Braking from regen or braking from a brake pad has the same net impact on tire wear. EVs can coast too and don’t apply full regen the moment you apply brakes. Some even have brake coach alerts to get you to gradually apply the brakes to maximize energy return.
EVs could coast if a manufacturer chose to make one that allowed that without shifting into neutral. In practice, when letting off the accelerator, existing EVs will instead regen brake.
The default setting just moves the coast point to a slightly depressed accelerator. This is because EVs typically have lower drag, so this behavior mimics a higher drag vehicle. If you use the accelerator to achieve the desired speed, you will coast when possible. You can also monitor the display to see the coast point. My 2013 plug in hybrid only supports this style of operation.
Modern EVs have easy adjustment for this. The Hyundai/Kia EVs for example have shift style paddles for adjusting this on the fly which includes a mode for regen only when depressing the break pedal.
The Hyundai/Kia EVs do not have a mode that only regens when pressing the brake. The best you can do is limit the car to 2kW of regen braking when not touching the accelerator. You can't disable it entirely.
It's true though that using this mode will extend the life of your tires.
It hovers depending on how my foot modulates the speed. I don't want or need "exactly zero power readout", I only need to reach my target speed at my target spot on the highway, without having to action the physical brakes at any time.
Whether that is more or less efficient than a zero-power coast followed by some kind of braking exactly at the end... I assume the difference is so tiny that it makes no difference.
The difference is tiny from an energy efficiency perspective. But we're discussing tire wear, and the periodic regen followed by power that a human foot gives because it can't perfectly match the car's PID loop, wears the tires a bit each time. Which adds up over ten thousand miles.
Indeed it adds up, over ten thousand kilometers, to a lot less wear than the equivalent coast-then-hit-the-brakes in an ICE. If I follow your reasoning correctly.
What? No. We definitely didn't follow one another. I'm confused where we misunderstood one another now.
For the purposes of tire wear, applying regen braking in a car is the same as applying brake pads. Generating 5kW of electricity of 10 seconds vs generating 5kW of heat for 10 seconds, same same.
Let's say you're on the highway driving in an EV. You have cruise control on. You go down a hill. The EV's cruise control applies regen braking down the hill, using the tires to slow you to your desired speed.
Let's say you do the same in an ICE vehicle. You will coast down the hill, gathering speed. Cruise control in an ICE vehicle generally will not brake for you. So more of your energy from the hill gets removed as air resistance. When you slow due to air resistance it does not wear the tires.
The same logic applies each time you push the gas pedal slightly harder than you needed to and then back off.
"applying regen braking in a car is the same as applying brake pads"
That's an assumption I disagree with. Brake pads will always be less smooth than engine braking. For the same braking action, I assume more brake dust and slightly higher tire wear due to brakes not able to provide fine speed adjustment.
The down-the-hill scenario is interesting, it brings new comparisons: is there more tire wear from maintaining a chosen speed, vs letting the car overspeed and then braking? How does air resistance contribute in each case?
I maintain my earlier opinion that the differences between all these scenarios are minimal and can be ignored. But if you have some physical model that helps calculate these scenarios, it could be fun to play around with.
Just get a used one that’s a decade old. The cell providers will all move on past 3g/4g etc and the cars won’t be able to connect. Plus I’m sure no one is paying to keep a cell connection going for a decade old EV.
My guess is not every port can supply bunker fuel. It prob makes sense to load up when the ship is near a refinery and then make several trips before refueling.
> My guess is not every port can supply bunker fuel.
You can bunker anywhere, even at sea if you're willing to pay. Ships have large tanks to allow for economically advantageous bunkering at cheap and low-tax ports.
GM is removing CarPlay, and now this story that they are dropping support for in car infotainment apps for cars that are 5-7 years old. Are consumers really going to buy their cars? I won’t consider a new car that doesn’t offer CarPlay/android auto.
