FL5 Type R is last one?

[mbaapk]

Lol dude. The mandate is 2035. The proposal was orginally set in 2020, which means there was a 15 year prep phase. Im not even 30 years old, so that means for more than half of my life there is time to prepare

To say that's not enough time is ridiculous. 15 years was enough time for the advent of the internet and explosion of cell phones.

Look how much they got done in the prep phase lol, tells you all you need to know.

Oh, why are they doing this again with such unabated haste? Its not to help the earth…..follow the money and power.

Sponsored

 

[citrus]

15 years was enough time for the advent of the internet and explosion of cell phones.

Sure, has nothing to do with the fact that infrastructure and equipment for said explosion was much cheaper and had much lighter immediate effects on other infrastructure systems. Software and hardware are totally the same thing, right?

 

[Gansan]

Look how much they got done in the prep phase lol, tells you all you need to know.

Oh, why are they doing this again with such unabated haste? Its not to help the earth…..follow the money and power.

The money and power go both ways, meaning the fossil fuel industry also. You can't point at one side and not also point at the other side's loooong history of political and geopolitical power and huge money.

Sure, has nothing to do with the fact that infrastructure and equipment for said explosion was much cheaper and had much lighter immediate effects on other infrastructure systems. Software and hardware are totally the same thing, right?

Building out cell phone networks is actually quite a lot of time and money. Many years and billions. It's one of the barriers to entry and a reason why we have so little competition in our cell phone markets. I'm not saying it's the same as building out EV charger infrastructure, but both involve digging trenches and installing equipment. Plus power generation will need to increase.

Software is obviously different. It's information and lots of people's brainpower and less physical. But there's a lot of cost in paying for all those human resources.

The thing is, automakers are (amazingly!) onboard with the idea of EVs. They see the way the tides are turning and they're adjusting. I'm gonna hold onto my NSX as long as I can, but I can acknowledge that the world is changing.

 

[VarmintCong]

So can someone explain what 30% of materials in an EV are not recyclable? Like what kind of materials are contained in one that are chemically infeasible to reprocess? After all, they were processed in order to make the materials in the first place. Those same materials will now be in higher demand, which will create a ready market for recyclers who can profit from recovering them.

recycling In general is very misleading. Many things can be recycled, at higher cost and higher energy use than producing new material. So they like to advertise things are recyclable, but that’ll only happen if the government is subsidizing it, since it’s not profitable. And if it takes more energy to recycle than make new materials, it doesn’t help the energy crisis.

 

[VarmintCong]

So making an announcement to make EVs mandatory in a decade isn't doing it slowly, methodically and thoughtfully?

governments are doing massive EV demand stimulus and they think they need to force companies to increase the supply to match. The problem is the same governments are crushing the supply of all the commodities needed to produce those EVs, and doing nothing to create the power infrastructure they need.

but that’s not enough stupidity, at the same time they are trying to destroy the fossil fuel industry before it’s replacement is even close to ready.

Politicians don’t understand the traditional energy industry because anyone with an oil background is banned from the discussion.

it’s all going to be a spectacular failure, watch Europe this fall and winter for a preview.

 

[TypeSiR]

The money and power go both ways, meaning the fossil fuel industry also. You can't point at one side and not also point at the other side's loooong history of political and geopolitical power and huge money.



Building out cell phone networks is actually quite a lot of time and money. Many years and billions. It's one of the barriers to entry and a reason why we have so little competition in our cell phone markets. I'm not saying it's the same as building out EV charger infrastructure, but both involve digging trenches and installing equipment. Plus power generation will need to increase.

Software is obviously different. It's information and lots of people's brainpower and less physical. But there's a lot of cost in paying for all those human resources.

The thing is, automakers are (amazingly!) onboard with the idea of EVs. They see the way the tides are turning and they're adjusting. I'm gonna hold onto my NSX as long as I can, but I can acknowledge that the world is changing.

NSX (right) and Type R (left) replacements are in sight. We should see/hear more about them before their 2026 introduction.

https://hondanews.com/en-US/release...iefing-on-automobile-electrification-business

 

[citrus]

governments are doing massive EV demand stimulus and they think they need to force companies to increase the supply to match. The problem is the same governments are crushing the supply of all the commodities needed to produce those EVs, and doing nothing to create the power infrastructure they need.

but that’s not enough stupidity, at the same time they are trying to destroy the fossil fuel industry before it’s replacement is even close to ready.

Politicians don’t understand the traditional energy industry because anyone with an oil background is banned from the discussion.

it’s all going to be a spectacular failure, watch Europe this fall and winter for a preview.

The so-called induced demand for EVs is laughably wasteful as well. Just look at the EV graveyards in China.

 

[VarmintCong]

Have you seen energy policy?

No, it is not. Eight years is the blink of an eye to effectively transition the worlds transportation to another power source. Shit, it takes our state transit years to build a single rail line. We are talking about Governments here, come on man.

The order of operations should first and foremost be to build the power infrastructure and slowly transition via incentivized policy.

Thats without me commenting on the rationalization of doing it in the first place. The whole thing is seriously bonkers.

it takes 10 years if you’re lucky to get a new copper mine up and running, and that’s not including the years of exploration to find a deposit big enough to be worth building a mine.

and the western governments (other than Canada) are anti mining, they want to push these mines to the 3rd world. But many of those countries go through their own anti-mining periods like South America is currently experiencing, electing leftist politicians who want to shut down the mines.

