Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
This is more about government deadlines, internal combustion engines very >much into marginal gains, and needs much less investment ie profits are >higher, so as the mandates are 2035 so ten years to go, and possibly US
GM is also shifting some of it's production from Mexico to Michigan to
avoid the tariffs and will produce V-8 engines.
My wife and I have a long history of V-8 cars and trucks. She's driven
our new-to-us truck more than I have, and when she starts it and hears
the rumble of the 5 liter engine, she looks over at me with a big
grin.
When we talked about going down to one vehicle she was very adamant
about it being a full size truck. Our need of having a full size rear
seat and a big enough bed to hold our two Catrikes made that a
requirement, and going electric was out of the question.
Apparently, we're not alone in that decision.
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/gm-slow-rolls-ev-aspirations-00401177>
?Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer
choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans,? it added.
will lag behind that.
That’s not consumer demand or lack but companies making financial
decisions, ie it’s cheaper for them to sell ICE cars than developing EV >technology.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Really very different use case, a car is well a car. And generally are much >more homogeneous.
E bikes do offer a different but similar experience or at least can do, a E >MTB for example handles differently to a MTB due to the increase weight and >that it proportionally more sprung weight, some of it is good others not,
and likewise it’s spurred on the dockless bikes for utility cycling and so >on.
It’s really very different!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
GM is also shifting some of it's production from Mexico to Michigan to
avoid the tariffs and will produce V-8 engines.
My wife and I have a long history of V-8 cars and trucks. She's driven
our new-to-us truck more than I have, and when she starts it and hears
the rumble of the 5 liter engine, she looks over at me with a big
grin.
When we talked about going down to one vehicle she was very adamant
about it being a full size truck. Our need of having a full size rear
seat and a big enough bed to hold our two Catrikes made that a
requirement, and going electric was out of the question.
Apparently, we're not alone in that decision.
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/gm-slow-rolls-ev-aspirations-00401177>
“Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans,” it added.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
On 16 Jul 2025 17:27:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
This is more about government deadlines, internal combustion engines very
GM is also shifting some of it's production from Mexico to Michigan to
avoid the tariffs and will produce V-8 engines.
My wife and I have a long history of V-8 cars and trucks. She's driven
our new-to-us truck more than I have, and when she starts it and hears
the rumble of the 5 liter engine, she looks over at me with a big
grin.
When we talked about going down to one vehicle she was very adamant
about it being a full size truck. Our need of having a full size rear
seat and a big enough bed to hold our two Catrikes made that a
requirement, and going electric was out of the question.
Apparently, we're not alone in that decision.
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/gm-slow-rolls-ev-aspirations-00401177>
?Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer
choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans,? it added.
much into marginal gains, and needs much less investment ie profits are
higher, so as the mandates are 2035 so ten years to go, and possibly US
will lag behind that.
That’s not consumer demand or lack but companies making financial
decisions, ie it’s cheaper for them to sell ICE cars than developing EV
technology.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Really very different use case, a car is well a car. And generally are much >> more homogeneous.
E bikes do offer a different but similar experience or at least can do, a E >> MTB for example handles differently to a MTB due to the increase weight and >> that it proportionally more sprung weight, some of it is good others not,
and likewise it’s spurred on the dockless bikes for utility cycling and so >> on.
It’s really very different!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Apparently, GM has changed their minds about going all electric.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-go-all-electric-2035-phase-out-gas-diesel-engines-n1256055
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/16/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 16 Jul 2025 17:27:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
This is more about government deadlines, internal combustion engines very >>> much into marginal gains, and needs much less investment ie profits are
GM is also shifting some of it's production from Mexico to Michigan to >>>> avoid the tariffs and will produce V-8 engines.
My wife and I have a long history of V-8 cars and trucks. She's driven >>>> our new-to-us truck more than I have, and when she starts it and hears >>>> the rumble of the 5 liter engine, she looks over at me with a big
grin.
When we talked about going down to one vehicle she was very adamant
about it being a full size truck. Our need of having a full size rear
seat and a big enough bed to hold our two Catrikes made that a
requirement, and going electric was out of the question.
Apparently, we're not alone in that decision.
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/gm-slow-rolls-ev-aspirations-00401177>
?Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer
choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans,? it added.
higher, so as the mandates are 2035 so ten years to go, and possibly US
will lag behind that.
That’s not consumer demand or lack but companies making financial
decisions, ie it’s cheaper for them to sell ICE cars than developing EV
technology.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Really very different use case, a car is well a car. And generally are much >>> more homogeneous.
E bikes do offer a different but similar experience or at least can do, a E >>> MTB for example handles differently to a MTB due to the increase weight and >>> that it proportionally more sprung weight, some of it is good others not, >>> and likewise it’s spurred on the dockless bikes for utility cycling and so >>> on.
It’s really very different!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Apparently, GM has changed their minds about going all electric.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-go-all-electric-2035-phase-out-gas-diesel-engines-n1256055
--
C'est bon
Soloman
A very complex playing field where reports and figures
conflict and criteria vary immensely.
(Physics? Yes we could do that. Engineering? Can we do it
efficiently and at what scale and cost? Politics? Cobalt
from Congo child slave labor is good; Oil from Ohio is bad.
Government project? Add in the usual graft and fraud. and so
on.)
https://www.theautopian.com/how-the-fight-over-electric-mail-vans-stalled-out/
https://nypost.com/2025/07/16/us-news/biden-push-for-10b-electric-mail-delivery-fleet-flops-with-just-250-trucks-built-in-two-years/
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre
V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16
year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre
V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16
year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S
with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for >$15,970.
