What does the looming ICE ban mean for BMW motorcycles?

More to the point, ICE motorcycles will continue to be sold here.

Though that Zero is pretty sweet.

kbasa said:

Thanks for that. Some comments:

• sales of cars and light trucks <8500 lbs. will end by 2030 in California. Note that GMC introduced the Silverado EV and they're getting 500 orders every day for their first edition, which will be a $100K truck. Following models will be in line with current truck pricing. The Ford Lightning is sold out for a year, if memory serves.
• I am also a Boomer and we deserve some cheap shots once in a while. Regardless of the title, the squares are all accurate.
• Resources to go solar at your house are about the price of a used Corolla and then you never have to pay an electric bill again. If you go EV, you can get rid of most of your gasoline consumption. I have 8 ICE vehicles. I love them. But I'd rather thrash a $5000 used Nissan Leaf around town on "gas" I got off my roof than my truck. How much would gas cost for a year of daily driving? A couple thousand dollars? More? Still got the other stuff when it's time to venture out.
• The urban issue shouldn't be a barrier to the other 60% of the country moving away from gasoline. Watch as urban condos and apartments just add chargers in the basement powered by locations like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oBKzQjFGQM Panels are roughly adhering to Moore's law, which I'm sure you're familiar with. My employer in Tempe put panels as sun shades in the parking garage and then ran the building off of it using battery storage. That included our data center. From the parking lot shades.
• Newer EVs have a 350ish mile range and are going from 0 - 80% charging in 15 minutes. How many miles can you go on your Kbike on a tank and do you spend more than 15 minutes at a gas stop if you've just burned a tank? When was the last time you drove that many miles in your normal day?

I love my ICE vehicles. But I also recognize that as I move to retirement I have two highly volatile costs: property taxes and energy costs. I can deal with the taxes here on my property because of the way this state's tax laws work, but if I can largely reduce my reliance on a highly volatile commodity that's subject to global influences, I would be wise to do so.

There's a notion that we have to continue the energy generation model we've used for the last century. When the infrastructure goes, you get those fires we've had not only here in CA, but across the west. I've had electricity provided in the past by "community power" systems. They generated electricity locally and sold it to the entire town. If you look at solar farms like the one above, why wouldn't it sensible to bend the model to community generation systems?

Anyway, here's a link that might be helpful. Pay attention to what's being offered. https://rmi.org/four-ways-the-infla...t-to-a-cleaner-more-affordable-energy-future/

It's going to push us over the tipping point really quickly. We have lots of EVs here. There are 6 on my street from 3 manufacturers, including Kia and VW. I can be, as someone described me, "pollyannaish", which is often fair, but I think that with the IRA in place and solar power now making financial sense at the individual level, we're right at the tipping point.

Consider it on this long established model for technology. We're at the point where we get ready to jump the chasm from the early adopters to the early majority, don't you think?

Car and Driver thinks were just about there: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a39998609/electric-car-sales-usa/

It's coming. Plus, some of them are stupid fast, which ought to light any gear head.

Click to expand...

Dave,
I appreciate your effort to provide such a strong case for EVs. However, I really don't have a dog in this fight and don't have the time now to chase down links and sort through claims, facts, and hopes, although I probably will later when time allows. I don't have anything against EV's, per se, but I do have concerns about the mad rush to adopt such a complex "solution" that is far from sorted out. Governments and visionaries have a horrible track record solving "problems" with trendy "solutions."

You are seeing a lot of EV's in your neighborhood, but I'm not. Boise is about 250,000 people and the larger valley including a several smaller cities 10 to 30 miles away which are bedroom communities for Boise total about 750,000. Many, many people commute into and out of Boise every day which would seem like a perfect use case for an EV, yet there are only a handful on the roads here. There are a few Teslas but almost no other EV's. Another thing missing are roof top solar panel installations. There are some, but if I walk out and back 10 blocks from my house, I will see less than a half dozen. Part of that might be that a) our electricity rates are some of the lowest in the country (hydro generation), and b) the regional electric utility is working to not be forced to buy excess power back from home solar producers saying it's not economically viable for them. Both your and my personal views of the popularity of solar power and EVs are antidotal, so are not real data.

I'm actually in the market for another vehicle. We do a total of about 6,000 miles per year total across three 4-wheel vehicles. Ninety percent are trips of 25 miles or less, and the rest less than 75 miles. So, an EV as basic as a Nissen Leaf would actually work great for us, but I'm likely to go with a something a few years old rather than a new vehicle, and I'm not comfortable with the potential costs of a used EV but will check it out anyway. In this area, an all-wheel drive vehicle like a Subaru is highly useful, and there aren't many such EVs available, so another reason to wait another cycle to consider an EV.

