Harvey, what exactly are you implying here?

I've ridden in (not driven) a CT6 with this system on Cruise-compatible roads (US Interstate in TX and OK). Based on observations of the driver and general impressions of the vehicle synamics it was really exceptional. With nothing more than ~9 hrs of passive experience it seems like a huge step. I have only a couple of hours of passenger-seat experience with Tesla Autopilot and it also seems competent at the driver's-assist functions (though truly without bias it seem bit more abrupt -- this is purely an interpretation of passenger senstions, mind you). Finally in a new Lexus I thought the complete driver assist package took some attention and effort to implement but as an operator I was also impressed. Having said all that: is the operator actually performing more "safely" with these systems on? In the sense that the car is automatically adhering to metrics like proper following distances better than a person generally does, probably. Also, with all sensors and functions running optimally, it can brake faster and react more quickly. But in the event of unpredictable anomalies, the operator CANNOT react as quickly or with as high a probability of appropriate response as he will when driving UNassisted. You CANNOT "wake up" and deal with errors made by an Assist system. tl/dr: Davemart is right.

"New diesel" is dramatically cleaner than 5-yr old+ engines. You can spend ~$150k of subsidy on ONE new e-bus and leave 9 old smokies as they are, or spend the same amount on 10 new technology diesels and accomplish MORE pollution reduction than the one e-bus yields. The perfect is the enemy of the better.

Actually while the pace of growth is encouraging, it's nowhere close to projections being made in the days of $60-80 shares of Solar City, when CAGRs of 30% to even 50% were being projected by analysts (somehow with a straight face the whole time). A lot of wealth was torched on equity markets with that sort of foolishness, and now the $2B spent by TSLA shareholers for ex-SCTY continues on its path to zero (not to mention consequences for longsuffering SUNEQ bagholders). And what of Tony Seba who projected that storage would obviate the need for fossil-fueled spinning reserves in CONUS by 2025? Not gonna happen. But you can still go join the adoring crowds and listen to him for $500 and up, with complimentary box wine and tiny-weiners-on-a-toothpick at the reception. It's important to be realistic in projections, and this one, while still a bit optimistic, isn't asinine. [ Before Lad comes and goes all chimp on me, please know I now have ~5kWh of LiFePO storage standing against the darkness in the basement of our retirement house (2P4S 100A-h batteries). Not funded by my windfall of paid Exxon posts, either -- just cuz I'm so green... and because the S. Maine grid is dodgy. ]

This isn't nearly as certain a near-term outcome as being discussed here. For revenue service even in "sightseeing" flights the aircraft will require reserve for headwind, temperature, go-around and emergencies (requiring maximum power at end-of-flight and worst-case environment), etc. If you know where those requirements are defined in the FARs for all-electric aircraft, lemme know. If you can't find them, either, remember that even now with tremendous levels of industry coaxing and particiption we're at least another 12-18 months from a workable regulatory stance. Even at an average propellor shaft power input of 200kW (REALLY optimistic for a Beaver with a sufficient number of self-loading cargo packages) that requirement will mean even a 150kWh battery will be marginal. Even at Muskian energy density that's >700kg of battery and we haven't even started talking about crash-land shock requirements for battery integrity with pesky Li battery structural failure. Battery swaps will add more profit robbing weight for QD's, handling and restraint mechanisms, etc. Additionally, to have a meaningful revenue stream, this "little" battery will undergo at least 95% down to 20% SoC and back several times a day, so cycle "wear" and thermal management challenges are non-trivial. (BTW there will be NO meaningful recuperation in the flight cycle). Actual service might start by 2022. But I doubt it. Nonetheless I'm sure there are several apps developed and competing right now for phone-based reservations, payment, sharing of in-flight pictures and live-streamed adventures. And that's all that matters, right?

I can absolutely guarantee you this car contains several J1939 CAN buses. It still takes a lot of wire to do the job. There are oodles of sensors.

E-P: I accept the fact that you've never been part of a sourcing tem that puts 100m-hr of enginering effort into finding a suitable door lock solenoid that costs $0.25 less.

