[Tanada]

BTW, if you watch the Tony Seba presentation, he explains that TAAS means you need far fewer total vehicles since most people's cars spend all their time sitting parked, whereas TAAS fleet vehicles can be constantly moving people around. So the embodied energy required to move 8-10 billion around doesn't have to be as high as you think. And if you really want to reduce energy usage all you really need to do is allow anybody who could telecommute to do so. Move bits and bytes around, not people.

I read a university study about this, but unfortunately I don't remember where.
It was an experiment, they provided a couple of families with full self driving cars. The cars were regular cars driven by drivers, but the families were told to assume and treat them as self driving.
The interesting part was the results of the study. For each family the miles driven increased badly.

The assumption that self-driving cars reduce traffic might be wrong. Self-driving cars might result in more traffic and more energy consumed. Ain't that funny?

Again this is a case of people wanting to believe their own rhetoric to the point they stop questioning the assumptions.
Personally I don't much enjoy being a passenger in a vehicle because I hate the feeling of having my life in someone else's hands where a moment inattention can lead to a fatal accident. I know however that people who can afford full time chauffeur service spend their time productively most of the time, reading reports, writing on a laptop, making voice calls to important people. The closest I come to that is looking out the window in December when we take a drive once or twice to check out the neighbors Christmas lights. Mostly I try and read a book or play a game on the iPad to overcome the fear of other people driving, but like I wrote earlier I know I am the exception.

This study of driving habits by average people given a free chauffeur is interesting and I can see it happening. If I am doing something and realize I need something from the store I have to stop what I am doing and drive myself. If what I was doing was writing on the computer and I had a chauffeur I could use a laptop and keep writing while I get driven too and from the store to run whatever the errand was I needed to run. That makes spending time in the car useful time instead of wasted time and the semi-privacy might actually be useful for concentrating on writing or whatever I would be doing if not in the car as a passenger. That means spending time in a self driving car could be more pleasant than tripping over the pets and whatnot at home, which would make spending more time in the car attractive.

[asg70]

What was the cost associated with that study? I'm thinking zero??? TAAS isn't free. It costs per use so I don't see why people would opt to live in their cars and take unnecessary trips if they're using TAAS as a cost-saving measure in the first place. I mean, the only difference between TAAS and Uber is whether there's a live driver and I don't see people hailing Uber more than they would use their own cars. The cost really adds up. Given it's cheaper than Uber, TAAS is really best as an escape-valve for blue-collar workers who will no longer afford the expenses of individual car ownership, sort of a better alternative than the bus and trains. I mean, Armageddon keeps beating the drum on automobile debt. TAAS makes that go away.

[The_Toecutter]

We should just execute everyone driving an ICE vehicle or anyone ever associated with the oil and gas industry. After all, they are guilty of destroying the planet, aren't they? It's for the children like Greta.

I'll settle for replacing ICE with EVs and/or greatly more efficient ICEVs(80+ mpg 4-passenger cars are possible with existing regulations and single seaters or tandem two-seaters getting 1,000+ mpg are possible ignoring existing regulations) with the externalities priced into the production of the fuel/energy at the corporate level, with the oil and gas industries removed from the political process and decoupled from the state itself along with ending any and all subsidies to them outright.

But this would also require honest money and probably ending the FED to make it even remotely workable. The state itself is the largest single polluter and needs to be greatly shrunk on the whole as well, especially the military.

Why not make an attempt to a solution that can conform to the "little red book" linked below(and I don't mean Chairman Mao's)?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20446823-pocket-constitution---the-declaration-of-independence-and-the-constituti

EVs are becoming greatly more viable than they used to be, and ICEs are only as inefficient as the platforms that use them. An ICE sized and shaped like a velomobile could easily exceed 1,000 mpg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0aBTwoUuo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJbdUCETkY

For such a thing to be viable today would require greatly reducing/overhauling/eliminating existing Federal safety regulations as well. What would make ultra light vehicles so dangerous to operate is all of the bloated vehicles currently on the roads, but if hypothetically they didn't exist, the reduced kinetic energy of ultra light vehicles at speed would inherently make automobile operation safer. Even with the heavier vehicles currently on the road, a well-designed roll cage would still go a long way to making ultralight vehicles possibly safer than the 50 year old full size ICEVs of yesteryear when in a collision with a modern bloated vehicle.

What I don't want to see is mandatory self driving cars with the individual eliminated from the operation thereof or every individual transaction being electronically scrutinized in the name of "sustainability"(while the banksters and state take their cut).

