Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
I don't know how you're mentally justifying this. Not only can a typical car go 400-500 miles on a tank, but filling up the tank takes less than five minutes.
How often do you need most of that range? Frankly, if you have an EV with a range of well over twice your commute, and you live in a place where you have regular access to even a regular wall socket, you can charge overnight, then, briefly assuming you're a raging workaholic, you'll never have to go to a place to add acutely usable range to your car ever again.
Besides, most EV's have a battery that'll drain about 75% over the course of two hours of motorway driving, and with current generation fast charging, it can recharge that range again in about ten or fifteen minutes. This builds in a ten or fifteen minute stop for stretching your legs, a wee and a cuppa, to top up on charge every two hours or so, which is actually recommended in general by many highway services for breaks anyway.
Assuming fast chargers are regularly available in your area, and having a plug socket near where you keep your car, daily driving electric, even today, is fine for 90% of us. And something that would be useful now would be to find a way to roll this out economically at places like apartment buildings.
(even better would be to not need a car in the first place, and to make it easier for people to ditch a car in favour of bicycles and transit, but that's a debate for another day)
Considering their comment was a simple correction of the OP that was stating wrong facts, they're not wrong. Your statement is not incorrect either, but rather a tangent.
Except I wasn't incorrect. They are. Objectively speaking they are using anecdotal evidence (as they have literally stated) while my numbers literally come from actually testing.
Most people don't (and shouldn't) run their car to empty causing the average consumer to fill up after ~300 miles, when they get to roughly 1/4 their tank.
This has been proven time and time again. If you consistently got the true 400 miles a tank out of your car, you'd damage it.
(Also average fuel efficiency is 25mpg, average fuel tank size is 12-16 gallons. Average that 12-16 to 14 gallons. 25x14=350 miles per tank)
How would you be damaging your car by using most of the fuel in the tank?
Your engine doesn't like to run dry and when you let your car run to E you do run it drier than it typically operates. This can overheat parts. It's not an issue if this is an occasional thing but overtime you can and will damage the vehicle.
I can find sources that say that repeatedly letting your fuel tank go completely empty can be a problem over time, but none that say that running near empty can be an issue.
They're still disregarding the fact that the exact same problem occurs in EVs, but worse.
One might say that they're confidently incorrect.
The same applies to EVs, you don't get nearly that 250-300 mile range without degrading your battery at a faster rate than your gas car's fuel pump.
Your fuel efficiency number is also bad. It probably factors in a lot of the large pickups that get 12-16 mpg. All the SUVs and sedans I've owned achieved 400-450 miles per tank. Hell, my 98 camry could do 500 if you kept AC usage to a minimum.
Your level of confidence is immeasurable, considering your bad statistics, and 1 sided thinking of the negatives.
My numbers came from WLTP which considers EV range "a functional range for which you can safely drive without harm to the systems." So it already took into account that issue.
Your anecdotal evidence does not a statistic make. The average fuel efficiency for all cars in the road in America is 25 mpg. This is not counting lorries or other commercial vehicles. The average tank size is 12-16 gallons. You. Are. Wrong.
But still love the assured confidence.
It seems you don't have any real world experience with EVs as WLTP is wildly optimistic. EPA is bad enough, but WLTP isn't even remotely close unless you're going a constant 35 mph with no stops.
Owned both a Model S and a Taycan. Both have exceeded WLTP in my experience. So you'd be wrong on that assumption.
Edit: and most reviewers agree that both cars exceed their tested ranges. Not seen one say otherwise
Oh look, anecdotal evidence. I guess I'll disregard your post. You. Are. Wrong.
Btw, pickups are not lorries. Those are just called trucks. Those large vehicles severally skew averages in the US. Knowing where your statistics come from will really make you look a lot less stupid on the internet.
My statistics come from WLTP. You might want to follow your own advice. Also: pickups and other trucks only account for 12% of cars on road in America.
Really? From my vantage point, the majority of users here disagree with you. I guess that's data stating you're wrong.
Users here who have not sourced shit and mentioned objectively false information.
Moment you put forth false info, I ignore your opinion as invalid. So frankly, idgaf what the very clearly incorrect people in this thread think. Their opinion is based in falsehoods.
Funny, that's what everyone here thinks of your opinion and stats twisting.
I'm not twisting any stars at all. If you have an issue with my math: present it or gtfo
Enough facts?
The sort of damage you're talking about is being 2 to 3 times as likely (so still a low chance) to have your fuel pump break after 5 to 10 years.
It's not zero, but it's not massive either.
Yet, I am still correct and you are still not. But no. I'm also talking about damage to the cat, the fuel pump, your actual engine block.... you should never let your car suck empty. You can and will damage it. It's about as bad as driving a diesel on petrol.
You seem to have me confused with another user. You say I'm still not correct, but that was my first comment.
Like, I said the risks you're talking about are very small and only for using that absolute last bit of gas. You can go beyond 1/4 of a tank remaining and not encounter those risks. And I'm not sure what your point is since it's not like most people drive their EVs to less than 5-10% SOC remaining. They also don't DCFC to 100% so they end up with 70% of their usable range for all except the first leg.
There's also the fact that if an ICE has 400 miles of range, it has 350 miles of range at 80 MPH in 10 F weather. An EV with 400 miles of EPA rated range on the other hand will have more like 150 miles of usable range in those conditions.
For people that live in a small world evs might be fine.
For the rest of us, they aren't going to stack up for 20 years at a minimum. Hopefully by then these climate lunatics won't exist anymore and we can go back to freedom of choice.
"Climate lunatics" I am 20yo. I can literally observe the climate as being different than it was when I was a child. It is plainly obvious something has changed. What should we call this change in the climate of our planet? Hmmmm.... maybe, climate change is an apt descriptor for the change in our planet's climate wouldn't you agree?
As to its existence? I'm not going to debate you on it. Climate change does exist. To deny that is to deny facts and science. To deny it is to deny literal reality. I don't debate people who live in fantasyland.
EVs have their issues in an establishing industry but I don't deny that climate change is real and to that carbon emissions have a lot to do with that.
And to that, focusing on the smallest possible end of the spectrum and dumping it on an end consumer is the most ludicrous proposition in existence.
We don't get wood fired pizza, or gasoline, or natural gas, or fucking straws?(lol), or, or, or, but tanker ships and private jets get to cruise around with impunity?
Who do you think they're buying those "carbon credits" from?
That same government pushing green bullshit is selling your freedom of choice to the highest bidder and removing it altogether from the individual.
That is a good point, however you call people climate lunatics without specifying above, which is lazy and strange to do on a platform like lemmy where you have a much higher wordcount for comments than Twitter for instance. I'm still convinced you dislike the idea of a clean, green environment for some reason though.
I'm not going to agree with the strange. The people that are pushing this are verifiable lunatics.
One cannot dislike the idea of a clean green environment, its the natural state of our planet, before cities were built. One can vehemently disagree with the mechanisms being employed that will have no discernible impact on "climate change" but will certainly ensure your grandchildren have no choices.
I'm stuck between "Did the Standard Oil Company write this comment?" and "I also want everyone and everything on the only habitable planet we know of to die."