Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by troyvit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

troyvit

An EV just doesn't do anything that my 2007 Pontiac Vibe doesn't do better. My car is worth about $3,000. It:

- Has a 400 mile range

- Can stop anywhere and refuel in just a few minutes, including very isolated areas

- Plays all the music I want

- Hauls anything I want (ie. I don't care if I trash the interior with a pile of mulch on a plastic tarp)

- I can sleep in the back

- Fits in nicely in my lower middle class neighborhood

- Has plenty of spare parts at the junkyard if I need to repair it

On top of that, it doesn't require a #$@# subscription, doesn't force me into some plutocrat's idea of an infotainment system, isn't tracked remotely, with that data being sold to randos, and doesn't cost as much as a Master's degree. Last thing is that while EVs are probably more environmentally friendly than a new ICE car, they still don't compete with a used one from the aughts over their lifetime.

View on HN

This is where I am too. When I finally sold my ‘90-era beater, I upgraded to a 2009. It does everything I need it to, and importantly, doesnt have those anti-features of new cars (EV or otherwise). I don’t know what I’m going to do in 15 years when it’s time to sell this one. Car companies are not really making products for guys like us today.

To be fair to your last paragraph, you're less annoyed at EVs than at new cars in general. All new cars are trending towards this, with a few stragglers for the models that haven't been refreshed in a while.

This is so true. Even an ICE car has those problems.

Until you get in an accident. If you can afford a newer car, I hope your understandable affection for your Pontiac isn’t causing you to unknowingly significantly compromise your safety.

EVs that catch fire are impossible to extinguish. EVs that are involved in accidents are recommended to be stored 50 feet apart and monitored by thermal cameras due to the tremendous risk of battery fires. It is not economical to fix EVs at this time. Someone was just quoted $60k to fix a Hyundai Ioniq because of dents on the bottom panel. Insurance companies, parking garages, and ferries are beginning to wise up and want nothing to do with EVs.

Nevermind that half of the EVs out there don't have conventional mechanical door latches to let people out of the car should the power fail. EVs are far heavier than standard cars. I heard that they don't crumple as much either, to protect the battery from causing a bigger disaster. Rigid vehicles cause much more harsh deceleration in a crash, which is likely much worse for the people in the car. Look up the Youtube channels MGUY Australia or Geoff Buys Cars if you want some real dirt on EVs.

Passenger EVs are barely practical, risky, and not nearly as environmentally sustainable as the marketing says. EV trucks (consumer and commercial) are a sick joke.

There are little kernels of truth sprinkled throughout your comment, but much of it is FUD. EVs aren't chinese scooters primed to burst into flame at a moment's notice. They're as safe as gas cars (though i would like to see data on injuries per 100,000 mi instead of safety ratings as those can be gamed)

FUD is a bit dismissive of the risks. Yes, I am afraid of unextinguishable fires spewing toxic gasses, battery explosions, being trapped in a wreck, huge repair bills, and getting stuck somewhere on the road. I am uncertain because the media largely buries the issues with EVs. I have a lot of doubt surrounding EV adoption and especially mandates. So? Sometimes FUD is the smart position.

I never said EVs in good condition are ready to spontaneously combust. That has happened of course, but it is rare. The trouble is with crashes. The fire risk is by far the worst. An EV catching fire can ignite any vehicles near it, causing a chain of unextinguishable toxic fires. No wonder many repair shops want nothing to do with damaged EVs. I've seen several firefighters talk about how horrible these fires are. Of course, a chain of fires in a city parking garage is the worst case.

Safety stats for EVs are hard to come by, at least ones that could effectively answer my questions. There are confounding factors, such as the high prices of EVs, that would make EVs look safer.

You are right about safety ratings being gamed. EVs have a separate set of regulations they have to conform to. That's what I was alluding to. I've only heard about how EV safety ratings favor structural integrity of the battery over the occupants indirectly though. If you want to know more, the Youtube channels I mentioned discuss news articles about it. I don't have a bibliography, and search engines bury most anti-EV stuff.

> I am uncertain because the media largely buries the issues with EVs

I've read enough media to see the opposite. Tiny numbers of car fires are constantly getting exaggerated, meanwhile the steady stream of gas car fires get no discussion.

Even after the recall work was done, we had local surface lots that banned the Chevy Bolt. They didn't ban gas or diesel trucks with active recalls for car fires while parked. The differences in risk for a parking lot like that are negligible, but the constant barrage of media scare stories got to them.

As to fires, the data is interesting. They are less likely to catch fire overall. On average they are slightly more likely to catch fire while parked, but somewhat less likely to catch fire post collision.

Interestingly, the current data seems to imply lower overall risk of fires causing personal injury in an EV vs an ICE. Thankfully the odds of both are so low as to make the difference a rounding error.

> I am uncertain because the media largely buries the issues with EVs.

For what it's worth, Tesla fans say the exact opposite.

Yeah, it is shockingly common to see stories about AP failure that turn out to be purely human driving. The press elevates some weird anti-Tesla narratives.

Of course, they are just quoting so it isn't lying, but sometimes it seems like they intentionally do the bare minimum research to keep from finding out the truth of a story.

In the event of an accident, what happens to the 2007 Pontiac that doesn’t happen to a newer EV?

There are some significant engineering advantages to not having an engine. The crumple zones are overall more effective.

The Vibe isn't bad at all, though. I wouldn't switch just for safety ratings.

It is hilarious that this gets downvoted, when it is very obviously true. I might as well say the sky is blue. :)

I didn't even have EVs in mind specifically. I'm just fairly sure most new cars are safer than most 17 year old cars.

There was a huge leap in auto safety from 2000 to 2010 due to the increased use of high strength steel. I don't doubt that a modern car today is after than a 2007 model, but by how much? 5%? 10%? It's very hard to quantify.

Also a lot of what makes modern cars 'safer' is the inclusion of nannyTech such as stability control, automatic braking, etc. All of this is great, but if you were already a safe driver, there's little additional safety for you personally.

The tragedy of the commons perfectly encapsulated. Until this government has the courage for top down intervention, either people choose to be part of the problem or choose to be part of the solution.

I'm not sure which side I'm on in your comment ;) Right now I'm focusing on the first 2 R's of the 3 R's (reduce, reuse, and recycle). I'm reducing my footprint by reusing an existing car and fixing it with used parts when I can. This vs saving a little carbon over long, long run by buying an EV? I still don't think an EV has a smaller footprint than a used ICE car but I could be wrong.

> I'm not sure which side I'm on in your comment

I was referring more to the large vehicle arms race.

> Right now I'm focusing on the first 2 R's of the 3 R's > I'm reducing my footprint by reusing an existing car and fixing it with used parts when I can.

I'd agree that's probably the most environmentally conscious approach. I'm somewhat similar, holding on to an old car, but more almost out of spite than any sort of rational consideration haha.

I'm not sure which tragedy of the commons you're referring to. Do you mean that people shouldn't replace an old car with a new car just because the new one is safer, because of e.g. the impact on the environment?

the fact that people are caught in the safety arms race (which really just means buying a larger, heavier car). a rational decision individually, but trashes up the city and makes it less safe for everybody else, especially pedestrians and cyclists.

Gotcha. As somebody who bikes a lot I totally agree.

Most of your issues have nothing to do with EVs, tbh. :lol

Your Vibe fills up in your garage while you are sleeping? Cool.

I don't need it to, and I don't need a separate room in my freakin' house for a car. I spend 5 minutes while I'm washing the windows and then it's done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com