1 hour ago, LHookins said:

I had to check this out.

Best news I've heard all year.  That explains why my 2006 ML-500 is a piece of word not allowed.  It has the star on the grill and some Mercedes features, but the quality is abysmal.

Good to see it's back in German hands.

Hook

Was one of the most mystifying moves I’ve ever seen. 
 

Ford taking Jag made sense. 
 

the K Car taking the S Class not so much. 

3 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Was one of the most mystifying moves I’ve ever seen.

Mercedes was one of those brands that you didn't have to research, you knew it was going to be good.  But I didn't know about the merger.

For those who want to go down the rabbit hole and learn lots about automotive history:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Mercedes-Benz-buy-Chrysler-and-then-sell-it-back-with-in-a-few-years

It's actually fascinating and covers lots of topics.  Especially if you hate investment firms. 🙂 

This is why I'm interested in the quality of the Chinese cars.  Can I assume they're good, like I could with earlier Mercedes?

Hook

19 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Mercedes was one of those brands that you didn't have to research, you knew it was going to be good.  But I didn't know about the merger.

For those who want to go down the rabbit hole and learn lots about automotive history:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Mercedes-Benz-buy-Chrysler-and-then-sell-it-back-with-in-a-few-years

It's actually fascinating and covers lots of topics.  Especially if you hate investment firms. 🙂 

This is why I'm interested in the quality of the Chinese cars.  Can I assume they're good, like I could with earlier Mercedes?

Hook

That marks my time when I was a Manufacturing Engineer with Cummins from 2003 to 2006, and Chrysler was a big customer of ours. My last year there we were given the task of stripping down and scrapping 'Rack Engines', which are engines that are waiting to be installed into a car or truck. The lead time on engines are much longer then a building a vehicle, so you have to predict the amount of engines ahead of time, in 2004 and 2005 they ordered far to many engines and in 2006 when Chrysler collapsed their was a massive surplus of engines that will never see a car, also 'Rack Engines' have a shelf life, if they don't reach a car in a certain amount of time they are scrapped.

Our facility received thousands upon thousands of these 'Rack Engines' to strip down and scrap, that was around the time I left because you know things were going to get really ugly, about a year after I left that facilty I worked was closed down so no surprise there. I don't do engineering anymore I moved far away to an Pacific Island instead 🤣

9 hours ago, Luke said:

I paid software engineers more than that 3 years out of college, with far more generic skills.

Trust me, if you abolish the pension you'd have to pay market wages. I assure you that would be far more expensive.

Paid them more than what, exactly?  I didn't state any amount.

Anyway, govt. wages for most positions are pretty on par with private sector wages.  The average federal law enforcement officer rakes in over $80K/year with 10 years in, and some make over $100K.  Civilian employees generally must put in 25-30 years before they get a pension.  This isn't the 1980s any more.

Calculate that he/she retires at age 50 after 25 years with a 50% pension.  Using the average life span of about 80 years, that's 30 years x $40K/year equals 1.2 million dollars, and I haven't factored in the annual 2-4% COLA increases and subsidized health insurance for 10 years until age 65.

You may work in a field where the employees are handsomely compensated, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of folks ain't getting anywhere near those sort of lucrative benefits from their employers.

This is not fair, and is contrary to the American way, IE equal treatment and justice for all.  Instead of justice, it is now "just us".

Dave

The biggest complaint in D.C. was "double dippers", military 20 year retirees getting a 50% retirement who then went to work in government service.  I don't know if they went on to get another 50% government retirement 20 years later. 😄 

Hook (who is surviving on military pension, social security and Medicare)

13 hours ago, LHookins said:

I'm less interested in the fact that China is making EVs and loading them with cool tech gadgets than in the fact that: "cost and quality is far superior to what we see in the west."

If China is making vehicles of a quality equal to, for example, Volvo or pre-merger Mercedes, I want to know about it.  It's not that they can, it's that they're willing to put in the effort.

It turns out the EV market in China is going through a major price war.  I doubt they could keep up Mercedes quality in those conditions.

There is a LOT more going on than gets reported.  

Chinese EV maker BYD has also announced a 5 minute battery which requires a 1000 kW connection and produces 250 miles of range.  Looks like that's 20-80% charge; someone let me know if I'm wrong.

