Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheRan]

I don't understand how they could possibly do that, surely they have no say...

The state has a rather large say about what is sold in the state, tho.  Not to mention what is emitted into the air, ridden on public lands.

It's only 'new' that Newsom was looking to prohibit in 2035, tho.  Pretty pablum.  Used vehicles wouldn't be touched.  And trucks have until 2040.

-Crissa

I mean, technically it's up to them. I suppose if they really wanted they could ban whatever they want (assuming all the right people are on board with it). I'm talking more about the justification behind it. If someone really wanted they could burn a barrel of oil on their own land, or drive a monster truck with an 8 litre engine that has consumption measured in gallons per mile, so riding around on a 2 stroke dirt bike should be allowed too (well, it will be but people should also have the right to buy new vehicles to do so).

[wavelet]

I don't understand how they could possibly do that, surely they have no say...

The state has a rather large say about what is sold in the state, tho.  Not to mention what is emitted into the air, ridden on public lands.

It's only 'new' that Newsom was looking to prohibit in 2035, tho.  Pretty pablum.  Used vehicles wouldn't be touched.  And trucks have until 2040.

-Crissa

I mean, technically it's up to them. I suppose if they really wanted they could ban whatever they want (assuming all the right people are on board with it). I'm talking more about the justification behind it. If someone really wanted they could burn a barrel of oil on their own land, or drive a monster truck with an 8 litre engine that has consumption measured in gallons per mile, so riding around on a 2 stroke dirt bike should be allowed too (well, it will be but people should also have the right to buy new vehicles to do so).

Sure, let's stick to the justification aspect.
Why should it be allowed to drive an overly polluting truck on a person's private land? The emissions aren't going to stay on their property, they'll pollute the air overall for everyone.
Similarly,  there are (throughout the developed world, AFAIK) very strict laws regulating gasoline/petrol stations and mandating regular inspections so their underground fuel tanks don't pollute the ground -- this applies to private property as well, for the same reason: Runoff would damage groundwater generally.
At least in places where water is a scarce resource (true here in the Mideast  , the same applies: One can't dig a well here on private land without a license, which limits how deep it can go, and how much and when can be pumped. All water in the country is considered a national resource, owned by the state.

[TheRan]

Sure, let's stick to the justification aspect.
Why should it be allowed to drive an overly polluting truck on a person's private land? The emissions aren't going to stay on their property, they'll pollute the air overall for everyone.

Freedom (no I'm not American). Morally, ethically, I don't think it's a good thing to do but I think that people should have that choice. There are many things for which the same argument could be made, like if someone should be able to use a power hungry computer, or use incandescent bulbs, or use a projector instead of a television, or use a gas cooker instead of electric.

[Crissa]

If they keep all their emissions inside a little bubble, then they can do whatever they want.

The moment they want to do anything that emits gasses, creates solid waste, runoff, or has the potential to do any of those things if there were say an earthquake, well, no, then their ability to do things impacts the rest of us.

Your freedom to punch me ends where it might actually hit me, they say, but it's a bit more restrictive than that.  You have to share this world with other people and the environment you depend upon.

-Crissa

[valnar]

I think this new relationship boils down to one of two possibilities, which explain all the FUD.

Either Zero is already doing well and expanding customers to make more money, or they're in financial trouble and needed this to stay alive.  All theories presented in this thread stem from one of those.

Something made Zero do this NOW.  What it is, we do not know.  The question to ask is, why 10 years?  Who most benefits from mandating it be that long?

[wavelet]

I think this new relationship boils down to one of two possibilities, which explain all the FUD.

Either Zero is already doing well and expanding customers to make more money, or they're in financial trouble and needed this to stay alive.  All theories presented in this thread stem from one of those.

Something made Zero do this NOW.  What it is, we do not know.  The question to ask is, why 10 years?  Who most benefits from mandating it be that long?

What FUD? You're misusing the term badly.