[Outcast_Searcher]

What was the cost associated with that study? I'm thinking zero??? TAAS isn't free. It costs per use so I don't see why people would opt to live in their cars and take unnecessary trips if they're using TAAS as a cost-saving measure in the first place. I mean, the only difference between TAAS and Uber is whether there's a live driver and I don't see people hailing Uber more than they would use their own cars. The cost really adds up. Given it's cheaper than Uber, TAAS is really best as an escape-valve for blue-collar workers who will no longer afford the expenses of individual car ownership, sort of a better alternative than the bus and trains. I mean, Armageddon keeps beating the drum on automobile debt. TAAS makes that go away.

Isn't the issue simply the Jevon's paradox assumption that if the cost of riding in a car gets dramatically cheaper (re freedom from driving AND cost per mile) that people will do much more of it?

Assuming that's the correct assumption, THEN the issue is, it seems to me, how much additional utility people will perceive from riding more.

For example, would I decide to go to the mall instead of shopping on the web, if a dirt cheap very safe robot did the driving for me and it was totally convenient and consistent and fast re ordering up the robo-cab?

For me, the answer would be HELL NO!!

Now, would I be more likely to go take, say, a nice ride in the country with pretty views with a robo-taxi than driving my own car? Well, once electric cars are cheap and common, I would also say, HELL NO, because the damage to the environment is the same. And if I'm out enjoying the view of the countryside, then with the convenience of reliable NAV systems, I'd find it more enjoyable to drive myself than ride the robo-taxi (AFTER the novelty wears off, of course).

My intuition is that as the web gets better and online business gets better, that the riding miles decreased not fiddled with traveling for that will cancel out or MORE the overall miles increased re not having to drive or pay as much per mile -- at least for ordinary stuff.

Now, maybe moderate vacation trips where you avoid the hassle/stress of the airports and the cramped planes AND don't have to drive, that would see a meaningful increase in miles traveled by car. But how big would that be compared to overall driving totals (again, once the novelty wears off)? My intuition is not all that big -- vacations re hotels, etc. still are expensive and time consuming.

To me, Jevon's paradox would only apply if there is significant additional user (rider) utility in riding a lot. Unlike, say, having your house super comfortable re heating or cooling, etc for energy use, I think there are going to be big limits to that additional utility.

...

But maybe I'm wrong if 99% of the populace doesn't ever get car sick from playing with their phone instead of looking out the window, and they enjoy riding somewhere with their nose in their phone as much as they enjoy relaxing at home with fluffy in their lap, and a beer or some hot tea, with their nose in their phone.

I suppose that as usual, re predicting the future, only time and lots of data will tell.

[mousepad]

For example, would I decide to go to the mall instead of shopping on the web, if a dirt cheap very safe robot did the driving for me and it was totally convenient and consistent and fast re ordering up the robo-cab?

It gets especially bad when combining self driving cars with appropriate retail services.
Order your groceries online. Send the car to pick them up by itself. You don't care how long it gets stuck in traffic while you play a comfortable session of "call of duty" at home.

You forgot to order the six pack of beer? No sweat, send the car again.

I suppose that as usual, re predicting the future, only time and lots of data will tell.

That is exactly what it is.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It gets especially bad when combining self driving cars with appropriate retail services.
Order your groceries online. Send the car to pick them up by itself. You don't care how long it gets stuck in traffic while you play a comfortable session of "call of duty" at home.

You forgot to order the six pack of beer? No sweat, send the car again.

Yeah, that's an excellent point.

I just don't think that way, because I wasn't brought up that way. I'd feel guilty about the wastefulness of the extra trips, even if sending the car were dirt cheap to run/rent. (And with what people apparently pay to, for example, get McDonalds via Uber delivery, many people aren't going to worry much at all about such costs).

But given all the waste we see from ordinary people, as long as it's "cheap and convenient", yeah, I suppose I'm being FAR too optimistic about how much utility people will value from the cars -- assuming sending the car on errands empty becomes a common, legal thing.

I'll admit I relish not having to sit in the car repair shop to have the tires replaced, etc., but that doesn't change needing to get the car to and from the repair shop. And I didn't even THINK of the sending the car to shop empty thing, so my bad on that. (Shopping is a chore for me, not a sport).

...

The more such examples come up, the more I think modern society would be MUCH better served by making consumption taxes the primary taxes for all but the rich. If only the rich paid income taxes it would simplify most people's lives and make that aspect of taxation more efficient. And if normal people paid meaningful taxes on consumption (especially dirty/harmful consumption), then perhaps people would be more thoughtful/frugal about wasteful spending.

Not sure how to make such a system politically viable, even if it's revenue neutral, and even if the rich continue pay the vast majority of the taxes, but if overconsumption is a huge part of the problem, addressing that at SOME point is clearly necessary.