In article <a7pe7kd53dvda90vj15e5k90ducth4ct6v@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
China's the one that's completely dominating in the electric vehicle
market. They shipped some 10x more EVs than the US purchased in total
last year (and we didn't buy any of their EVs). We're never catching up
to them, if it's any consolation.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Are there even any US ebike manufacturers with over 1% market share? The >global demand for ebikes is off the charts, so I think we're going to
see nothing but ramping up.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:01:11 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <a7pe7kd53dvda90vj15e5k90ducth4ct6v@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
China's the one that's completely dominating in the electric vehicle
market. They shipped some 10x more EVs than the US purchased in total
last year (and we didn't buy any of their EVs). We're never catching up
to them, if it's any consolation.
You can have my entire share of Chinese made vehicles. As for EVs,
they are still going to be sold here in the USA, but not as much as
has been projected. I'm Ok with that.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Are there even any US ebike manufacturers with over 1% market share? The
global demand for ebikes is off the charts, so I think we're going to
see nothing but ramping up.
Sadly, that's probably true.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre
V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16
year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S
with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for
$15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre
V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S
with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for
$15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading, >it’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as
they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EV’s isn’t great unless all you want is a SUV are
a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though >believe more are coming.
Ie it’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or >rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins they’d be >foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >they are doing.
Roger Merriman
On 17 Jul 2025 11:29:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre >>>>> V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S >>>> with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for
$15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading,
itÂ’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as
they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EVÂ’s isnÂ’t great unless all you want is a SUV are >> a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though
believe more are coming.
Ie itÂ’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or >> rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins theyÂ’d be >> foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >> they are doing.
Roger Merriman
They're not just continuing to sell old technology, they're changing
their mindset about going all electric. Clearly, customer demand for
EVs has been overestimated. The leftist's push for them did not pan
out.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre
V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S
with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for
$15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading, it’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EV’s isn’t great unless all you want is a SUV are
a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though believe more are coming.
Ie it’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins they’d be foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what they are doing.
Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2025 11:29:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre >>>>>> V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S >>>>> with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for >>>>> $15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading, >>> itÂ’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as >>> they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EVÂ’s isnÂ’t great unless all you want is a SUV are
a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though >>> believe more are coming.
Ie itÂ’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or >>> rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins theyÂ’d be >>> foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >>> they are doing.
Roger Merriman
They're not just continuing to sell old technology, they're changing
their mindset about going all electric. Clearly, customer demand for
EVs has been overestimated. The leftist's push for them did not pan
out.
EV aren’t a right or left thing, after all Musk who is right enough to support some far right folks and organisations.
Again you need to look beyond your bubble, a cursory glance shows that US
EV market share is at worst slowing growth, which probably is to be
expected with a limited range of types of cars.
Some EV car manufacturers are suffering absolutely for example Tesla, combination of Musk being such a toxic brand, old products line up, and the Cypertruck is having a fairly poor performance. And just being 1st to
market, and the older companies such as GM who are having very good EV
sales.
Considering the high cost of cars, and that they have long lifespans they
do seem to have various dips, as people hang on to their cars longer if it gets financially interesting. Ie need to look at trends over at least a few years.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2025 11:29:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre >>>>>> V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S >>>>> with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for >>>>> $15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading, >>> it?s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as >>> they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EV?s isn?t great unless all you want is a SUV are >>> a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though >>> believe more are coming.
Ie it?s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or >>> rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins they?d be >>> foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >>> they are doing.
Roger Merriman
They're not just continuing to sell old technology, they're changing
their mindset about going all electric. Clearly, customer demand for
EVs has been overestimated. The leftist's push for them did not pan
out.
EV aren’t a right or left thing, after all Musk who is right enough to >support some far right folks and organisations.
Again you need to look beyond your bubble, a cursory glance shows that US
EV market share is at worst slowing growth, which probably is to be
expected with a limited range of types of cars.
Some EV car manufacturers are suffering absolutely for example Tesla, >combination of Musk being such a toxic brand, old products line up, and the >Cypertruck is having a fairly poor performance. And just being 1st to
market, and the older companies such as GM who are having very good EV
sales.
Considering the high cost of cars, and that they have long lifespans they
do seem to have various dips, as people hang on to their cars longer if it >gets financially interesting. Ie need to look at trends over at least a few >years.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/17/2025 6:29 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre >>>>> V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S >>>> with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for
$15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading,
it’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as >> they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EV’s isn’t great unless all you want is a SUV are
a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though
believe more are coming.
Ie it’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or >> rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins they’d be >> foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >> they are doing.
Roger Merriman
+1
Yes, that is a question with no definitive answer:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-long-does-a-tesla-battery-last
Then again it's a significant expense when/if needed: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/tesla-battery-replacement-costs
I see Mercedes is testing a race car with modular changeable
(pit stop quick) battery packs, but for many designs,
including Tesla, the battery unit with many cells is a
structural member and as such not trivial to replace.
On 7/16/2025 7:01 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:01:11 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <a7pe7kd53dvda90vj15e5k90ducth4ct6v@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
China's the one that's completely dominating in the electric vehicle
market. They shipped some 10x more EVs than the US purchased in total
last year (and we didn't buy any of their EVs). We're never catching up >>> to them, if it's any consolation.
You can have my entire share of Chinese made vehicles. As for EVs,
they are still going to be sold here in the USA, but not as much as
has been projected. I'm Ok with that.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Are there even any US ebike manufacturers with over 1% market share? The >>> global demand for ebikes is off the charts, so I think we're going to
see nothing but ramping up.
Sadly, that's probably true.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Are there any? Seriously I do not know of one but hey I'm
not an expert.
