Tesla releases software update to prevent Car windows from jamming their customers' fingers

[wanderingfool2]

5 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Do you not know that these are problems that are going to be addressed in very few years. We have only started heavily investing in battery tech for about a decade while ICE engines have been heavily invested for about a century. And tbh already a decade of investments have made EVs much more competitive and even outperform ICE cars in pretty much all metrics with the only thing pending being the cost, charge time and the weight - all of which we are swiftly advancing into given the YoY improvements in all three categories.

Honestly, there is less wiggle room than one would think...like it's not like we will be able to double capacity in the next few decades.  The bigger investment at the moment is to bring the $/kWh down...even then it's starting to scale down in benefits.  The 4680's I think did a large leap...but realistically you can only go so far before hitting chemistry issues.  Changing the chemistry is possible, but usually has drawbacks LiFePo as an example.  Higher weight, less range, but can be charged a lot better (more stable chemistry)...so it's good for standard range vehicles.

 

10 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

In terms of batteries again, there are also significant investments going into safer batteries that's pretty much impossible to make it catch fire

I actually would have doubts about it...yes overtime they do fix issues...but ultimately the Kona had to all be recalled (LG chem)...then like 3-5 years later the bolts all had to be recalled.  The simple fact is that it stores a ton of energy in a highly reactive chemical...the cells themselves can be quite dangerous if punctured.  With that said, ICE vehicles are also more prone to fire...so it's a trade of.  Intensity vs frequency really.

 

[RedRound2]

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly, there is less wiggle room than one would think...like it's not like we will be able to double capacity in the next few decades.  The bigger investment at the moment is to bring the $/kWh down...even then it's starting to scale down in benefits.  The 4680's I think did a large leap...but realistically you can only go so far before hitting chemistry issues.  Changing the chemistry is possible, but usually has drawbacks LiFePo as an example.  Higher weight, less range, but can be charged a lot better (more stable chemistry)...so it's good for standard range vehicles.

 

I actually would have doubts about it...yes overtime they do fix issues...but ultimately the Kona had to all be recalled (LG chem)...then like 3-5 years later the bolts all had to be recalled.  The simple fact is that it stores a ton of energy in a highly reactive chemical...the cells themselves can be quite dangerous if punctured.  With that said, ICE vehicles are also more prone to fire...so it's a trade of.  Intensity vs frequency really.

 

I'm talking about alternative battery tech for both. There are so many being researched and developed on. And I think the way we will move forward is to embed characteristics of alternative battery into current battery tech.

 

Solid state batteries for example would not catch on fire and can pretty much be drilled right through. The issue we face now is low yields. Then there are so many other alternative tech like aluminum, etc. And there are ways to make current Lithium chemistry safer as well

 

Capacity can be increased by playing with element composition. Graphene is one example. Recalling vehicles are something that is happening now, in the early stages of EV cars, probably similar to what ICE cars went through back in the 40s. I would consider Tesla to be the leader in battery tech and battery manufacturing and they haven't had to recall their cars over battery concerns (at least not in the last 5 years). Once we nail the manufacturing, then battery defects will be a rare occurrence

[Sauron]

On 9/25/2022 at 2:39 AM, An0maly_76 said:

Quite frankly, this is just thwarting Darwinism in my eyes. If you're dumb enough to close the window with any part of your body in the way, you deserve what you get.

There are dozens of scenarios where the mechanism might be triggered by accident or while someone else's fingers are in the way without the driver noticing... let alone if little children are involved. It's absurd that you'd feel the need to blame an obvious mistake by the company on its customers. This is like saying that it's fine if airbags don't work because you should just avoid accidents.

On 9/25/2022 at 3:45 AM, leadeater said:

Yes, so does Tesla. It's a change to this, they just don't say the circumstances for how/why/what the issue actually is. So I'm curious as to what that is.

I'm assuming it's not sensitive enough to actually roll back before pinching your fingers or arms too hard and injuring you. Apparently the fix is just recalibrating the force setting

2 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

You're talking as if EVs catch fire all the time. I have not heard such news and mostly its all really isolated cases. Even combustion engine, FYI contains a tank of flammable liquid that can pretty much also catch fire. In terms of batteries again, there are also significant investments going into safer batteries that's pretty much impossible to make it catch fire

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Are there EV fires? yes, but ICE vehicles are a lot more prone to fire.  EV's on towing can potentially heat up a lot, but they just throttle the speed then...no different than stressing an engine. 

While it's true that EVs don't catch fire more often than ICEs they are a lot harder to put out.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

You do realize that in order for this window feature to be any use in this situation, the child would have to put their arm out the window while it was being run up prior to being locked in the car. With my Toyota (and most other cars), the retained accessory feature cancels when the door is opened. After that, only the door locks can be actuated.

You clearly haven't been a child for quite a while. I remember the "see if you can fit through the "half window" game for the backseat windows that don't roll all the way down. 

 

Essentially the scenario I envision is:

1) The child safety mechanism (where you can't open the rear doors) is engaged

2) The child is in the backseat (eg sleeping), or a pet is.

3) You run into the store for a minute with the key in the accessory position to keep the fan running

4) You accidently lock the door out of habit

 

So the solution is the kid has to get to the front driver or front passenger seat and open the door. Not the window. But an adult in a moment of panic might instead try to get them to roll down the rear windows (and when that is proved to be locked out), try the front ones.

 

OR

 

The adult left the window partially rolled down, and leans in the car, triggering the window to roll up. 

 

5 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

And let's get real, the door lock tab on any interior door can be flipped to allow exit, so luring / coaxing to the driver's seat to unlock the doors is not necessary. All anyone need do is instruct the child to calm down and flip the physical tab in the interior door handle to unlock the door. All cars have it, this is a simple relocation of the old rods / knobs that used to poke through the upper interior door panel.

 

See "child safety lock"

 

5 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

The root cause of the problem here is clueless, inept people expecting machines to do their thinking for them because they can't be bothered to. Old adage says, make something idiot-proof, a better idiot will come along.