Bottom line, I do think you are more right than wrong about the inertia of the EV conversion. I do think it will vary significantly by area, and that attempts to force it faster than the native market demand will cause problems on top of the other inherent challenges in an EV transportation infrastructure. We will see.

And, really, I don't think Boomer's deserve any more kicks than any other generation. You and I wouldn't be communicating the way we about the things we are but for technologies and capabilities developed by or extended by Boomers. We just didn't perfect the crystal ball but have left that for the next generation.

versus

As a motorcyclist, I am always interested in the future of what is going on with the sport. Poke fun at us boomers but we have lived through a lot of "crisis" in our lives. From this survival we learned certain things that we are solidly and firmly entrenched in believing and know to be absolute. That does not mean we are perfect in our knowledge, some of us are far from it.

I have seen government mandated issues go wrong, I have seen technological hubris get a knock down. So, while I fully agree there is global warming and fossil Fuel supplies are going to run out. I am not 100% convinced some of the methods being promoted or mandated will be a good thing. I don't say they won't help.

Now back to real time, ICE versus electric motorcycle. Adventure rider had a comparison between an ICE Kawasaki and an electric bike, both touted as adventure bikes. The comparison was unbiased and fair. My take away was the comment on riding range. The electric bike had a range of 100 miles before charge, in a pinch further. The writer made a comment at that point something along the lines of it is best to find a place to have a coffee or lunch while you wait for the bike to charge.

LOL, 100 miles! sorry all you electric bike pushers, no matter how super the bike runs, that is unacceptable to me. You can point fingers and call me old, and set in my ways, until I can get on a bike or into a car that I can ride or drive the distances I ride or drive without having to spend hours at a charging station, an electric car or bike will not be on my shopping list.

Mandating it through government action will only lead me to vote agains such things when possible FOR NOW. I say for now, because I still have hope something will come along that will work practically.

I can imagine all sorts of ways to reduce green house gases and believe me, a lot of people would be more upset than they are now. Things will be easier when those of us boomers like me all kick off and there is no doubt some day we will be gone. St.

For those calling this "new Technology", in the 1890s electric vehicles outsold gasoline vehicles 10-1. By 1912 there were 30,000 electric cars on U.S. roads, and by 1917 electric cars had a range of 100 miles.
Then, the gas engine saw great improvements, and ICE cars became faster than EVs, and, more importantly, cheap crude oil was discovered in Texas.

Here in the U.S., that year 2030 goal is just that, a goal and not a ban, stated by the federal government to have 50% of passenger cars and SUV sales be EVs.
Bloomberg has said that even without being forced, EV sales should reach 52% on its own by 2030.

Now, a point for those not in the USA, our 50 states can also act on their own to establish goals for their individual states. California does have a stated BAN of *NEW* ICE cars as of 2035. But you will still be allowed to run and even re-sell your ICE car in California. AND, you'll still be allowed to buy an ICE car from out of state, and use it in California. Many western, and some other states usually follow California's lead in matters pertaining to emissions, environment, etc.

As far as we've been told, these goals and bans do not pertain to motorcycles nor heavy trucks.

EVs are great until you look at the cost to the environment to make the batteries and then to recycle / reclaim the batteries. WE are hitting the point for a lot of batteries coming up for replacement will be interesting to see the impact in the next few years as all of those batteries need replacing.

Plus someone mentioned solar is the answer to EVs and the grid. How is a new family barely making poverty level income going to afford a new EV plus the solar power on their roofs which they likely do not own as they likely rent. Forcing EVs on the population when there are other viable zero emission solutions out there is just another form of government control though subsidies and handouts.

Finally one forgets or the government / green people forget to include is that cars are a small percentage of pollution compared to the huge cargo ships that have no pollution control in the open ocean. I think I have read one of those mammoth cargo ships create more pollution in a year than all cars combined. Not to mention india and china and how they are polluting the world. Forcing EVs on to the US and Europe again will have no impact on global climate as cars are just a drop in the bucket. Again it is just another way for government to exert control over the populace.

Shawn, with all due respect, your points are wrong. Every one of them.
Solar will not be a hardship for "poverty level" people. Again, there is no "ban". Only that in the coming years, 50% to 100% of new vehicle sales will be EVs. Used ICE vehicles will still be around for decades.

Also, just one cargo ship does not equal all the car pollution on Earth. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation makes up 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., its the largest contributor of emissions.

I do assume there's an environmental cost to the mining and production of batteries, but course there's also a large environmental cost to oil exploration, drilling, pumping, transporting around the world in diesel burning tankers, (you know, those cargo ships you mentioned) refining, again transporting, and finally, burning it.

