Blame Europe for "socially acceptable" hybrid hypercars

[Hagerty]

The default start mode on Ferrari's SF90 Stradale is silent. Keep going without firing up the V-8, however, and you'll run out of juice after just 16 miles. That's probably not enough to get you to the local coffee shop, let alone your nearest cars and coffee meetup, yet this level of EV range is typical for today's hybrid hypercars.
https://www.hagerty.com/media/opinion/blame-europe-for-socially-acceptable-hybrid-hypercars/

[hyperv6]

It is a matter of survival in a world of lies. 

[427sc]

Yup...
Carbon Dioxide is actually the compound of LIFE!
It is only .5% of the gasses you and I are breathing right now.
It does NOT significantly contribute to greenhouse/global warming in concentrations this low. In fact, we could easily afford to DOUBLE the current CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere (from @400PPM to @800PPM) and the only likely outcome would be a significant widening of the earth's "green band" (the band around the center of the earth where food can be grown) and guess what that would do; END WORLD HUNGER!
Water vapor is a WAY LARGER contributor to "global warming" and WTH is anyone going to do about that?
This switch to all EVs is a joke.
The reason why the global elites are mandating them is because this issue is being used as a matter of "control of the masses" more than "saving the planet"....

[DavidHolzman]

I LOVE ICE. And I don't particularly enjoy driving EVs. However, in the last 4-5 years
**Seattle, a place where I have never felt an uncomfortably warm summer temperature had temps of 108 degrees two summers ago. Parts of Canada saw 117 degrees.
**Paris, a city I lived in many years ago, has, or had a climate like Seattle's. And it never got uncomfortably hot in France. In the last decade, there have been heat waves where a few tens of thousands have died. And Paris has hot summers.
**there have been rains leaving water four feet deep in Texas.
**Virtually all the glaciers in the world are less than half the size they were two generations ago.
**Oregon, which has been a cool, wet state, has now had wildfires like California's. And California's wildlfires have gotten a lot worse.
**Lake Powell, the largest artificial reservoir, fed by the Colorado River, is down to 1/3 capacity.
**A town in Utah has banned construction of new homes because of lack of water.

I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the idea.

[tdskip]

Do you even know that everything you’ve written above is the typical shown to be false physics denying bull crap? Or do y out just not care that you are engaging in falsehoods?

[Inline8OD]

Or does 427sc  know there's not a scientist on earth not overtly or covertly funded by an energy company who denies the impact of eight billion people all burning some form of carbon on a planet so small the towers of major suspension bridges are out of parallel to reflect the earth's curvature on climate change?

[TG]

I had a job where part of the job was monitoring the temperature of cooling water going into a power plant. (the temperature of the water is a key factor in plant performance and the temperature is dependent on ambient conditions). During the many years that I had that job, I could see a steady increase in the average annual temperatures. It was real, completely uninfluenced by politics, and it changed my position on global warming. With all that said, I still think EVs are a bad idea

[9lbhammer]

if they were slick with it they could use the GPS off the navigation system to log locations of the speed/sound cameras and adjust operation parameters accordingly.

[Snailish]

The author is correct, we have heard this before.

The proliferation in turbocharging in North American vehicles (i.e., ecoboost) allows these vehicles to pass a testing regime for mpg that the vehicles don't actually meet --if you ever actually accelerate and spool up the turbo, pass another vehicle, drive anything but the low test speed dynamics.

The average consumer was much better off with a simple fuel injected ICE engine from any of the stout platforms (i.e., LS V8) with long service lives before big component failures. Turbocharging, cylinder shut off systems, complicated hybrid add-ons and so on all trade off this actual value for test-passing to an audience that doesn't really need turbos and such, but probably would like longevity and simplicity if we looked past the narrow short-term (i.e., 3 year lease) window and ignored the sales hype.

[JBaguley]

I can agree with you entirely on turbocharging, where real world performance demonstrates how the engine and turbo mapping are manipulated to generate lovely test results misrepresenting real world driving. But I have a different view on hybrids; I commute to work in a 2012 Prius with 95k miles on it (don't wretch, my "other car" is a '67 Camaro). Nominally 25 miles each way, about 1/3 freeway and 2/3 surface streets with speed limits in the 40-45 mph range, and where traffic allows (Houston), I drive 5 over. My commuting averages over 60 mpg. This is real world performance, week in, week out, and with a Toyota I have nada concerns about reliability. Okay, not much there to impress the neighbors, but I care not about that. And besides, there's that Camaro.....

