View Full Version : CARB to weaken ZEV?
malcolm
03-24-2008, 04:44 PM
Meeting this Thursday, or possibly Friday depending on the agenda.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=58
Could someone briefly explain what the current ZEV mandate is or point me to a succinct resource? I thought it was already loosened a while back (as part of the reason GM killed the EV1).
Alpine Driver
03-24-2008, 06:25 PM
The whitepaper on Ze´evs blog points out a few new facts (to me):
it says "more than 1000 reservations today" (official spoke was "more than 900" till now).
And it mentions a 4hr home-recharge (compared to the 3.5h figure)
The top-speed figure 120mph also differs from the communicated 125mph ??
The reservations keep rolling in...
The 3.5 hour recharge didn't seem possible if you did the numbers for a totally empty to totally full pack and considered in all the inefficiencies and extra power draw for temperature control. Still most home charges will be way under 3 hours because most people won't run the pack all the way down.
(Most people don't drive 200+ miles every day).
I was expecting the top speed to drop in drivetrain 1.5 because the gearing is going to be between the (old) 1st and 2nd, and they can only raise the redline a little bit with the new PEM and better cooling.
Still, I think the slow drop in top speed (135->130->125->120) we have seen is a small price to pay for the improved simplicity and reliability as well as the thought that you are never, ever in the wrong gear. Driving over 120mph on the street is a terrible idea. The Tesla Roadster is not a track car in its' current form. Even if the original 2 speed transmission idea was reliable, I still would have picked "drivetrain 1.5" (more torque, no shifting, and reduced top speed) in a heartbeat.
Could someone briefly explain what the current ZEV mandate is or point me to a succinct resource? I thought it was already loosened a while back (as part of the reason GM killed the EV1).
To ZEV or not to ZEV (http://drivingthefuture.com/zevhist.htm)
California's Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate - Linking Clean Fuel Cars, Carsharing, and Station Car Strategies (http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-REP-01-26/)
It seems each time they meet they "water down" the old mandate.
(Water being fuel cell emissions)
Board Meeting Comments Log (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bccommlog.php?listname=zev2008)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2008/08-3-5pres.pdf
BBHighway
03-25-2008, 05:29 AM
Some very interesting comments. I just read the one from Volkswagen, and they are against mandates for BEVs.
They complain that the mandate would force them to divert R&D from hydrogen to BEVs. But that's exactly what they should do, regardless of the mandate. The bulk of their clean R&D should go into technology that was proven to work 10 years ago, not in something that might work 30 years from now!
I don't live in CA, so I don't really have a say in this. Still, my state is one of those that tends to follow what CA does, so maybe I should.
I still think high gas prices sre what will finally give BEVs the push they need to go mainstream.
I don't live in CA, so I don't really have a say in this. Still, my state is one of those that tends to follow what CA does, so maybe I should.
Absolutely!
Not only if your State follow CA but even if you want Electric cars to succeed. (You are here so that must be true).
So goes California, so goes the entire world. Other countries adapt these guidelines.
And the point of having the carmakers actually produce the hyped concept cars is what will open the floodgates that will make EVs available to everyone.
I don't live in CA, so I don't really have a say in this. Still, my state is one of those that tends to follow what CA does, so maybe I should.
I still think high gas prices sre what will finally give BEVs the push they need to go mainstream.
I emailed the Gov and CARB, and don't live in CA. But I'm sure some of your federal dollars go to road upkeep and you've probably visited--or will. So you mise will state your opinion. As much as I can't stand government interference, for all the places government meddles in the gasser industry, why the hell shouldn't they meddle in the EV industry? Honda, GM, Toyota, etc. have no problem lobbying for credits for their hybrids and such when it helps them sell units...but when it comes to actually producing a vehicle that is truly gas free, now they bitch. And the funny thing about this is that I am of the opinion that the industry will be HELPED because the public wants to buy ZEVs, whether industry realizes it or not. My logic doesn't exactly follow, but this fight should have been over the first time, just like the Iraq war.
Alpine Driver
03-25-2008, 11:43 AM
The reservations keep rolling in...
Still, I think the slow drop in top speed (135->130->125->120) we have seen is a small price to pay for the improved simplicity and reliability as well as the thought that you are never, ever in the wrong gear. Driving over 120mph on the street is a terrible idea. The Tesla Roadster is not a track car in its' current form. Even if the original 2 speed transmission idea was reliable, I still would have picked "drivetrain 1.5" (more torque, no shifting, and reduced top speed) in a heartbeat.
TEG,
I agree with you that it is not so important if a car can do 125mph or 120mph. I am only surprised as 120mph might not be well suitable for marketing purposes - for the european market. If I follow marketing on the tesla homepage, they do mainly marketing in facts & figures.
120mph = 193,12kmh
125mph = 201,17kmh
So only 125mph specification can "hit the wall" and do the marketing "Topspeed: 200kmh" thing in european advertising. A topspeed of 193kmh would be rather ok; but is far more difficult to communicate ;-)
Typical left lane speed (not by law, but in real life) on the highway in my country is between 150kmh and 160kmh - eqal 100mph. So the roadster is pretty in range.
TEG,
I agree with you that it is not so important if a car can do 125mph or 120mph. I am only surprised as 120mph might not be well suitable for marketing purposes - for the european market. If I follow marketing on the tesla homepage, they do mainly marketing in facts & figures.
