The future is electric?

Big Daddy

Super User
Actually not all EVs are junk. Electric motors have better acceleration and torque and a better linear power delivery. And the best ones today are very expensive hence very premium too. When I visited San Francisco and NYC recently, I was pleasantly surprised to see a huge number of Tesla, Chevrolet Bolt and Nissan Leaf cars on the road.

Check Rivian R1 Truck, for instance. 0-60mph in 3 seconds (like a Porsche?). 5000kg towing capacity. 750hp power. Range is unto 400 miles.

Tesla Model S. 0-60 mph in 2.4 seconds. Wow. 370 miles range.
View attachment 769455View attachment 769456
Both are priced over $72,000. They are junk for the price. I can buy two regular trucks for the price of one of these. With import duties and taxes, you may end up paying close to :r: 1 crore for one of these (you will also likely have to spend additional $50,000 for fast charger at home see next paragraph). The truck is not even available in the market. It will be available in 2020.

You are also missing one important point. High power comes with higher charge battery. The battery for Rivian Truck is 180 KWH. A typical EV car uses 60 KWH. This means your charging time will have to be 3 times longer at the same charger. You will need a dedicated fast charger at home. Even at level 3 fast charger, you need 4 hours of charging time. Level 1 and Level 2 chargers are useless as they may take days to about a week to charge this truck to full level.
Last edited:

Big Daddy

Super User
BTW, this Tesla is a struggling company that rarely posts profits and constantly misses earning targets as demand for EVs keep falling. The latest 1st quarter earnings miss the mark. The 2nd quarter forecast is probably adjusted and results will be available on July 24th.

Tesla misses big on first-quarter earnings as demand fell for its electric cars

Tesla misses big on first-quarter earnings as demand fell for its electric cars
Published Wed, Apr 24 2019 3:30 PM EDTUpdated Wed, Apr 24 2019 7:42 PM EDT

Lora Kolodny@lorakolodny

Dawn Kopecki
Key Points
  • For the first quarter of 2019, Tesla reported losses per share on an adjusted basis of $2.90, versus 69 cents expected by analysts, according to Refinitiv.
  • Tesla’s revenue for the quarter reached $4.54 billion, missing the $5.19 billion expected.
  • Shares in Tesla, which closed down by about 2 percent Wednesday, were flat after the markets closed.
RT: Elon Musk 190302 2

Elon Musk
Mike Blake | Reuters
Tesla reported a wider-than-expected loss and less revenue than anticipated during the first quarter as demand for its electric cars waned after the company lost a valuable tax credit for buyers on Jan. 1.
Executives braced investors for another loss in the second quarter before returning to profitability in the second half of the year.

Here’s what Tesla reported, versus what analysts expected based on average estimates compiles by Refinitiv:
  • Loss per share on an adjusted basis: $2.90 versus 69 cents expected
  • Revenue: $4.54 billion versus $5.19 billion expected
On an unadjusted basis, Tesla lost $702.1 million, or $4.10 a share during the quarter ended March 31, compared with a loss of $709.6 million, or $4.19 a share during the same period last year.
Its shares, which closed down by about 2 percent Wednesday, were about flat after the markets closed.

The company previously warned that first-quarter income will “be negatively impacted” because of “lower than expected delivery volumes and several pricing adjustments.” That may be one reason shares remained flat after the quarterly update-- investors already anticipated some disappointments.
Tesla said earlier this month it delivered 63,000 cars during the quarter, well below analysts’ consensus estimates of 76,000.

Vehicle sales fall from 4Q
Sales of its vehicles rose 36% to $3.72 billion from $2.74 billion a year ago. But that was down 41% from the fourth quarter when the company generated $6.32 billion in automotive revenue. A $7,500 federal tax credit paid to buyers of its electric cars was cut in half Jan. 1, speeding up demand during the last months of the year as customers rushed to get their purchase in and depressing demand in the first quarter.
CEO Elon Musk also noted that logistical challenges, and seasonality impacted sales for the first-quarter. People don’t like to buy cars in the winter, he told analysts on a conference call.
Investors have been paying close attention to shifting levels of demand for Tesla’s Model 3 electric sedans, especially in China and Europe, after Tesla focused its efforts on overseas markets late in the first quarter.
They are looking to understand whether Tesla can profitably make the Model 3 after several price changes. Tesla briefly sold a version of the Model 3 for $35,000 as originally promised, but soon removed that option and raised prices.
Tesla CFO Zach Kirkhorn said that the average sale price of a Model 3 in North America today stands around $50,000.
Merit to capital raise
On the call, Musk revealed Tesla’s plans to launch an insurance product of its own, possibly as early as next month. He also said that, while capital has not been a constraint on Tesla’s growth so far, in his view, “there’s merit to the idea of raising capital at this point.”
The company paid off $920 million in debt with cash last month and faces another $180 million in debt coming due in April. It announced plans to close stores and implemented layoffs during the quarter to rein in costs.
The company is still trying to decide where it will produce its forthcoming Model Y compact SUV, Musk said, but is leaning towards making the car at its Fremont, Calif., car plant. Earlier, Tesla executives considered building the Model Y at their Gigafactory outside of Reno, Nevada.
Tesla is currently building a new battery factory and car assembly plant in Shanghai, developing autonomous vehicle technology, and preparing to manufacture its Semi trucks and Model Y compact SUVs.