 

 

It's less people being "idiots" and more that there is an overwheming number of features, and without the manual to the car, people don't really know or remember how to activate or deactivate features. In the case of the car windows, my original statement is directed at the assumption that people are idiots, rather than kids who would horse around and play with the buttons if left unattended. And trust me, back in the 90's, "electronic windows and locks" were still a novelty. Maybe not so much now.

 

5 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

As an aside, most newer vehicles have immobilizers built-in to their engine management electronics, so in this day of smartphone digital key apps, cars that can be summoned driverlessly and park themselves, I don't understand why something can't be implemented for such emergencies to allow anyone to enact a 'emergency' mode to unlock the vehicle's doors, but disable all other electronics for 30-60 minutes so that the engine cannot be started. Of course, car thieves have been known to tow cars if they want them bad enough, but that's another issue entirely.

 

I think, in an ideal scenario, you'd do what everyone else does and call the other person who has a key, cars still come with two keys last time I checked.  What maybe could be a solution in theory is (Assuming you didn't leave the phone in the car as well) is having a small WiFi or Bluetooth antenna be limited to the size of bubble the vehicle fits in  and once the phone leaves the range of the car, then lock the car if the engine is off, and don't permit it to be started until the phone is returned or the physical key has been plugged in. Then also let it work in reverse where if the driver activates the app on the phone the vehicle can be remotely unlocked when they get close to it as well. Perhaps there are vehicles that do that already. Who knows, I haven't owned a car in quite a while, and my parents never bought anything fancy.

 

 

[mr moose]

Every time we have a thread about energy that requires batteries we hear the same old arguments:  "just wait till battery tech improves", "they are investing heavily in new battery tech", "it won't be long until new batteries...".   If you use these arguments then you are not actually arguing for a better product/technology, but for hope in a better way that may or may not eventuate.

 

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

 

While it's true that EVs don't catch fire more often than ICEs they are a lot harder to put out.

And on top of that no body ever takes into account the huge difference in the sheer number of each vehicle type currently on the roads.  Sure ICE may be more of a fire risk and EV's might be a more dangerous fire situation, however has anyone actually scaled up the number of EV fires per total EV vehicles and compared that to the total number of ICE fires per ICE vehicles?  have they considered the huge variation in usage too (different countries must have different fire risk statistics too given laws and conditions are different).

 

[An0maly_76]

9 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Do you not know that these are problems that are going to be addressed in very few years. We have only started heavily investing in battery tech for about a decade while ICE engines have been heavily invested for about a century. And tbh already a decade of investments have made EVs much more competitive and even outperform ICE cars in pretty much all metrics with the only thing pending being the cost, charge time and the weight - all of which we are swiftly advancing into given the YoY improvements in all three categories.

Even so, you can't simply disappear the fact that increased demand will cause electric rates to go up, and places like CA where the power grid is already overloaded, EV owners are already catching the ire of their neighbors and being mandated to limit or altogether abandon their charging. And there's another problem in this that no one wants to acknowledge.

 

You see, I did a paper in college on so-called "clunker legislation" proposed at the time. In it, I cited two studies that showed 98% of so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions were actually from power plants and various manufacturing facilities, not ICE vehicles. It also happens that this college offered an auto mechanics course complete with ASE certification, and even though it wasn't required in our area, they trained on emissions sniffing equipment. As a comparison, a friend of mine's 1961 Studebaker pickup with a carb'd, point-ignition flat-head inline six, and a 1994 Eagle Talon donated to the college as a guinea pig were analyzed. Incredibly, the Studebaker ran CLEANER than the Talon! My friend was laughing when he told me about it. Side note here, diesel engines pollute far more than gasoline engines.

 

So even if batteries are developed that safely and reliably deliver comparable range to ICE vehicles, we'll need natural-gas-fired power plants, and more of them, otherwise the door is opened to more pollution from power plants. Not to mention areas like where I live, where a local co-op maintains / repairs the grid and simply buys power from the primary producer in the state. We are likely paying more per kwh because of that alone.

 

One other thing, most people don't know about the Darvaza gas crater -- a 200-foot-wide, 100-foot-deep sinkhole that reportedly formed during a drilling accident, opening an endless pocket of natural gas that burns to this day after being intentionally ignited in 1971 to prevent  the deadly methane gas it spews from spreading. So I wonder how much of our "greenhouse effect" and "global warming" is coming from the constant searing heat of this one thing?

 

9 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

Honestly, I think everyone in the market for newer car with a mid-budget or higher should seriously consider an EV as ICE cars are pretty much IMO well on their way to death. Might take a couple of years, but the slow upgrade nature of cars is why its more of a drawn-out process.

 

I’ve driven for a living most of my life. For various reasons, rideshare is about the only work I can realistically do. My true average haul was around $4.00 per hour due to software algorithms designed to basically limit you to $10.00 per hour gross and the ridiculous 25% of each minute and each mile fleeced from that gross. Around town, this is 50% of the fare at typical city 4 minutes per mile, and about 30% for long trips.

 

Previously, as a taxi business owner, I developed an operation cost analysis spreadsheet. My Impala’s parameters had showed $0.15 / mi for general maintenance and repairs, $0.16 / mi for fuel, totaling about $0.31 / mile of a projected long-term operation cost of $0.50 per mile including insurance, licensing, etc. At 13 mph average in-town speed, $0.50 / mi works out to about $6.50 per hour.

So when my Impala was totaled in 2018, I considered a new 2019 Bolt. After dealer fees, taxes, and licensing, $42,000, twice what I’d expect for a Mini Cooper sized car. Amidst stifled laughter, I gathered what information I could on the Bolt and mulled it over – the same dealer had a 2019 Regal sedan for the same price, and a 2016 Malibu for $12,300.

Battery capacities and utility rates vary, but on average, the Bolt’s 60 kwH battery fully charges in nine hours and twenty minutes. With electricity at $0.10 / kwH in my area, that’s about $6.00 per charge. Max range is 238 miles, but realistically, city driving would yield about 100-150, a mix of city / highway about 180. Near-daily charging no matter what, so let’s assume about $0.04 / mi for electricity, about $30.00 a week. Payments, insurance all told at $0.58 / mi, it would cost about $22,750 annually to own and operate, or $136,500 over six years.

