Tony Williams' CARB-ZEV Compliance Rating Scale

[donald]

What do you think could be a viable alternative path forward?

Less miles covered. People live nearer to work and shops. Government sponsored house swapping. Businesses change location. Bicycles. More locally, community-driven solutions to social living on a 'smaller' scale.

... in fact, whatever people and businesses used to do before everyone could afford their own motorised transport!!

If there are grants for EVs, it would seem to me to make more sense still for Governments to give house-moving grants to people to move to within cycling or walking distance of their work, or for employee-heavy businesses to move nearer residential conurbations.

I'm not anti-technology, or even particularly 'green', and I definitely do not side with those who seem to push us back to a mediaeval agrarian life style. But the power of ICE motorised transport has caused societal fragmentation in to suburbs and commuter towns. If that ICE motorised transport is coming under 'threat of extinction' then maybe the solution is to change the outcomes it created, rather than perpetuate those outcomes by finding a direct substitute for motorised transport!

If GM sold bicycles as 10% of their unit sales, would that satisfy the legislation? And if not, why not? What's the EPA mileage of a pedal bike?

 

[surfingslovak]

If GM sold bicycles as 10% of their unit sales, would that satisfy the legislation? And if not, why not? What's the EPA mileage of a pedal bike?

Donald, I grew up in Germany and I'm a huge bike fan, even rode competitively for some time. That said, I don't think that this is going to work in the US. The distances are simply too great and I believe that the society is essentially founded on the idea of mobility. It won't be possible to take it away. I used to believe in hydrogen, but for me it's EVs or bust. I think there is a good chance that we will pull it off, even though we are not out of the woods yet, just like you noted above.

 

[donald]

I don't think that this is going to work in the US. ... I believe that the society is essentially founded on the idea of mobility.

There I was thinking it was founded in the 18th century!

I'm not pro-bike, particularly, but was merely pointing out that the travelling long distances in people's every day lives is a result of ICE mobility, not that 'ICE mobility' was a solution to a problem of distances. Personal ICE transport was a luxury than was taken advantage of to enable changes in community organisation (viz. urban sprawl and highway commuting).

So if you ask me about a way forward without ICE mobility, then it seems prudent to me to begin to think about how to unwind some of the 'effects' it has had. My thesis here is that distance highway travelling has been an effect ICE mobility caused, not a problem that it solved. I don't think that is any great intellectual insight, it seems fairly reasonable and an obvious observation to me.

If you look at the total energy consumed in transportation and then try to figure out where that energy may come from without oil... it looks to me that mass personal motorised transportation is unsustainable. EVs are a manifestation of where things are going, a 'mid-point' down the slope from ICE's peak of influence if you like. But that is intrinsically alluding to the presumption that we're 'heading somewhere' down towards a more sustainable future. EVs and ICEs will always be a part of the future mix for transportation so long as we humans remain 'technological' beings, but it would be foolhardy to begin to imagine what mix, and in what numbers, they would contribute or otherwise to sustainable solutions yet because society itself and the distribution of population are not sustainable in their current forms.

Sorry - I hope that doesn't come across like I am some green crazy. I just think the promotion of EVs by legislature is egging on a substitute driver for an existing problem, rather than dealing with why people feel they need long distance transport. So, at the moment, it is the manufacturers who are making EVs because they are good, commercially viable cars to make that will drive the future, not some gimmick cars made just to fulfil some misguided legislation.

 

[surfingslovak]

There I was thinking it was founded in the 18th century!

Some parts of the country perhaps, but much of the West was not settled until relatively recently. Please have a look at the population growth of LA, for example. This could be also of interest. I hope that you don't take it personally, but this discussion reveals two different mindsets. Both are culturally conditioned, I believe.

 

[RegGuheert]

But if the market did approach saturation at only a few hundred owners in the 90's, maybe the market for EVs will begin saturating, once up to the 100,000's or so, this time around too.

I'm convinced this new movement of EVs has all the staying power it needs to grow indefinitely. Why? Because the economics are on the side of EVs now. In the 1990s, oil was below $40/barrel and now it is nearly triple that value. Grid electricity rates have also gone up, but PV has capped their cost (for those that have that option). And EV technology has improved dramatically. Power electronics has come into its own in the past 20 years. Batteries continue to be the Achilles heal of EVs, but nothing like the 1990s and the issues are being worked through. In ten more years' time, there will be little reason left for most to purchase ICEs other than personal prejudice or particular applications.

But CARB has played an important role in this process. It's too bad some at CARB think hydrogen is a solution to a problem. Perhaps it is, but I don't think commuting is the problem it solves. Perhaps long-haul trucking? Carlos Ghosn and Elon Musk maybe are playing even bigger roles than CARB. GM is also a very key player here.