It's the cows - not the cars!

The EV proponents are barking up the wrong tree. It turns out that cows produce more greenhouse gasses than cars (actually all transportation) according to the United Nations: "Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation." Bad on all of you carnivores and milk-drinkers!

https://news.un.org/en/story/2006/1...greenhouse-gases-driving-cars-un-report-warns

ClassicVW said:

Shawn, with all due respect, your points are wrong. Every one of them.
Solar will not be a hardship for "poverty level" people. Again, there is no "ban". Only that in the coming years, 50% to 100% of new vehicle sales will be EVs. Used ICE vehicles will still be around for decades.

Also, just one cargo ship does not equal all the car pollution on Earth. Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation makes up 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., its the largest contributor of emissions.

I do assume there's an environmental cost to the mining and production of batteries, but course there's also a large environmental cost to oil exploration, drilling, pumping, transporting around the world in diesel burning tankers, (you know, those cargo ships you mentioned) refining, again transporting, and finally, burning it.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that the increased cost of fuel is not a bigger hardship on low income? And that increased focus on EV will not further drive up the cost of fuel? These lower incomes are already having to decide between gas and food. It will only get worse.

Found this statistic
Ships contribute a significant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) calculated that ocean-going vessels released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from over 205 million cars, or more cars than were registered in the entire United States in 2006 (135 million).
So yes ships are a bigger issue than cars. Cars are almost zero emission now and if we did natural gas or hydrogen it could be better but powers to be are driving the EV market.

But this is a stupid argument because just like other arguments with people on the left they will not look at statistics they just look at what they are told to look at by the people controlling the party. We have enough oil and natural gas on this continent to be energy independent for years allowing other forms of energy to mature but our current administration has shut that down and imports from Russia and the middle east to keep us under their control.

tsconver said:

So are you saying that the increased cost of fuel is not a bigger hardship on low income? And that increased focus on EV will not further drive up the cost of fuel? These lower incomes are already having to decide between gas and food. It will only get worse.

Found this statistic
Ships contribute a significant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) calculated that ocean-going vessels released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from over 205 million cars, or more cars than were registered in the entire United States in 2006 (135 million).
So yes ships are a bigger issue than cars. Cars are almost zero emission now and if we did natural gas or hydrogen it could be better but powers to be are driving the EV market.

But this is a stupid argument because just like other arguments with people on the left they will not look at statistics they just look at what they are told to look at by the people controlling the party. We have enough oil and natural gas on this continent to be energy independent for years allowing other forms of energy to mature but our current administration has shut that down and imports from Russia and the middle east to keep us under their control.

Click to expand...

The US does not import any oil from Russia. In fact only a few countries are now getting Russian oil and that is at a big price discount. Here are the US oil import sources:

52% of that comes from Canada.
11% comes from Mexico.
11% from OPEC nations.

Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/morni...t:,OPEC nations. 4 7% comes from Saudi Arabia.

GREGFEELER said:

The US does not import any oil from Russia. In fact only a few countries are now getting Russian oil and that is at a big price discount. Here are the US oil import sources:

52% of that comes from Canada.
11% comes from Mexico.
11% from OPEC nations.

Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/morni...t:,OPEC nations. 4 7% comes from Saudi Arabia.

Click to expand...

Try a US Gov website https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php

The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by percentage share of total petroleum imports in 2021 were:
Canada
51%
Mexico
8%
Russia
8%
Saudi Arabia
5%
Colombia
2%
The top five sources of U.S. crude oil imports by percentage share of U.S. total crude oil imports in 2021 were:
Canada
61%
Mexico
10%
Saudi Arabia
6%
Russia
3%
Colombia
3%

tsconver said:

Try a US Gov website https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php

The top five sources of U.S. total petroleum (including crude oil) imports by percentage share of total petroleum imports in 2021 were:
Canada
51%
Mexico
8%
Russia
8%
Saudi Arabia
5%
Colombia
2%
The top five sources of U.S. crude oil imports by percentage share of U.S. total crude oil imports in 2021 were:
Canada
61%
Mexico
10%
Saudi Arabia
6%
Russia
3%
Colombia
3%

Click to expand...

Your source only offers 2021 data, the source I sited was from March of 2022 - after the Ukraine war started.

This thread has now reached the point where I am reminded of a famous Sir Walter Scott quotation from his 1808 poem, "Marmion".

PGlaves said:

This thread has now reached the point where I am reminded of a famous Sir Walter Scott quotation from his 1808 poem, "Marmion".

Click to expand...

Paul, poor Walter Scott lived before the invention of alternative facts.