If you can save 0.10 on an auto component, you do, or you go out of busness. EVs have yet to be fully commoditized, and if you really think they'll replace ICEV then you'd best hope so. Example: Ford builds the complete 1.0L EcoBoost and standard tarnsmission package for less than Eu800 complete., all up ready for installation, and similar (slightly lower power and quality) versions pour out of china fora bit more than half that. Gas tanks and fuel and exhaust systems are cheap. Right now you can't get that 50kW e-axle for a few hundred Eu, and the batteries add to the challenge. If you really expect the Tony Seba world of ubiquitous EVs they won't be the nicely-appointed, garaged and pampered cars that most EVs are today. An EV manufacturer striving for <$20K MSRP (todat economincs) will shave cost wherever it can be shaved. A future affordable EV with all the convenience and reliability of modern ICE with present-day Sentra/Elantra/Corolla base performance, parked on the street and getting virtually no maintenance, will not be high-performance. And this mainstream customer can't tolerate all the excuses we make today for BEVs (such as cold range issues) or fall back on additional family cars that virtually all EV owners curretnly possess when charging issues get in the way. The compromises on this yet-to-be-achieved cheap, common, marginally profitable and utterly convenient car haven't been determined yet, but cost targets abound and extra, unneccessary motor shaft output will fall away quickly.

YASA has already done a prototype e-axle (see here, in 2-speed config): https://www.yasa.com/p4_traction_edu/ Praoway, you're right that the axial gap machine looks like a nice fit for motorcycles. As for tandem in an e-axle: the motor controller is really the volume challenge (for now), and having two of them stacked with a central e-axle is probably less satisfactory than moving them separately closer to the wheels. Hub motors will continue to be dreams, IMO, bcause of unsprung weight considerations, but locating at the "corners" has some merit. Still... a proper differntial with one motor works fine right now, has considerable cost and weight advantage over two motors and can still package nicely. Presently, in a world with subsidies or tax credits for EV's the world seems intent on providing higher-performance electric vehicles. In reality the genuinely-disruptive mass EV will, like its ICE forebears, have as little material (and cost!) on board as possible. Reality is that 25kW e-axle on one end and 75kW on the other end of a compact sedan (saloon) is plenty. 0-100km/h in <10 sec and 150km/h top speed would suit almost everyone just fine, with all the AWD capability needed for safe all-weather use. That's the only way we're going to see Corolla-equivalent EV competitors for similar price.

Not new news to most of us, and the reason I ditched an early ~75mi EV (that I loved) and switched to a PHEV. 38 miles doesn't get you much usefulness when there's no backup, no charger handy late-Dec through March bad days. The reailty of EV life for most current US owners (read: west-cosaters, where the majority live) is temperate climate, a greater-than-normal garageful of cars from which to choose, and destination charging in many places. There really isn't much concern, hot or cold days. But it's an unwelcome surprise for less-aware folks who've tried to make a 1-2 car family switch to BEV's living in colder climes with less-developed charging infrastructure. Really, if car-sharing were as imminent as it's touted, this problem could be solved sooner than the Advanced Battery of Tomorrow in places where 1-2 months of chill limits utility of EVs. Having said that: If you're burning enough fuel to provide heat, you could burn a little more and generate power from an ICE to supplement the battery. (See: ERDTT)

SJC obviously you can charge a battery to then discharge it to charge another battery. There is all manner or retail gadgetry to boost your phone, jump your car start battery, etc. The question is whether it makes sense to use batteries on the MWh scale to address the problem of demand surge at refuel/rechage facilities. It's not a case of can/can't, and never really has been. It's a case of should/shouldn't.

Unlikely that Workhorse will survive financially through the completion of 63 NGen deliveries.

Six years left on the Tony Seba clock. It's not looking good, T.

Deloitte has been pretty accurate as have most of the other Big Mojo consulting firms over the past few years, and Tony Seba will shrink into history like nameless nutty futurists describing jet packs and supersonic commercial transport for the masses. https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/press-releases/articles/21-million-more-electric-vehicles-expected-worldwide-by-2030.html Electrification is still going to happen at a wonderful pace. The fact that mobility is finding its way into vast blocs of the global population while HC fuel use shrinks or even remains stable is great news, and it makes me very, very happy. Rejoice! But there will be far more EVs than demanded at realistic market prices through 2028. In other words: the sale of ICE or various electrified ICE vehicles will subsidize EVs for another decade (at least) through tax penalties, direct subsidy by governments and/or through mandatory purchase of credits a la CARB ZEV charities, within large diversified manufacturers as EVs are sold at losses, or by incinerating investment capital. That'll still work, just not as fast as academics and "visionaries" imagine.