[mousepad]

consumption taxe.

Our problem is over production / consumption.
A tax won't solve that. A tax only shuffles money around, allowing somebody else to consume instead.

Tax consumption? It will fill the coffers of the state, allowing it to consume instead of the individual. Tax the rich? Same thing.

A forced reduction of work hours to let's say 10 h/week could help to reduce consumption.

[The_Toecutter]

Our problem is over production / consumption.
A tax won't solve that. A tax only shuffles money around, allowing somebody else to consume instead.

Tax consumption? It will fill the coffers of the state, allowing it to consume instead of the individual. Tax the rich? Same thing.

A forced reduction of work hours to let's say 10 h/week could help to reduce consumption.

A 10 hour work week coupled with a UBI financed by consumption taxes might well do the trick. It wouldn't pass constitutional muster though, unless/until sufficient amendments were made to allow it. Something needs to be done to shrink the government and keep peoples' hands off of the money, although history does not show us many examples of how that can be done. Wherever there is money and political power, sociopathic parasites gravitate towards this area and try to take a cut without having to do any of the work, no matter whether it is the public or private sector.

[asg70]

An ICE sized and shaped like a velomobile could easily exceed 1,000 mpg

Your velomobile evangelism is getting reeeeally really silly, man.

I get it. It matters to you, but it's your eccentric hobby. Nobody's gonna join in until TSHTF.

The closest I've seen to something like what you're talking about that might just have a chance to find a niche is the Microlino which is basically just an electric BMW Isetta clone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-pzXefQW8

I think it's really cool, but if I ever got something like this, it would be primarily a toy, not a daily driver. (Max config 124 mile range. Only Type-1 charging. Heater, no AC, etc...) Personally, I'd prefer a tandem seater like a Messerschmitt.

if hypothetically they didn't exist

A LOT of hypotheticals would have to take place for your velomobile utopia to come about. It's not even worth entering into the discussion based on where we are or are likely to be in the near to mid term.

What I don't want to see is mandatory self driving cars with the individual eliminated

There was another Tesla accident recently where it hit an emergency vehicle on the side of the road. I think self-driving is coming but it is still pretty way off. Shaking in your boots over "the man" taking away our ability to drive is rather paranoid.

Isn't the issue simply the Jevon's paradox assumption that if the cost of riding in a car gets dramatically cheaper (re freedom from driving AND cost per mile) that people will do much more of it?

That depends on whether there's a REASON to do said activity. Just because it's cheap doesn't mean I would rather spend all my time in the back seat of a car driving around in endless circles rather than being at home. I have to have a reason to go someplace. Considering how people tend to get together less and less already and communicate through their phones, I just don't see where all this frivolous driving impulse is going to come from.

---

The trend away from retail shopping is probably here to stay. What's going to happen is the efficiency of shipping is going to keep increasing and decarbonizing. Amazon putting in that huge order with Rivian for electric delivery vans is part of that.

[The_Toecutter]

Hyperbole and projection on your part, a bit much? Rhetorical question. You do it all the time with my posts.

All I did was plainly state what is possible within the scope of the technology that exists today. I am not claiming we should try to have some sort of "velomobile utopia", just stating the obvious that the way that car companies design vehicles is excessively wasteful, frivolous, profligate, and IMO stupid. Even that Isetta clone is severely lacking in aerodynamic efficiency, and without removing mass or further compromising safety, could probably have one third as much or even less the energy consumption at steady state cruising at highway speeds than it would get as it is. If you want cheaper long-range EVs, efficiency is one method of getting the cost down, as power requirements and battery size for a given amount of range can be greatly reduced. It's something very obvious and sadly, commonly overlooked in favor of marketing hype, aesthetics, profit margins, blandness/conformism, and those metaphorical dick measuring contests.

Here's an image of the sort of vehicle I'm talking about:

https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/70406130_2553060334808155_6927609719611719680_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_oc=AQkF33FBrwZ5XkIF-6bH8O-RR5CeE0SYD7jeIQgPSF0KopNWXkMs7muSaKVP-Q3_Hgw&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=9308df0026c43dfbf7bc619739e4ac0e&oe=5E062BF9


I talked to the builder. It does 55 mph on only 1.1 kW, measured from the battery pack. That works out to 20 Wh/mi at 55 mph, or roughly 1/10th the energy consumption of a Tesla Model 3, and well in excess of 1500 MPGe. And it will get you back and forth to work every bit as effectively, and can still carry home a weeks worth of groceries. The builder did this without wind tunnel access, and there is still some significant fat to be trimmed off of its energy consumption with work on this area.