I will say that I feel Tesla is the only ORGANIZATION in the world that really "gets it". Even within Nissan And GM it will take many years for the managers and employees to shake their decades of ICE learnings and fully grasp EVs, but they are moving in the right direction.

The difficulty will be for those companies which are firmly committed to compliance-only. There are certainly teams within those organizations who are passionate about electrification, but they will struggle without the support of their management. Of all of them, I find Toyota to be the most surprising, given their strong leadership in hybrids. But history records their hybrid program was driven by a strong champion inside Toyota who pushed it through. Does Toyota not have such a champion internally for EVs?

 

[surfingslovak]

I will say that I feel Tesla is the only ORGANIZATION in the world that really "gets it". Even within Nissan And GM it will take many years for the managers and employees to shake their decades of ICE learnings and fully grasp EVs, but they are moving in the right direction.

EVs are highly disruptive. While the technology is still improving, it has been demonstrated that is can already work today. I agree with your premise, and if established car makers don't watch out, they could easily fall behind. Even decades of successful track record and experience can become meaningless. Look at Kodak, look at Nokia, look at Borders, look at the newspaper publishers. I think car manufacturers are particularly vulnerable, because of decades worth of consolidation, and long planning horizons and development cycles.

 

[RonDawg]

[I don't know what Mazda will bring to California and other CARB states, but I do know that they will either bring something real soon, or they will start buying credits and paying fines (or not selling cars in California).

Again, the list of manufacturers is from CARB, not me. Mazda must comply, Renault does not have to.

Understood. What I am saying is that it's a bit premature to declare the Demio EV as Mazda's answer to CARB ZEV mandates. As you said, Mazda could opt to buy credits from someone else, and they may find it cheaper to do that depending on how many Sacramento wants them to sell.

 

[Pipcecil]

Dalimer needs to be changed, the Smart ED can be bought in more than just california (its available everywhere) either buy or lease, but has no QC options. I would put it below the ford focus. It has the same stats, but dalimer seems more dedicated to the Smart ED than Ford to the focus.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Dalimer needs to be changed, the Smart ED can be bought in more than just california (its available everywhere) either buy or lease, but has no QC options. I would put it below the ford focus. It has the same stats, but dalimer seems more dedicated to the Smart ED than Ford to the focus.

Ok, we'll fix that. I do think the B-Class will be strictly CARB only (and sold in Germany), but will happy to be proven otherwise.

 

[ksnogas2112]

> Tony
to get really pedantic, Honda Fit is not CARB compliant because its not the road for 5 years.

My understanding of CARB ZEV reg was that the vehicle needs to be on the road for 5 years, as such a 3 year lease is insufficent unless it is renewed to 5 years. So technically Honda is like Mitsubishi, their EVs generally don't qualify but for different reasons. You could say, that because Honda didin't allow their FIT EVs to be CARB ZEV that they bought the credits from Tesla, because the Tesla is CARB-ZEV compliant.

Never heard of that issue! Do you have a link?

The quantity of pure ZEV's is reasonably straight forward from the previous two years sales. They can make up credits in a subsequent year, and in September each year, they can "adjust" their data from the annual May report.

Never heard of a 5 year deal. The Rav4 EV wouldn't qualify then, either. Or the LEAF !!!!

I think you're wrong :ugeek:

Leaf has to count. I bought instead of lease and, as you know, I'm in Kansas. The durn thing better still be on the road in 5 years 'cause i'll still be paying on it.

 

[evnow]

> Tony
to get really pedantic, Honda Fit is not CARB compliant because its not the road for 5 years.

My understanding of CARB ZEV reg was that the vehicle needs to be on the road for 5 years, as such a 3 year lease is insufficent unless it is renewed to 5 years. So technically Honda is like Mitsubishi, their EVs generally don't qualify but for different reasons. You could say, that because Honda didin't allow their FIT EVs to be CARB ZEV that they bought the credits from Tesla, because the Tesla is CARB-ZEV compliant.

I've never heard of that, either. Can you quote the relevant text ?

 

[evnow]

My rule for compliance car is very simple. If it doesn't appear in my plugin dimensions table, it is a compliance car

BTW, Tony, one more car we can't yet rank is the Tesla "driven" B class Benz. Most probably CA only in the US, given the support infrastructure, but we have to wait and see.

 

[TonyWilliams]

My rule for compliance car is very simple. If it doesn't appear in my plugin dimensions table, it is a compliance car

BTW, Tony, one more car we can't yet rank is the Tesla "driven" B class Benz. Most probably CA only in the US, given the support infrastructure, but we have to wait and see.