Santana has an electric upgrade with Canadian motor,
controller, battery for their US built tandems. Those are
first rate. Bianchi is using Spanish and German electric
systems on Italian built bicycles. But USA electric bicycles??
<eye roll> EVs have been pushed by the liberals.
The tax credits have been in effect for quite a while. It'll be
interesting to see how EV sales do with government subsidies.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
In article <gpth7k94sbdb2ead3j7qneg3m2gk13p52t@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
<eye roll> EVs have been pushed by the liberals.
That liberal Elon! :)
The tax credits have been in effect for quite a while. It'll be
interesting to see how EV sales do with government subsidies.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the government ended
gas and oil tax subsidies, as well.
EV aren’t a right or left thing, after all Musk who is right enough to >>support some far right folks and organisations.
<eye roll> EVs have been pushed by the liberals. The Biden
administration subsidized them and wasted a bunch of money with a
fruitless attempt to build charging stations. The Biden administration
also cut back on drilling for oil. EVs are definitely a right or left
issue. The left insists, "we must change to them," the right says, >"nonsense."
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Um there absolutely are battery powered trains, as uk still has number of
non electrified railway lines, at least one local ish that they are
currently trying out. It plugs in and fast charges at either end of the
line.
They are a bit of niche product ie useful for lines that for whatever
reason haven’t been electrified and aren’t really worth the investment to
do so, but want a better train, as ever electric motors have the grunt aka >torque.
Not seen any properly large trucks/lorries, considering the drivers can
only drive for X hours the range of rather slower recharge is less of
problem than one might expect.
Ships and particularly commercial vessels are fairly dirty to put it
mildly, though the problems are probably more political than technical,
might even be something that Hydrogen could do!
Planes power to weight is going to be a technical challenge, though I’ve
not heard of anything bar small helicopter type of things and very much >prototypes and seeing what the technology can do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
In article <gpth7k94sbdb2ead3j7qneg3m2gk13p52t@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
<eye roll> EVs have been pushed by the liberals.
That liberal Elon! :)
The tax credits have been in effect for quite a while. It'll be
interesting to see how EV sales do with government subsidies.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the government ended
gas and oil tax subsidies, as well.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 6:29 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre >>>>>> V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S >>>>> with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for >>>>> $15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might
have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet
the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest
of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading, >>> it’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as >>> they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EV’s isn’t great unless all you want is a SUV are
a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though >>> believe more are coming.
Ie it’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or >>> rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins they’d be
foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >>> they are doing.
Roger Merriman
+1
Yes, that is a question with no definitive answer:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-long-does-a-tesla-battery-last
Then again it's a significant expense when/if needed:
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/tesla-battery-replacement-costs
I see Mercedes is testing a race car with modular changeable
(pit stop quick) battery packs, but for many designs,
including Tesla, the battery unit with many cells is a
structural member and as such not trivial to replace.
Yup most go for the “skateboard†frame design hence SUV being a good choice
for EV’s. The idea of swapping batteries doesn’t seem to realistically take
off.
Are some local ish some non electric lines (trains) that companies are experimenting with battery powered trains, apparently works well, clearly
an option for some uses, Buses are routinely EV’s now which makes for a nicer experience ie not sitting in a rattling bus!
Re Tesla and their market share, they had almost the entire US EV market so even without Musk and old products line ups and so on, you’d expect the proportion to drop as other companies catch up, as ever the danger of the
1st to market!
For example HMS Dreadnought was ordered after Japan and US which both where building All big gun battleships, but UK industrial production being what
it was, HMS Dreadnought was built and commissioned first, and became the
name for the new concept.
Roger Merriman
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Um there absolutely are battery powered trains, as uk still has number of
non electrified railway lines, at least one local ish that they are
currently trying out. It plugs in and fast charges at either end of the
line.
They are a bit of niche product ie useful for lines that for whatever
reason haven’t been electrified and aren’t really worth the investment to do so, but want a better train, as ever electric motors have the grunt aka torque.
Not seen any properly large trucks/lorries, considering the drivers can
only drive for X hours the range of rather slower recharge is less of
problem than one might expect.
Ships and particularly commercial vessels are fairly dirty to put it
mildly, though the problems are probably more political than technical,
might even be something that Hydrogen could do!
Planes power to weight is going to be a technical challenge, though I’ve not heard of anything bar small helicopter type of things and very much prototypes and seeing what the technology can do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
On 7/17/2025 5:50 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Um there absolutely are battery powered trains, as uk still has number of
non electrified railway lines, at least one local ish that they are
currently trying out. It plugs in and fast charges at either end of the
line.
They are a bit of niche product ie useful for lines that for whatever
reason haven’t been electrified and aren’t really worth the investment to
do so, but want a better train, as ever electric motors have the grunt aka >> torque.
Not seen any properly large trucks/lorries, considering the drivers can
only drive for X hours the range of rather slower recharge is less of
problem than one might expect.
Ships and particularly commercial vessels are fairly dirty to put it
mildly, though the problems are probably more political than technical,
might even be something that Hydrogen could do!
Planes power to weight is going to be a technical challenge, though I’ve >> not heard of anything bar small helicopter type of things and very much
prototypes and seeing what the technology can do.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
UK train with battery power is a one-off: https://www.judicialwatch.org/names-cleaned-from-voter-rolls/
Electric trains began with subways and were technologically
advanced before the Great War. Milwaukee Road built their
own electric system, Milwaukee to Seattle, around 1910. That
included building dams with dynamos and generating stations
on a 2500 mile route and it was profitable until after WWII.