And TSHTF scenario would spur increased interest in extreme efficiency. Being that this is a peak oil message board concerned with that very subject, I brought it up for that reason. If we have times of extreme scarcity of energy or electricity availability, such an extremely efficient platform could mean the difference between individual transport still being accessible to the population or it being unavailable altogether, especially when one considers the embodied energy put into making an electric vehicle's battery pack. Cannibalizing the battery pack of a full-size long range EV may be able to allow the creation of 15-20 extremely-efficient single-person EVs of the same driving range in the same operating conditions.

To put it into terms you will surely understand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYgprocMOcg

Given the track record of government mandating things on people that are even unpopular at the behest of and to the profit of special interests, and given that politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists, some of whom would love to mandate their tech into new cars(as has happened with black boxes and GPS), the prospect of self driving being mandated isn't all that paranoid given that the technology may be greatly improved in the coming decades, even if the prospect of such a mandate may seem unlikely. Nor am I "shaking in" my "boots" about it, just acknowledging a possible future scenario that I find to be undesirable.

[asg70]

Well, bottom line is I think you're way ahead of the curve on anticipating the level of depletion that might cause more people to get interested in this class of vehicle. It was a talking point that made sense 10-15 years ago but I think a far more likely scenario is the used BEV market like I keep saying. And correspondingly, if the descent is milder, don't expect government to push people that hard on the regulatory front. I mean, it's not like the current administration is interested in regulation, certainly not anything related to the environment.

I get it though, this is your hobby and you've invested a lot of time and energy into trying to reach certain efficiency thresholds. It's sort of the car equivalent of the Dervaes family feeding themselves out of their Pasadena backyard and using as little energy as possible. Hey, if that floats your boat, great. Meanwhile, the normies expect more than that.

[The_Toecutter]

It was a talking point that made sense 10-15 years ago but I think a far more likely scenario is the used BEV market like I keep saying.

Enough of them need to be produced to make a difference before that happens. I'm not sure it's a safe bet that BAU can continue that long. For people of ordinary means, BAU is already deteriorating(or stagnating at best) where I am at and has been for some time, even though the statistics are massaged to make it look elsewise, and this is while the temporary oil glut is still going on.

Should we have a SHTF scenario or even a moderate decline in the near future that spikes fuel prices, I predict the small number of existing used EVs on the market are going to command a major price premium, which will mean poorer folks do without them as an option.

Currently, most used EVs are dirt cheap, and people are buying them. I see a few of them in my local hood being driven by people who aren't rich or even close to middle class(in US terms). The demand for them was there all along, even 10-15 years ago when they didn't exist.

Now can things be kept going long enough for them to take over from ICEs is the question?

I get it though, this is your hobby and you've invested a lot of time and energy into trying to reach certain efficiency thresholds. It's sort of the car equivalent of the Dervaes family feeding themselves out of their Pasadena backyard and using as little energy as possible. Hey, if that floats your boat, great.

I'm not doing my personal build for just efficiency. I want a totally off-grid, unregistered vehicle that law enforcement can't legally do much about, a vehicle that is also independent of energy infrastructure if need be. Hence the bicycle pedals and the ability to operate at city traffic speeds without a motor turned on at all.

The long term goal is to realize the performance potential of a vehicle that has a power to weight ratio similar to a dragster but with all wheel drive activated at the flip of a switch, as well as to build another vehicle on the same principle that is an actual race car and has no bicycle pedals(keep it light, basically a streamlined roll cage on wheels that uses high power to weight ratio ebike parts for the electric drive).

This first variant is going to fall well short of that goal, but the technology already exists to allow it. It's just a matter of getting the money and improving my vehicle engineering skills. Having a "bicycle" that can be pedaled around with the motor off, used as a pedelec in traffic with the motor on, and in "offroad mode" does 0-60 mph faster than a Tesla P100D would be quite fun. And I've priced the parts: I could put something that performs like this together for under $10,000 in parts and a few hundreds of hours of labor making a custom chassis, and even put some solar panels on the body. Right now, I'm working on a much more modest version that will perform like a slow car, for around $1,500 in ebike parts with another $2,500 invested a few years ago making the platform itself.

Meanwhile, the normies expect more than that.

What about the "normies" in the 3rd world who can't even afford a car at all? If something like this were mass produced, using greatly less materials and labor than a car or SUV, there exists a possible scenario where they may be able to afford something like this instead as it is conceivable the cost could drop to that of a moped or a scooter. Except unlike a moped or scooter, it could carry a weeks worth of groceries for a family and offer weather protection. And to keep production costs down, the platform could also be sold as a bicycle without any electric drive components at all to help increase the sales volume of the platform itself. I doubt this scenario will ever materialize, but it is not an impossibility either, and there is potential for a vehicle like this to sell.