I am so glad that I insisted on buying a car with CarPlay five years ago. At the time a number of our options did not have CarPlay, but were otherwise quite solid cars. If I'd gone with any of them I'd likely be a lot less happy than I am now: given that I use CarPlay on literally every drive, it's probably the single most important feature to have.
I get that GM doesn't want to cede the important center console to third parties because it feels like giving up their control, but man, is it ever going to be the wrong choice for them.
I agree with you that it's the wrong choice, but it's not just about ceding control. It's also about ceding the revenue.
For example, to connect their system to the internet, that'll be $20/mo. I'd guess GM gets a large portion of that revenue. If you're using CarPlay, there's no reason for you to buy their service.
It looks like GM makes around $1,000 in profit per vehicle. If half of their customers give them $20/mo for a decade, that's $1,200 in additional revenue. If AT&T takes half of that, it's still $600 which is a solid boost to their profits.
Now, you might say that fewer people would buy their cars and I'd agree - but companies make short sighted plays all the time that backfire. Someone does the kind of back of the envelope math that I did above and says "omg, I can increase our profits by 60% with this one easy trick" and it's wrong because the world doesn't work like that, but you put together some consultants and consumer surveys that are favorable and you get the green light.
I know: GM is just killing their relationship with consumers. I agree with you. But think about what Unity did to their developers. Unity saw the chance to charge a fee every time a game was installed and all the money that would bring - and didn't think about the predictable developer backlash. Companies do these types of things.
I know I'm slippery sloping but I wonder if they won't get rid of bluetooth and aux ports in the future. Letting people play spotify on their phone's data connection is money on the table when they could be selling their own data plans, getting a cut from their own app stores etc.
My manual Spark is pretty fun and beats Civic Sis and other fast cars in rallycross. I have done 100+ redline clutch dumps in that car. It still drives fine.
It's about GM and Google getting the data (https://www.motortrend.com/features/apple-carplay-android-au...). Switching from Android Auto and CarPlay to the Android Automotive OS (AAOS) means the auto manufacturer gets the data that was going through the phone.
CarPlay is a purchasing factor for me personally. I've always liked Volvo, but now that they all run AAOS the last few times I rented one I had to reboot the head unit when I got in the car to get CarPlay to work. Funny how vehicles running AAOS don't really integrate well with a competitor...
After market stereos were always the norm for actual technology. Crutchfield made it super accessible.
Automakers moved into it to try and capture more of that stream.
And generally they can’t keep up.
Cars don’t seem to change much except for the dash tech.
So mane it’s time to own the smarts yourself.
You could get any car and get a big android screen (some have tesla size screens) for your vehicle like those made by phoenix android radio. Only mentioning them as an example not the only choice.
All the built in car screens and graphics continue to work, plus put whatever you like on it.
It’s not as “integrated” into the car, but if you just want CarPlay, there are cheap single-purpose “tablets” that mount to your dashboard and either pair to your car’s Bluetooth or plug into the Aux port and just do CarPlay/Android Auto. Amazon is full of them. Ultimately it’s just a video and touch transport protocol, with some additional channels like illumination and I hear speed on some models.
What's stopping someone from spending a few hundred bucks at their local custom stereo shop and replacing the head unit with something else that is less user hostile? If everything else in the car is what you need, just replace the part you don't like if it's not available as an option.
These days the head unit has its tendrils wrapped around many parts of the car besides just infotainment, and wiring harnesses are a lot more proprietary. Does the aftermarket head unit support your car's parking sensors? How about the backup camera? Even the Homelink button that opens your garage door has migrated to the touchscreen in a lot of newer cars, never mind forehead-slapping features like the climate control settings.
The days of single- and double-DIN stereo swapping are slipping away fast. You're pretty much stuck with what you get when you buy the car, so it had better be what you want.