PGlaves said:

This thread has now reached the point where I am reminded of a famous Sir Walter Scott quotation from his 1808 poem, "Marmion".

Click to expand...

Reminds me of-




OM

GREGFEELER said:

Paul, poor Walter Scott lived before the invention of alternative facts.

Click to expand...

Indeed he did.

GREGFEELER said:

The EV proponents are barking up the wrong tree. It turns out that cows produce more greenhouse gasses than cars (actually all transportation) according to the United Nations: "Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation." Bad on all of you carnivores and milk-drinkers!

https://news.un.org/en/story/2006/1...greenhouse-gases-driving-cars-un-report-warns

Click to expand...

ELECTRIFY COWS!!!

Not just the cows, but the termites!

Pauls1150 said:

Not just the cows, but the termites!

Click to expand...

Harness the energy and swarming power of fire ants .

On the motorcycle thingy, I do see things like Supercross and flat track going battery powered . Saw a video of a test ride on a motocross track and the riders review. Sounded crazy going over whoops!


The rest will not be pushed in my lifetime of future rides, so really don’t even worry at all.

I also chuckled at concerns over electric grid and wonder what was said when houses and neighborhoods added appliances past the lighting and toaster and maybe electric iron back in the days
Yet, here we are!

tsconver said:

So are you saying that the increased cost of fuel is not a bigger hardship on low income? And that increased focus on EV will not further drive up the cost of fuel? These lower incomes are already having to decide between gas and food. It will only get worse.

Found this statistic
Ships contribute a significant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) calculated that ocean-going vessels released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from over 205 million cars, or more cars than were registered in the entire United States in 2006 (135 million).
So yes ships are a bigger issue than cars. Cars are almost zero emission now and if we did natural gas or hydrogen it could be better but powers to be are driving the EV market.

But this is a stupid argument because just like other arguments with people on the left they will not look at statistics they just look at what they are told to look at by the people controlling the party. We have enough oil and natural gas on this continent to be energy independent for years allowing other forms of energy to mature but our current administration has shut that down and imports from Russia and the middle east to keep us under their control.

Click to expand...

What increased cost of fuel? As more and more of us become less reliant on Big Oil, the price is going to plunge.

You can’t have it both ways by saying ships are very bad for the environment, and at the same time be pro oil, since how do you think foreign oil gets here?

GREGFEELER said:

The EV proponents are barking up the wrong tree. It turns out that cows produce more greenhouse gasses than cars (actually all transportation) according to the United Nations: "Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation." Bad on all of you carnivores and milk-drinkers!

https://news.un.org/en/story/2006/1...greenhouse-gases-driving-cars-un-report-warns

Click to expand...

So this kind of proposal is called a "false choice".

If cows are producing plenty of methane, but we have the technology and financial incentives to reduce our own footprint why wouldn't we do so?

WRT not seeing EVs in your neighborhood, there aren't many, but the local news calls their growth "dramatic", going for a handful to nearly 3K, if memory serves in 1 year. Check it out: https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/...re-cars-and-charging-stations-many-questions/

Note the funding to install charging every 50 miles on the interstate and the side links about infrastructure plans getting ready to put people to work.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/...face-fair-share-of-challenges-in-rural-idaho/

IMHO, rural areas like Idaho are perfect for Plug Ins. Our neighbor has a RAV4 that's a plug in. They charge it off the roof and with a 25ish mile range, it covers most of their "run to town" needs. But otherwise? It's a Prius drivetrain in a small SUV. Live 10 miles out of town? How would that affect your fuel bill?

They buy gas every couple months, depending on what they're doing.

I think charging infrastructure will be key. My neighbor with a Tesla regularly rolls on down to LA, 500 miles away with one 20 minute charge stop. It's no biggie.

We don't have range anxiety in ICE vehicles because we can refuel quickly and availability is high. As we expand infrastructure, this will be true for EVs. It's largely true for Tesla because of their Supercharger network, but everyone else will catch up because the market is going to demand it. If GMC is taking 500 orders a day right now for their EV Pickup, that should give them ample motivation to solve infrastructure issues.

No need to make a gas/electric choice. No reason to see this as a zero sum game. Just like we have diesels, gas cars, trucks, etc., EVs are yet another form of transportation that increasingly makes solid economic sense.

Does it make sense for all uses? No. I couldn't tow my /2 to SoCal with an EV at this point. Does an EV give me the visceral thrills of my 916? Well, sometimes the beat isn't the same without the melody. I think this notion, that we should expect new technology to solve for all use cases is a bit unfair. Capabilities come with product maturity and market demand.

And as far as I know, there are no limitations on ICE motorcycles. I'm happy to be corrected because that will suck.