The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Architype

Again, I'm not anti EV, but there are differences so it's a little early for rhapsodizing. I'll stand by what I said because EVs are still a new technology. Of course there are clubs for everything, but any EV car culture is a continuation of existing car culture. Teslas can be modded aesthetically but perhaps not so much in terms of performance etc. And I live where I can literally look out my window and see two or three Teslas parked sometimes, and I know some Tesla owners. Can you go pick up a used 10 year old EV for say $5000, and go ahead and swap the engine, etc., as can be done with an old Celica or Mustang for example? Elon Musk's company is also very proprietary, so Teslas are not easy to mod - and what would you, or could you change anyway, except for aesthetics, sure a wing, a stripe, some new wheels, and a nice wrap.

Well yes, EV car enthusiast culture is a continuation of existing car culture because EVs are just... cars. The claim we were refuting was that EVs were somehow so fundamentally different that when they usurp ICE cars it would destroy car enthusiast culture. Fortunately you now seem to acknowledge that this isn't the case since the existing culture is continuing happily along with a few differences.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wonder why our society was structured around auto culture? Do you suppose that people might have recognized some benefits from using cars? I don't think it happened because some tyrant forced people to use cars against their will.

• Video Link

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wonder why our society was structured around auto culture? Do you suppose that people might have recognized some benefits from using cars? I don't think it happened because some tyrant forced people to use cars against their will.

Of course they recognized the benefits; they just largely overlooked the massive harm. Partly because the harm was externalized (environment, long term health, pedestrian safety, infrastructure cost, etc.) and partly because the downsides didn't become as overwhelming until we had the massive numbers of cars that we have now. The "ball got rolling" when the earth had a much smaller population and a smaller percentage of people could afford cars, and inertia is hard to counter. But it was poor judgement and a lack of foresight whether it was on the behalf of the general public, governments, or some evil tyrant. So if we're discussing whether or not there should be changes, worrying about who was to blame isn't really the central issue. It's simply a matter of comparing the harm vs the benefits of status quo compared to possible alternatives.

However, it has also been well documented that oil companies like BP were well aware of the science behind climate change and used some of the same lawyers and tactics that cigarette companies used to cast doubt on the dangers of smoking to cast doubt on climate science. And it was also down to massive publicity and lobbying campaigns on behalf of the auto industry in the earliest days of the car that allowed them dominance over other road users on urban streets. The term "jay walking" is a remnant of those campaigns that remains in common use even though the term "jay" is no longer used as a general insult like it was then.

[Djeffery]

Is there really much difference with mods to an EV as there are to anything built this century? Any of the cruise nights I go to are still 50s to 70s either highly modified or restored vehicles. Practically anything I see done to a car 30 years old or newer are aesthetic things that you can do to an EV if you wanted. The main difference might be to put a set of speakers on the outside so you can play the sound of a Chevelle blasting off the line lol. No one is turning a Tesla into a hot rod anymore than they are turning a 2004 Camry into one, but I don't really think that is any type of downfall of "car culture".

[Nashe]

I think, from an enthusiast standpoint, both would have their merits (ICE vs EV). Drag strip junkies are still trying to make heads or tails of it all, slowly adapting to the thought that it's kinda like a gorilla/monkey wrestling match:

Tesla X Plaid vs Lamborghini Hurrican

They're just gonna have to agree to never really "play" with each other.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

• Video Link

Thanks for posting, but I have to say that I ever watch videos that people post as answers to questions. I typically don't have an hour to sit and watch a video that may or may not have any valuable information (burned by too many misinformation/conspiracy theory videos that people have directed me to over the past couple of years).

I may have seen the one you posted in the past, though, as it looks familiar at the onset.