Postwar, the wonderfully efficient diesel-electric format
killed off everything else beyond electric urban loop
systems. The few remaining steam trains are curiosities, not
actual commercially viable transport.
https://railway-news.com/innotrans-2024-stadler-presents-class-99-locomotive-for-uk-market/
On 7/17/2025 3:04 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
??
I get a hefty monthly natural gas bill in October through April every year.
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2025 11:29:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
They're not just continuing to sell old technology, they're changing
their mindset about going all electric. Clearly, customer demand for
EVs has been overestimated. The leftist's push for them did not pan
out.
floriduh dumbass <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2025 11:29:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
They're not just continuing to sell old technology, they're changing
their mindset about going all electric. Clearly, customer demand for
EVs has been overestimated. The leftist's push for them did not pan
out.
sure....
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/global-ev-sales-jump-24-june-though-north-american-market-struggles-research-2025-07-14/
dumbass....
On 7/17/2025 9:06 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 6:29 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 22:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1ltf7klta5gi28vbqbas3ckg16at9ivk7s@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
I just sold my 16 year old, 107K mile Nissan Frontier with a 4 Litre >>>>>>> V6 for $5K I suspect it will retail for twice that. I wonder what a 16 >>>>>>> year old EV with a depleted battery is worth.
Tough to go back 16 years for EVs, but Carfax has a 2015 Tesla Model S >>>>>> with 170,000 miles for $9,999. A 2014 with 58,000 miles is listed for >>>>>> $15,970.
I wouldn't touch the 170K Tesla for any price, but the 58K car might >>>>> have some miles left on the batteries, but I wouldn't buy it.
Here's a 2015 Nissan Frontier with 68,666 miles for $17,995. I'll bet >>>>> the Tesla cost a lot more new then the Frontier so it's depreciated
more. The Frontier also has many more miles in it's future than the
Tesla. I liked my 2009 Frontier and I would have kept it for the rest >>>>> of my remaining life if it had a decent back seat.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
With batteries the designs are apparently getting better about degrading, >>>> it’s quoted that relatively few batteries are available for recycling as >>>> they are largely still in the cars, remember that this reboot of the
electric cars is fairly young.
And indeed the choice of EV’s isn’t great unless all you want is a SUV are
a few Pickups to be fair but estates for example you have 1 choice though >>>> believe more are coming.
Ie it’s a moving target as more choice and the design improves.
Which is clearly expensive so if manufacturers in some markets can delay or
rather keep selling old technology that has good profits margins they’d be
foolish from a economic standpoint not to take that approach which is what >>>> they are doing.
Roger Merriman
+1
Yes, that is a question with no definitive answer:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-long-does-a-tesla-battery-last
Then again it's a significant expense when/if needed:
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/tesla-battery-replacement-costs
I see Mercedes is testing a race car with modular changeable
(pit stop quick) battery packs, but for many designs,
including Tesla, the battery unit with many cells is a
structural member and as such not trivial to replace.
Yup most go for the “skateboard†frame design hence SUV being a good choice
for EV’s. The idea of swapping batteries doesn’t seem to realistically take
off.
Are some local ish some non electric lines (trains) that companies are
experimenting with battery powered trains, apparently works well, clearly
an option for some uses, Buses are routinely EV’s now which makes for a
nicer experience ie not sitting in a rattling bus!
Re Tesla and their market share, they had almost the entire US EV market so >> even without Musk and old products line ups and so on, you’d expect the
proportion to drop as other companies catch up, as ever the danger of the
1st to market!
For example HMS Dreadnought was ordered after Japan and US which both where >> building All big gun battleships, but UK industrial production being what
it was, HMS Dreadnought was built and commissioned first, and became the
name for the new concept.
Roger Merriman
True for all technologies.
Just because the physics is workable, general adoption
greatly depends on the economics, scale, logistics etc of
fuel and service maintenance:
https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2025/july/stellantis-discontinues-hydrogen-fuel-cell-technology-development-program
In article <gpth7k94sbdb2ead3j7qneg3m2gk13p52t@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
<eye roll> EVs have been pushed by the liberals.
That liberal Elon! :)
The tax credits have been in effect for quite a while. It'll be
interesting to see how EV sales do with government subsidies.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the government ended
gas and oil tax subsidies, as well.
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
On Thu Jul 17 20:04:43 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Catrike made a good observation and you answer with absolute nonsense.
The few remaining steam trains are curiosities, not actual commercially >viable transport.
In article <105ca6p$1lci9$10@dont-email.me>,
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The few remaining steam trains are curiosities, not actual commercially
viable transport.
I was lucky enough to ride commercial steam trains in India in the 80s. They're long gone, I'm certain.
But I was surprised at the extent of electrified rail in Norway when I visited a couple years back--over half their rail is electrified and
takes you considerable distances, e.g. Bergen to Oslo to Trondheim.
On 7/18/2025 5:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <105ca6p$1lci9$10@dont-email.me>,
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The few remaining steam trains are curiosities, not actual commercially
viable transport.
I was lucky enough to ride commercial steam trains in India in the 80s.
They're long gone, I'm certain.
But I was surprised at the extent of electrified rail in Norway when I
visited a couple years back--over half their rail is electrified and
takes you considerable distances, e.g. Bergen to Oslo to Trondheim.
We have electric service here too beyond subway systems,
mostly interurban lines:
https://www.chicagorailfan.com/interxma.html
With Norway's hydropower resources, that makes sense.
Here in USA we rip out dams (sigh). Cry over pathetic chart
here:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=2130
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 17:53:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/18/2025 5:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <105ca6p$1lci9$10@dont-email.me>,
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The few remaining steam trains are curiosities, not actual commercially >>>> viable transport.
I was lucky enough to ride commercial steam trains in India in the 80s.
They're long gone, I'm certain.
