The EV battery discussion thread (bogus breakthroughs)

[ZeeOSix]

Regardless of the "metric" accuracy to "real life" conditions, it's still a way have some kind of comparative measure between vehicles. Not much different than say ISO 4548-12 testing to compare oil filter efficiency. It's not uncommon for people to get the rated MPG figures (on average) on the window sticker in real use ... I have plenty of times, and sometimes even more than the EPA rated figures.

Text Version of the Electric Vehicle Label | US EPA

Text version of electric vehicle fuel economy label displays and details.

www.epa.gov

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Regardless of the "metric" accuracy to "real life" conditions, it's still a way have some kind of comparative measure between vehicles.

Sure, as long as the goal is that the person gets a meaningless comparison from a meaningless number, its perfect.

Not much different than say ISO 4548-12 testing to compare oil filter efficiency.

You have no concept of clue as to what you are talking about if you are trying to compare a scientifically valid test (albeit for quality and standardization- not actual performance) against mythical made up stuff that even in the definitions say it cannot possible exist in the real world because it requires a 100% efficient heat engine ( which cannot be made)

It's not uncommon for people to get the rated MPG figures (on average) on the window sticker in real use ... I have plenty of times, and sometimes even more than the EPA rated figures.

Possibly true in isolated cases but otherwise meaningless

 

[ZeeOSix]

Sure, as long as the goal is that the person gets a meaningless comparison from a meaningless number, its perfect.

Not as meaningless as you think when all vehicles are tested the same way for the vehicles moved by the same fuel or electricity are compared. Of course the "MPGe conversion" between gasoline and electrically powered vehicles isn't going to be some perfect model, but it's better than nothing and gives a way to again make comparisons if someone is cross shopping between a gasoline vs electrically powered vehicle.,

You have no concept of clue as to what you are talking about if you are trying to compare a scientifically valid test (albeit for quality and standardization- not actual performance) against mythical made up stuff that even in the definitions say it cannot possible exist in the real world because it requires a 100% efficient heat engine ( which cannot be made)

My point is that both are a defined measurable performance metrics regardless if it reflect the "real world" performance or not. The EPA came up with MPG and MPGe measurement methods and ratings, just like ISO came up with 4548-12 efficiency measurements and ratings.

Possibly true in isolated cases but otherwise meaningless

I'm sure there are plenty of people just on this chat board that have seen their vehicles get on average what the EPA rating is on the window sticker.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Not as meaningless as you think when all vehicles are tested the same way for the vehicles moved by the same fuel or electricity are compared.

Yes it is as meaningless as I said and no amount salesmanship is going to change that fact.

Of course the "MPGe conversion" between gasoline and electrically powered vehicles isn't going to be some perfect model, but it's better than nothing and gives a way to again make comparisons if someone is cross shopping between a gasoline vs electrically powered vehicle.,

Meaningless doubletalk. its an IMPOSSIBLE model ( by physics) not "imperfect" and its worse than nothing because it fuels improper decisions based on false and fraudulent metrics.

My point is that both are a defined measurable performance metrics regardless if it reflect the "real world" performance or not.

Its not defined, its made up so its meaningless for any legitimate comparison.

The EPA came up with MPG and MPGe measurement methods and ratings, just like ISO came up with 4548-12 efficiency measurements and ratings.

You have no clue whatsoever on what you are speaking of- if you did you wouldn't have made such a ridiculously false statement.

I'm sure there are plenty of people just on this chat board that have seen their vehicles get on average what the EPA rating is on the window sticker.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who believe in ghosts too and maybe have seen a mist but that doesn't establish ghosts are real either.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Geeez ... just went into babble mode (std MO) I see. If you don't think the EPA MPG ratings are not defined by a test procedure, then you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Won't even address the rest of your nonsense comments.

Detailed Test Information

EPA tests vehicles by running them through a series of driving routines, or schedules, that specify vehicle speed for each point in time during the laboratory tests.

www.fueleconomy.gov

So if someone is concerned about fuel economy, or EV range, etc when shopping for a vehicle, just what in your mind are they going to use to compare that metric? Maybe Carnak the Magnificant?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

just went into babble mode (std MO) I see. If you don't think the EPA MPG ratings are not defined by a test procedure, then you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Won't even address the rest of your nonsense comments.

I posted many examples up thread. yes the EPA "procedure" is vague, non specific, full of uncontrolled variables and not directly correlated to any legitimate comparison. Z, like most things, I have forgotten more on this subject than you understand so don't deflect. Listen and learn. You may benefit from it some day. Run from the rest of everything like you always do.

So if someone is concerned about fuel economy, or EV range, etc when shopping for a vehicle, just what in your mind are they going to use to compare that metric?