[Nouvellecosse]

To clarify some of my earlier responses, I do draw a distinction between car enthusiast culture (car modifying, collecting, discussion, etc. as hobby) and general car culture in which cars are made a central part of daily life with low density development, drive-throughs, large/numerous parking facilities, overly wide streets with high speed limits, etc. I don't really have a problem with the former since enthusiast culture doesn't seem to have the negative effects on sustainability or built form and doesn't impose itself on those who aren't interested. The latter is where most issues come in. Although I'm sure there's a connection between the two.

[Tvisforme]

EVs are the way of the future, for sure, and car culture will adapt the same way it did when the land yachts of the past gave way to more efficient designs. I think the one thing I will very much miss, however, is the manual transmission. When Mazda eventually develops their electric Miata, I'd love to see an option where the electric motor still feeds through a transmission. Even if there is some loss of efficiency and increased maintenance costs, it would be worth it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Of course they recognized the benefits; they just largely overlooked the massive harm. Partly because the harm was externalized (environment, long term health, pedestrian safety, infrastructure cost, etc.) and partly because the downsides didn't become as overwhelming until we had the massive numbers of cars that we have now. The "ball got rolling" when the earth had a much smaller population and a smaller percentage of people could afford cars, and inertia is hard to counter. But it was poor judgement and a lack of foresight whether it was on the behalf of the general public, governments, or some evil tyrant. So if we're discussing whether or not there should be changes, worrying about who was to blame isn't really the central issue. It's simply a matter of comparing the harm vs the benefits of status quo compared to possible alternatives.

However, it has also been well documented that oil companies like BP were well aware of the science behind climate change and used some of the same lawyers and tactics that cigarette companies used to cast doubt on the dangers of smoking to cast doubt on climate science. And it was also down to massive publicity and lobbying campaigns on behalf of the auto industry in the earliest days of the car that allowed them dominance over other road users on urban streets. The term "jay walking" is a remnant of those campaigns that remains in common use even though the term "jay" is no longer used as a general insult like it was then.

Those are all valid and important points. So let's just talk about it in a balanced way. We all know the negatives, and we all know the positives (even though we don't want to bring them into the discussion).

The true discussion really needs to be stripped down to the basics, IMHO. We have a personal conveyance that is really useful and convenient, and infrastructure already in place to make it work. We have a society that is accustomed to convenience and easy living, and a population that has exploded over the past few decades that shows no sign of slowing down. We (Canadians) also live in a democratic society where the average person has the ability to steer the direction of their country through the voting process.

The challenges (as I see them) are as follows:
1) The world's population is rapidly creating a situation where we can no longer all keep the same "standard of living" that we are used to without several major problems forcing us to change in a major way. However, we also have a world where procreation is perhaps the single-most driving force of the lives of the majority. Decreasing birthrates to drive a population decrease isn't going to happen, and additionally many nations base their economy on population growth, so "not gonna happen".

2) People in 'rich' (developed) nations are accustomed to their standard of living, which in many cases involve using a car to get them and their families around in all weather, and for the most part quickly and efficiently. How are you going to get them out of that? Are people going to vote for a party that is going to make their lives less convenient and more difficult?

It's really much more complex than that, of course, but nobody is going to convince anybody to change with arguments that ignore the reasons that people use cars (and willingly expend a large percentage of their finances on) in the first place.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I am curious about how your EV does in winter, as I am somewhere pretty similar climate-wise.

I am just more of an edge-case use where highway trips generally are 400-500km affairs on less travelled highways with colder winter temperatures.

I am a few years away from looking right now, but would be curious to get regular updates to see how your experience is long-term.

As Warren mentioned, I will be parking in my garage in the winter and definitely pre-conditioning (warming up the cabin and battery while plugged in before any longer trips).

[Nashe]

Electric rally car:

FC1-X

The video is cool. Looks like some sort of amusement ride mixed with Star Wars land speeder. The sound is crazy.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Range can be hit 30-50% in the worst of Canadian winter conditions. Temperature of the battery and how much power you're using to heat the cabin are big parts of that though.

If, for example, you're starting from your garage and you can pre-warm the battery and the cabin while it's plugged in, your actual range loss over the trip will be significantly less.