But I was surprised at the extent of electrified rail in Norway when I
visited a couple years back--over half their rail is electrified and
takes you considerable distances, e.g. Bergen to Oslo to Trondheim.
We have electric service here too beyond subway systems,
mostly interurban lines:
https://www.chicagorailfan.com/interxma.html
With Norway's hydropower resources, that makes sense.
Here in USA we rip out dams (sigh). Cry over pathetic chart
here:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=2130
That's graph is from 2010 and a poor choice of data for US hydro
power. Methinks this is better. <https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply>
It's CAISO (California Independent Service Operators) which covers 9
western states. More of the same:
<https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso>
The pie chart currently shows large hydro at 7.7% of the total and
small hydro at 1.1%. It used to be much higher. (Notice that small
hydro is considered renewable energy while large hydro is not).
On 7/18/2025 6:41 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 17:53:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/18/2025 5:20 PM, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <105ca6p$1lci9$10@dont-email.me>,
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
The few remaining steam trains are curiosities, not actual commercially >>>>> viable transport.
I was lucky enough to ride commercial steam trains in India in the 80s. >>>> They're long gone, I'm certain.
But I was surprised at the extent of electrified rail in Norway when I >>>> visited a couple years back--over half their rail is electrified and
takes you considerable distances, e.g. Bergen to Oslo to Trondheim.
We have electric service here too beyond subway systems,
mostly interurban lines:
https://www.chicagorailfan.com/interxma.html
With Norway's hydropower resources, that makes sense.
Here in USA we rip out dams (sigh). Cry over pathetic chart
here:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=2130
That's graph is from 2010 and a poor choice of data for US hydro
power. Methinks this is better.
<https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply>
It's CAISO (California Independent Service Operators) which covers 9
western states. More of the same:
<https://www.gridstatus.io/live/caiso>
The pie chart currently shows large hydro at 7.7% of the total and
small hydro at 1.1%. It used to be much higher. (Notice that small
hydro is considered renewable energy while large hydro is not).
Good links but I was specifically looking for something with
a long time scale and the 100 year chart shows the
nonsensical abandonment of hydropower well.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:13:36 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jul 17 20:04:43 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Catrike made a good observation
and you answer with absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:13:36 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Thu Jul 17 20:04:43 2025 Beej Jorgensen wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Catrike made a good observation
It was his typical myopic and misinformed opinion.
and you answer with absolute nonsense.
And more irony meters all over the internet explode.
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking
fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
On 7/21/2025 10:53 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil. >>>> Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking
fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with
something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
All the world's oil ran out in 2011. We have definitive
proof of that on video:
https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/35-years-worth-of-oil-left-jimmy-carter-1976/
This is more about government deadlines, internal combustion engines very much into marginal gains, and needs much less investment ie profits are higher, so as the mandates are 2035 so ten years to go, and possibly US
will lag behind that.
That?s not consumer demand or lack but companies making financial
decisions, ie it?s cheaper for them to sell ICE cars than developing EV technology.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Really very different use case, a car is well a car. And generally are much more homogeneous.
E bikes do offer a different but similar experience or at least can do, a E MTB for example handles differently to a MTB due to the increase weight and that it proportionally more sprung weight, some of it is good others not,
and likewise it?s spurred on the dockless bikes for utility cycling and so on.
It?s really very different!
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking
fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with >something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:53:12 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil. >>>> Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking
fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with
something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge. We don't need the morons in the
government to fiddle with it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:53:12 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil. >>>> Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking
fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and >>feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all >>cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for >>steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with >>something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization >>abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge. We don't need the morons in the
government to fiddle with it.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:53:12 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil. >>>>> Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking >>>> fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with
something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge. We don't need the morons in the
government to fiddle with it.
When the last history of humankind is written the chapter on the fossil
fuel era will be short but colorful -- I think it's pretty safe to say
we're more than halfway through it. It might be remembered either as a springboard to our future mastery of matter and energy. Or maybe as a mythological golden age, when ordinary human beings flew from one end of
the Earth to another, not like birds, but like passengers in a
horse-drawn omnibus; when most of the world suffered more from the consequences of obesity than of starvation ...
I can't say which will be the case, what any of you believe seems to be
more of a personality test than a reliable future indicator.
Just because one has a problem does not mean there is a solution, and
how to maintain the living style to which we have become accustomed when extracting fossil fuels requires half the energy produced is a really
big one.
I agree that our best chance is allowing people to use their ingenuity, judgement, and initiative to better themselves by their own lights. Philosopher kings or five year plans are not the answer.
On 7/22/2025 6:47 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:53:12 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil. >>>>> Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking >>>> fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with
something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge. We don't need the morons in the
government to fiddle with it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Economist shave a term for government meddling, regulation,
and such. Structural inefficiency. It's a dead-weight cost
to everyone.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 07:52:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/22/2025 6:47 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 11:53:12 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams. >>>>>> --
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to >>>>>>>> manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil. >>>>>> Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking >>>>> fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas
production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all >>>> cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for >>>> steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with >>>> something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge. We don't need the morons in the
government to fiddle with it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Economist shave a term for government meddling, regulation,
and such. Structural inefficiency. It's a dead-weight cost
to everyone.
IMO, the government's interference in the country's internal economics creates more problems that it solves. Much of the USA's poverty issues
is a result of the government leading people into dependency.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted and can't >capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a couple years in >advance. It will also happily run a market into the ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living. But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly demand
government action.)
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted and can't capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a couple years in advance. It will also happily run a market into the ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living. But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly demand
government action.)