If you bothered to actually read before you post more of your false points, that question was fully addressed numerous times up thread. No current meaningful metric exists for such a comparison. I made that crystal clear and pointed out specifically why (in a truncated fashion)

But in your typical MO, you don't refute anything because you cant- you simply rant in circles until the thread is locked.

Sadly, that's the best you will ever get.

 

[blingo]

No real decisions are based on MPGe figures. Comparing BEV requires nothing but established metric kWh and the whole dance figure of comparing gasoline-ICE against them is a mere pipe dream by now with anyone serious. No carbon-neutral with gasoline and all potential in the world with **** electricity.

Regarding concepts, tons of studies and meta-studies are produced and no "obfuscation" will turn them around or resort them upside down to halt the world and put it in reverse. Start ups on e-fuels won't have a problem with kWh either.
Anyone interested can always work from the studies in the fundamentals, adjust for his electricity mix, vehicle needs and uses etc.

Merchants of doubt shut down with time, air quality or whatever disaster...

 

[ZeeOSix]

I posted many examples up thread. yes the EPA "procedure" is vague, non specific, full of uncontrolled variables and not directly correlated to any legitimate comparison. Z, like most things, I have forgotten more on this subject than you understand so don't deflect. Listen and learn. You may benefit from it some day. Run from the rest of everything like you always do.

I never claimed it was a perfect test procedure, but it is an established procedure that the MPG metric stems from, and all that people have to use. Like I asked, what's better, but you don't have an answer for that of course. You came across like one didn't even exist, which isn't true. Also there is a test standard for EVs. MPG and MPGe ratings is the ONLY discussion I brought up in this thread that swings a wide spectrum of subjects, including conspiracy theories (Post #32).

If you bothered to actually read before you post more of your false points, that question was fully addressed numerous times up thread. No current meaningful metric exists for such a comparison. I made that crystal clear and pointed out specifically why (in a truncated fashion)

Prove where anything I said is false. I simply showed sources of how MPG and MPGe are defined and you jumped in and acted like I was the guy who invented the standards that you think are somehow manipulated for nonferrous/conspiracy reasons. They are meant to be nothing more than a comparative tool and everyone pretty much knows they are not going to be a 100% accurate and may not correlate with real world use of any vehicles - doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. Also, IMO for at least gasoline powered vehicles, from my own experience I've seen average MPGs very close to or even at the EPA ratings. They are better than nothing, and even better than what Carnak, you or anyone else could ever predict.

But in your typical MO, you don't refute anything because you cant- you simply rant in circles until the thread is locked.

Sadly, that's the best you will ever get.

Speaking of sad, you always deflect, go off in the straw field and want to argue with everyone in about every thread you ever participate in. Just look at how many people you've argued with and tired to demean in some way just in this thread.

If this thread gets locked, it's going to be from you ... sadly that's the best you will ever do, just argue for the sake of arguing and trying to look like you know everything under the sun, and that causes more strife and thread locks.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I never claimed it was a perfect test procedure, but it is an established procedure that the MPG metric stemps from, and all that people have to use. Like I asked, what's better, but you don't have an answer for that of course.

An established meaningless metric means what exactly? As always, you are wrong (bolded) I did have an answer and stated it clearly. There is NONE. Now prove that wrong and show one that does meet the requirements as stated up thread.

You came across like one didn't even exist, which isn't true.

Good, lets have it. A metric that cross compares 2 tenets equally and precisely along the same scale. Just one will do.

everyone pretty much knows they are not going to be a 100% accurate and may not correlate with real world use of any vehicles

The textbook definition of meaningless ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for making my point for me.

IMO for at least gasoline powered vehicles, from my own experience I've seen average MPGs very close to the EPA ratings.

Again, meaningless as far as any legitimate scientifically valid point as I clearly pointed out. Nobody here was discussing "opinions" on this subject.

They are better than nothing, and even better than what Carnak could ever predict.

What exactly is a meaningless metric that produces a worthless comparison better than?

Speaking of sadly,

... et al

Nah, everyone reading this thread can see clearly and all the ranting doesn't change that. You make my points for me and I don't have problems letting you.

 

[ZeeOSix]

An established meaningless metric means what exactly? As always, you are wrong (bolded) I did have an answer and stated it clearly. There is NONE. Now prove that wrong and show one that does meet the requirements as stated up thread.

Good, lets have it. A metric that cross compares 2 tenets equally and precisely along the same scale. Just one will do.

Seems you really can't read very well and lock-on to only what you want to see. Go back and read again, I was not always talking about the cross comparison between MPG and MPGe. When I did, I clearly said it's not a perfect model or comparison correlation, but it's the only thing there is for people to compare. But you think it's some kind of conspiracy going on behind the curtain, lol. MPG ratings aren't bad IMO based on using my vehicles in the real world and comparing to the window sticker ratings. I'm sure others here have similar experiences.