This isn't actually true. You just need a module to interface with the car in place of the original head unit. For example the iDatalink Maestro can connect HVAC controls, engine diagnostics, tire pressure, etc to compatible head units. And there are a lot of compatible head units, basically all the worthwhile ones have Maestro support.
That's good to hear, I wasn't familiar with Maestro at all. But it doesn't do anything to address the proliferation in form factors. I can get nice aftermarket head units from a couple of different Chinese vendors for one of my cars, but they had to be specifically designed for that exact application. I ended up adding wireless CarPlay to that car's original head unit with an ugly internal/external adapter solution. It works well enough, but it was a pain to install. Hopefully similar hardware can be made available to GM customers in the future.
For the other car, though... no way, no how. It is stuck with what it has. Its touchscreen is a nonstandard size, seamlessly integrated into the dashboard, and not used by any other cars AFAIK. Fortunately it's also pretty good. It supported wireless CarPlay from day one, and it isn't from a manufacturer that relies on fracking its own customer base for $20/month. Safe to say nobody will be building an aftermarket replacement for it.
You just need a dash kit, which someone probably makes for your specific make/model. If not you could 3d print something. Any good stereo shop can help you out too. Its kind of hard to find a good one though.
I think it drives the instrument cluster too. Maybe instead of a new head unit, what we will need in the future is an open version of Android Automotive OS, like Lineage for our cars.
We use CarPlay with our Mazda. The heads up display on the windshield displays the next turn information from Apple Maps.
Was it removing or has it been removed? Seems like a while ago they announced it.
Anyway, no way I was buying a GM car because of that. I don't believe a car manufacturer can create a better software experience than a software company.
I think the MPH limit for ebike classification makes sense. But why do they need a 750W limit? Whats the harm in a motor putting out 3000W to get a loaded cargo bike up a steep hill at 8 MPH.
> a motor putting out 3000W to get a loaded cargo bike up a steep hill at 8 MPH
Probably two reasons to avoid this. Practically, it's more expensive because not only do you have a 3kW motor but everything else must handle the increased demands. It just gets more expensive all around just for a niche case equivalent of "everyone needs a truck to carry 16 sheets of drywall and 12 2x4s".
The second is that regulators were reasonably pragmatic. Top speed, peak power, and weight are good proxies for safety, rather than having to regulate every aspect of a bike's operation like with cars. Bikes are spending most of their time on flat ground on city streets where huge power/torque are not just unnecessary, they're dangerous. Already plenty of e-bikes are going all out (governors are easily bypassed) on sidewalks and bike lanes where the others have 100W "motors". In my otherwise very civilized part of the world, every day I ride I almost get run over by assholes on full blown motorcycles speeding on the bike lane because it's faster. I have never, ever seen one get a fine. Nobody can do enforcement of safety at rider level especially for very lightly regulated and unregistered vehicles.
> Nobody can do enforcement of safety at rider level especially for very lightly regulated and unregistered vehicles.
I don't particularly buy this. I think we've spent very little time and effort actually trying.
I also think that the lax enforcement as it currently stands is a pretty practical take... My read is that ebikes (even the class 3s) aren't actually out there killing people in crashes all that often.
Of the folks who are dying on bikes... the majority of the deaths are still happening due to collisions with motor vehicles. The second largest cause of death is the rider dying due to lack of helmet usage coupled with the higher speeds.
---
Basically - I agree we should improve social patterns for not being a dick on a fast bike in mixed-use spaces.
But if we're talking about actual benefit to safety... the problem is still the cars and not the bikes. At least for now (again - it's shifting because e-bikes are just useful as all get out).
Your first point feels like it should easily be handled by regular market forces, ie no one can produce one in a price range anyone would want to buy.
I would suggest that the only good reason to have a peak power limit in law on the engine is so that if you unlock it/chip it you can't blast off at 60mph. But at that point you're breaking the speed limit either way, so I'm still not convinced a peak power limit is reasonable.