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living. But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the government's subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars: https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
On 7/27/2025 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars:
https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
Rather different concept, ie both are attempting to improve upon an
internal combustion engine, and the Turbine is used among other things in
Tanks, so found its place as you were!
Which is rather different to Electric cars or mainly the batteries, as a
way to continue the status quo ie having a car focused environment. That
does require a lot of investment, this said I’m unconvinced that it’s
needed now, as the market appears to be growing.
But I’d imagine the car manufacturers have a good lobbying teams!
Roger Merriman
Right you are!
Especially after their 2008 mass infusion of tax dollars, we
affectionately call our large domestic assembler "Government
Motors":
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/bush-bails-out-us-automakers-dec-19-2008-1066932
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars:
https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
Rather different concept, ie both are attempting to improve upon an
internal combustion engine, and the Turbine is used among other things in Tanks, so found its place as you were!
Which is rather different to Electric cars or mainly the batteries, as a
way to continue the status quo ie having a car focused environment. That
does require a lot of investment, this said I’m unconvinced that it’s needed now, as the market appears to be growing.
But I’d imagine the car manufacturers have a good lobbying teams!
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 12:32:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars:
https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
Rather different concept, ie both are attempting to improve upon an
internal combustion engine, and the Turbine is used among other things in >>> Tanks, so found its place as you were!
Which is rather different to Electric cars or mainly the batteries, as a >>> way to continue the status quo ie having a car focused environment. That >>> does require a lot of investment, this said I’m unconvinced that it’s >>> needed now, as the market appears to be growing.
But I’d imagine the car manufacturers have a good lobbying teams!
Roger Merriman
Right you are!
Especially after their 2008 mass infusion of tax dollars, we
affectionately call our large domestic assembler "Government
Motors":
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/bush-bails-out-us-automakers-dec-19-2008-1066932
The bailouts were loans, not grants. Most of the money has been paid
back.
"Obama says automakers have paid back all the loans it got from his
admin 'and more'" <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/>
"President Barack Obama campaign video says auto companies 'repaid
their loans'" <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/21/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-campaign-video-says-auto-co/>
2008–2010 automotive industry crisisOn Sun, 27 Jul 2025 13:18:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 1:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 12:32:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars:
https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
Rather different concept, ie both are attempting to improve upon an
internal combustion engine, and the Turbine is used among other things in >>>> Tanks, so found its place as you were!
Which is rather different to Electric cars or mainly the batteries, as a >>>> way to continue the status quo ie having a car focused environment. That >>>> does require a lot of investment, this said I’m unconvinced that it’s
needed now, as the market appears to be growing.
But I’d imagine the car manufacturers have a good lobbying teams!
Roger Merriman
Right you are!
Especially after their 2008 mass infusion of tax dollars, we
affectionately call our large domestic assembler "Government
Motors":
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/bush-bails-out-us-automakers-dec-19-2008-1066932
The bailouts were loans, not grants. Most of the money has been paid
back.
"Obama says automakers have paid back all the loans it got from his
admin 'and more'"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/>
"President Barack Obama campaign video says auto companies 'repaid
their loans'"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/21/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-campaign-video-says-auto-co/>
What? All the banks were out riding bicycles that day?
Mr Merriman had it right, "the car manufacturers have a good
lobbying teams".
Some businesses get prompt ample funding; handouts, handouts
called 'forgivable loans', loans at subsidized rates and/or
terms. If they were legitimate loans, the banks would have
jumped in for that revenue.
Other businesses get forms for their quarterly tax payments.
2008–2010 automotive industry crisisOn Sun, 27 Jul 2025 13:18:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 1:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 12:32:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars:
https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
Rather different concept, ie both are attempting to improve upon an
internal combustion engine, and the Turbine is used among other things in >>>>> Tanks, so found its place as you were!
Which is rather different to Electric cars or mainly the batteries, as a >>>>> way to continue the status quo ie having a car focused environment. That >>>>> does require a lot of investment, this said I’m unconvinced that it’s >>>>> needed now, as the market appears to be growing.
But I’d imagine the car manufacturers have a good lobbying teams!
Roger Merriman
Right you are!
Especially after their 2008 mass infusion of tax dollars, we
affectionately call our large domestic assembler "Government
Motors":
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/bush-bails-out-us-automakers-dec-19-2008-1066932
The bailouts were loans, not grants. Most of the money has been paid
back.
"Obama says automakers have paid back all the loans it got from his
admin 'and more'"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/>
"President Barack Obama campaign video says auto companies 'repaid
their loans'"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/21/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-campaign-video-says-auto-co/>
What? All the banks were out riding bicycles that day?
Not exactly a banking holiday. The basics are simple. Various
financial institutions, banks, automakers, etc were in danger of
bankruptcy. Besides ruining everyone's day, that also had the
potential of wrecking the economy, causing bank failures, and auto
makers defaulting on their existing loans. The US government decided
it was in the best interest of the country to prevent an impending
financial disaster, instead of trying to fix things after a crash.
Since all the recipients credit ratings would not be sufficient to
cover bank loans, the government decided to guaranty these loans by
issuing bonds. In theory, when the companies and banks had recovered,
the principal, loan interest and service chargers would all be paid
back to the government. If the loan recipients decided it was best to
extend the loans, the government could convert them to bonds and sell
them on the open market, which was done for some manufacturers.
You can see what happened here:
"Bailout Tracker - Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient" <https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/>
Most of the loans have be repaid, but a few were not repaid and the
auto makers are still paying what's left on the loan. <https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list>
(Oh Swell. Wells Fargo Mortgage has $3.4 billion in unpaid debt). <https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/567-wells-fargo-bank-na>
Mr Merriman had it right, "the car manufacturers have a good
lobbying teams".