But how does this compare to my 4-cylinder Toyota? The Toyota cost over $20,000 less to buy, all-in. It’s paid for, but $20,000 is $282.00 / mo over six years. Fuel is $0.14 / mi, repairs/maintenance are $0.15 / mi. Even at $17-$18 a day in fuel, the Toyota is already ahead in cost with total cost of ownership and operation at $22,340 annually, $134,000 over six years. But at 39,000 miles annually, six years is 234,000. Is it worn-out? Depends on how you maintained it, and this cost per mile includes that.

A well maintained Toyota engine and transmission should last at least 200,000-300,000 miles, probably longer. I’ve seen a few that just wouldn’t die at 400,000-plus. Skimping on maintenance saves money but ultimately promotes engine wear and oil consumption, particularly with these cars, and at $8,500 for engine replacement, and $6,000 for transmission rebuild / replacement, I’d be facing a $14,500 bill. For that, I could buy another car, but another $14,500 totals $148,500 over six years.

So the Bolt wins here, because it’s still going, right? Nope. Because at 234,000 miles, if it hasn't already caught fire like most have, the Bolt needs a $20,000 battery replacement. And most won’t last six years, either. Tesla and other EVs have already proven you simply can’t guarantee long-term battery life, and at some point it’s time to pay the piper for all the fuel savings. So add another $20,000 to that $136,500, for a total of $156,500 across six years. And no one knows how long that electric motor is actually going to last, either. Simply put, the $20,000 battery replacement costs $12.77 per day over the 1,566 workdays at 180 miles per day, making the actual long-term daily operation cost $18.77, slightly more than the fuel the Toyota uses.

At this point, the ICE Toyota wins by $8,000 or more, nearly paying for an engine replacement, IF needed (again, not likely). I might have mentioned I bought the Malibu instead of the Bolt, but traded it for a Toyota soon enough.

Edited September 26, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[An0maly_76]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

There are dozens of scenarios where the mechanism might be triggered by accident or while someone else's fingers are in the way without the driver noticing... let alone if little children are involved. It's absurd that you'd feel the need to blame an obvious mistake by the company on its customers. This is like saying that it's fine if airbags don't work because you should just avoid accidents.

 

I was born in the 70s. I never owned a car that would reverse the windows because it 'sensed' resistance until 2019, after driving for 25+ years, and guess what? I have never had anyone catch their fingers or arms in the windows. I quite frankly find this feature annoying, because the slightest bit of dust or dirt trapped in the window molding will trigger it (my Toyota does this every time because it sits under trees a lot) and it's a real PITA. Knowing that it was necessary simply to accommodate people who don't pay attention and have no common sense just makes it that much more irritating.

  

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

You clearly haven't been a child for quite a while. I remember the "see if you can fit through the "half window" game for the backseat windows that don't roll all the way down.

Depends on how you look at it. Due to autism, some parts of my brain will always be child-aged. However, the fact remains that parents cannot assume their children are going to know better than to do such things. And being a parent means looking out for your kids and protecting them from hurting themselves. Yes, you can't be everywhere, but you can't assume the child is going to understand not to do something. Am I some kind of eighth world wonder because I survived growing up in a world without all these nanny features in the car? No. It's because my parents had common sense, and so do I.

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

See "child safety lock

 

Do you not understand that active child safety locks are to prevent the doors being opened while the car is moving, and have zip to do with when the car is parked? Passive ones actually disable the interior door handle and cannot be bypassed with the doors closed. Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? What I'm talking about is the physical flip switch that manually locks or unlocks the door from inside.

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

It's less people being "idiots" and more that there is an overwheming number of features, and without the manual to the car, people don't really know or remember how to activate or deactivate features. In the case of the car windows, my original statement is directed at the assumption that people are idiots, rather than kids who would horse around and play with the buttons if left unattended. And trust me, back in the 90's, "electronic windows and locks" were still a novelty. Maybe not so much now.

 

And what exactly do you think has spawned the need for all those 'features' that are so hard to understand and remember how to use? Clueless people not wanting to think for themselves.

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

I think, in an ideal scenario, you'd do what everyone else does and call the other person who has a key, cars still come with two keys last time I checked.  What maybe could be a solution in theory is (Assuming you didn't leave the phone in the car as well) is having a small WiFi or Bluetooth antenna be limited to the size of bubble the vehicle fits in  and once the phone leaves the range of the car, then lock the car if the engine is off, and don't permit it to be started until the phone is returned or the physical key has been plugged in. Then also let it work in reverse where if the driver activates the app on the phone the vehicle can be remotely unlocked when they get close to it as well. Perhaps there are vehicles that do that already. Who knows, I haven't owned a car in quite a while, and my parents never bought anything fancy.

 

Almost no one carries that extra set of keys with them, because they don't think it will happen to them. And what if someone leaves their phone AND keys locked in the car with their child? You're talking about something quite similar to the 'digital key' that some manufacturers are now implementing for keyless entry. But you can't use that if you locked your phone and your keys in the car, nor can you call someone who has another set of keys unless someone lets you use your phone and you can remember the number to dial. And that's assuming that the other person answers and can come to the rescue. Even so, in the time it takes for someone to bring another set of keys, a child could heat stroke.

 

Isn't it just easier for people to start using their head for something besides a hat rack and start thinking for themselves instead of relying on other people or machines to prevent them from making such mistakes?

Edited September 26, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, An0maly_76 said:

I was born in the 70s. I never owned a car that would reverse the windows because it 'sensed' resistance until 2019, after driving for 25+ years, and guess what? I have never had anyone catch their fingers or arms in the windows.

I never used my air bag, in fact it's annoying that so much of the central plane is occupied by them just to accomodate a few morons who get into accidents

/s

 

Also up until about 2010 most back seat windows had manual levers which didn't have this problem. Children typically sit in the back, plus the driver can't see what's going on with the windows at the back whereas they can at the front.

[An0maly_76]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Also up until about 2010 most back seat windows had manual levers which didn't have this problem. Children typically sit in the back, plus the driver can't see what's going on with the windows at the back whereas they can at the front.