The Ambler Mine project in Alaska is a good example. The company spent 10 years developing the Copper Zinc deposit, got all the rights and permits to build a mine, and at the last minute the Biden administration pulled the permit which was already approved, killing the multi billion dollar mine project. Other companies developing mines in leftist countries like the US can’t trust the governments enough to spend all that money developing a mine.

the same thing is going on in the oil industry. Alternative energy is hugely dependent on a steady supply of cheap oil. I guess the EV proponents think they’ll magically get built and powered without all the required commodities. It’ll just happen.

 

[Florence_NC]

So making an announcement to make EVs mandatory in a decade isn't doing it slowly, methodically and thoughtfully?

How many decades have we known that the power grids in this country are weak and unable to handle even the slightest trouble?

How many decades have we known the power generation capacity of many parts of this country are barely able to keep up, if they keep up at all, and yet we have gotten nowhere close to changing this?

How many decades have we been hearing about how solar, wind, blah, blah, are going to revolutionize the world, and yet we are producing power with nearly the same levels of fossil fuel and nuclear power as always?

How many decades have we been trying to develop a new, clean, lightweight battery technology, only to find us doing nothing more than squeezing slightly more efficiency out of what we currently have?

So, No, ten years isn't

 

[Gansan]

recycling In general is very misleading. Many things can be recycled, at higher cost and higher energy use than producing new material. So they like to advertise things are recyclable, but that’ll only happen if the government is subsidizing it, since it’s not profitable. And if it takes more energy to recycle than make new materials, it doesn’t help the energy crisis.

You're throwing around generalities making it sound like most recycling is a waste of time, but recycling is not all negative. Steel, aluminum, glass, most metals are far easier to recycle than to dig up from ground and extract from ore. People steal copper because it has such value in the recycling market. Lead in car batteries is recycled in an incredibly efficient manner because it's so toxic and we recognize the actual health and environmental costs of dumping it. You can't make such general statements across such a wide variety of different situations.

In addition, even if something "costs" more to recycle than to make from scratch, you have to weigh the actual benefit and judge if it's worth it. For example, suppose it were cheaper to get new lead from the ground and cheaper to throw it away in the dump where it pollutes our land and water. If we did that, the result would be an increase in sick and neurologically damaged children and adults needing health care and contributing less to society. If you factor in those back end costs, suddenly it's totally worth it to do the recycling in the first place and avoid all that human suffering, even if it costs more.

As for whether something is a net negative or not energy-wise, you're right, we should definitely consider that additional energy and calculate the costs accordingly. It shouldn't be swept under the rug (like the costs of leaded gas were hidden from us for many years).

 

[VarmintCong]

You're throwing around generalities making it sound like most recycling is a waste of time, but recycling is not all negative. Steel, aluminum, glass, most metals are far easier to recycle than to dig up from ground and extract from ore. People steal copper because it has such value in the recycling market. Lead in car batteries is recycled in an incredibly efficient manner because it's so toxic and we recognize the actual health and environmental costs of dumping it. You can't make such general statements across such a wide variety of different situations.

In addition, even if something "costs" more to recycle than to make from scratch, you have to weigh the actual benefit and judge if it's worth it. For example, suppose it were cheaper to get new lead from the ground and cheaper to throw it away in the dump where it pollutes our land and water. If we did that, the result would be an increase in sick and neurologically damaged children and adults needing health care and contributing less to society. If you factor in those back end costs, suddenly it's totally worth it to do the recycling in the first place and avoid all that human suffering, even if it costs more.

As for whether something is a net negative or not energy-wise, you're right, we should definitely consider that additional energy and calculate the costs accordingly. It shouldn't be swept under the rug (like the costs of leaded gas were hidden from us for many years).

I agree with all that.

 

[Sazabi]

All these electric sports cars, how different are they going to be from each other lol?

Every time a company introduces a new electric sports car my reaction is just "here we go again.." They all sound, look and put together the same way, its so boring. i.e. look at the engineering at goes behind the Type R to get the most out a FWD gas platform. Even amongst the other FWD sports cars its unique with how they approach each issue. These electric cars are all the same: "we added a motor a wheel and we have 2000 HP, 1 sec 0 to 60." Just sounds lazy and uninspired.

 

[Gansan]

All these electric sports cars, how different are they going to be from each other lol?

Every time a company introduces a new electric sports car my reaction is just "here we go again.." They all sound, look and put together the same way, its so boring. i.e. look at the engineering at goes behind the Type R to get the most out a FWD gas platform. Even amongst the other FWD sports cars its unique with how they approach each issue. These electric cars are all the same: "we added a motor a wheel and we have 2000 HP, 1 sec 0 to 60." Just sounds lazy and uninspired.

Agree.
I think this is the thing I'm waiting for. You look at current EVs, they're all 5000 lbs. insane land tanks that go super fast in a straight line. It's so counter to the sports car philosophy of lightness, agility, and handling. I'm ok with a semi heavy sports car (like a GT-R or NC1 NSX), but it needs to hide its weight well and at least TRY to be agile and fun. When they can do that I'll get on board.

 

[Shiba Speed]

Sponsored