That would be a "standard" range of 3 miles per kWh.

Hook

Update: 

"The EPA range estimate for BYD vehicles varies by model. For example, the BYD Seal has an EPA range of 260-310 miles"

I thought BYD was known for their range!

Hook

Edited August 11, 2025Aug 11 by LHookins
Insufficient proofreading

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

They require enormous inputs in the form of new mining and processing which requires a lot of energy,

 

We've discussed this many times before, so to save me the trouble, let's ask our friendly neighborhood AI.

 

"While Electric Vehicles (EVs) do require mining of materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel for their batteries, they generally have a lower overall mining and resource footprint compared to Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles when considering the entire lifecycle. EVs have higher upfront resource intensity due to battery production, but they eliminate the continuous mining and refining of fossil fuels required for gasoline and diesel vehicles. "

 

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

My beef has always been that the promoters of them hype up their benefits and downplay or refuse to acknowledge their shortfalls, because although they may be better, they ain't perfect.

 

I've seen no promoter of EVs claim they are perfect. 

 

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

requires a lot of energy, not to mention drawing even more power from an already overtaxed electrical grid.  Some people naively glorify them as some sort of miraculous technology which will save the planet, but that is simply not the case.

 

"While widespread electric vehicle (EV) adoption will increase electricity demand, the power grid is expected to handle the additional load, especially with proper planning and modernization. The grid is already undergoing upgrades, and EVs can even offer opportunities for grid stabilization through smart charging and vehicle-to-grid technologies. 

• However, as EV adoption grows, upgrades to transmission lines and distribution networks will be necessary to ensure reliability and prevent localized overloads. 
   
• These upgrades are already underway, with governments and utilities investing in grid modernization to support the transition to electric vehicles. 
   

2. Smart Charging and Demand Management:

• EV charging can be managed to minimize strain on the grid, especially during peak hours. 
   
• Smart charging technology allows for charging to be shifted to off-peak times when electricity demand is lower and prices are often cheaper.
   
• Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology can enable EVs to feed energy back into the grid during peak demand, further contributing to grid stability. "

 

Edited August 11, 2025Aug 11 by martin-w

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

so in switching to EVs we're just shifting from gasoline power to electricity, more of which now has to be generated.

 

Over to you Mr. friendly neighborhood AI. 👍

 

 

"Switching to electric vehicles (EVs) will likely increase electricity demand, but not as significantly as one might initially assume. While EVs require electricity to operate, they are also significantly more energy-efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles. This efficiency, coupled with strategies like off-peak charging and potential for vehicle-to-grid technology, can help manage the increased demand without overwhelming the power grid. 

 

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Increased Demand, but Not as Much as You Think:

  While EVs will increase electricity demand, the difference between powering an EV and a gasoline-powered car is substantial. EVs require roughly half the energy to operate compared to their gasoline counterparts. 

   
• Efficiency Matters:

  EVs are more energy-efficient because they convert a larger portion of their energy into motion, wasting less energy as heat. This means they can travel the same distance using less electricity than a gasoline car uses fuel. 

   
• Charging Strategies:

  Smart charging technologies and the ability to charge at off-peak times (like overnight) can help distribute the increased demand and prevent grid overload. 

   
• Potential for Vehicle-to-Grid:

  EVs can potentially feed energy back into the grid, which could further enhance grid stability and even reduce reliance on other energy sources during peak demand. 

   
• Grid Capacity:

  While EVs will increase demand, existing grid infrastructure is often capable of handling the increase, especially with the implementation of smart charging and other technologies. 

   
• Cleaner Electricity Sources:

  As more renewable energy sources are integrated into the grid, the environmental impact of EVs will continue to decrease, as the electricity used to power them will be cleaner. 

   

In essence, while the transition to EVs will require an increase in electricity generation, the overall energy efficiency of EVs and the implementation of smart charging strategies can mitigate the impact on the grid"

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

"The EPA range estimate for BYD vehicles varies by model. For example, the BYD Seal has an EPA range of 260-310 miles"

I thought BYD was known for their range!

 

BYD LFP batteries have a lower range than conventional lithium Ion, I recall. They are safer, though. I've posted the nail test video in the past. Very unlikely for them to catch fire. They have a solid state battery car in development with a range of up to 900 miles. 