Agreed:
"Auto Manufacturers Lobbying" <https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?cycle=2024&ind=T2100>
The largest seems to be GM with $13.69 million in bribes err...
political donations. Toyota at $5.9 million in 2nd largest, probably
because they want to kill any new EV mandates.
Some businesses get prompt ample funding; handouts, handouts
called 'forgivable loans', loans at subsidized rates and/or
terms. If they were legitimate loans, the banks would have
jumped in for that revenue.
Other businesses get forms for their quarterly tax payments.
The rules change when the dollars involve change from millions to
billions. When a large industry want's something from the government,
they will get it, usually in the form of enabling legislation: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States>
2008–2010 automotive industry crisisOn Sun, 27 Jul 2025 13:18:48 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 1:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 12:32:36 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 11:56 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 7/27/2025 9:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2025 6:25 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 22:14:58 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <bauu7kdn5gpdr6p7hin8e49g3f9580poa9@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
As resources get scarse, the market will raise prices
and then,
alternate resources will emerge.
This is true, but the market is notoriously short-sighted
and can't
capitalize well on long-term trends or plan more than a
couple years in
advance. It will also happily run a market into the
ground to make the
last dime before moving on to the next thing--it's pain
most people
don't appreciate.
I love the free market and used it to make a good living.
But some
people deny its flaws and suffer the consequences. ("If a
drug starts
killing people, they'll stop buying it and the company
will go under" is
a small consolation to those deceased and people rapidly
demand
government action.)
I understand that some regulation is required, but the
government's
subsidizing EV purchases was not. The market is perfectly
capable of
handling that.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
The government decided to push that platform, but not
Wankels and didn't back Ford's mid-60s turbines either.
Just because it's different doesn't mean I have to pay you
to make it.
oops. make that Chrysler turbine cars:
https://www.motorcities.org/story-of-the-week/2020/a-brief-history-of-the-1963-chrysler-turbine-car
Rather different concept, ie both are attempting to improve upon an
internal combustion engine, and the Turbine is used among other things in >>>>> Tanks, so found its place as you were!
Which is rather different to Electric cars or mainly the batteries, as a >>>>> way to continue the status quo ie having a car focused environment. That >>>>> does require a lot of investment, this said I’m unconvinced that it’s >>>>> needed now, as the market appears to be growing.
But I’d imagine the car manufacturers have a good lobbying teams!
Roger Merriman
Right you are!
Especially after their 2008 mass infusion of tax dollars, we
affectionately call our large domestic assembler "Government
Motors":
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/19/bush-bails-out-us-automakers-dec-19-2008-1066932
The bailouts were loans, not grants. Most of the money has been paid
back.
"Obama says automakers have paid back all the loans it got from his
admin 'and more'"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/>
"President Barack Obama campaign video says auto companies 'repaid
their loans'"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/21/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-campaign-video-says-auto-co/>
What? All the banks were out riding bicycles that day?
Not exactly a banking holiday. The basics are simple. Various
financial institutions, banks, automakers, etc were in danger of
bankruptcy. Besides ruining everyone's day, that also had the
potential of wrecking the economy, causing bank failures, and auto
makers defaulting on their existing loans. The US government decided
it was in the best interest of the country to prevent an impending
financial disaster, instead of trying to fix things after a crash.
Since all the recipients credit ratings would not be sufficient to
cover bank loans, the government decided to guaranty these loans by
issuing bonds. In theory, when the companies and banks had recovered,
the principal, loan interest and service chargers would all be paid
back to the government. If the loan recipients decided it was best to
extend the loans, the government could convert them to bonds and sell
them on the open market, which was done for some manufacturers.
You can see what happened here:
"Bailout Tracker - Tracking Every Dollar and Every Recipient" <https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/>
Most of the loans have be repaid, but a few were not repaid and the
auto makers are still paying what's left on the loan. <https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list>
(Oh Swell. Wells Fargo Mortgage has $3.4 billion in unpaid debt). <https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/567-wells-fargo-bank-na>
Mr Merriman had it right, "the car manufacturers have a good
lobbying teams".
Agreed:
"Auto Manufacturers Lobbying" <https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?cycle=2024&ind=T2100>
The largest seems to be GM with $13.69 million in bribes err...
political donations. Toyota at $5.9 million in 2nd largest, probably
because they want to kill any new EV mandates.
Some businesses get prompt ample funding; handouts, handouts
called 'forgivable loans', loans at subsidized rates and/or
terms. If they were legitimate loans, the banks would have
jumped in for that revenue.
Other businesses get forms for their quarterly tax payments.
The rules change when the dollars involve change from millions to
billions. When a large industry want's something from the government,
they will get it, usually in the form of enabling legislation: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States>
In article <a7pe7kd53dvda90vj15e5k90ducth4ct6v@4ax.com>,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
China's the one that's completely dominating in the electric vehicle
market. They shipped some 10x more EVs than the US purchased in total
last year (and we didn't buy any of their EVs). We're never catching up
to them, if it's any consolation.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Are there even any US ebike manufacturers with over 1% market share? The global demand for ebikes is off the charts, so I think we're going to
see nothing but ramping up.
On 7/16/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 16 Jul 2025 17:27:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
This is more about government deadlines, internal combustion engines very >> much into marginal gains, and needs much less investment ie profits are
GM is also shifting some of it's production from Mexico to Michigan to >>> avoid the tariffs and will produce V-8 engines.
My wife and I have a long history of V-8 cars and trucks. She's driven >>> our new-to-us truck more than I have, and when she starts it and hears >>> the rumble of the 5 liter engine, she looks over at me with a big
grin.