Big Daddy

Super User
I have EMF monitor that I use to understand how much radiation I am exposed to. I am trying to cut down of electro-magnetic radiation. The microwave, even when it is not working, has unhealthy radiation for several feet around it. You have to unplug it when not in use.

Well, what about electric cars? They are Hitler's radiation chambers. People in America are increasingly choosing off-grid life styles to cut down on radiation exposure.

Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

Friday, February 1, 2019
Hybrid & Electric Cars: Electromagnetic Radiation Risks

Hybrid and electric cars may be cancer-causing as they emit extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF). Recent studies of the EMF emitted by these automobiles have claimed either that they pose a cancer risk for the vehicles' occupants or that they are safe.
Unfortunately, much of the research conducted on this issue has been industry-funded by companies with vested interests on one side of the issue or the other which makes it difficult to know which studies are trustworthy.
Meanwhile, numerous peer-reviewed laboratory studies conducted over several decades have found biologic effects from limited exposures to ELF EMF. These studies suggest that the EMF guidelines established by the self-appointed, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are inadequate to protect our health. Based upon the research, more than 230 EMF experts have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal which calls on the World Health Organization to establish stronger guidelines for ELF and radio frequency EMF. Thus, even if EMF measurements comply with the ICNIRP guidelines, occupants of hybrid and electric cars may still be at increased risk for cancer and other health problems.

Given that magnetic fields have been considered "possibly carcinogenic" in humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization since 2001, the precautionary principle dictates that we should design consumer products to minimize consumers’ exposure to ELF EMF. This especially applies to hybrid and electric automobiles as drivers and passengers spend considerable amounts of time in these vehicles, and health risks increase with the duration of exposure.
In January, 2014, SINTEF, the largest independent research organization in Scandinavia, proposed manufacturing design guidelines that could reduce the magnetic fields in electric vehicles (see below). All automobile manufacturers should follow these guidelines to ensure their customers' safety.

The public should demand that governments adequately fund high-quality research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation that is independent of industry to eliminate any potential conflicts of interest. In the U.S., a major national research and education initiative could be funded with as little as a 5 cents a month fee on mobile phone subscribers.

Following are summaries and links to recent studies and news articles on this topic.

Evaluating extremely low frequency magnetic fields in the rear seats of the electric vehicles
Lin J, Lu M, Wu T, Yang L, Wu TN. Evaluating extremely low frequency magnetic fields in the rear seats of the electric vehicles. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 182(2):190-199. Dec 2018.
In the electric vehicles (EVs), children can sit on a safety seat installed in the rear seats. Owing to their smaller physical dimensions, their heads, generally, are closer to the underfloor electrical systems where the magnetic field (MF) exposure is the greatest. In this study, the magnetic flux density (B) was measured in the rear seats of 10 different EVs, for different driving sessions. We used the measurement results from different heights corresponding to the locations of the heads of an adult and an infant to calculate the induced electric field (E-field) strength using anatomical human models. The results revealed that measured B fields in the rear seats were far below the reference levels by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Although small children may be exposed to higher MF strength, induced E-field strengths were much lower than that of adults due to their particular physical dimensions.

Radiofrequencies in cars: A public health threat

According to Theodore P. Metsis, Ph.D., an electrical, mechanical, and environmental engineer from Athens, Greece, modern conventional gas- and diesel-powered automobiles incorporate many EMF-emitting devices.
"EMFs in a car in motion with brakes applied + ABS activation may well exceed 100 mG. Adding RF radiation from blue tooth, Wi Fi, the cell phones of the passengers, the 4G antennas laid out all along the major roads plus the radars of cars already equipped with, located behind, left or right of a vehicle, the total EMF and EMR fields will exceed any limits humans can tolerate over a long period of time."