120mph = 193,12kmh
125mph = 201,17kmh
So only 125mph specification can "hit the wall" and do the marketing "Topspeed: 200kmh" thing in european advertising. A topspeed of 193kmh would be rather ok; but is far more difficult to communicate ;-)
Typical left lane speed (not by law, but in real life) on the highway in my country is between 150kmh and 160kmh - eqal 100mph. So the roadster is pretty in range.
Perhaps the European version should be geared slightly differently so it is 0-100kmh < 5, but with a higher top speed. I think American's think of 0-60 as the primary benchmarks, but not so much for much of Europe. The Roadster is better suited as an urban and hill car, and not so much as an autobahn cruiser.
Further Tesla commentary:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/zev2008/1276-tesla_rebuttal_zev_expert_panel_final.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IwsGmcn42U
(4 cars on site... giving rides)
Flickr: Photos from KF6OAK (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kf6oak/)
Tesla Roadster on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rainforestactionnetwork/2365417044/)
Anyone heading up there tomorrow?
Think I might take off around noon from work and check it out.
I attended the ZEV Symposium back in September of 06 which was a blast for an EV head. (pics I took from the day here (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/electric-cars/66-some-pics-form-zev-symposium-sacramento.html).)
I wonder if Chris Paine is there filming "Who Saved the Electric Car"?
(It seems like the usual cast of characters has assembled)
As much as I would like to go, I can't make it.
The Associated Press: Calif. Grapples With Auto Emissions Rule (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1tQjPCsT74RMthzCWeiw8_QKj9QD8VLMGDG1)
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8712897
California air board should stand by zero-emission vehicle mandate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/26/EDK9VQRS7.DTL)
CARB seems to be motivated more by big business and big politics and less by public sentiment.
California cuts future quotas for clean-air cars - Yahoo! Singapore News (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080328/tbs-emissions-7318940.html)
"Following a marathon session that included testimony from dozens of auto executives and environmentalists, the board voted to reduce the number of pure ZEVs, or cars powered entirely by batteries or hydrogen fuel cells, to 7,500 for the three years from 2012 to 2014. The previous requirement, from 2003, called for 25,000 such vehicles during that period."
...
"Advocates of clean car technologies called the move a step backward for California's push to cut car pollution, and accused the board of kowtowing to automakers."
domenick
03-27-2008, 08:47 PM
I wonder how fat the checks in the mail for the CARB board are?
I wonder how fat the checks in the mail for the CARB board are?
As much as I hate government intervention in anything, you are right, CARB folded like Eliot Spitzer at the Playboy Mansion. The answer here is simple. Consumers simply have to vote with their wallets electing only to purchase new cars that plug in, while giving CA's elected officials the finger. :mad:
Brent
03-28-2008, 08:09 AM
I watched a good part of the webcast. Chris Paine was there with his cameras, and he gave some brief words. Ze'ev Drori spoke too, although his intelligent comments might have been masked by his accent and delivery. The car companies had predictable positions, but there is some sense of resignation to the idea that they will have to create alternative fuel cars no matter what. Mercedes said they've put $1 billion into fuel cells and are dismayed at the idea that a BEV requirement would make this spending go to waste. One former water worker had an interesting take on hydrogen production: it requires relatively clean water to make hydrogen, and purifying such water is fairly energy intensive in itself.
tonybelding
03-28-2008, 08:50 AM
CARB is really powerless. They can "mandate" electric cars, along with the threat that car makers who don't comply won't be allowed to sell cars in the state. The reality -- and the car makers have figured this out too -- is that California would never cut them off. Certainly they wouldn't cut off any of the big companies like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan.
When these companies come to CARB and say "we cant' do it", then CARB basically has no option other than to relax the requirements. And because the car makers don't want to be regulated or forced to do anything, they'll always say "we can't do it". It's in their interest to say that, whether it's true or not.
The CARB proceedings have turned into a circus sideshow. It has become irrelevant. The things that are happening to advance electric cars (and all their variants) are happening elsewhere, they aren't going to come out of CARB.
domenick
03-28-2008, 11:51 AM
So, do the big companies have to build these 7500 cars? I think Tesla and Aptera can handle that piddling amount.
Mercedes said they've put $1 billion into fuel cells and are dismayed at the idea that a BEV requirement would make this spending go to waste.
Just because you spent a lot of money on something doesn't make it a good idea. Fuel cells were originally developed for the space program at large taxpayer cost. There is pressure to commercialize them so that the government can say it was money well spent. So they put pressure on big business to spend more to try to bring the costs down and show that more space project technology trickled down to the consumer.
Fuel cells were a good idea for the space program because you already had hydrogen (as fuel) and oxygen (to breathe) around, and having (potable) water as a byproduct was a great thing to have in space. As a fuel for cars? Doesn't seem to work so well.
Entire activest CARB Press Conference out front. 30 minutes
http://www.stefanoparis.com/piaev/WhyWeNeedPlugIns/2008.03.26PIArallyCARB/2008.03.26PIArallyCARB.html (http://www.stefanoparis.com/piaev/WhyWeNeedPlugIns/2008.03.26PIArallyCARB/2008.03.26PIArallyCARB.html)