Even here in the USA, you wouldn't believe the number of positive comments my vehicle has garnered. Being an introvert, I'm not a fan of the attention this thing brings, but everyone wants to know what it is and what it is powered by, where they can buy one, ect. Hand building them, there's no way I could get the cost much below $10k, and that will greatly limit the market because that price makes it more a toy than anything else.

And I'm still refining my first prototype anyway, which I would not find ethical to sell to anyone given its unique set of challenges, AND still need to add an electric drive and see how it performs with that, which getting the money for is a long slog working a low paying job. I know my first prototype when completed with drive system probably won't be all that safe and much akin to driving a go-kart in the street without nearly the same legal issues. It will have a rear wheel drive motor and rear wheel drive bicycle drivetrain with its current cable pull brakes, and not even a seat belt. The next one after WILL be much safer with an integrated roll cage, crumple zones, safety harness, front or all wheel drive, and hydraulic brakes, but I have to walk before I can run so to speak.

[asg70]

can things be kept going long enough for them to take over from ICEs is the question?

Well, batteries wear out in DIY builds too ya know. Until solid-state batteries or EESTOR-style supercaps, all this stuff requires civilization as we know it to keep running. And given the cost of batteries it would be hard for the poor to build a cache of replacement cells for doomsday the way they might be able to afford a cache of canned food.

My point being there is no sustainable prep for the end of the world that includes any sort of industrial society. It's only a matter of time before it's back to stone knives and bearskins.

I want a totally off-grid, unregistered vehicle that law enforcement can't legally do much about

Huh? What does law enforcement have to do with anything? Will law enforcement care about your hobby vehicle in a TSHTF scenario? I doubt it.

What about the "normies" in the 3rd world

How is what you're doing relevant to the 3rd world? You're having trouble supporting yourself as it is. Tend your own garden.

It's people like Bill Gates who have money to burn that can concern themselves with helping the 3rd world.

If something like this were mass produced

Who is going to mass produce it? Look, if you want to publish the spec as an open-source thing, great. But I am seeing a lack of foresight here in what it is you're doing. It just looks like a hobby to me. I know you don't want to view it in such mundane terms, but that's what it is right now. A hobby that gives you a self-esteem boost.

Now, you may know that there are literally a TON of grassroots ebike companies out there, many of them crowdfunded. If you were really entrepreneurial you'd look into doing that. But you have to understand that the biggest market for ebikes are virtue-signalling yuppies. The poor in the US are still driving old beaters and would probably jump off the nearest bridge before subjecting themselves to a quadricycle.

Point being that the difference between a hobby and a business is that hobbies are about building what YOU want and businesses are about building what the MASSES want. The trick is to find something that serves both. If you keep trying to rationalize when the reality is it's something you want and few else, then it ain't going anywhere. So the sooner you identify a potential market the better. If you can't build a business then there will never be economy of scale and you'll never minimize cost.

I know this is sort of apples and oranges, but the above relates to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og1dEaDXbwg

Back when all that was available was the Tesla Roadster, it was an appealing prospect to convert an old car (with lead acid of course). Then you wound up with a DC motor, no regen, low range, no backseat, no airbags, no A/C, etc...

Well, the math on that kind of thing makes so much less sense today than it did then when you consider the value that comes from new vehicles. What you call bloat and waste, normies call value. I've got adaptive cruise control, android auto, auto high beams, anti-lock brakes, and on and on and on. But the cost to do a one-off conversion is so damn expensive for what you get back vs. even a much-derided compliance car like an eGolf. That's why the only people who are doing this are the well-heeled classic car crowd who want the nostalgia of the old car shell without the emissions. There's certainly no case to be made for it as a peak-oil prep.

And I think more or less the same is true with just about all DIY projects. The cost-benefit (including elbow grease) isn't worth it. If it gets to the point where everyone has scarfed up the old inventory of 1st gen EVs then the situation will be so bad that I doubt it will be possible to continue to source battery packs for these DIY builds. So all you can really do today is prep for YOURSELF, not your neighbor, not for the third world. Prep for YOURSELF while everything is still being mass produced and is still at commodity prices. Prep for yourself when you still have cash-flow. And maximize that cash-flow while you still can.

[The_Toecutter]

Well, batteries wear out in DIY builds too ya know. Until solid-state batteries or EESTOR-style supercaps, all this stuff requires civilization as we know it to keep running.