But you CAN hear the air rushing when they're open. Even when your fronts are open, there is a notable difference in the atmosphere and acoustics when more windows are open. Some rear windows actually cause a pulsating sound at a certain travel. IF you're paying attention, that is.

 

I actually prefer power windows with the driver lockouts, because when doing rideshare, people have this annoying habit of running the windows all the way down. Not only is this a huge problem because of my asthma and allergies, they never close them at the end of the ride. So I just make them ask to put them down and unless there's some sort of real issue, I politely decline, explaining that it could provoke an asthma attack that I might not survive. Most understand this, the ones that make a federal case, I give a one-star rating because I know they're doing the same to me. If you can't be bothered to comprehend and respect someone else's health issues, then you're part of the problem.

Edited September 26, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[ewitte]

On 9/25/2022 at 4:03 AM, Arika S said:

Who closes a window with their fingers in it?

 

Are people stupid?

Yes.  We just had a worldwide demonstration of that.

[An0maly_76]

9 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Isn't it just easier for people to start using their head for something besides a hat rack and start thinking for themselves instead of relying on other people or machines to prevent them from making such mistakes?

 

BTW -- the reason I view some of these people the way I do is that driving tractor-trailers, I could see down into people's vehicles and see what they were doing. 80% of them were writing on legal pads, reading newspapers, watching movies, grooming themselves, anything but actually looking out the windshield to focus on their driving, and I lost count of how many of these morons tried to commit suicide by truck because they think the car is supposed to drive itself and weren't paying attention because "it won't happen to me". Interestingly enough, conventional vehicle drivers are at fault in 80% of crashes involving commercial vehicles and conventional vehicles.

 

Prime example, I had a teenybopper girl in her mommy's new Mini Cooper almost drive under my rig seven times in four miles. I was doing 63 in a 75, right lane, and she still took ten miles to pass because she was looking at her phone on the passenger seat and texting every 30 seconds. After eight miles, I finally had to put my driver side tires on the dotted line and blast the air horn until she got the hint she needed to get the hell away from a forty-ton truck that could kill her under the right circumstances. If I had a blowout, she would have been dead. It's that simple. The subject of this thread caters to the exact same mentality. And sometimes, you just can't fix stupid. You're dealing with zero common sense at that point.

 

I've seen some extremely bad wrecks out there on the road in my time, and police had to wrestle me away from one that was burning with someone screaming inside because we simply could not save them before it exploded. They barely got me to cover behind the cruisers before it blew sky-high, and I will never get that person's screams for help out of my head. I could never be a cop or fire / rescue. I don't know how those people sleep with the things they see.

 

But this kind of mentality just keeps on tempting the fates and perpetuating the cycle because they can't be bothered to think. Quite simply, if you're that stupid, you shouldn't be driving, period.

Edited September 26, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

And on top of that no body ever takes into account the huge difference in the sheer number of each vehicle type currently on the roads.  Sure ICE may be more of a fire risk and EV's might be a more dangerous fire situation, however has anyone actually scaled up the number of EV fires per total EV vehicles and compared that to the total number of ICE fires per ICE vehicles?  have they considered the huge variation in usage too (different countries must have different fire risk statistics too given laws and conditions are different).

Almost all of the data used is a per capita basis.

 

e.g.

https://insideevs.com/news/561549/study-evs-smallest-fire-risk/

 

Of course this one doesn't necessarily mean it's 100% true the numbers they present, but if what is presented is true it's 100x more likely to occur.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Every time we have a thread about energy that requires batteries we hear the same old arguments:  "just wait till battery tech improves", "they are investing heavily in new battery tech", "it won't be long until new batteries...".   If you use these arguments then you are not actually arguing for a better product/technology, but for hope in a better way that may or may not eventuate.

I agree with this, it's quite clear that baring a major breakthrough we will be stuck at roughly what we have...lots of the technologies have drawbacks (lower lifecycles).  That's actually a reason why LiFePo is being used now, lots of cycle life and the patents have expired.  Even if there is a breakthrough, there has to be a cheaper $/kWh or the benefit has to be a lot better.  Then there is the even bigger issue that many times the advancements are locked up in patents.

 

5 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

I was born in the 70s. I never owned a car that would reverse the windows because it 'sensed' resistance until 2019, after driving for 25+ years, and guess what? I have never had anyone catch their fingers or arms in the windows. I quite frankly find this feature annoying, because the slightest bit of dust or dirt trapped in the window molding will trigger it (my Toyota does this every time because it sits under trees a lot) and it's a real PITA. Knowing that it was necessary simply to accommodate people who don't pay attention and have no common sense just makes it that much more irritating.

Having never used a feature doesn't mean the feature shouldn't exist.  Like what Sauron said, I've never had to use my seatbelt before.  That doesn't make it useless, where it locks me in place occasionally as I'm trying to shoulder check.  As a note as well, I have the feature on my vehicles and never had a problem, so according to your logic you presented you are getting the Darwin award because I can manage to prevent it from ever doing that.

 

The simple fact is, just because you can't conceive scenarios where it's important to have doesn't mean that they don't exist.  Kids will stick things out the window, people will have things out the window, people have arms outside a window, kids play with buttons and enjoy watching windows go up and down (and despite what people say, you can't watch kids 100% of the time).  The safety feature exists for a reason, and it's not unreasonable.  Just like how the emergency release exists in the trunk of a car.

 

6 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Battery capacities and utility rates vary, but on average, the Bolt’s 60 kwH battery fully charges in nine hours and twenty minutes. With electricity at $0.10 / kwH in my area, that’s about $6.00 per charge. Max range is 238 miles, but realistically, city driving would yield about 100-150, a mix of city / highway about 180. Near-daily charging no matter what, so let’s assume about $0.04 / mi for electricity, about $30.00 a week. Payments, insurance all told at $0.58 / mi, it would cost about $22,750 annually to own and operate, or $136,500 over six years.

...really, 100 - 150 miles in a city, and 180 at highway/city.  You already seemed to think that Nikola One exists (the one that they are literally being sued for it being a fraud) and talked about it like you knew it's stats.  The fact is EV's are more efficient on city's vs highway...even in testing the Bolt's real world numbers are higher than the EPA 259 miles.