[Exsanguinator]

Come on now, with that 67 Camaro you want to impress the neighbors a little.

[Marv48]

I agree completely! I've had a prius for 8 years for everyday driving and could'nt be happier. For fun we have a vette and a 63 Lemans convertible. Make the best of both worlds!

[Snailish]

The Europe stuff interests me.

On one hand I totally get the logic of small, no tailpipe emissions vehicles in all the dense urban areas where there is (or will be) great charging/refueling (hydrogen still counts?) infrastructure.

I also get that many of these urban areas are close together. Range anxiety isn't going to be a thing for a huge chunk of Euro drivers. Plus that side of the world never stopped investing in trains and other public transport.

I concede that much of populated Europe is a more-moderate climate than where I live.

But what about the cold parts of Europe that get heavy snow? What about the rural areas that there is a reason for range anxiety and/or little hope of serious infrastructure any time soon? This matters because that's a lot of our food production.

What is being done for those people to meet these impending deadlines? I am truly curious, because those answers might help us understand how this is even remotely going to work in places like the northern United States and everywhere in Canada outside of Toronto and the parts of British Columbia with the warm climate. Urban Winnipeg (for example) gets rather cold.

[nielen]

Norway has a very high EV usage. Maybe a good example.

[DavidHolzman]

Norway has huge incentives for people to drive EVs:

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/28/the-incentives-stimulating-norways-electric-vehicle-success/

[Snailish]

The article is great for explaining why 42% of new car buyers in Norway in 2019 went electric. {spoiler: several years into an extensive rebate/bonus regime from the government to do so}

Now we need to know was it just urban Norweigans accounting for this?

All populated areas of Norway are temperate or sub-arctic climates with significant coastal impact  --nicer weather in Norway than one would expect is what I read.

Seems like most of Norway's population is in the Southern end around Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim. How's EV working out for those in Narvik and Vardo all year round?

I know from other fields, that looking at the Scandinavian countries as "models" is a bit tricky as they are low-pop, high wealth, and don't have/allow the same conditions that other industrialized nations do.

[Snailish]

Perfect. Now Hagerty, please send someone to Norway to solve this mystery and tell us about it.

Or at least do real research about it and present it to us in an understandable format.

[HoustonNurse]

So... in the EU, which gets 39% of its electricity from Fossil fuels and 26% from Nukes.... wondering how clean they think they are going? BUT compare that to the USA at 60% from Fossils... and 19% Nukes... and then add in line loss from resistance, the destruction caused by the mining of the rare earth metals, the manufacture of those batteries, the disposal of them and on and on..... we are kidding ourselves that we will make any difference... and now with us back to the days of begging OPEC for more..... Interesting to see how they do a electric plane or big rig. But... I will give it to the electrics... the Tesla Plaid my brothers friend has is AWESOME!!

[tdskip]

Do you honestly not know how the EU overall has increased the percentage of its energy from renewables? You choose not to research it because you’re more comfortable being ignorant of the facts? Or did you research it, it didn’t fit your narrative, so you chose to write the above anyway because you’re comfortable being deceptive in support of your ideology?

has to be one of the above – which is it?

[TG]

not to keep this going, but if I have to build a solar panel to collect solar energy, and that panel only lasts about ~15 years, is my renewable really renewable?

[TingeofGinge]

If your solar panel only lasts 15 years, you need a new supplier...

[hyperv6]

Here is the deal. Like it or not this stuff is here and we all are going to have to deal with it in some way. Be it daily driver, new sports car or in racing. 

The NHRA has just announced a EV racing class and Hybrids are already in F1 and will be soon in road racing and more. Even Don Garlits is driving an EV car now. 

No matter the reasons the money has been spent and the direction has been set and we are just going to need to deal with it. 

No matter the lies, deceptions' and issues it is here. 

[427sc]

No, there IS another way of dealing with it: We say NO MORE, and this line in the sand involves more than just EVs....
EVs are fine. IF they can make them to be competitive with gas/diesel vehicles in all parameters (including the environmental concerns) then I say fine!
But, NO Gov. subsidies, NO forced compliance as to their production/purchase.

[tdskip]

Typical half baked self referential logic – do you really think the environmental costs of fossil fuels is baked into what you pay for conventional cars and fuel?

[TingeofGinge]

Keep screaming into the void. It's a matter of when, not if. The infrastructure will follow, the battery tech will follow. 90% of drivers on earth *aren't* Hagerty types and for them, an EV that costs $30k and gets 300 miles of range and takes 5 hours to hit 80% charged is more than enough to convince them to ditch their ICE car. People are creatures of convenience. And for 100 years now, the ICE car has been the convenience vehicle for most of the world (think about trying to maintain a horse...) when EVs hit that bar, people will be dropping their ICE cars like hot potatoes.