No disagreement there. Not all batteries are created equal though, and there are ones that exist today that will function for decades. Those CALBs in my GT6 may still be usable when I'm an old man, although they haven't yet been proven by anyone to be as long lasting as the Edison NiFe batteries from 100+ years ago. Jay Leno still has the original set in his Baker Electric delivering stock range. The key to longevity for those NiFe cells is keeping the KOH electrolyte replaced on a regular basis so that the batteries don't corrode.

My point being there is no sustainable prep for the end of the world that includes any sort of industrial society. It's only a matter of time before it's back to stone knives and bearskins.

Agreed. And this is also what Mr. Kaczynski predicted and why his writings are especially relevant, regardless of your opinion of the man.

Huh? What does law enforcement have to do with anything? Will law enforcement care about your hobby vehicle in a TSHTF scenario? I doubt it.

One of the incentives of making this vehicle is that it doesn't need the following to operate because legally, it can be passed off as an ebike:

-insurance
-registration
-tags
-license plate
-drivers license

That all saves money. It's dirt cheap transportation for as long as BAU remains intact. And when/if BAU falls apart, it will still be operable.

How is what you're doing relevant to the 3rd world? You're having trouble supporting yourself as it is. Tend your own garden.

It was an idle musing as well as a comment on 3rd worlders wanting individual transport, and a potential means to meet such demand, even if that means doesn't yet exist. And it would be greatly preferable to the 3rd world buying full sized cars or even ICE powered scooters from a carbon footprint and resource consumption standpoint.

Who is going to mass produce it?

I don't know. Probably no one. I have to get a prototype finished first before I can even begin to produce them as one-offs. 3D printing technology is getting awful cheap though, and a friend and I have been discussing the possibility of getting his shop set up to produce custom parts from raw materials. Got to start somewhere after all.

Look, if you want to publish the spec as an open-source thing, great. But I am seeing a lack of foresight here in what it is you're doing. It just looks like a hobby to me. I know you don't want to view it in such mundane terms, but that's what it is right now. A hobby that gives you a self-esteem boost.

Projection again? It is a hobby at this point and I don't currently see it as anything else. That doesn't mean it will necessarily stay there. But I do intend at a later date to try my hand at selling a few builds, once I get the bugs and glitches all worked out and get something worthy of selling.

Now, you may know that there are literally a TON of grassroots ebike companies out there, many of them crowdfunded. If you were really entrepreneurial you'd look into doing that.

Need to get the prototype ready first.

But you have to understand that the biggest market for ebikes are virtue-signalling yuppies.

This particular demographic is especially interested in my machine. Especially rich hipsters. Not having a finished product to sell them is definitely a missed opportunity.

The poor in the US are still driving old beaters and would probably jump off the nearest bridge before subjecting themselves to a quadricycle.

I'm not so certain of that, judging by all of the interest my vehicle draws, even without having a motor at all. But old beaters will still be cheaper, regardless, for the near-term foreseeable future. Unmotorized velomobiles and cheap DIY full size EV conversions with 100 miles range are both in the upper 4-figure price range at minimum today, whereas the poor are buying $2,000 beaters. Getting the cost of this contraption down to the level of a $2,000 beater would be mandatory in order to be able to market to this demographic. I think it is possible, but not with my current resources.

Point being that the difference between a hobby and a business is that hobbies are about building what YOU want and businesses are about building what the MASSES want.

The trick is to find something that serves both.

I get this. I'm currently building what I want as a prototype and proof of concept.

I know this is sort of apples and oranges, but the above relates to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og1dEaDXbwg

I find no disagreement with the assessment in this video, either. Although with proper choice of glider, 100 mile range car conversions can today be done for around $5k, not counting labor cost, but one must be very picky about glider and component selection to pull it off, while scavenging parts from junked OEM EVs. Getting it done for that cheap won't happen the vast majority of the time, and even then, that's the cost of a used Nissan Leaf with a decent pack.

In contrast, my velomobile may end up getting a 200 mile range @ 30 mph for less than $2k in EV parts. And since it can still be pedaled, there's no range anxiety.

There's certainly no case to be made for it as a peak-oil prep.

I disagree. If one is mechanically inclined and knows how to fix old cars, it may be a better decision to convert an old car than to drive am OEM EV whether purchased new or used, simply because one doesn't have to deal with a complicated mess of computers and features, and in a pinch, could still make a simple classic DIY conversion run using 19th century tech if they must(lead acid batteries of very low density ~10 wh/kg are possible to make without relying on modern industry, as well as DIY NiFe cells capable of delivering capacity similar to modern AGM lead acid batteries) and a blacksmith would have all the tools needed to make a low-powered but usable motor and a DIY contactor controller. In the case of my custom built vehicle, it is light enough to even be pedaled.