I have a powered bike that limits the speed to the lawful limit, but the engine has 500w instead of 250w, meaning my bike is better at getting up hills than my wife's. I don't think this should be illegal, and if I want to pay for a stronger engine, that is reasonably up to me.
That nobody is enforcing the speed limit on bike lanes is an enforcement issue, and it doesn't get solved by having unnecessarily tangential laws. And I'm certainly not a "deregulate everything" person.
> should easily be handled by regular market forces
I think we've heard this blurb so many times it should be a joke to be ridiculed by now. It usually prefaces a story about some abusive, exploitative action.
> But at that point you're breaking the speed limit either way, so I'm still not convinced a peak power limit is reasonable.
That's why I said that enforcement at rider level is impossible. The burden to check if someone removed some governor is so high that it might as well not be regulated in any way. Or you heavily strengthen and give an even broader mandate to LEO, and I hear that's what everyone wants more of these days.
So the easy way around this is to regulate the manufacturing or sales. You limit the power of the motor, you implicitly limit how fast the bike can realistically go, and how much weight it can carry at speed. This makes things a little bit safer. If you need more, choose a different vehicle. You don't buy a Fiesta and then shout in the wind that it's not allowed to have 18 wheels and carry 35t.
> That nobody is enforcing the speed limit on bike lanes is an enforcement issue, and it doesn't get solved by having unnecessarily tangential laws
I get that you really want something but this isn't an argument. The laws aren't "tangential" they are very much on point, trying to keep a balance between usability and safety faced with practical reality. Not the wishy-washy "the market will handle it" or "I should get it because I want it and anyone stopping me is stupid". The law allows every kind of vehicle for every need, under the appropriate conditions. You just think your conditions for your needs come first. Some people ride like that so the "tangential laws" exist to protect others from them.
The “market handling it” would mean liability lawsuits followed by mandatory liability insurance, with insurers installing telemetry devices on an ebike to decide how much to charge you or even just drop you as an uninsurable risk altogether.
In other words enough people would have to get hit and killed that there would be a huge series of lawsuits. In that scenario those people are still dead.
“The market handling it” is why there are hordes of cars with purposefully loud mufflers blasting past my house at many hours of the day. My state chose to make it illegal to build something like that but it’s perfectly legal to sell the parts. So the market did what the market does.
> The “market handling it” would mean liability lawsuits
Amazon and Temu sell so much illegal and dangerous junk and no lawsuit changed this. People still get hurt or killed by battery fires, malfunctioning products, intoxication with all kinds of chemicals.
> followed by mandatory liability insurance
People complain that they have to wear a helmet. They won't be fine with mandatory liability insurance. The level of bike theft shows that bikes are notoriously untraceable, it's very hard or prohibitively expensive to enforce this.
> with insurers installing telemetry devices on an ebike
Raises costs, requires cloud services and connectivity, and the owner can still hack the antenna off or shield it and the bike is now permanently offline but with no way to detect that on the street.
Amazon and Temu aren't allowed to sell cars, because we still regulate our cars somewhat, so the cars that are sold in America and Australia and other places have to meet certain safety requirements. The manufacturer is also 100% liable for things like recalls or safety defects, regardless of which dealer sold it to you or if you bought car used.
You can say people "won't be fine with mandatory liability insurance". That's what it's "mandatory". If you get caught operating a vehicle without one, you might just well lose your vehicle and have it impounded on the spot, have to pay a hefty fine, and have to prove you have insurance before you're allowed to drive again.
Insurers can and do detect if your telemetry stops transmitting - for example, State Farm offers a substantial discount if you transmit telemetry. If you sign up for this and then yank the device out, they simply charge you a higher rate.
We also have things like "helmet laws". You can't (for example) operate a motorcycle in California without a helmet. If you do, you'll get pulled over and ticketed and are stuck being unable to ride it away until someone either brings you a ticket or you go for a nice long walk and get one yourself, with a high chance your bike gets impounded from the side of the road.
