homeowners. The other 35%? Not economically sound for them to have an EV. And I'm willing to bet about 1/3 or more of these homeowners don't want an EV(Because they probably Don't live anywhere near charging stations, let alone Inner Cities. ~They Probably Need Trucks as their main vehicles due to work or straight up living in the Mountains where cold weather flat out destroy's Amp Retention in any battery pack) So we're actually looking at around 30-40% of those living in a house are likely to buy an EV in the Future because the market is "Making them" according to available options. We can also conclude that those 30-40% are people with good jobs that allow them to buy a $40,000+ car (Not everyone wants to buy a leaf..). In the spirit of choice, whether or not it will be wise to convert entire offerings to EV's remains to be seen as far as companies abilities to generate sales.

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by samagon

lol, my friend's sister drove from Austin to Houston for his kid's birthday. about halfway through the birthday she asked where she might go that is close by to charge for the return trip that afternoon. she had an Audi Q4 Etron sportback, it had about 20 miles of range left.

I'm guessing they ended up at Whole Foods, and had a snack there while waiting for the charge. not the best lunch place in Houston, but aside from Ikea (which they said was too far to travel), it's probably the best food/chargo combo out there.

anyway, looking at Audi's specs for an 80% charge they can get that done in 36 minutes, but with 80% would that have gotten them nearly the 200 miles they needed to get home when the 100% range is 240 miles? it was hot, so AC on full blast for the whole trip, lots of construction, and plenty of traffic on a Saturday afternoon. my money is that they had to stop somewhere between here and there on the way back for another 36 minute break on what should be a leisurely 2 hour drive.

mind boggling. I do commend and respect anyone willing to have such commitment to a cause.

First, she should have had a plan in place before she left home. Also, she could have 120v charged at her brother's house. 5 miles/hr or so.

Better choice: Buy a Tesla. Longer range, better network. No issues.

I went to Austin for the F1 race this past fall. There were multiple Tesla owned locations to charge the Model 3 I rented. Houston also has a ton of locations around it.

[vapore0n]

its the whole -manufacturers using whatever power connector they want for their device- issue all over again.

IMO, since the government is spending money to subsidize these EVs, they should mandate a single charger for all EVs. They could subsidize charging stations to speed up expansion of charging network.

[vapore0n]

its the whole -manufacturers using whatever power connector they want for their device- issue all over again.

IMO, since the government is spending money to subsidize these EVs, they should mandate a single charger for all EVs. They could subsidize charging stations to speed up expansion of charging network.

[Sid03SVT]

Originally Posted by vapore0n

its the whole -manufacturers using whatever power connector they want for their device- issue all over again.

Its the whole -Tesla using a proprietary connector while everyone else uses the industry standard J1772- issue. One manufacturer uses a non-standard connector, everyone else uses the same one (Leaf has CHAdeMO in addition to the J1772).

[Snow Drift]

Originally Posted by Sid03SVT

Its the whole -Tesla using a proprietary connector while everyone else uses the industry standard J1772- issue. One manufacturer uses a non-standard connector, everyone else uses the same one (Leaf has CHAdeMO in addition to the J1772).

This is not the issue. A J1772 has nothing to do with using a Supercharger.

All EVs can plug into a J1772 charger (Teslas use a free adapter), and it is only for L2 slow charging (at home/malls/etc).

The issue is DC Fast Charging. There are 3 options in the US:

1. Most EVs have a CCS (which includes a J1772) for DC Fast Charging
2. Some EVs have a CHADeMO for DC Fast Charging (and J1772 to slow charge)
3. Teslas have a proprietary plug for DC Fast Charging.

CHADeMO is basically defunct. Only the Leaf uses it, and that car is being discontinued.

CCS is the majority of EVs. Tesla is beginning to add CCS adapters to their stalls to allow for non-Teslas to use their network. In the near future, the v4 Superchargers will all have the adapter and a longer cord to reach randomly located plugs on non-Teslas.

[Calamity Jesus]

The new Mitsu Outlander PHEV comes with J1772 (not CCS) and a CHADeMO. Nobody needs DC fast charging on a PHEV, IMO.. it's just silly that the CHADeMO is continuing on in any form.