call me a skeptic, I've worked in the auto industry as a heavy engine master tech for over 20 years, but the same luxury manufacturers who can't make a v8 that lasts longer than 60k miles without a recall or major defect are not qualified to skip class and start making Ev's.
Mercedes rolled out the 250 largely because biturbo has been a loss leading qc dumpster fire for the last decade. Audi can barely handle infotainment that doesn't brick and reboot on a road trip and BMW has turned their technology package into a monthly milk truck that fleeces people for basics you get out the door from Toyota. if Tesla were to hit the ground with a car thats 10k less than the 3 in 2022 it would bury these gilded Lillie's from across the pond faster than the m5pvl gear in a 7 series punches out and seizes a 20k transmission.
> BMW has turned their technology package into a monthly milk truck that fleeces people for basics you get out the door from Toyota
Someone who's so deeply embedded the the industry should know Toyota Connect is the same story, installing hardware in all models but only enabling it for subscribers.
> Audi can barely handle infotainment that doesn't brick and reboot on a road trip
This is a feature of all recent VAG cars. Nothing quite like your navigation and climate control freezing on a 1000 km road trip but there's no way to reset the computer so you have to wait a hour for it to fully crash and reboot.
If it’s like my 2019 polo, a long (30sec or so) press on the power button on the infotainment console will reboot it.
But yeah, just traded that car in for a Mercedes, and the infotainment is night and day. I basically don’t use CarPlay anymore because the built in stuff actually works better.
> Buses won't work in a lot of the U.S. because of last-mile issues, in the way the suburbs were designed.
Roads won't work in a lot of the U.S. because of tax revenue issues, in the way the suburbs were designed.
On a more serious note: there is no point in building unsustainable transit for neighborhoods that can't even support their own infrastructure. Suburbia will always be car-dependent for exactly this last-mile issue, but the fix is to shorten the last mile such that a bus actually makes sense. Because even to run an automated car you need a road that needs to be maintained and paid for from time to time.
edit: also, busses don't necessarily mean "20m long with capacity of 100 people". Here in Europe we have small bus lines operating with busses of a capacity of 20 people. In fact, Vienna already has the exact thing you propose: https://www.wienerlinien.at/eportal3/ep/contentView.do/pageT...
This is how I see cargo transport going long term.
Even if the individual units only self drive enough to rearrange themselves in private areas before being driven on roads by an actual human, it feels like that could be a 'cargo container' type revolution.
First off, we need to get this environmentally clean. Obviously, this must all be electric. For last mile, battery electric is the obvious choice; however I think for main routes and highways some kind of wire system would be ideal. This could also charge the battery needed for the last mile or at truck stops and stuff.
Next, we need to make sure that these self-driving units (SDUs) are always centered under that wire. Software would be an easy choice, but with the power delivery arm attached any failure would result in infrastructure destruction, so I'd propose a system of steel guards that force the wheels such that they can't escape the predefined envelope.
Come to think about it, rubber-on-concrete is ridiculously bad when it comes to efficiency, so maybe the SDUs should have two sets of wheels, one for last mile and steel wheels for the much more favourable friction coefficient. Then we should couple these units together, because the combined traction force equalizes loads across the whole chain and makes for better acceleration of the linked units resulting in less traffic.
Finally, we should equip these SDUs with a radio like GSM or something such that they can communicate with each other and drive in breaking distance, so we can increase the overall speed limit.
Gosh, I wonder why nobody has thought of this before.
So I quite like trains and multi modal transport generally.
But if trucks are electric then it's not totally obvious to me that trains would win on cost or environmental factors despite the obvious advantage of tracks and direct electrification. They're already trialing overhead wires on some highways for electric trucks.
Luckily we don't need to choose between them anyway.
> They're already trialing overhead wires on some highways for electric trucks.
Yes, and it's a bad idea. The friction between tarmac and rubber is orders of magnitude worse than steel on steel. Electrification alone doesn't solve the problem.
Not OP but I'm generally against Veblen goods and that applies to food and cars. Excellent target for taxation as that only makes them better status signals.
Climate change reports are all pretty clear we need to move to smaller, less powerful cars to meet our climate pledges. And produce less of them.
I think starting to see cars as a simple mean to go from A to B instead of a symbol of freedom, status or virility would really be a huge win.
I also hope that on the long run it would help more city dwellers accept the idea of sharing cars instead of owning one. Collectively owned self driving cars could really help reshape our cities, reclame the insane amount of space we dedicate to roads and parking spots and funnel money into more public transit.
>Collectively owned self driving cars could really help reshape our cities, reclame the insane amount of space we dedicate to roads and parking spots and funnel money into more public transit.
A collectively owned car that you don't have to drive yourself? Isn't that an existing and well known solution: public transportation?
How do self-driving cars funnel money into public transport and and reclaim space? I think they're more likely to do the opposite.
Seems silly to rely on self-driving to reduce emissions when we don't know how to build self-driving cars yet, but we do know how to build better public transit and design walkable cities.