But that prospect is really only viable in the worst SHTF scenario anyway. But even if our civilization goes back to the dark ages or worse, I think some kind of motorized vehicles will be a permanent part of the landscape, even if they may be quite terrible by today's standards. It would beat using horses.

Although, the real weak link keeping something like that running in a post SHTF scenario would be replacing the tires after they wore out!

So all you can really do today is prep for YOURSELF, not your neighbor, not for the third world. Prep for YOURSELF while everything is still being mass produced and is still at commodity prices. Prep for yourself when you still have cash-flow.

I was working on that until I had to save my mother's house. Which still falls into that category, considering without the house, all of my preps wouldn't do much good and I'd lose them.

This custom built vehicle is a prep in and of itself, and would be valuable in case TSHTF for me personally and I end up homeless. I'd be able to live out of this thing if I had to, as it's a mobile shelter and bed, can provide insulation and protection from biting insects, carry food/water/camping gear/tools, and once I get the ebike drive installed and some solar panels, it will also be a mobile phone charger/computer charger and night light for reading books. Paul Elkins inspired my build as well(Former Boeing engineer who made coroplast camper trailers for homeless people along with custom 3 wheeled vehicles).

And even if TSHTF doesn't occur to me personally, I intend to travel using this vehicle anyway for fun at some point.

And maximize that cash-flow while you still can.

I've been trying to do that for years without resorting to something I would regret doing. In hindsight, I don't see how I could have done much better other than to know the future. I'd [probably have been better off not bothering with college or a career, and instead perhaps learning a trade or working a low paying job while staying with parents and saving every penny. I've made a few mistakes along the way after starting the career I had, but I don't see them being very life altering on the career front unless I was willing to allow my mom to lose the house and possibly die given what she went through. I'm currently at the mercy of whatever employer I can get to hire me, unless I take matters into my own hands including the possibility of ignoring the law to make money, and that in and of itself can have some life altering consequences for the worse.

I've made lots of good decisions(such as getting out of debt as quickly as possible) and lived well below my means, and had I not done that, I'd be in a far worse position than I am today, even if my life still sucks right now.

The main thing that makes me happy is building EVs, and I have not got to do that a whole lot as a result of delaying gratification in pursuit of being fiscally responsible. And constantly delayed gratification means it never comes. It doesn't help that I've been picked apart financially in every direction by parasites, otherwise I'd be much happier at the moment since I'd have had the resources to pursue my builds.

[Outcast_Searcher]

consumption taxe.

Our problem is over production / consumption.
A tax won't solve that. A tax only shuffles money around, allowing somebody else to consume instead.

Tax consumption? It will fill the coffers of the state, allowing it to consume instead of the individual. Tax the rich? Same thing.

A forced reduction of work hours to let's say 10 h/week could help to reduce consumption.

If you think that, for example, a high tax on gasoline won't result in less consumption of gasoline by the masses, you're deluding yourself. It would almost certainly be a boon to moving to EV's more quickly, too.

I'm not talking about doing away with overall consumption. I'm talking about government taxation offering incentives to pollute less and produce less GHG, vs. mainly discouraging hard work. i.e. consuming differently.

I'm mainly saying that in the US, that sort of thinking seems to be close to nonexistant, re the liklihood of it becoming a reality in, say, the next decade, unless I'm missing something huge.

[mousepad]

If you think that, for example, a high tax on gasoline won't result in less consumption of gasoline by the masses, you're deluding yourself.

Our problem is consumption in general, not only gasoline.
If the idea of taxation is to reduce consumption, it won't work. Taxation simply moves the consumption from the individual being taxed to the government instead.

If your goal is to reduce gas consumption while increasing some other consumption instead, then yes, I agree with you. Taxing it does work.

[The_Toecutter]

Our problem is consumption in general, not only gasoline.
If the idea of taxation is to reduce consumption, it won't work. Taxation simply moves the consumption from the individual being taxed to the government instead.

If your goal is to reduce gas consumption while increasing some other consumption instead, then yes, I agree with you. Taxing it does work.

One possible way to ameliorate this is to rebate it back to everyone without condition, perhaps an equal amount for every person, so that the government doesn't get to blow it on new programs, bureaucracy, and graft. But that would require the people actually be in control of their government for it to work, and not merely have the illusion of control. Governments through history have proven that more often than not, they cannot be trusted with other peoples' money, and they attract sociopaths and grifters like flies to shit.

Your assessment is basically correct.