 

Also, charging times is highly dependent on the charger.  Your 9 hours 20 min is based on a Level 2 charger, a DC fast charger.  You get 90 miles of range in 30 min, 160 in an hour.  Less than an hour and a half for a full charge.

 

Anyways, using real world stats of 60 kWh and even going with the EPA of 238 (instead of what people have tested of 259 miles).  That's $0.025/mile, or about $19/week.

 

You are acting like an expert, giving out numbers, name dropping brands, claiming to be a driver, claiming to know tow truck drivers that confirm your bias.  Yet so far, you brought up a Semi that literally is in the news for fraud saying you think its on the market, you wrongly assume you get 50% of the EPA during city driving, oh and yea your "$40k" car is currently priced at "$25k" for a base model

[Kid.Lazer]

16 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I've long had a solution to this problem.

 

  Hide contents

 

My '86 Camaro agrees with you.

[An0maly_76]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Almost all of the data used is a per capita basis.

 

You have a better source, let's see it.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yet so far, you brought up a Semi that literally is in the news for fraud saying you think its on the market

 

I did run across an article on that not long after I wrote that. Last I was aware, US Express was supposed to be taking delivery of a few for fleet testing, but apparently that article was dated 2016. I did do research on this subject, although a bit less recently, and had at least gotten information on how it was supposed to work. So sue me for being late to the party, I've been a little busy dealing with health issues to stay 100% current.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

oh and yea your "$40k" car is currently priced at "$25k" for a base model

 

CURRENTLY priced, being the operative word. I'd drop my price too, if my product was catching fire. Here's a window sticker for a 2019, and it corroborates what I've said here. See that Total Vehicle Price just under $44,000?

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

you wrongly assume you get 50% of the EPA during city driving

 

That all depends on conditions. Remember, we're talking rideshare and taxi service, in which I have fifteen collective years experience. There's a bit of idling to keep warm in winter and cool in summer. And no one likes getting into a blazing hot or freezing cold vehicle. Not to mention I have severe asthma and have to maintain less than 68 degree ambient temp at all times.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Anyways, using real world stats of 60 kWh and even going with the EPA of 238 (instead of what people have tested of 259 miles).  That's $0.025/mile, or about $19/week.

 

Guess you haven't heard about the battery recall. Larger capacity battery with improved range.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are acting like an expert, giving out numbers, name dropping brands, claiming to be a driver, claiming to know tow truck drivers that confirm your bias.  Yet so far, you brought up a Semi that literally is in the news for fraud saying you think its on the market

 

Oh, for the love of God... You just HAVE to start drama and go there, don't you?

 

CLAIMING to be a driver? CLAIMING to know tow truck drivers that confirm my bias? Wow, I must have hit a nerve, you must be one of the individuals I'm referring to. That semi driver turned tow operator I know, BTW, is one of several veteran drivers whose brains I picked for six months before getting on a bus to train at Cedar Rapids Specialized Transport. The bane of my career, BTW, I would never drive teams again. But since you doubt I am or have been a truck driver, being from Virginia and currently residing there, how would I would know the following: the Pilot Flying J in Resaca Beach GA serves meatloaf. The Childress TX weigh station is rarely open. The Memphis TX Sonic has truck parking. The only truck stop for 61 miles between Ellensburg and Seattle WA is nestled up against a nice mountain backdrop in North Bend and impossible to find parking in. A little hole in the wall called B&J Convenience Store in Alzada in Montana has room for truck parking. The Town Pump in Miles City MT has awesome meatball skewers. California has inspection stations to check for reefer trailer emissions compliance and The Valliant Oklahoma Love's truck stop has a Subway and a railroad track 200 feet away The Menominee, Wisconsin Wal-Mart DC has a hotel nearby with truck parking.

The Davenport IA Nestle Purina has a great dive nearby called Gravy's. Turner's I-70 Diner in Flagler CO (exit 395 if you want to check it out) has a 60s Cadillac mounted on a pole, truck parking and is a much better place to eat than the Subway next door. Some scales only weigh all five axles, some weigh one or two at a time. Kingpins have been known to miss the fifth wheel and get stuck on the wrong side of the plate, and you need only lift the rear of the fifth-wheel plate to get free. Pre-trip / post-trip inspection takes thirty minutes if you do it right. Ice can form on your trailer air lines in winter weather and you have to knock it loose to keep them from dragging on the road. Some shippers and receivers put locks on your trailer air fittings and still require you to disconnect the trailer. That fifth-wheel position affects weight distribution just as tandem axle location. How would I know all that?

I've literally had ice form in the diesel tanks because at 25 below, it was so cold the anti-gel just wasn't enough. I've had to spray frozen tandem pins with water or glass cleaner to free them. Five years in, I was sick the entire time I was on the road, and doctor's orders forced me out of it in 2017. I've been chasing health issues since. I've refused to pull trailers because the floor and tire sidewalls had more cracks than Death Valley, pushed snow with the front bumper coming around Lake Erie on I-90 in winter, and gotten revenge on a yard dog by parallel parking an incoming load nose-to-nose with another trailer in tight quarters because they blocked my previous outbound in. I've put a 70-foot truck in places people told me I couldn't. I've even got a picture somewhere of my 53' reefer between two brick buildings with 1-2 inches to spare on either side because I had to make my own parking spot. I've more than paid my dues out there and I've seen a lot, so maybe you should be careful about being so sure of what someone has and has not done. You don't know a damned thing about me, so don't act like it.

[RedRound2]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Every time we have a thread about energy that requires batteries we hear the same old arguments:  "just wait till battery tech improves", "they are investing heavily in new battery tech", "it won't be long until new batteries...".   If you use these arguments then you are not actually arguing for a better product/technology, but for hope in a better way that may or may not eventuate.

"That may or may not eventuate". We literally have a lab demo of most of these things working. It just takes time to figure out a way to mass produce or get machines that are able to mass produce it.

 

And honestly, by your logic we should just throw our hands up in the air and give up. In Mr. Moose's universe, we'd still all be cavemens. I guess it would be nice for you because no iPhones to complain about

 

Also, know the difference between a physics problem and engineering/manufacturing problem. Battery tech is clearly the latter. Things like Quantum tunnelling through gates and going faster than light are physics problem whose technological advance remains uncertain.