I don't have a "climate pledge", nor do I need to move to a smaller or less powerful car or demand that anybody else change their lifestyle.
What I will do is keep an eye on what the ultra-rich "experts" who seem to be most concerned about climate change do. When they give up their mansions and yachts and islands and private jets, eat bugs and teleconference to Bilderberg, that's when I might reconsider my lifestyle. Until then the signal from those experts is crystal clear: climate change is a non-issue. And I wouldn't want to risk being an expert-denier.
I was driving along E80 from Nice to Genoa once, in a fairly standard diesel stick Audi A4 rental. I drove fairly normally at start, but then many cars kept passing me and in a typical Italian fashion with plenty of directional signals.
There was no consistency, sometimes they would indicate right seemingly to suggest they want to pass, sometimes they indicate left seemingly suggesting the other car to move aside, but I digress.
Since I have bit of a way to go (Innsbruck) and I was a hot headed young man I decided to follow one of the cars that zoomed past me. I think the speed limit was 120km/hr or 130km/hr, but they were passing me at such speed suggesting they were going at least 190km/hr or more.
So I let my throttle wide open through many tunnels and followed these faster cars. There were many other cars travelling under the speed limit, but I was flying with the faster crowd.
After a while I've realised something, all these faster cars were pretty darn flash. Porsche GT3, Lambos, Ferraris, and then I realised, them getting speed tickets might not mean a thing, but me in a rental just there on a honeymoon have better things to spend my money on. So I slowed down and disappear into the slower crowd.
lol some time later a local Italian told me there're no police no speed camera on Italian highways, I didn't know what to believe to be honest, any Italians around? hah
There are speed cameras, but they're well indicated, stationary and even Google Maps warns you in advance when you're getting close to one. Police, I've never seen.
I think among the ultra rich are very, very few climate experts and someone can be a hypocrite regarding their lifestyle while being correct about the need for change. People are local optimization machines and one can know that there is a great danger lurking in the future whilst over dosing on consumption.
> I think among the ultra rich are very, very few climate experts
They are far better informed and advised by experts in climate than you or I though.
Also one can not just be an expert in climate science. A climate scientist could tell you the effect of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere on the climate. They can not tell you the social and economic cost of that, or the best and most efficient technologies or social and economic strategies should be to address this problem. That requires a whole cohort of experts from all different fields.
And that is where the ruling class -- our betters -- have so much information and clarity that we can not hope to match.
> and someone can be a hypocrite regarding their lifestyle while being correct about the need for change. People are local optimization machines and one can know that there is a great danger lurking in the future whilst over dosing on consumption.
If that's the case and they are hypocrites who do not in fact consider themselves as being all in it together with the commoners, and they are not actually acting for the greater good, then it's even simpler: I won't listen to anything they have to say because we can assume it's all selfish lies. Which leaves me at the same place.
I don’t care whether or not you are doing your part for the environment or any other cause. My response above was not intended to try to convince you to take some action. My purpose was to point out flawed reasoning.
Your second to last sentence is flawed. You can’t logically assume it’s all selfish lies. A hypocrite can be correct in what they saw but wrong in what they do. The correctness of a belief has nothing to do with whether or not the purveyors of that belief are hypocrites.
The logic in my second to last sentence wasn't in my first comment.
In any case, I absolutely can assume it is lies. The whole premise is that climate change is a problem, it is the largest / existential problem for humanity, it must be addressed by changing our behavior, and that you should change even if others do not because you should set an example and that will induce more to follow.
I'm not saying it's all lies, but there has to be at least one lie that breaks the chain. They know better than anybody that their hypocritical actions and example are among the biggest causes of resentment among people. If they believed there was an existential threat to humanity, they would change their ways (or at least do something meaningful about climate change rather than start more wars, a la Obama).
Not as hardcore as throwawaylinux about it but I can understand the idea of:
- why am I voluntarily restricting what I can do so that others can have more leeway to do whatever they want?
For my part, I ride a motorbike. I enjoy it, it uses less fuel, running costs etc than most cars. But I am not going to give it up while my neighbour's family in their multimillion dollar mansion drives 3x 2 ton+ SUVs around.
A work colleague of mine bought a Dodge RAM 2500. To tow his boat and carry his multiple dirt bikes.
I ignore people asking me to do more now. I do enough. Go after the worst offenders first.
Not everybody else, just a tiny privileged minority. The self-proclaimed experts -- those who allegedly listen to the science, and have their finger on the pulse of the issue, and who are the most flagrantly wasteful polluters on the planet. I mean from their actions it's not even clear that there is a problem at all, is it? Do you deny their knowledge and expertise?
I'm talking about experts on how we should live and structure society as a whole. Climate science is one tiny part of that calculus.
And no climate scientist has told me I should lock myself in my house and eat cockroaches while they gallivant in their private jets from mansion to mansion and gorge themselves on quail tongues and sturgeon eggs.