Starting after parking outside overnight in -30C you will see that 40% range hit on shorter trips.

It's a bit too hard to just pull numbers out, but those should be worst case.

A family member of mine in Timmins has a Chevy Bolt and he told me that in the Winter he normally gets 65-70% of the power he would get under warmer weather. And we get a lot of cold nights between -20 and -40 (temperature, not windchill) and a number of days that don't go above -20. He doesn't normally put it in his garage but when he does the level of power is better just as you mentioned. He also said that he doesn't normally need a lot of heat when driving but does on windy days and that eats up the power more quickly.

He uses the car for trips around the city and sometimes to places within an hour's drive or so, normally business trips to mines. He isn't using it for business trips to Toronto for example.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Those are all valid and important points. So let's just talk about it in a balanced way. We all know the negatives, and we all know the positives (even though we don't want to bring them into the discussion).

The true discussion really needs to be stripped down to the basics, IMHO. We have a personal conveyance that is really useful and convenient, and infrastructure already in place to make it work. We have a society that is accustomed to convenience and easy living, and a population that has exploded over the past few decades that shows no sign of slowing down. We (Canadians) also live in a democratic society where the average person has the ability to steer the direction of their country through the voting process.

The challenges (as I see them) are as follows:
1) The world's population is rapidly creating a situation where we can no longer all keep the same "standard of living" that we are used to without several major problems forcing us to change in a major way. However, we also have a world where procreation is perhaps the single-most driving force of the lives of the majority. Decreasing birthrates to drive a population decrease isn't going to happen, and additionally many nations base their economy on population growth, so "not gonna happen".

2) People in 'rich' (developed) nations are accustomed to their standard of living, which in many cases involve using a car to get them and their families around in all weather, and for the most part quickly and efficiently. How are you going to get them out of that? Are people going to vote for a party that is going to make their lives less convenient and more difficult?

It's really much more complex than that, of course, but nobody is going to convince anybody to change with arguments that ignore the reasons that people use cars (and willingly expend a large percentage of their finances on) in the first place.

I think that's fairly accurate in the sense that what "should" happen and what "will" happen are often different things, and convincing people to do things they don't want to do is hard even when there's a net benefit to doing so. The thing I would focus on is the part about cars being "really useful and convenient, and infrastructure already in place to make it work". These are mostly one and the same. Cars are really useful and convenient because of all the money spent on designing the built form and infrastructure to allow cars to be useful and convenient. But it's still not enough because the infrastructure that's already in place takes a lot of money to maintain, and more importantly, the infrastructure is even more expensive to build. And as populations expand, it will be very expansive to build additional infrastructure to serve new areas and provide additional capacity. That's the main reason cited by the HRM for pursing its active transportation plan since it can't sustain this cost. So it isn't really a case of "infrastructure already in place to make it work".

Plus, the HRM is one of many cities trying to increase density because of how much more costly it is to provide services to low density areas. In fact, it was the HRM who created an important study on the cost of low density vs medium or high density development which has gone on to be cited by other municipalities. So there are physical restraints to what type of development we can support. The issue is that the general public is somewhat disconnected from these facts since most don't know the underlying details of government finances and the cost of infrastructure and services. So in a democratic society where decisions need public buy in, it's important for those of us who are aware of such issues to actively speak out and help spread such knowledge.

I realize you may not like video links, but this one is only 10 minutes and simply provides some additional detail on points I already made regarding the cost of supporting auto-centric design rather than presenting the points for me.

• Video Link

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The thing I would focus on is the part about cars being "really useful and convenient, and infrastructure already in place to make it work". These are mostly one and the same. Cars are really useful and convenient because of all the money spent on designing the built form and infrastructure to allow cars to be useful and convenient. But it's still not enough because the infrastructure that's already in place takes a lot of money to maintain, and more importantly, the infrastructure is even more expensive to build. And as populations expand, it will be very expansive to build additional infrastructure to serve new areas and provide additional capacity. That's the main reason cited by the HRM for pursing its active transportation plan since it can't sustain this cost. So it isn't really a case of "infrastructure already in place to make it work".