 

Be glad that there are much more smarter people than you are working on these things

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

And on top of that no body ever takes into account the huge difference in the sheer number of each vehicle type currently on the roads.  Sure ICE may be more of a fire risk and EV's might be a more dangerous fire situation, however has anyone actually scaled up the number of EV fires per total EV vehicles and compared that to the total number of ICE fires per ICE vehicles?  have they considered the huge variation in usage too (different countries must have different fire risk statistics too given laws and conditions are different).

What the fuck? Do you think people who make these studies are like 10 year olds counting the number of fires? They'll always take a metric of per thousand or per million.

 

 

8 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Even so, you can't simply disappear the fact that increased demand will cause electric rates to go up, and places like CA where the power grid is already overloaded, EV owners are already catching the ire of their neighbors and being mandated to limit or altogether abandon their charging. And there's another problem in this that no one wants to acknowledge.

Electricity is increasingly getting decentralized with renewables. Renewables are pretty falling in price quite rapidly. Yes, grid would get overloaded if all vehicles today were replaced by EVs in a night, but as alluded to conversion to EVs will take time and there's plenty of time to get the grids upgraded. Of course, if you live in a country with brain dead government, then obviously it will become a problem - but that's people problem, not tech.

 

Here's an engineering explained video that does the math

8 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

You see, I did a paper in college on so-called "clunker legislation" proposed at the time. In it, I cited two studies that showed 98% of so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions were actually from power plants and various manufacturing facilities, not ICE vehicles. It also happens that this college offered an auto mechanics course complete with ASE certification, and even though it wasn't required in our area, they trained on emissions sniffing equipment. As a comparison, a friend of mine's 1961 Studebaker pickup with a carb'd, point-ignition flat-head inline six, and a 1994 Eagle Talon donated to the college as a guinea pig were analyzed. Incredibly, the Studebaker ran CLEANER than the Talon! My friend was laughing when he told me about it. Side note here, diesel engines pollute far more than gasoline engines.

So even if batteries are developed that safely and reliably deliver comparable range to ICE vehicles, we'll need natural-gas-fired power plants, and more of them, otherwise the door is opened to more pollution from power plants. Not to mention areas like where I live, where a local co-op maintains / repairs the grid and simply buys power from the primary producer in the state. We are likely paying more per kwh because of that alone.

Renewables are increasingly becoming more and more common. Again, you are taking one aspect of something that we would achieve in a couple of years and applying it to today - which is far from the case.

 

Also, time and time again it has been proven that EV vehicles will cause less overall pollution even if the energy source is dirty. Which it will never always be, as the grid gets cleaner and cleaner. Again another video crunching down the math.

 

8 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

I’ve driven for a living most of my life. For various reasons, rideshare is about the only work I can realistically do. My true average haul was around $4.00 per hour due to software algorithms designed to basically limit you to $10.00 per hour gross and the ridiculous 25% of each minute and each mile fleeced from that gross. Around town, this is 50% of the fare at typical city 4 minutes per mile, and about 30% for long trips.

 

Previously, as a taxi business owner, I developed an operation cost analysis spreadsheet. My Impala’s parameters had showed $0.15 / mi for general maintenance and repairs, $0.16 / mi for fuel, totaling about $0.31 / mile of a projected long-term operation cost of $0.50 per mile including insurance, licensing, etc. At 13 mph average in-town speed, $0.50 / mi works out to about $6.50 per hour.

So when my Impala was totaled in 2018, I considered a new 2019 Bolt. After dealer fees, taxes, and licensing, $42,000, twice what I’d expect for a Mini Cooper sized car. Amidst stifled laughter, I gathered what information I could on the Bolt and mulled it over – the same dealer had a 2019 Regal sedan for the same price, and a 2016 Malibu for $12,300.

Battery capacities and utility rates vary, but on average, the Bolt’s 60 kwH battery fully charges in nine hours and twenty minutes. With electricity at $0.10 / kwH in my area, that’s about $6.00 per charge. Max range is 238 miles, but realistically, city driving would yield about 100-150, a mix of city / highway about 180. Near-daily charging no matter what, so let’s assume about $0.04 / mi for electricity, about $30.00 a week. Payments, insurance all told at $0.58 / mi, it would cost about $22,750 annually to own and operate, or $136,500 over six years.

But how does this compare to my 4-cylinder Toyota? The Toyota cost over $20,000 less to buy, all-in. It’s paid for, but $20,000 is $282.00 / mo over six years. Fuel is $0.14 / mi, repairs/maintenance are $0.15 / mi. Even at $17-$18 a day in fuel, the Toyota is already ahead in cost with total cost of ownership and operation at $22,340 annually, $134,000 over six years. But at 39,000 miles annually, six years is 234,000. Is it worn-out? Depends on how you maintained it, and this cost per mile includes that.

A well maintained Toyota engine and transmission should last at least 200,000-300,000 miles, probably longer. I’ve seen a few that just wouldn’t die at 400,000-plus. Skimping on maintenance saves money but ultimately promotes engine wear and oil consumption, particularly with these cars, and at $8,500 for engine replacement, and $6,000 for transmission rebuild / replacement, I’d be facing a $14,500 bill. For that, I could buy another car, but another $14,500 totals $148,500 over six years.

So the Bolt wins here, because it’s still going, right? Nope. Because at 234,000 miles, if it hasn't already caught fire like most have, the Bolt needs a $20,000 battery replacement. And most won’t last six years, either. Tesla and other EVs have already proven you simply can’t guarantee long-term battery life, and at some point it’s time to pay the piper for all the fuel savings. So add another $20,000 to that $136,500, for a total of $156,500 across six years. And no one knows how long that electric motor is actually going to last, either. Simply put, the $20,000 battery replacement costs $12.77 per day over the 1,566 workdays at 180 miles per day, making the actual long-term daily operation cost $18.77, slightly more than the fuel the Toyota uses.