PDF of Dr. Metsis' graphics (2 pages): RF cars public health threat Metsis 2017.pdf

Mobile Phone Antenna’s EM Exposure Study on a Human Model Inside the Car

Nozadze T, Jeladze V, Tabatadze V, Petoev I, Zaidze R. Mobile phone antenna’s EM exposure study on a homogeneous human model inside the car. 2018 XXIIIrd International Seminar/Workshop on Direct and Inverse Problems of Electromagnetic and Acoustic Wave Theory (DIPED). Tlibisi, Georgia. Sep 24-27, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/DIPED.2018.8543310


Mobile phones’ radiation influence on a homogenous human model located inside a car is studied in this research. One of the novelty of proposed research is earth surface influence consideration under the car on EM field formation inside it. The inner field and its amplification by the car’s walls that in some cases act like a resonator are studied. The problem was solved numerically using the Method of Auxiliary Sources. Numerical simulations were carried out at the 450, 900, 1800 [MHz] standard communication frequencies. Obtained results showed the presence of resonant phenomena inside the car.
On Fig. 9 are presented point SAR peak values at the considered non-resonant and resonant frequencies. As it seen, point SAR peak values for resonant frequencies are approximately 5–8 times higher than non-resonant frequencies.
Based on the analysis of the obtained results we can conclude that at some frequencies car’s walls acts as the resonator and amplifies the field radiated from the mobile phones; which is cause of high point SAR values inside the human body. For the low frequency the EM field energy deeply penetrates into the human body, while for the high frequencies is mostly absorbed in the skin.
The mobile phone’s EM exposure problem for a homogenous human model inside the car is studied using the MAS. MAS were used to simulate earth reflective surface. The obtained results, conducted with the MAS based program package, showed the presence of resonance and reactive fields inside the car, that causes high SAR in human tissues. The reason of this is that at the considered frequencies car’s metallic surface acts as the resonator. So, it isn’t desirable speak on phones for a long time inside the car, that can be hazardous for the cell phone users located in it.

Mobile Phone Antenna’s EM Exposure Study on a Homogeneous Human Model Inside the Car - IEEE Conference Publication

Electric cars and EMI with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A cross-sectional evaluation
Lennerz C, O'Connor M, Horlbeck L, Michel J, Weigand S, Grebmer C, Blazek P, Brkic A, Semmler V, Haller B, Reents T, Hessling G, Deisenhofer I, Whittaker P, Lienkamp M, Kolb C. Letter: Electric cars and electromagnetic interference with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A cross-sectional evaluation. Annals of Internal Medicine. Apr 24, 2018.
No Abstract


Well-Known Member
We digress from EVs.

Fossil Fuel cars lose a lot of energy to heat, along with creating pollution. Thats not to say that electricity production doesn't cause pollution, but we do have a somewhat safer, cleaner and now cheaper alternative in solar power.

"Because electric cars produce peak torque at zero RPM, you might be surprised by the acceleration they're capable of, especially at lower vehicle speeds. On the other hand, internal combustion engines need to be spinning up at a much higher speed than electric motors before they produce peak torque, especially engines like the F20C in the Honda S2000 used in this video."

@Big Daddy The cars stalling in front of you are probably using Start-Stop technology where there fuel engines shut down when idle for X TIME. Not a bad thing considering some signals are 2 minutes long why keep creating pollution, heat, noise and burning expensive fuel.

Tesla veteran explains how electric motors crush gas engines.
  • Electric motors generate motion, not heat.
  • They’re more powerful (most of the times that matter).
  • They’re simpler.
  • They’re (vastly) easier to service.
  • They feed themselves. (Regenerative braking)
  • They’re smarter
In fact Electric is such a better method for movement that Diesel Locomotives actually run on electricity. They have a diesel generator that creates electricity that moves the entire train, its not diesel that moves the train!
"Diesel Locomotives use electricity to drive forward motion despite the name 'diesel'. A large diesel engine turns a shaft that drives a generator which makes electricity. This electrical energy powers large electric motors at the wheels called 'traction motors'."

The examples of Rivian and Tesla I gave are just, well, examples. No one I know drives a fuel car with acceleration matching a Tesla. Most people I know own Marutis with some 55-80 hp engines.

If a car gives you 300km to a charge one can easily drive it in city for at least two three days before overnight charging.

When new tech comes we have to get used to its idiosyncrasies.
When Vinyls were replaced by audio tapes, people complained. Then audio tapes by CDs. People complained. Then CDs by MP4s. People complained. Now it's streaming...