EDIT: I didn't mean to say climate change is not happening or having negative impacts demonstrated by science, clearly the science says it is. I mean it's a non-issue in terms of people changing their lifestyles. With such renown and respected experts as Gore, Obama, Trudeau, Gates, and DiCaprio as my guiding stars on this matter, it's clear that the experts are firmly on my side, and anybody saying otherwise is a dangerous extremist denier.
> With such renown and respected experts as Gore, Obama, Trudeau, Gates, and DiCaprio as my guiding stars on this matter, it's clear that the experts are firmly on my side, and anybody saying otherwise is a dangerous extremist denier.
I think a big flaw in your thinking is that for these people climate change won't have big consequences equals in climate change won't have big consequences for you.
They can pay there way around the negative effects by e.g. buying another house somewhere more habitable, paying security personal to protect from looters or pay high prices for goods. You probably can't. The people you named are aware of the consequences for the ordinary people and that's why they are raising there voice but they are not directly affected that's why they are only raising there voices and take less action.
You on the other hand should do both, raise your voice and demand action as well as take action yourself by limiting your negative impact where its easiest (which apparently you started to do already) and don't wait for the upper class to change.
If society degenerates to the point I need to buy another house somewhere more habitable or pay personal security to protect myself from looters, or cease being able to afford necessities within my lifetime, it will almost certainly be due to the effect of climate regulations and policies, rather than climate change itself. So if you think I should look at it from a purely selfish perspective, then I should actually demand inaction.
> Gore, Obama, Trudeau, Gates, and DiCaprio as my guiding stars on this matter
Terrible choice of guiding stars. The scientists that have been studying this and raising the alarm bells since the 70s are the guiding star. If you're feeling threatened by what the scientists are saying, and believe in them, I couldn't see how your protest is an honest attempt to help the situation. I agree most celebrity activists are hypocrites, and I sympathize with feeling overwhelmed and helpless, but informed consumers consumers can and have affected production - and ultimately man-made GHGs (transport, energy, goods, livestock, agriculture) are released primarily due to supply chain, and changing how much and how we consume changes everything upstream.
So you confess your extremist heretical beliefs in denying the integrity, honesty, and expertise in the ruling of society of these people? Sounds like a dangerous, seditious thing to think.
> The scientists that have been studying this and raising the alarm bells since the 70s
Of course, I would never doubt The Science of climate change. What I am talking about is what we should do about it as a collective societal response. And that takes a different kind of expert, and those experts have decided that the correct response is to amass vast wealth, buy beachfront mansions and yachts and fly around on private jets and perhaps also to destroy Libya on occasion.
I think maybe you're spending too much time online.
> and those experts
Not sure why you keep calling political entities 'experts'. They are definitely experts of their political domains, but this claim of their prime importance on climate change matters seems to be your own.
To go back to what I'm guessing is your concern: No one's coming to steal your right to drive a Tesla, but more people might just opt to not own their own vehicle, as public transport options improve. If 50 years from now, people are able to use shared transport to get door-to-door from city A to city B, and at a similar (or better) speed, for less money, the demand for vehicles may drop. As autonomous vehicles are getting better, it's only a matter of time.
> I think maybe you're spending too much time online.
I'm dutifully reciting what the experts tell me offline.
> Not sure why you keep calling political entities 'experts'. They are definitely experts of their political domains, but this claim of their prime importance on climate change matters seems to be your own.
I'm not, I'm calling the ruling class experts at ruling and running society.
> To go back to what I'm guessing is your concern:
That's not my concern.
> No one's coming to steal your right to drive a Tesla, but more people might just opt to not own their own vehicle, as public transport options improve. If 50 years from now, people are able to use shared transport to get door-to-door from city A to city B, and at a similar (or better) speed, for less money, the demand for vehicles may drop. As autonomous vehicles are getting better, it's only a matter of time.
For the commoners, of course. Naturally the experts would still permit themselves to fly around in their private jets and yachts, etc. It's for the greater good, according to the experts.
> the signal from those experts is crystal clear: climate change is a non-issue.
Wow. Considering that expertise in climate change is given by money rather than, you know, being an actual trained academic in the field, is peak capitalism.
But anyway, assuming they really behave as "experts", yeah, the signal is crystal clear... For them.
It's much less of an issue if you have enough money to move to whatever places in the world remain most livable, keep buying food even if it becomes prohibitive for most people due to crop failures, keep using AC even if it becomes prohibitive for most people due to soaring energy prices, etc.
Doesn't mean that 99.9% of the population won't suffer from climate change.
expensive cars are already uncool. except amongst oligarchs I don't think many would profess their love of car interiors from like.. Bentley and it's hand stitched unashamed whole piece leather interior? or the busyness of Porsche and it's thousand button centre console. It's all just so excessive, and excess is definitely uncool nowadays
Small boring self-driving cars, possibly collectively owned instead of big expensive individually owned cars often used as a proof of social status.