BTW that's not meant to be "electrication". Shows you how excited I am: electrification intended.

At least 10 major Tier 1 global suppliers in the eAxle game right now. The commoditization of electrication products accelerates beyond my wildest predictions. Crazy. The industry is going to be turned upside down -- ALL of it. Valuations today are way too high, even the primarily EV focused. Impossible to say where this will all end up.

Apparently this translated OK, and you guys missed it: RAV4 is the currently the best-selling vehicle in its class, doubling volume over the last five years to sales of nearly 408,000 in the US in 2017.

Good one sd. When I saw Mad Max in 1979, US proved reserves had dropped solidly below 30Bbbl for the first time in over 20yrs and were clearly on their way to single digits. I had begun a stint as a submariner but knew that the world awaiting me when I left the Navy might not even be worth coming back to -- I realized that among other things I'd need a good, scrappy Blue Heeler to accompany me on lonely treks across barren highways. So here we are 39 years hence, having pumped about 60Bbbl, with US proved reserves of about 35Bbbl. Is this a reason to be sanguine? Positively not. I've was a conservation and electrification advocate before Max's Falcon XB GT hunted down rabid gangs on the big screen, and still am. But I have learned to think for myself on this topic and be less easily manipulated. Still like cattle dogs, though...

Wow. We should immediately remove all human-caused sources of PM2.5, which include of course the combustion of fossil fuels for energy production, degradation of tires, construction, disturbing soils by farming, dust stirred up on roads, by transport, and cooking. Replace all that stuff with batteries., solar cells and wind farms. But for f_cks sake no mining, ore refining, or chemical processes to make the batteries, solar cells or wind turbines. And whatever you do don't transport ay of that stuff! I don't know what's so hard. Just freakin' provide energy, transport, food and shelter but don't make any dust, burn ANYTHING or move big things around. That would definitely improve life expectancy. For the Children.

Well, now I read again and I don't see that they're stuffing boards.

That's a big deal. I think most all the mfrs were outsourcing this work (even Tesla up until the Model 3, at least for the board assemblies).

You could eliminate >90% of the "toxic fumes" for 10% of the price difference per bus. The result of buying a few halo electric buses is that the net overall exposure to any school's bus riding population will be worse than a much larger fleet purchase of Propane buses. The longer that states and municipalities throw money at inefficient application of electrification technology (>$200k delta PER BUS, somehow oddly more or less matching the subsidy), the longer the economics will lag. And the accpetance of these things as "nasty details" is to tolerate corrosive and wasteful procurement behaviors. Those bureaucratic processes will never be 100% free of corruption -- human nature prevents it -- but waving off gross excess as a cost of "saving lives" is a bad judgment.

"How do low budget school districts afford these?" Largely they can't -- nor can a "high-budget" district, really. The exception is areas that have magnanimous incentives, like California's HVIP that awards US$220,000 PER BUS. https://www.californiahvip.org/eligible-technologies/#your-clean-vehicles Of course one of the reasons that there are so many rent-seekers in this business is that the taxpayer funds are so lavish. Currently EDI has an agreement with Adomani, whose sole job is to help districts understand incentive applications and line up the buyer with a dealer. For this vital job Adomani receives a cut. They are MANDATORY participants in the process for Blue Bird class C and D e-School Buses. BTW Adomani have no engineering talent on their staff of 14 people and will book $6M in sales in 2018 being an incentive middleman. Not enough for ya? The company, which is unprofitable and burns a couple $million cash on the $6M in sales, has a market capitalization of $50M and PLENTY of shares held by key execs (all former school bus salesmen). But by all means we should subsidize the hell out of them For The Children.

But Eloooooonnnn.

Energy per pax use in short duration flight with vertical flight phases is egregiously higher than ground transport.