My earlier Nokia phones lasted 4 days without charging. Latest 'smartphones' have to be charged every night. But latest smartphones also boost my productivity, allowing me to edit sheets, view presentations, send emails, print files, order food/taxi/arlines tickets/pay bills/send money/so much more than older phones whose batteries lasted longer.

EVs are inevitable. Lets start noticing what's good about them. They aren't all that bad. When horse carriages were replaced by motor vehicles people said how will anyone find fuel? Then there were fuel pumps everywhere. This time when I went to California, there were EV chargers everywhere.
Last edited:

Big Daddy

Super User
This emotional government BS may work for people in India. The only thing that matters to me is the standard of living and quality of life. I am not going to sacrifice either and fight the government if it tries to take those freedoms away. Freedom of choice is a fundamental right and the government should stay out of dictating what vehicles I should buy. Europe, India and China may opt for these EVs, but not me. I will never buy an EV. I want to drive big, bad and large fossile fuel based vehicles. The more world uses EVs, the lower the prices for fossil fuels. You just cannot beat a 5 minute fueling time once a week with recharging batteries every day for hours.

The EVs are dead for the most part. Trump killed them by canceling Paris accord. America was supposed to dole out money that governments around the world were supposed to use to provide subsidies for EVs. Europe, India, and China betted on getting that money and now they are basically stuck. Most of these regions are not heavy oil producers and are also heavily populated. So a lower standard of living is expected. Cows are among the largest producers of global warming gases too and they are not going away.

The thread started in 2017. Just draw a parallel with the popularity on the Internet. Between 1997 and 1999, millions of people joined the Internet. The growth rate was exponential. There was no need for any government to encourage the use of the Internet. The dynamics of the standard of living and quality of life improvements drove people to join the Internet. There is no such exponential self-driven interest in EVs. What we see instead is governments forcing people to use EVs by banning sales of traditional cars.

So you may have growth of EVs in India, Europe, and China because the government forced you to adopt them. Americans are not going to adopt them and they will certainly not subsidize EVs around the world either. When Americans don't buy EVs, you will not see too many innovations or lower costs for these vehicles. I don't even want to think what Chinese or Indian EVs would be like. The quality of circuit boards would be so poor that 30% will fry in 3 years.


EVs main issue is battery.
Who will make the best efficient battery is still a challange.
Or some hydraulic or other regenerating energy as source to run a powerful motor / rotor.
Who ever makes this commercially will win the race.
Innovation with commercial establishment is must.
Many innovations are already there but still not commercialised.

Big Daddy

Super User
EVs main issue is battery.
Who will make the best efficient battery is still a challange.
Or some hydraulic or other regenerating energy as source to run a powerful motor / rotor.
Who ever makes this commercially will win the race.
Innovation with commercial establishment is must.
Many innovations are already there but still not commercialised.
Law of conservation of energy says that to have more energy you have to put more energy.

Input: Energy.
Output: Energy-Loss.

Efficient batteries will only lower losses, but you are not going to make EVs powerful. If you want powerful EVs, you have to charge them for days by increasing input (for larger capacity battery). This is the tradeoff. What would vehicle manufacturers do? The will make vehicles lighter or will make vehicles consume less energy so that they can be charged to full quickly. For people who want power, EVs are not useful.

The first official EV was introduced in the USA in 1997 (Toyota Prius). In fact, battery-operated vehicles were manufactured since the 1950s and they have failed consistently. In early 2000, General Motors destroyed thousands of electric cars because of lack of market. America has over 20 years experience in EVs and they never caught up. Obama even gave huge subsidies to encourage their use and still over 90% of cars in America are fossil fuel-based. There is no infrastructure problem either. There are plenty of fast-charging stations available and many allow free charging with standard cut-off time.

Here is what America was doing in the early 2000s when electric cars died only to be resurrected by Obama and then killed again by Trump. America has more oil than the entire middle east combined. Did anyone in the middle east worries about electric cars? These sub-standard products are made for countries that want to restrict oil imports and curb oil demands imposed by their growing populations.

Last edited:


They will make EVs Look viable / Convenient / Affordable this way only :

BS6 Fuel Price | Suzuki Access 125 | Lotus Evija



Published on Jul 17, 2019

The top automotive stories of the day – Fuel costs are going to go up post April 2020 with the implementation of BS6 norms. Suzuki has updated he Access 125. Lotus reveals the Evija electric hypercar.

Big Daddy

Super User
This is exactly what I meant by lowering the standard of living. The government will cut fuel subsidies. The cost of living is going to increase in India. People will be forced into buying EVs via many government actions. There is a difference between free-market competition and winning the market vs. getting coerced into buying EVs.