Note the yellowvest protests in France were in part sparked by a gasoline tax increase(there is a lot more to it than that though...). I agree with tying to incentivize the adoption of EVs, but if it is done on the backs of the poor and working class while big business gets more tax cuts, the average person will quickly grow to resent the idea, and it will backfire spectacularly. Subsidizing EV purchases is also a bad idea because even though it incentivizes the purchase of them, it is unfair to those unable to afford to purchase new cars, something that mainly only the upper middle class or above can afford to do, and oft times it will lead to manufacturers increasing their prices to help pad their margins anyway thanks to the rebate being there to help keep the cost down. Because the presence of a tax credit/subsidy on EV purchases can further disincentivize manufacturers from keeping the purchase cost down, it can backfire and potentially harm the adoption of EVs.

Tesla is showing that with a quality product, EVs are coming into their own and generate plenty of demand, even with a price premium. Since Tesla was allowed to enter the market, the automobile monopolies have been challenged and now have no choice but to keep up or be left behind.

What I'm looking forward to is seeing the EV equivalent of a $15,000 Nissan Versa for the masses. Back in the 2000s I've held the opinion that a $25,000 EV sedan capable of comfortably seating 4 with a 150-200 mile highway range was possible and still do, except that now it would be even cheaper with the battery cost reductions that have been realized. The trick is to build the car to be as aerodynamically efficient and light as possible while using the most inexpensive and conventional materials and processes. It would be a featureless thing with roll-up windows, minimal luxury, and perhaps only a radio and basic heat/AC as creature comforts in the interest of keeping bloat and unnecessary costs down, while using a small 20 kWh battery pack. If a drag coefficient of roughly 0.16 is realized and the frontal area ends up somewhere around 20 sq ft, coupled with LRR tires and a curb weight somewhere around 2,700 lbs, that range goal can be realized.

I think there would be a market for such a thing, especially if it is imbued with the performance of cars costing 3-4x as much, which given the nature of electric drivetrain costs on a per kW basis, will not cost much more than if the car had barely enough power to reach highway speeds and took 1 minute to go from 0-60 mph(we're talking a thousand dollar difference in production cost between these two extremes, mostly in the extra material needed for mechanical robustness of the driveline components and chassis needed to handle a high power electric drive).

Sure, this hypothetical $15k Nissan Versa wannabe may look bland and unconventional(due to ultra aerodynamic design), use a tiny battery pack, and be featureless by today's standards, but if it could blow the doors off of a Corvette, the buyers would come...

[EdwinSm]

Interesting report on how EVs are already cleaner, and more cost effective in the long run for an average user.

Now there just has to be some way to get people to think of the life-long costs and not just the sticker price. [For me, the high sticker price of EVs is still a problem as the kilometers I drive is much much less than the average.]

The Finnish Climate Change Panel estimates that electric cars emit 60-70% lower lifetime emissions than standard cars with combustion engines, and are also less costly to operate over the long term.

On Friday the state-supported think tank unveiled an automotive calculator (only in Finnish so far) that allows consumers to compare cradle-to-grave emissions and running costs of various types of vehicles.

It indicates that although the manufacturing of electric vehicles (EVs) produces higher emissions, they still generate far less greenhouse gases in the long run than conventional vehicles of the same size.

For example, driving a mid-sized car for 15 years at the Finnish average of 14,000 kilometres annually, an all-electric vehicle produces the cumulative equivalent of about 18,000 kg of CO2, including emissions from manufacturing.

In comparison, a plug-in hybrid produces about 27,000 kg. Meanwhile a standard petrol car pumps out about 44,000 kg, more than three times as much as an EV.

....
The panel's calculations indicate that although EVs are more expensive when new, they are actually cheaper over five to eight years for motorists who drive an average of 20,000 km annually, based on home charging.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finnish_climate_panel_electric_cars_cheaper_in_the_long_run/11116599

[mousepad]

If you think that, for example, a high tax on gasoline won't result in less consumption of gasoline by the masses, you're deluding yourself.

Our problem is consumption in general, not only gasoline.
If the idea of taxation is to reduce consumption, it won't work. Taxation simply moves the consumption from the individual being taxed to the government instead.

If your goal is to reduce gas consumption while increasing some other consumption instead, then yes, I agree with you. Taxing it does work.

Thinking about this a bit. I'm questioning my last statement that taxation on gas would reduce consumption at all. Reduced gas consumption in the US would lower its price and allow consumers-in-waiting in other parts of the world to pick up the slack. Oil being a global commodity and such.

[mousepad]

One possible way to ameliorate this is to rebate it back to everyone without condition, perhaps an equal amount for every person, so that the government doesn't get to blow it on new programs, bureaucracy, and graft.

That doesn't change anything, does it?
Whether YOU consume it as a result of your OWN work, or you consume it as a result of a government handout, or the government consumes it in the form of contracts, defense, research and what not.

It's consumed in the end.

To curb consumption, production must be curbed.