[dtniners]

It some what works in small amounts, but in masses it is going to fail. Infrastructure is so far off not only in power stations , but also the current power grid is so far from actual future needs that it will be a bust. What is going to happen when the government looses all the revenue from the fuel taxes? The cost of plugging in you vehicle will start rising very quickly to catch with loses. People don't seem to understand the amount of things that are used everyday that involve fossil fuels. This is something that will take many decades to make these transformations. We have very little affect on our earth's atmosphere. It has been changing from hot to cold over millions of years long before man got here. I am all for being smarter with our resources and keeping pollution as low as possible, but we need to not kill our way of life unless we find a better solution. There are to many issues with the beginnings of EV (precious metals and resources) and at the end (disposing of these items after their life. All this cancelling of ICE vehicles is a pipe dream. I think hybrids are a good start.

[tdskip]

Do you understand exactly how either ignorant of chemistry and physics that statement is, or is it just a willing attempt on being deceptive on your part?

go ahead and call my bluff. Show us how human activities have very little impact on the atmosphere despite the irrefutable evidence of our changing the atmospheres chemical composition.

[audiobycarmine]

In response to “hyperv6”:

I have no doubt that the horse-traders of the early 20th century sounded just like you.
There’s more than a tinge of “conspiracies abounding” in what you’re saying.

If, as you say, lies are behind “everything”; then focus on one topic and present the evidence.
Have manufacturers lied about stuff? Certainly, as the recent Volkswagen Diesel scandal shows.
Does our government lie to us? THAT list is long...

Automotively, technological change is inevitable.
What seems to bother many; the freedom-loving, no new restrictions, “Don’t Tread On Me” adherents, is that some changes will be forced on them. Yes — forced. Just like dual-reservoir braking, seatbelts, airbags, etc.
I once worked in the autopsy room of the Suffolk County Medical Examiner, so I have an abundance of first-hand experience with violent car-related deaths.

We ALL are now in a brand-new age, one of human activity causing multiple extinctions worldwide; rampant pollution in every physical form; the loosing of germs and viruses upon ourselves, usually from our invasions into nature, and a basic lack of regard for decent animal treatment; planetary warming allowing what were previously tropical insects, invasive plants, and diseases, to now find new homes far further North than before.

Are there real answers and solutions to any of these existential issues? Yes.

Like our “war effort” of WWII, unless we recognize our common enemy, and start to work TOGETHER to fix things, then whatever future our Earth has in store might be a very hostile place for humans to continue their existence.

Humans are, without question, the MOST destructive species to ever exist.
Is “Mother” now attempting to rid herself of a parasite?

To paraphrase you: “It is a matter of survival for the World”.

[WillyJFreedom]

Really? As you say, focus on one topic and present the evidence. There was once an ice age, did humans cause it to end? Or was it part of the natural and evolving weather and climate of the earth.

[nielen]

That discussion about whether humans are inducing climate changes was settled a decade or two ago. The scientific consensus is that humans are affecting the climate which has caused temperatures to rise by 1.1C on average. Whether EVs will solve this problem is a completely separate discussion. However it is unlikely. We’re in a terrible bind and we don’t seem to know it yet, but the chickens will come home to roost.

[erne75]

WRONG!!!!

[427sc]

Yes, humans ARE likely affecting the climate.
BUT, the completely UN-answered and 100% logical continuation to that expression is "to what degree" are humans involved in the climate which as PEPETUALLY been "changing", all by itself, with no human influence at all...
If you are truly honest and educated about this topic, you will also have to admit that we are DECADES away from being able to even roughly quantify that "to what degree" question...
Any honest climate scientist, even the ones pushing the anthropogenic agenda, will tell you that we currently have no idea the real level of human influence on our climate. All they can say is "we are".

[427sc]

Actually, it differential is more like .1C, not 1.1C...

[andrewjohn007]

Scientific consensus? There's no such thing anymore. If the last two years didn't teach you that the "scientific consensus" has nothing to do with science or a consensus, then you may want to consider changing news sources.

[tdskip]

LOL - “evolving weather”. Just on that alone it is quite apparent you have zero idea what you pretend to be able to talk about.

[WillyJFreedom]

"Scientific consensus". Sure. Are you saying that weather and climate haven't evolved, or changed over thousands of years?