When we talked about going down to one vehicle she was very adamant
about it being a full size truck. Our need of having a full size rear
seat and a big enough bed to hold our two Catrikes made that a
requirement, and going electric was out of the question.
Apparently, we're not alone in that decision.
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York,
and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/gm-slow-rolls-ev-aspirations-00401177>
?Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer
choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans,? it added.
higher, so as the mandates are 2035 so ten years to go, and possibly US
will lag behind that.
That?s not consumer demand or lack but companies making financial
decisions, ie it?s cheaper for them to sell ICE cars than developing EV
technology.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Really very different use case, a car is well a car. And generally are much
more homogeneous.
E bikes do offer a different but similar experience or at least can do, a E
MTB for example handles differently to a MTB due to the increase weight and
that it proportionally more sprung weight, some of it is good others not, >> and likewise it?s spurred on the dockless bikes for utility cycling and so >> on.
It?s really very different!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Apparently, GM has changed their minds about going all electric.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-go-all-electric-2035-phase-out-gas-diesel-engines-n1256055
--
C'est bon
Soloman
A very complex playing field where reports and figures
conflict and criteria vary immensely.
(Physics? Yes we could do that. Engineering? Can we do it
efficiently and at what scale and cost? Politics? Cobalt
from Congo child slave labor is good; Oil from Ohio is bad.
Government project? Add in the usual graft and fraud. and so
on.)
https://www.theautopian.com/how-the-fight-over-electric-mail-vans-stalled-out/
https://nypost.com/2025/07/16/us-news/biden-push-for-10b-electric-mail-delivery-fleet-flops-with-just-250-trucks-built-in-two-years/
On Wed Jul 16 13:39:26 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 7/16/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 16 Jul 2025 17:27:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
This is more about government deadlines, internal combustion engines very >>>> much into marginal gains, and needs much less investment ie profits are >>>> higher, so as the mandates are 2035 so ten years to go, and possibly US >>>> will lag behind that.
GM is also shifting some of it's production from Mexico to Michigan to >>>>> avoid the tariffs and will produce V-8 engines.
My wife and I have a long history of V-8 cars and trucks. She's driven >>>>> our new-to-us truck more than I have, and when she starts it and hears >>>>> the rumble of the 5 liter engine, she looks over at me with a big
grin.
When we talked about going down to one vehicle she was very adamant
about it being a full size truck. Our need of having a full size rear >>>>> seat and a big enough bed to hold our two Catrikes made that a
requirement, and going electric was out of the question.
Apparently, we're not alone in that decision.
"In May, the Detroit automaker said it would ditch plans to make
electric motors at its Towanda Production plant in Buffalo, New York, >>>>> and instead spend $888 million to make V-8 engines."
<https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/12/gm-slow-rolls-ev-aspirations-00401177>
?Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer >>>>> choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to
Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are
scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans,? it added.
That?s not consumer demand or lack but companies making financial
decisions, ie it?s cheaper for them to sell ICE cars than developing EV >>>> technology.
Too bad the electric bicycle manufacturers don't do the same.
Really very different use case, a car is well a car. And generally are much
more homogeneous.
E bikes do offer a different but similar experience or at least can do, a E
MTB for example handles differently to a MTB due to the increase weight and
that it proportionally more sprung weight, some of it is good others not, >>>> and likewise it?s spurred on the dockless bikes for utility cycling and so >>>> on.
It?s really very different!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
Apparently, GM has changed their minds about going all electric.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-go-all-electric-2035-phase-out-gas-diesel-engines-n1256055
--
C'est bon
Soloman
A very complex playing field where reports and figures
conflict and criteria vary immensely.
(Physics? Yes we could do that. Engineering? Can we do it
efficiently and at what scale and cost? Politics? Cobalt
from Congo child slave labor is good; Oil from Ohio is bad.
Government project? Add in the usual graft and fraud. and so
on.)
https://www.theautopian.com/how-the-fight-over-electric-mail-vans-stalled-out/
https://nypost.com/2025/07/16/us-news/biden-push-for-10b-electric-mail-delivery-fleet-flops-with-just-250-trucks-built-in-two-years/
I don't think that people understand that great improvement that Tesla
has made.He has invented a way of carbon wrapping the motors so that they have a 30% improvement in RPM. This is a small but significant
improvement in efficiency. He is going to release in 2026 solid state aluminum based batteries that nearly fireproof. Aluminum has 3 times the energy storage of lithium. This allows the battery packs to be smaller
and lighter for a significant increase in enegy storage. They also charge
3 times faster. They also have 5 times the recharge ability before they fall below 60%.
Simply put, there is no other EV but a esla.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
On 7/17/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 20:04:43 -0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
<beej@beej.us> wrote:
In article <1vki7k10egcrhostdbs6sp6ml5pdri0r93@4ax.com>,Gas and oil are important for many more things that automobiles.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Gas and oil subsidies are for fuel sources. EV subsidies are to
manipulate consumer purchases.
I agree insofar as I agree that consumers don't purchase gas and oil.
Batteries for trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes are only dreams.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And ethylene for a gazillion polymer products and packages.
And asphalt, bunker fuel and solvents. And myriad other crude cracking fractions. Oh, plus helium (there's a shortage) from natural gas production.
Natural gas for ammonia production, meaning nitrate fertilizers and
feedstock for all sorts of amines. Fossil fuel is used for almost all
cement production, used to build almost everything. Coke from coal for
steel production. It's possible to imagine replacing all of these with something else, actually doing so will be very difficult.
The supply of fossil fuels is certainly finite, and eventually all of
those replacements will have to be done or industrial civilization
abandoned. Guessing when that will happen is a mug's game.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:16:30 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,935 |