As for the deal, there's no reason to read too much into it.
No e-motorcycle maker is making any money (aside from the Chinese ones making 50cc-equivalent e-mopeds & e-scooters).
Sales volume are tiny -- Zero is the largest, and makes in the low 1000s bikes/year. That's not much, and growth is likewise low, because e-motorcycles aren't currently usable for anything except commuting in a way similar to ICE bikes, because of range and cost.
So Zero is simply taking advantage of the opportunity to codevelop & sell drivetrains into an additional market. The "NOW" aspect may be due to Polaris, not necessarily Zero -- we have no idea how long they've been discussing/negoatiating about it.
Energica is doing the same with the Dell'Orto deal.

And as for the 10 years, again, we don't know that it's mandated -- both companies may have exit clauses -- but it seems a reasonable timeframe to develop appropriate drivetrains, and then and then build and sell enough of them to make it profitable. Too short a timeframe would make it much riskier, and much longer doesn't make sense in the automotive sector -- even the largest carmakers don't have detailed projects that are that long, AFAIK. Let alone in the BEV sector.

[valnar]

I'm using FUD exactly right.  People are wondering what and why, and coming up with theories.

[wavelet]

I'm using FUD exactly right.  People are wondering what and why, and coming up with theories.

FUD == "Fear, uncertainty and doubt". It specifically refers to statement(s) made with malicious intent to confuse/mislead/strike fear in a rival or enemy, or in the wider public, to indirectly damage that enemy.

Are you accusing Polaris and/or Zero of making a deal in order to sow FUD? If so, who is the enemy?

Or do you think some of the posters here have malicious intent in the way they've been discussing it? Which posters? Why? What would they gain?

People wondering and having a discussion has nothing to do with malicious purposes, and if there's no malice, the term FUD doesn't apply.

That's all that's happened here, none of the posters (AFAIK) works at the companies in question or has any hidden motivations .

[NEW2elec]

I think it's just an old fashioned good team setup.
Polaris has major manufacturing ability and can builds "units" much much cheaper than Zero.
They have a huge R&D department to handle the framing and build up of the different vehicels and a much bigger dealer network and brand presence.

Really the only parts of Zero that are Zero are the motor design the MBB all the operating code and the use of their BMS and Farasis cell arrangement into their 116V battery.  Their bike frame won't be used of course but all that is really Zero will be in these new vehicles.
Everything else on our bikes is third party equipment, not unlike other manufacturers.

[Curt]

This must also mean Polaris has bought into the low voltage design and won't support DCFC.

[NEW2elec]

Nowhere to charge with CCS on a farm or the woods or in snow. 

I assume these will all be off road vehicles.

[Crissa]

Zero has said in the past they weren't interested in partnerships because they did not have the volume of motors or battery packs - whatever was being asked.  That may have changed.

They've always needed money.

Also, there are totally DC DDC chargers in the fields:  https://www.evseadapters.com/products/portable-chademo-ccs-combo-dc-quick-charger/
And portable AC chargers:
https://blinkcharging.com/products/mobile-charger/

They're just expensive.  But they do exist now.  Those SparkCharge seems to have lost their website?  Weird.

-Crissa

[NEW2elec]

If you look at the first link there is a J1772 plug at the bottom powering the thing.

Basically an external onboard charger.

I'll stick to my statement, no CCS in the field.

[Crissa]

A combo socket includes a j-plug in it, yes.  But it's still DC charging.

-Crissa

[NEW2elec]

No, that big box in the link is just like a Delta Q charger for a Zero.  Both of them spit out DC power (Anderson plug on the Delata Q and CCS or Chademo on this thing) to the battery but both take in AC power.

The bottom left of the picture shows a J1772 plug powering the box and then the box is going into the Leafs Chademo or CCS inlet.
It's just an external AC charger feeding into the DC plug.
Good for if your onboard charger died in your Leaf.  Or it may go faster than the standard Leaf onboard charger.