At this point, the ICE Toyota wins by $8,000 or more, nearly paying for an engine replacement, IF needed (again, not likely). I might have mentioned I bought the Malibu instead of the Bolt, but traded it for a Toyota soon enough.

Again, you're talking about some first gen EV. Its 2022, I'm talking about the EV scene after seeing the trends and vehicles coming out today. Just because EVs were expensive, slow to charge 3 years ago, had lower range, its quite different today. The only issue these days are that good EVs generally are priced mid-tier and above - which is why I said anyone shopping for a car mid-tier and above should consider it.

 

Please take a look at the current vehicles. The market has changed so much in 3 years, and it will continue to grow and improve in the next few decades. And worst case, assuming the tech doesn't improve (very very unlikely), at least the prices will fall

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Yes, grid would get overloaded if all vehicles today were replaced by EVs in a night, but as alluded to conversion to EVs will take time and there's plenty of time to get the grids upgraded.

California has had plenty of time, yet they're still running into power issues and rolling blackouts.

 

[wanderingfool2]

30 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

You have a better source, let's see it.

The source was literally linked in my post...literally the link right below.  Which also states it's from autoinsuranceEZ.  Based on the numbers given, it's safe to say the sample size of EV's was at approx. 200,000 vehicles.

 

34 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

I did run across an article on that not long after I wrote that. Last I was aware, US Express was supposed to be taking delivery of a few for fleet testing, but apparently that article was dated 2016. I did do research on this subject, although a bit less recently, and had at least gotten information on how it was supposed to work. So sue me for being late to the party, I've been a little busy dealing with health issues to stay 100% current.

Then don't try claiming like you know about EV's and their pitfalls if you are basing it off of an article from 6 years ago on a company that if you looked at any of their claims with a grain of salt you would notice they were lying.

 

42 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

Guess you haven't heard about the battery recall. Larger capacity battery with improved range.

Do you even know how to read?  I've already mentioned the recall before, but you are talking about a 60kWh battery.

 

46 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

Remember, we're talking rideshare and taxi service, in which I have fifteen collective years experience

Where as you claim are only making $4/hour.  I know some people who are moonlighting as Uber/Lyft drivers and making a whole lot more than $4/hour (after subtracting all other expenses).  And yet you say you have 15 years experience...and yet seem so clueless about things such as range.  The fact that you are saying an EV will go further on the highway vs city says your knowledge in the subject is just reading headlines and not having a lick of understanding.

 

Anyways, I see no point in responding to you anymore.  You bring up companies with fraud, you still think that you get 50% of the EPA (which unless driving around in frozen weather you aren't).  You claim you have 15 year experience but net $4/hour; which tells me that you no you don't know what you are talking

[An0maly_76]

57 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Anyways, I see no point in responding to you anymore.  You bring up companies with fraud, you still think that you get 50% of the EPA (which unless driving around in frozen weather you aren't).  You claim you have 15 year experience but net $4/hour; which tells me that you no you don't know what you are talking

Fine by me. You seem to live to start unnecessary drama and your attitude is ridiculous. You can put me on your ignore list, I'll do the same for you. And BTW, you quoted the earlier version of my post before I revised it. Again, you don't know anything about me or the area I'm in. Now who doesn't know what they're talking about? Live in my neck of the woods and live my life, then you can claim you know something about me. Food for thought, what you're saying about me says far more about you than it ever will about me.

Edited September 26, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[An0maly_76]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

California has had plenty of time, yet they're still running into power issues and rolling blackouts.

 

This... THIS, is priceless. And CA had problems with their power grid before EVs started getting a higher market share.

 

@RedRound2Gen 1? Did I miss something? What exactly is the difference between a 2019 Bolt and a 2022 Bolt?

Edited September 26, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[RedRound2]

8 hours ago, Jito463 said:

California has had plenty of time, yet they're still running into power issues and rolling blackouts.

First, that's a meme picture, not a credible piece of information or actual news. That could've literally happened anywhere. So, it's not credible

 

Second, I specifically said governments have a role in the whole thing as well. Look at Norway. Prime example of how to get EVs adopted in mass without your entire country breaking down. While California is one of the better states in US, half of the country's population to put it politely, are conspiracy theorists and admittedly stupid

 

Third, do you know macroeconomics? Do you know one of the major reasons of inflation today is the tight control in oil supply? It's not like we don't have enough oil, but rather after sanctions on Russia, oil producing countries just decided to take advantage of the situation and increase prices instead of increasing production. So, it's literally in your best interest to move away from petroleum and go for energy sources that can be produced locally. And that is entirely possible today, but many governments today are seriously run by brain dead people and paid in millions by groups to basically prevent that.

 

So, please continue spreading FUD and lets just hold back any and all progress.  

7 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

This... THIS, is priceless. And CA had problems with their power grid before EVs started getting a higher market share.

Look above for my response for that meme. CA might have Powergrid issues, but its far from impossible to solve. So again, it's more of people problem, not tech problem.

7 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

@RedRound2Gen 1? Did I miss something? What exactly is the difference between a 2019 Bolt and a 2022 Bolt?

I don't know much about the Bolt, but there are much better EVs than the bolt available. There's a good chance Bolt uses older tech to keep the price low and hence it has issues. As I have said 5 times now, the current problems with EVs are that they're a bit more expensive. But if you are in the market for similar priced gasoline car, EVs save you a lot in long run. That's honestly just a proven fact at this point.

[An0maly_76]

49 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

First, that's a meme picture, not a credible piece of information or actual news. That could've literally happened anywhere. So, it's not credible

 

Second, I specifically said governments have a role in the whole thing as well. Look at Norway. Prime example of how to get EVs adopted in mass without your entire country breaking down. While California is one of the better states in US, half of the country's population to put it politely, are conspiracy theorists and admittedly stupid

 

Third, do you know macroeconomics? Do you know one of the major reasons of inflation today is the tight control in oil supply? It's not like we don't have enough oil, but rather after sanctions on Russia, oil producing countries just decided to take advantage of the situation and increase prices instead of increasing production. So, it's literally in your best interest to move away from petroleum and go for energy sources that can be produced locally. And that is entirely possible today, but many governments today are seriously run by brain dead people and paid in millions by groups to basically prevent that.