 

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

Chinese EV maker BYD has also announced a 5 minute battery which requires a 1000 kW connection and produces 250 miles of range.  Looks like that's 20-80% charge; someone let me know if I'm wrong.

 

That's their  "Super e Platform."  It's not solid state, it's just a "flash charging" battery. It's a 1000 volt system. 

9 hours ago, LHookins said:

who is surviving on military pension

I don't know what grade you retired at, but unless it was E8 or above you're likely not getting as much as the average federal agent.  I also forgot to mention that my relative, who will retire next year from ICE at age 51, will also get half his Social Security immediately, about $850/month in addition to his pension.  When he reaches full retirement age, he'll then get the other half of SS.

He'll end up making about $50K/year, plus he gets to stay on ICE's health insurance as if he still works there, so they pay a big chunk of that, too, until he turns 65.

It's a pretty good deal, and my taxes pay for it, but I'll never get a govt. pension and won't see a dime of SS until I'm at least 62.

Dave

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Over to you Mr. friendly neighborhood AI.

So now you're too lazy to do your own research.

Everything you listed is the best case, most optimistic, and most unrealistic, result.

Your fantasy about everything running on free energy and fairy dust is just that - a fantasy.

BTW, recent research has discovered that CO2 has a saturation level where adding more to the atmosphere produces less and less of a greenhouse effect, and we're very close to that saturation level now.  It's akin to the Law of Diminishing Returns where the more you have of something the less it's worth.  The latest IPCC report also concluded that severe weather events have not increased in frequency or severity, and tornadoes have actually decreased in severity.

The whole fantasy/scam is being dismantled one piece at a time.

That will be all I have to say on this matter.  No AI required.

Dave

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

So now you're too lazy to do your own research.

 

Don't be rude, Dave, and get the thread locked. You've had plenty of "my research" in the past ad infinitum, including PM discussions. We've been over this stuff over and over again.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

Your fantasy about everything running on free energy and fairy dust is just that - a fantasy.

 

🤣   What fantasy, you literally made that up. I've never made any such claim that would suggest such a thing. 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

BTW, recent research has discovered that CO2 has a saturation level where adding more to the atmosphere produces less and less of a greenhouse effect, and we're very close to that saturation level now.  It's akin to the Law of Diminishing Returns where the more you have of something the less it's worth.  The latest IPCC report also concluded that severe weather events have not increased in frequency or severity, and tornadoes have actually decreased in severity.

 

CO2 saturation point is not new. But from what I recall you don't get complete saturation. Adding CO2 still contributes to warming. 

If you'd like more than the following, it can be provided...

 

Quote

"The idea that the atmosphere is close to CO2 saturation, meaning adding more CO2 has little impact, is a misconception. While CO2 absorption is not linear, it is not saturated in the way often suggested, and the radiative effect of CO2 continues to increase as concentrations rise. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is significantly higher than pre-industrial levels and continues to rise, with potentially severe consequences for the climate. "

 

Quote

"That will be all I have to say on this matter.  No AI required."

 

Well, I suggest you do try AI. It will gather information from multiple sources, rather than just concentrating on sources that confirm Mr. Dave's bias. 🙄

 

Edited August 11, 2025Aug 11 by martin-w

10 hours ago, LHookins said:

Hook (who is surviving on military pension, social security and Medicare)

Well, Hook, I certainly am.  I retired as an E-9 and Medicare backed up by Tricare For Life for miltary retirees.  I've been retired since 1993 and have not [aid a penny out of pocket for my medical care.  They even covered the helicopter flight from Roswell to Las Cruces when I had to have my gall bladder removed.  And prescription drugs cost me 13 dollars for a three month supply.

Noel

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I'll never get a govt. pension

And I'll never get a Railroad pension.  There's a good reason for that.

I NEVER WORKED FOR THE RAILROAD! 

I never worried that someone might be getting something I'm not.  I'll be paying the same taxes no matter what anyone gets for a government pension.  I didn't even care about the "double dippers", figuring anyone willing to put in the time and put up with the problems deserves whatever they can get.

Pensions are not "waste, fraud and abuse."  

Hook