I would argue that it is. It's there, the vast majority of the population in every Canadian city uses it, now. This isn't an "active transportation" vs "the car" debate, but if it were, the bicycle would still fall short in terms of the ability to move people around, like taking your kids to their sports practice, dropping them off at school, and still making it to work on time. Or, picking up your relatives at the airport and taking them for a tour around your province, or making it to your meeting on time and without getting your suit soaked even though it's raining (or snowing) outside. Real tangible things that most of us deal with in one way or the other.

To me, the real question is whether their is an equivalent replacement for what is already there. What do you have that will convince people to get out of their cars and into something else that will meet their needs, or at least the convenience that they are used to.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Plus, the HRM is one of many cities trying to increase density because of how much more costly it is to provide services to low density areas. In fact, it was the HRM who created an important study on the cost of low density vs medium or high density development which has gone on to be cited by other municipalities. So there are physical restraints to what type of development we can support. The issue is that the general public is somewhat disconnected from these facts since most don't know the underlying details of government finances and the cost of infrastructure and services. So in a democratic society where decisions need public buy in, it's important for those of us who are aware of such issues to actively speak out and help spread such knowledge.

I realize you may not like video links, but this one is only 10 minutes and simply provides some additional detail on points I already made regarding the cost of supporting auto-centric design rather than presenting the points for me.

Not really wanting to go down the urban/suburban rabbithole (besides, this is SSP), just talking about the means of conveyance in itself. If this were a rural discussion forum, there would be no debate, but that also is not really the intended topic.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I would argue that it is. It's there, the vast majority of the population in every Canadian city uses it, now. This isn't an "active transportation" vs "the car" debate, but if it were, the bicycle would still fall short in terms of the ability to move people around, like taking your kids to their sports practice, dropping them off at school, and still making it to work on time. Or, picking up your relatives at the airport and taking them for a tour around your province, or making it to your meeting on time and without getting your suit soaked even though it's raining (or snowing) outside. Real tangible things that most of us deal with in one way or the other.

If it really were the case that the infrastructure was simply all built and not costing us much more money, then you'd have a much more compelling argument. In reality, one of the biggest arguments against the status quo is that we'd have to spend so much to continue down the current trajectory that we just can't afford it. That's something we have to come to terms with regardless of how anyone feels about it. For instance, few cities of any size seem to be able to stay ahead of car congestion. There's always some big, expensive project needed to fix traffic whether it be a new highway or by-pass, road widening, calls for a multi-billion dollar harbour crossing, Boston-style big dig, or something. That, combined with all the other issues makes for an overwhelming case. It's true that there is already existing infrastructure but the question is what we should be spending money on going forward. We can do a certain amount to alter the current streets to make them more accessible to other conveyances without spending a huge amount, but building more car specific infrastructure is always going to be very costly.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

To me, the real question is whether their is an equivalent replacement for what is already there. What do you have that will convince people to get out of their cars and into something else that will meet their needs, or at least the convenience that they are used to.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what some people are calling for. It isn't for no one to use a car for anything, it's that the whole of society shouldn't continue to be designed around cars exclusively. It isn't so much about a complete retrofit of what already exists, but about how to move forward in terms of new development. Even in places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam where there's many times more walking and biking, or places like Stockholm, NY, or Lausanne where there's far greater transit usage, there are still some cars and that's ok. If I didn't believe that i wouldn't be supportive of the move toward EVs.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Not really wanting to go down the urban/suburban rabbithole (besides, this is SSP), just talking about the means of conveyance in itself. If this were a rural discussion forum, there would be no debate, but that also is not really the intended topic.