 

So, please continue spreading FUD and lets just hold back any and all progress.  

Look above for my response for that meme. CA might have Powergrid issues, but its far from impossible to solve. So again, it's more of people problem, not tech problem.

I don't know much about the Bolt, but there are much better EVs than the bolt available. There's a good chance Bolt uses older tech to keep the price low and hence it has issues. As I have said 5 times now, the current problems with EVs are that they're a bit more expensive. But if you are in the market for similar priced gasoline car, EVs save you a lot in long run. That's honestly just a proven fact at this point.

I love how people arbitrarily pick and choose whether an obviously unretouched photo is real / relevant or not based on whether it fits their narrative.

 

I was using the Bolt as an example because it was one that I considered as a replacement vehicle when I was in the market. The point I'm trying to make is universal, that EVs are simply not cost effective and, contrary to popular belief, do not offer any real benefit to the environment. I didn't even touch on the fact that that more pollution is involved in their manufacture than they will save in five lifetimes. The same goes for recycling them.

 

And even though global warming is the most commonly used justification for EV's, literally no one has responded to a perfectly valid point I made previously regarding the sinkhole / eternally burning gas pit in Turkmenistan being more a contributor to global warming than the internal combustion engine vehicles that  studies show don't pollute nearly as much as manufacturing and the power plants  that would be more essential and necessary if more or all vehicles were electric. The fact of the matter is that EV's are nothing more than a feel-good project to to try to disguise the act of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Edited September 27, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Jito463 said:

California has had plenty of time, yet they're still running into power issues and rolling blackouts.

 

Trailer hitch and boom you've got a PHEV lol

[Jito463]

31 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

First, that's a meme picture, not a credible piece of information or actual news. That could've literally happened anywhere. So, it's not credible

I never said it was, but it has happened nevertheless.  As far back as 2019 this was being reported, maybe even earlier than that.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/11/some-californians-are-buying-gas-powered-generators-to-power-electric-vehicles-during-blackouts/

34 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Second, I specifically said governments have a role in the whole thing as well. Look at Norway. Prime example of how to get EVs adopted in mass without your entire country breaking down

Norway couldn't do any of that if the US wasn't basically funding their defense (and many other countries) through NATO.  Let them fund their own defense for a while, see how much money gets diverted to pet projects.

35 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

While California is one of the better states in US, half of the country's population to put it politely, are conspiracy theorists and admittedly stupid

First off, resorting to insults this early is a sign that you have no ground to stand upon, and you know it.  Also, California has nearly gone bankrupt numerous times.  They're definitely not "one of the better states".

36 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Third, do you know macroeconomics?

Please, enlighten me.

37 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Do you know one of the major reasons of inflation today is the tight control in oil supply? It's not like we don't have enough oil, but rather after sanctions on Russia, oil producing countries just decided to take advantage of the situation and increase prices instead of increasing production.

I'm sadly all to aware of the issue.  Our gas prices have more than doubled in the past 1 1/2 years, because our sitting Former Vice President killed oil production on his first day in office, both the XL pipeline and any future leases for oil production here in the States.

39 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

So, it's literally in your best interest to move away from petroleum and go for energy sources that can be produced locally

So-called "renewable energy" is far from reliable.  And even if you can make solar and wind power 100% reliable, there's still the issue of the materials needed to make the solar panels and the wind turbines, not to mention how much oil is needed to run those wind turbines so the motors don't seize up.  We're not getting away from oil anytime soon.  Drilling here for oil would be producing locally.

42 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

but many governments today are seriously run by brain dead people

Well, like I said, just look at our sitting Former Vice President.

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

I was using the Bolt as an example because it was one that I considered as a replacement vehicle when I was in the market. The point I'm trying to make is universal, that EVs are simply not cost effective and, contrary to popular belief, do not offer any real benefit to the environment. I didn't even touch on the fact that that more pollution is involved in their manufacture than they will save in five lifetimes. The same goes for recycling them.

I have been driving a Nissan Leaf for quite a while now, the second iteration of what Nissan call Gen 1 but the used market call "Gen 2". I can very, very, very much assure you it costs a fraction to use than my Nissan 370GT. The drive to work per day is around $14 NZD for my Nissan 370GT where as for my Nissan Leaf it's $0. How may you ask is it $0? Well after 9pm I have free power and I have a 32A Evnex fast charger at home on a timer. Additionally I have solar panels anyway.

 

Even if I were to remove everything that makes my energy cost for travel free or offsets it the unit price I pay is 0.259/kwh and I use around 12-14 kwh for my commute to work and back, which makes the non discounted cost $3.626/day worst case vs ~ $14/day. Yea I could have gotten a much cheaper to run petrol vehicle but why? It would be very difficult to get a petrol vehicle below $4/day, likely impossible but there probably is something out there that could that I probably also wouldn't want to own anyway.

 

Also EVs have an environmental benefit no matter how dirty the power is, you should actually be very well aware of this benefit. In city clean air to breath. Every EV could be powered by bunker oil or coal and you would still directly benefit your health if every vehicle were an EV, hell even half. The more vehicles within city limits that are not emitting pollutants the better it is for literally everyone. 

 

But that's not the reality of how EVs will be charged, and that reality will change over time anyway. This doesn't even take in to account factors like battery cell recovery from used vehicles, crashed vehicles or battery replacement/upgrades. Nor does it take in to account the general trend of utility grids getting more environmentally friendly and efficient over time.

 

FYI I kept my Nissan 370GT for long distance travel.

Edited September 27, 2022 by leadeater

[Jito463]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The drive to work per day is around $14 NZD for my Nissan 370GT

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It would be very difficult to get a petrol vehicle below $4/day, likely impossible

I checked the math, and $14 NZD is just under $8 USD.  My Plymouth Neon can go an entire week on that much, though admittedly I'm basing it on my travel distance and I don't know how far you're driving each day to work.  I actually just drove back to my home state on the 17th (around 240 miles one way), and ended up putting in less than 8 gallons of gas just before I headed back home again.  I haven't even filled my tank back up since I got back, and my car only has a 10 gallon tank in it.