Nah, everyone reading this thread can see clearly and all the ranting doesn't change that. You make my points for me and I don't have problems letting you.

You can't even make your own points, and thinking I make them for you is hilarious. Look in the mirror and you'll see the real ranter. As usual, you just defect and can't stay focused because if you actually understood the focus of the conversation you wouldn't be ranting on MPG and MPGe ratings for what their purpose is meant for. Instead, why don't you lay out a detailed plan to replace that system to better reflect the "real world", and show us all how it would be so much better, and show how the current ratings are linked into the big conspiracy you seem to believe.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Please take it easy everyone.
All good.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Seems you really can't read very well and lock-on to only what you want to see. Go back and read again, I was not always talking about the cross comparison between MPG and MPGe. When I did, I clearly said it's not a perfect model or comparison correlation, but it's the only thing there is for people to compare.

Go read the rest of the thread for context and all the points you raise were specifically addressed in detail

But you think it's some kind of conspiracy going on behind the curtain, lol. MPG ratings aren't bad IMO based on using my vehicles in the real world and comparing to the window sticker ratings. I'm sure others here have similar experiences.

I made that position clear too with justification and all your circular rhetoric has neither addressed them, strengthened a counter position or rebuked them. Everyone can see that plainly for themselves just by reading.

Instead, why don't you lay out a detailed plan to replace that system to better reflect the "real world", and show us all how it would be so much better, and show how the current ratings are linked into the big conspiracy you seem to believe.

Actually I laid the groundwork for that up thread- go back and reread it. Others have also pointed out similar issues as well.

The fact is that they are made up metrics that are vague and ambiguous by design that deliberately impede direct measurement and equal comparisons. They are not the only ones.

Any quick scan on reported numbers on virtually everything the USG has a hand in is full of questions, hidden data, manipulation and outright deception. The EPA is no different.

 

[blingo]

The future is about certification more than about Tesla's certificates. CO2 is what you're having to avoid, not Btu and MPGe which only became the next vehicle of deception. Fortunately you guys are easy to read. Including noble golden globe shattering #32

From Russia with love

https://germanwatch.org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/The%20climate%20crisis%20-%20a%20Russia-EU%20cooperation%20opportunity_3.pdf

No one in the whole wide world will be dealing with Btu and MPGe to please your activist needs. Ubiquitous e-fuels et al. to organize are kWh tolerant as can be, efficiencies can be looked up as efficiencies and so on. Readymades wherever you go.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Another Company working on a possible breakthrough... Where will it go?
QuantumScape

 

[blingo]

Not through ceilings but everywhere else. Only in this thread none were ever interested in breakthroughs.

Toyota – the hybridized giant like no other – is about to start its impure play the Tesla way:
Featuring Direct4 – because fundamental testing of their solid state tech seems to be done but up to four years are communicated as a span until finally with them.

No wonder when you're a hybridized giant like no other. The market in general is more diverse in every regard, many customers won't need a Direct4 ouverture or wait for Toyotas DirectPV as it could be named, some are crowd funding their minimalistic Sono Motors Sion for 35 to nearly 0 kilometers per day from the car's PV alone. Which by now cannot be any more improbable than Renault's Dacia Logan was to happen a decade ago.

Sounds infinitely less understandable than grandfather X cold starting up the Lincoln three times a week, jump starting may be?
Even a finally more relevant Tesla would sound understandable – and be it uncalifornian now

 

[UncleDave]

Another Company working on a possible breakthrough... Where will it go?
QuantumScape

It depends on whether or not it works as billed, can be manufactured quickly and affordably without conflict minerals.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Another Company working on a possible breakthrough... Where will it go?
QuantumScape

Another "promise" looking for someone to subsidize it with OPM that in the end produces nothing near what the promise promised.

Back to those laws of physics and the amps required to do the work at a given voltage versus cost to manufacture and life.

All the puff pieces and well wishes cannot and will not get around them.

 

[wpod]

I swear if the people on this board ran the world we’d still have leaded gas and manual chokes.

Actually I take that back. We’d still be riding in horse drawn carriages.

My daughter and wife have Horses so I doubt the Horses. Owning a Horse makes the most expensive Ferrari seem economical to own.

 

[wpod]

There is NOTHING "cost effective" about ANY green energy. (If there was, it would generate a profit and not have to be subsidized and forced on people)

You would change your mind if you were receiving the lobby money for those pushing the agenda.

 

[BeerCan]

Just saying, because I only skimmed this thread because of the bickering.

In the processor world they naysayers kept saying the next shrink would be the last because of physics but that does not seemed to have stopped the progress. Progress takes time, money and failure. We need to let these companies try and fail to find the correct answer. There will always be scams, politics and hubris involved. In the end something will emerge because in the end it will make money.