GearheadGrrrl

Problem with shared vehicle services is that the average driver gets into way too many crashes, especially when it's somebody else's vehicle and there are almost no consequences for trashing and crashing the vehicle. We're especially seeing that trend now as "sharing economy" services are lowering their renter standards to bring in more business- For example, one of the house sharing services is openly renting a party house in Minneapolis and most of it's renters are gang members!

In general the "sharing economy" tends to be a rapid form of asset destruction that quickly sends new vehicles to the scrap yards. Talked to a non profit that rented out Smart cars and found their single biggest cost was crash repairs, apparently drunks found they were a convenient way to try to get home without risking their own cars... Talked to a repair tech for a scooter rental outfit, found out that a new scooter in a big city has a life expectancy of about 6 weeks. A large part of the job for workers in both these "shared economy" startups was simply recovering abandoned or hoarded vehicles.

I'm talking about what's not selling now, not what EV Evangalists fantasize is selling now.

Enough with the EV evangelist fantasies, here's what's happening in the market: Did a search for new EVs and PHEVs within 100 miles of my southwest Minnesota home on cars.com. Zero PHEVs and about 60 EVs listed at or coming to local dealers, about 40 are Fords and most are Mach-Es. A handful of Bolts and Leafs, everything else is $40K up to over $100K, so price is clearly a problem. The message is clear- EVs have peaked and their is strong consumer demand for PHEVs. Fortunately Ford has a PHEV version of almost every vehicle they sell in or near production, so Ford can back pedal on EVs and profitable meet the strong consumer demand for PHEVs while protecting the environment too!

I'm not a climate change denier, but there may be some truth to this- The EV evangelists very much behave like they hold TSLA and electric utility stocks!

Electric scooters are basically a throwaway venture capital funded means of virtuously burning money... Wonder if he'll ever turn a profit?

That "Go big or get out" advocacy strategy only works if you've got a once in a generation crisis like a world war or epidemic to capitalize on, and even then the change seldom lasts. I used to spend my winter layoff time at the state legislature lobbying and can point to language in Minnesota Statutes I wrote. Later in life I became a small town city council member and my major achievement was getting our failing water system replaced. In both levels of government advocacy has been a process of fits and starts, statewide laws I advocated for in the early 1970s were rejected by the legislature then, passed in part by the state's two largest cities, finally passed by the legislature in the 1990s, and were improved a bit this year. The water system was a decade long project that began with a modest proposal to just duplicate the inadequate system so it didn't leak which gained support with every leak we couldn't find. Thanks to more state and federal funding then we first expected during the COVID-19 emergency we were able to build a state of the art system with 100% federal and state funding, which won over our conservative council members. I'm working on a street project now which I had to initiate as a culvert and drainage project to meet the federal funding requirements and thanks to revised funding criteria we're able to include streets too, and even that modest project will take several years. So if you want to slow climate change, you really need to lose the "radical change" strategy that even drives allies like me away and use a decades long gradualism strategy. Simple example- Tell me I have to buy an EV and you've made an opponent of me, offered me a hybrid option and I might buy it with no pressure or incentives needed!

Looking at the relentless logarithmic pace of climate change, I wish we could all switch to zero GHG transportation tomorrow, or at least ASAP. But the "electric car revolution" has been little more than road dust, unable to make any meaningful contribution to reducing GHG, and now it's slowing. What went wrong? Relying on electric cars only when charging capacity will take decades to roll out and most drivers simply can't afford them has set GHG reduction back a decade. Instead we need a problem solving technology neutral approach that leaves EV perfectionism behind and embraces GHG reduction any way that works- Renewable fuels, hybrids, whatever. Unfortunately, per usual, the perfectionists stand in the way of the just plain good.

Toyota didn't become the world's biggest carmaker by making mistakes- Where other automakers made the mistake of going all in on ICs or EVs, Toyota wisely followed the middle path where consumer's real wants and needs lie.

Watched the intro for the EV only Golf 9 in the photo and was again underwhelmed- It's OK as a Euro market city car but with it's limited range and performance decline from past and current Golfs it's DOA in North America. Looks like Golf GTI and R 8.5 will be the high point of the Golf line and it's all downhill from here. Ford offering nothing in the hot hatch market, I'll probably be swooping up a Golf R 8.5 before they're discontinued.

Unless one demands full electrification, the Golf GTI and R offer more and cost less.

SUVs by virtue of their high center of gravity are not performance vehicles... There's a reason SCCA won't let them autocross.

I'm not a professional journalist, but I've driven fast cars and love them. And while I have to compromise some ( VW Golfs, Ranger, and Transit Connect ) to get decent operating costs and utility in a car, almost none of the EVs available so far isn't full of unacceptable compromises like short range ( Transit EV ) , overpriced ( F150 Lightning ), intermittent power cuts ( Mach-E ), and general obesity.

Minnesota adopted the previous CARB auto emissions standards, which are the same as the current EPA standards. We did not adopt emissions testing or choose to automatically follow changes in CARB standards.

Sounds like this is turning into a major headache! What engines have or haven't been certified to meet the new CARB standards?

Very impressive, especially since the F150 Lightning isn't a high performance truck. Noticed how quickly the Ford figured out which wheel to apply power too and it's great suspension in action compared to the Teslas indecision and poor suspension control, clearly after years of delays Tesla's "truck" still isn't ready!

Not just California vs. US, Euro emissions standards have become world standards with the exception of US and CA.

Would be nice if they could agree on just one set of regs!

Sounds like they're "end of lifing" the existing diesel tractors which are mostly used trucks bought for $10-20K and forcing replacement with new EV trucks costing $400-600K that the truckers can't afford. That's very disruptive and probably explains why BHSF railroad is building huge industrial parks near Barstow and Phoenix.

Here's the new standards (I think): https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php#lownox Not exactly simple...

I live in Minnesota but in the Sioux Falls TV market, and South Dakota lives up to it's expectations for stupidity, driving included. Fatal road crashes are an everyday event, usually on a 2 lane involving trucks or SUVs and occupants electing to leave the safety of their vehicles.

Sounds like some are, here in Minnesota I've seen no attempt to.

And these tragic crashes are largely preventable- Truck makers are jacking up trucks and raising hood heights for styling reasons, not because they need to for cooling or off road ability that's rarely used. GM's are probably the worst, especially the mediums with the high hood and low cab that guarantees poor front visibility.

Owners of the taller hood trucks might want to seriously consider their huge liability in a serious accident with a pedestrian or cyclist- In the trucking industry trial lawyers are winning multi million dollar verdicts for at fault auto occupants that ran into the back of trailer that didn't have a fully functional rear underside guard. Often these verdicts exceed the company's insurance limits and the balance comes out of the company's assets. Take a look at a tall blunt nosed light truck and it's easy to see how a crash with a pedestrian/cyclist could result in million dollar+ verdicts that far exceed the normal insurance liability coverage. Something to think about before you buy a too tall truck...

Studies going back to the 60s have proven that vehicles with low sloping front ends cause less injuries and deaths of pedestrians and cyclists in collisions. But many Americans buy the exact opposite design- A high blunt truck or SUV to reverse virtue signal how tough they are and let every body know they're not an immigrant, person of color, or poor (even if they are). Throw in distracted, drugged and drunk driving, and people who think they can drive safer faster in a truck and no wonder we needlessly kill a couple thousand pedestrians and cyclists a year.