[tdskip]

Lol – someone else doubling down on ignorance.

only living things can evolve. Dear lord, if you’re that ignorant on basic scientific principles why do you think you have any understanding of what’s actually happening to the earths climate and man’s role as a climate forcer?

[427sc]

LoL....
The weather on our planet doesn't change as part of the naturally occurring events on our planet, all of which man has ZERO control over (and thus, the weather naturally "evolves")? Maybe you just have never ready the definition of "evolution"?
You've never heard of Super Volcanoes?
Never heard of extinction-event sized meteors?
Is Willy "pretending" to talk or is he really just saying something which you actually cannot understand? LoL...

[tdskip]

Weather doesn’t evolve - see above. By the way you realize that you’re refuting your own line of argument. The examples you’ve given are well understood climate forces based on rudimentary chemistry and physics, all of which have been recorded in the earths climate history as understood by science. In other words – you’re arguing that we don’t understand the science by providing an example of what the science understands.

typical denier inadvertently funny self refutation. 

[tdskip]

So just to be clear – you’re saying we know what happened in the earths climate history and why it happened but we don’t know what’s happening now?

[TonyT]

Your response could be interpreted as human beings are responsible for everything bad in the world. Granted, mankind has definitely had an impact on part of the planet. However, I know for a fact that mankind is not responsible for earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and other "natural" disasters. Mankind did not cause any of the previous ice ages, did not cause the Sahara desert to form or make Mount Vesuvius erupt. Contrary to your point, we aren't the enemy here because this planet is now and will always be in flux. Just ask the dinosaurs...

[NWPantera]

So continued man made pollution is ok and won't have any future consequences?
Let's see your "facts" please.

[427sc]

Wow Carmine... You've really bought into it all haven't you? Animals never went extinct before modern man appeared I guess, huh???
Do you remember (or were you even born before 1989?) when the Exxon Valdez ran aground near the Price William Sound in AK. and it spilled @11 million gallons of crude oil into what was described at that time as "... the most productive fishing grounds IN THE WORLD".
Yes, that was a terrible, terrible accident and all the "climate scientists" of the day had to say was "... the environmental impact of this tragedy is insurmountable. This area of the ocean will never, EVER be the same again". Well, guess what? In 32 short years, that area is once again described as "The most productive fishing grounds in the world".
Hmmmmmmm..... How can that be?
I'm, not saying we shouldn't be stewards of the environment, but to use your "parasite" example; for little, insignificant "man" to think he is anything but a "flee on the back of a dog" when it comes to affecting the planet to the degree that you obviously believe we do, he needs to learn some humility. We are NOTHING! Mother Nature could flick us off her back in an instant and even the concrete jungles (major cities) we have created would be completely gone in @ 100 years.
Yes, we need to be smart about what we do, but I guess China building a new coal fired plant on a weekly basis being entirely "acceptable" to the Paris Climate Accord types makes complete sense to you too?
Think.......... How can that be.......?

[77GL]

Face it. Combustion is nasty, inferior and on its way out.

[WillyJFreedom]

Internal combustion may indeed be on the way out, but we are nowhere near ready for complete electrification of all vehicles. The power has to be generated by some means. Nuclear power was a good option, but environmentalists starting whining about the waste and the extremely low risk of an accident at the plants themselves. So here we are. Once we can actually bring fusion power on line, or until we can develop some yet unknown new power source , we should let markets and ideas take their course without having electrification shoved down our throats by environmental extremists.

[nielen]

It is not environmental extremism. CO2 emissions reduction is overdue. The average temperature has already increased by 1.1 degrees C over the 19th/20th century average. But it’s unlikely EVs will solve this problem.

[427sc]

LoL...
Combustion is nasty....
Spoken like a true Kool-aide drinker...
There are some nice warm showers over there... That man with the automatic weapon will be glad to hold the door open for you so you can go inside...
The ONLY way EVs should be promoted in a free and open society is by their own merits (of which there ARE many). NOT through some bureaucratic mandate which is sold to the public by people who are investing billions to trade ridiculous "carbon credits"; the same people who own the media and control the public funding of the supposed "scientific research" which supports their illogical and incorrect position.

[dhaugh]

Electric cars run on Natural gas and coal, yea, both fossil fuels. Why we’re not proving out Hydrogen is beyond me. Oh and no toxic waste from the batteries all these cars use,

[erne75]

All built in China with slave labor...

[Stradakat]

Makes a lot of sense as an interim product strategy given air and noise pollution issues in metro markets. Also good tie in from a performance stand point to F1 and for max hp claims vs the competition.