Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

My summers are good down to about 40. Firestone Indy 500's.

That said, I do only have 200HP.
 
It?s not undriveable, I have driven on them in 27 degrees (was a few days after I bought it and had no other choice but to drive). As long as it?s dry out it can be driven just takes a bit of extra care. (basically I treat dry cold roads as if they were warm and wet).
The inconsistency is just annoying, I think after the holidays I might just send these off in a puff of smoke and put all seasons on. I?m ok trading a bit of warm weather grip for better consistency across larger temp range
 
No tires turn winter conditions into summer. You can't mentally autopilot in winter months, but take the lack of grip into account in all circumstances.
 
This will anger all the euro folks on this board but... I hate stupid summer tires, they are entirely too inconsistent in their grip when it was 75+ I could floor it in any gear and never get any wheelspin despite murrica stang. As soon as temps drop below 60 or so you end up having to big toe it on every take off. Last night I got wheel spin giving it the beans from 20ish mph in 2nd gear.
And before you euro lot child in with winter tires BS, temps have been consistently in low to mid 50s here winters wouldn?t help much either.

^ This. In the mornings I'm getting the same thing. Torque+cold air+summer tires=shit. I'm just waiting to burn these factory summer tires off so I can get some decent all seasons.
 
What tires do you have? I'm on the stock P0s that came with the car, could also be weight distribution and power difference.

Dunlop Direzza DZ102
 
No tires turn winter conditions into summer. You can't mentally autopilot in winter months, but take the lack of grip into account in all circumstances.
I can't mentally autopilot when I drive regardless, because of what I drive and where I drive and many times who I drive. However what I am saying is that in my personal experience I don't see any real world traction benefits of summers vs higher tier all seasons*, I do see drawbacks in the temperature sensitivity and also the fact that the summers pick up ALL OF THE ROCKS and pelt the shit out of my car with them.

*I drove the 350z on winters both in the winter and summer (my friend was too lazy to change them), on summers in summer and fall conditions and all seasons in all 4 seasons and all conditions.
 
Not a likely scenario for a city bus ;)

Yes clearly superior technology ORGANICALLY replaced clearly inferior technology, there was no legislature trying to cram electricity or internet down people's throats. In this case we are not talking about a clearly superior technology, at best it's a not inferior technology when all factors are taken into account. If we had batteries that last for 500 miles, weigh as much as a full gas tank, take 5 minutes to fully recharge, last for a decade and don't cost a whole lot then you could make that argument. Would it be nice to replace all but enthusiast vehicles with electrics and breathe fresher air? Of course it would, who doesn't like having healthy lungs? Is it currently practical? Not even remotely.

That is nice in theory, but the US paid a substantial sum for rural electrification, the standardization of railroads, even assisted in developing coal, gas, and oil industries. Whether it is currently practical is irrelevant, we can't sacrifice progress for the sake of perfection.
 
That is nice in theory, but the US paid a substantial sum for rural electrification, the standardization of railroads, even assisted in developing coal, gas, and oil industries. Whether it is currently practical is irrelevant, we can't sacrifice progress for the sake of perfection.

What does that have to do with anything I said?
 
The legislative part. ;)
 
The legislative part. ;)

The government did not mandate that people had to switch from kerosene to electricity, while it seems not only possible but likely they will force BEVs upon us. So, no, it doesn't relate.
 
Our government has made no such mandate. It is not coming under this administration, and I doubt the next one either.
 
The funding in each case the Blind listed was obtained directly from Legislative action.
 
Our government has made no such mandate. It is not coming under this administration, and I doubt the next one either.

As previously noted, California has already started making such mandates. You have to use LPG/CNG trucks in their harbor warehouse districts and retrofitted vehicles are not allowed.

In addition, CA has a 40 year history of mandating such crap. Remember the original ZEV mandate?
 
Last edited:
What was so terrible about the first ZEV mandate? 2% the first few years, then upped to 5%, and then to 10%. Oh my, the world would have ended.
 
What was so terrible about the first ZEV mandate? 2% the first few years, then upped to 5%, and then to 10%. Oh my, the world would have ended.

In the 1990s. When the technology simply wasn't there. It's more important still that CARB wrote the reg in such a way that mandated BEV-only at the time, even though the technology was far more primitive and would have worked out even worse in reality even for those few rich people that would have been able to afford it. CARB also announced in the mid 90s that the regulation would continue to ramp up after that with a tentative date of 2010 seeing a minimum 75% mandate.

Oh, and FYI, many of those states who linked themselves to "California Emissions" found themselves locked into doing the same whether they wanted to or not. New York wanted to but that fortunately got shot down in court. http://www.bcnys.org/capital/0820zev.htm
 
The EV1 worked fine for all those that got the leases. There were others as well from that time frame.
 
The EV1 worked fine for all those that got the leases. There were others as well from that time frame.

People did not have them long enough to find out about the need to replace battery packs (which they would have had to do as the original packs were primitive and would not have lasted much longer) and the "others" you mention, like the Lectric Leopard, were garbage.

Cites from here: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1721&context=elq

California's CARB released the ZEV requirement in 1991 but had actually started on it in 1988. They thought that the technology was there and the EV1 concept 'proved' it to them. Around 94 or so they started talking about that 75% mark, but in 1995 they had to admit that the EV1 and others were *not* practical vehicles and that the technology simply did not exist yet to make the vehicles practical and likely would not exist until 2000-2001 (which appears to be a number they pulled out of their ass.) In fact, it was CARB's own study that concluded their precious EV1 "shining example of how to do it" was not actually a practical vehicle. In 1998 it still didn't look like the ZEV tech would be there, so they altered it again to permit PZEVs, NGVs and hybrids. In 2001, the mandated technology they had predicted would be there *still* did not exist, so they tried making it a hard coded limit to force the technology. That got the entire industry suing them.

But all this means that all through this, the government was STILL mandating an impractical vehicle type be sold, based on a technology that still wasn't ready for prime time and that could not replace the majority of the fleet. Sure, they were offering 'delays' and "waivers' but the mandate was still there. And CA's got other mandates (again, like the trucking ones) that they didn't and won't be offering waivers or delays on. Oh, and if you want to see what that particular reg has done to the trucking industry and truckers in CA, read here: https://www.usatoday.com/pages/inte...ebt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/
 
Last edited:
The government did not mandate that people had to switch from kerosene to electricity, while it seems not only possible but likely they will force BEVs upon us. So, no, it doesn't relate.

You might want to check the department of health and human services, as well as the housing and zoning authorities. You absolutely have to have electricity from the grid to get a certificate of habitation in many jurisdictions.
 
Top