The two are not divisible though though because it's a system in which the different parts work together. You can't talk about conveyance without talking about where people want or need to be conveyed. That's why in urban planning programs there are often "transportation and land use" classes (like this one I took at Dal) as a combined topic. In order for cars to actually even be convenient, there needs to be lots of parking, which outside of central cities tend to mean surface lots, and that causes things to be very spread out. It's common for buildings to occupy less than 1/4 of their lots, and taken together that quadruples the distance people have to travel to get places. And when things are so spread out, you need a motor vehicle to get to them since most things are too far to walk or bike and transit only works well when there's a lot of people traveling between common destinations. In a city that isn't designed in that way, cars aren't going to be convenient for such a huge proportion of trips.

For instance, if you didn't have expressways like the circ or bi-hi running through metro areas allowing people to cross town at highway speeds, or broad multi-lane roads with wide intersection spacing like Portland st, it would take ages to get places because of congestion, lower speed limits, and the number of stop signs and red lights. And if we didn't dedicate so much land to parking (with paved surfaces causing their own problems in terms of rain runoff and urban heat island) then driving would also be less convenient compared to alternatives.

The difficulty with the topic is that people want to ignore the link between transportation and land use and just pretend the conversation is between one "conveyance" vs another with all else remaining the same. If you design a place such that only one conveyance is feasible for most trips, then of course only that mode is going to be feasible for most trips. In other words, the design and layout of cities comes first, the design of the transportation infrastructure comes second, and conveyances used within the resulting context comes third.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Have you guys seen any Lucids or Rivians up in the ‘Nada yet? I’ve seen a few Lucids here, quite a few Rivians and Taycans and EQS’s, and starting to see some Lightnings as well.

I’ve seen several Lightnings (last sighting today had Vermont plates so not even a Canadian market model ) and also I see Polestars on occasion — you have those in the States too?

Congrats Acajack on your EV!!! The Mach E is actually my favorite. Great choice

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wonder why our society was structured around auto culture? Do you suppose that people might have recognized some benefits from using cars? I don't think it happened because some tyrant forced people to use cars against their will.

Hell of a leap from acknowledging that cars have benefits to building our communities in a way that makes it all but impossible to get around unless you're driving. We would get far more benefits by moving away from near universal car dependence.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Thanks for posting, but I have to say that I ever watch videos that people post as answers to questions. I typically don't have an hour to sit and watch a video that may or may not have any valuable information (burned by too many misinformation/conspiracy theory videos that people have directed me to over the past couple of years).

Do you have 19 minutes?
• Video Link

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Has anybody rolled coal on your Tesla? It seems to be a common thing in the U.S..

I'm seeing more EVs here but it's very rare to see a Tesla.

Not yet haha.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by lio45

I’ve seen several Lightnings (last sighting today had Vermont plates so not even a Canadian market model ) and also I see Polestars on occasion — you have those in the States too?

Congrats Acajack on your EV!!! The Mach E is actually my favorite. Great choice

Yep there are Polestars here too.

Haven’t seen a Hummer EV yet though!

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by Acajack

FWIW I have never been a big car guy and my wife says I am turning into a car geek with our EV, reading articles, checking performance, and just generally doting over it like keeping it clean and not letting anyone eat or drink in it.

There are tons of gorgeous ICE vehicles out there but since I've seen them all my life maybe they are just less special.

There is something innovative about EVs that appeals to me I guess.

EVs may end up spawning a new class of car afficionados.

THIS. Totally agree. I was the same. Never really into cars, but now that I have the Tesla I follow EVs, do lots of research, baby the hell out of it.

Congrats on the purchase! The Mach E is a beauty and was my 2nd choice, but Im more of a sedan guy and contrary to some opinions I love the look of the model 3. Its sleek, sexy, minimalist, and with all the work I've done to it I always get people stopping me randomly to compliment it. And to get 0-60 mph in only 3.7 seconds, there's no car (EV or ICE) that comes close to that for the price. Yes Im a bit of a speed demon haha.