I don't know why the attitude persists that the government can't regulate things and enforce laws. They certainly can.
Sorry but your post is all over the place. It's not nice to introduce random things in a conversation and force anyone who wants to respond to you to address all that randomness.
> I don't know why the attitude persists that the government can't regulate things and enforce laws. They certainly can.
Who said anything about government regulation? The latest part of the thread was about "the market" handling it, you yourself even said "with liability lawsuits", now you talk government regulation which is the opposite of that.
> Amazon and Temu aren't allowed to sell cars
Who said anything about cars? We're talking bicycles and other things people want to stay unregulated. They sell bad products and "the market" didn't handle it, not with lawsuits or regulation or enforcement. So many ebikes were catching fire in my complex while charging that the administration banned even storing ebikes in the underground parking or the individual storage units. The importer of the bikes (Amazon store?) was of course dissolved by that time.
> because we still regulate our cars somewhat
Who said anything about car regulations? That's exactly what people don't want with bicycles. Look at this discussion, people want to pretend even mopeds should still be called "just bikes" so they stay unregulated. The whole point of a bicycle is to be a simple unregulated vehicle with minimal capabilities. Not multi kilowatt motor vehicle that can carry heavy loads up a hill at speeds that most people barely cycle on the flat.
> You can't (for example) operate a motorcycle in California without a helmet.
Who said anything about motorcycles? You can operate a bicycle without a helmet because people weren't fine with mandatory helmet laws. Just like it will happen with "mandatory liability insurance and telemetry" for bikes. It might happen when we all live in a dystopia where everything you do is tracked, or for some bicycles that aren't really bicycles (mopeds and higher categories).
Whoever wants powerful motors or high carrying capacity should stop calling it "a bicycle" and call it a "moped" or "S-Pedelec". These already require insurance and a license plate. There are enough categories here [0] to cover all needs. Pretending everything on 2 wheels is a bicycle does cyclists a disservice and is like calling my car "an umbrella" so I'm allowed to take it everywhere with me.
My opinion is been that 747’s, cars, trucks, bikes, E bikes, an even pedestrians should be regulated on kinetic energy - basically their ability to do harm to others.
My fear is that without it, regulatory arbitrage will turn every inch of land that doesn’t have a building into Death Race 2000. Cars are not allowed on sidewalks to protect friends? No problem - here’s an electric motorcycle disguised as a bicycle. Hi
Doing some quick math, if your bike is using 3kw to climb a reasonably steep (15% grade) hill at 8mph, we can calculate the weight it must be carrying, which ends up being about 1,200lbs
To answer your question, the limit on motor power exists as a proxy for limiting the weight, speed, and acceleration of ebikes within safe limits, since having an ebike charging uphill at 20mph with 500lbs of payload would present actual safety risks. Trying to regulate payload/speed/slope combinations directly has practical problems (police officers don't really want to stop delivery drivers to weight their cargo), while regulating motor power is much simpler.
You don't need 3000W, 1kW is plenty. I have a Yuba Mundo (one of the biggest long-tail cargo bikes) and my Bafang motor tops out around 1kW and it's plenty even for the biggest hills here in Bloomington (which is quite hilly).
I like the idea of this product. Simple, safe, plug and play solar should be a thing.
I was looking at this product last week. I remember seeing a photo with a current transformer (CT) in it. Maybe they have the user install a CT on the upstream breaker to ensure the total load for the branch circuit isn’t exceeded. Without that they run into an issue where it could overload the branch circuit wiring.
There’s no funding crisis from EVs. A car that drives 12k miles/year is going to net at most ~$250 in gas tax revenue (using CA rate ~.7/gal). This can be added to the vehicle registration easy enough.
I don’t want to drive a computer. I want to drive a machine. Give me some buttons to control the car and a decent screen for nav (CarPlay/android auto) and I’m happy.
reply