Like the VW eGolf, I tend to believe that they will "mail it in".

The CARB game will get more and more interesting, so it's important that we enthusiasts and advocates understand the real issues. 2018 is just around the corner, and the game really starts to get serious then. Expect an all out attack from the vehicle trade groups.

 

[ydnas7]

> Tony
to get really pedantic, Honda Fit is not CARB compliant because its not the road for 5 years.

My understanding of CARB ZEV reg was that the vehicle needs to be on the road for 5 years, as such a 3 year lease is insufficent unless it is renewed to 5 years. So technically Honda is like Mitsubishi, their EVs generally don't qualify but for different reasons. You could say, that because Honda didin't allow their FIT EVs to be CARB ZEV that they bought the credits from Tesla, because the Tesla is CARB-ZEV compliant.

I've never heard of that, either. Can you quote the relevant text ?

Hi Evnow
page 14 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevregs/1962.1_Clean.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; gives an example of the 3+2 rule. This example seemed to be valid only for 2009-2011. Think back, how many of the 3 year lease only vehicles gave their owners a 2 year extension option towards the end
The 3+2 rules also have severe implications for hydrogen vehicles, so there would be a lot of push to remove it. The CARB ZEV rules do change, it might no longer exist, 2012 going forward.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The 3+2 rules also have severe implications for hydrogen vehicles, so there would be a lot of push to remove it. The CARB ZEV rules do change, it might no longer exist, 2012 going forward.

Since I know of no cars on a 3+2 lease option (heck, Honda Fit EV is a closed end "lease and crush"), I doubt this rule exists.

 

[TomMoloughney]

The 3+2 rules also have severe implications for hydrogen vehicles, so there would be a lot of push to remove it. The CARB ZEV rules do change, it might no longer exist, 2012 going forward.

Since I know of no cars on a 3+2 lease option (heck, Honda Fit EV is a closed end "lease and crush"), I doubt this rule exists.

BMW got their credits for the MINI-E and ActiveE and both programs were less than 3 years with no additional 2 year option.

 

[TonyWilliams]

BMW got their credits for the MINI-E and ActiveE and both programs were less than 3 years with no additional 2 year option.

BMW wasn't required (then) to earn any CARB-ZEV credits with either of those two programs... only the six Very Large Manufacturers, GM, Ford, Fiat/Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan and Honda did then. They are "on the hook" with the i3, however.

That doesn't mean that they couldn't (and likely did) sell CARB-ZEV credits to the other six manufacturers.

 

[SanDust]

Since I know of no cars on a 3+2 lease option (heck, Honda Fit EV is a closed end "lease and crush"), I doubt this rule exists.

(D) Multiplier for Certain ZEVs. 2009 through 2011 model-year ZEVs, excluding NEVs or Type 0 ZEVs, shall qualify for a multiplier of 1.25 if it is either sold to a motorist or is leased for three or more years to a motorist who is given the option to purchase or re-lease the vehicle for two years or more at the end of the first lease term. This subdivision 1962.1 (d)(5)(D) multiplier will no longer be available after model year 2011.

 

[Berlino]

Slightly off topic, but how much more is a sale in various CARB-ZEV states worth to a manufacturer than the same sale elsewhere?

I'm trying to figure out if the shortage of LEAFs in Canada is due to Nissan underestimating demand or if it's simply a business decision to supply CARB-ZEV states at the expense of other markets.

Just to give you an idea of the situation here, the few available LEAFs you might be able to find are all SL's. There are people who have literally been waiting six months for SV's.

Here is one customer's timeline:

1) Set on a MY13 SV in March, when the EV was available in the USA and Nissan announced a "late spring" launch date in Canada.
2) Nissan pushes back MY13 release date in Canada to mid-Summer. Not possible to officially place an order in a dealer's system.
3) MY13 finally available for purchase and order on July 19th. Order placed and deposit paid on July 21st. Delivery is to be within two weeks, but shortly after signature the dealer states it will be in five weeks.
4) Five weeks have come and gone and now the dealer is saying early October.

People who have not signed contracts are being told that MY13 SV's are sold-out, but they can leave a deposit for first crack at MY14's. One dealer has even had the nerve to say that MY14 will be arriving in October. Another is telling customers November or December. I hope I'm wrong, but would expect a two-month wait after the USA launch before anything arrives on dealer lots here.

 

[Bicster]

I know this doesn't answer your question, but isn't MY14 in production now? The MY13 is constrained everywhere. The '14 is supposed to arrive in October.