-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt
- Thread starter pjfranks1509
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
It is comedy that the BMW i3 gets a California HOV sticker today, and the i3 REx does not. More proof that Sacramento $150,000/yr PhD experts actually have no idea how a car works or how it's used. Who said diploma mills are useless?
Guess there are a lot similar minded people who think that gasoline and diesel are radioactive, and anything else is safe. An F350 truck or G3500 van getting 15 mpg on CNG is cleaner than an i3 REx? Really?
But that same thinking stopped Volts as well.
A lot of people might not know the story behind that. Even the people with real degrees aren't immune from corruption, though.
One of the leading scientists working the California Air Resource Board (CARB) was grossly incompetent. He did not know how to do air quality research, so he had to make up numbers. He released a diesel emissions report that should have been filed under Comedy.
It was found he lied on his resume, his PhD came from a diploma mill by mail order. His diesel report was slammed by leading scientists, even his fellow environmentalists, as being an embarrassing work of fiction.
CARB studies and guidelines have been the basis for more clean air laws than any other single source on earth. California has been the leader, so it would be assumed that the bogus scientist fiasco would have embarrassed them and hurt their reputation.
Well... That's not how governments work:
At first the problem was covered up, which is normal for government bureaucrats, but after that things went nuts. The coverup was discovered, and the CARB vowed to take immediate action.
The pseudo-scientist kept his job, he was not fired. A letter of reprimand I think was his punishment?
His study on diesel particulates is so ingrained into the environmental programs that it is still used and considered hard facts for calculations. Yes, the agencies do know the report was made up and the numbers are wrong. But there is not enough time to start all over again, so they just use his fictitious numbers. It's cheaper and supports the "we are all going to die by 2020" mentality that perverts the environmental bureaucracy on a global basis.
Last edited:
My understanding is...
The "white sticker"ness of CNG vehicles is related to promoting research/whatever into "new tech" alternatives to the status quo.
Should they be in the same category no emissions vehicles? IMO, no. But that's not how CA is using the white stickers.
Hopefully stopcrazypp will hop in to explain it better than my rambling here.
You are referring to events that happened 6-8 years ago. They are described along with CARBs response in comments 39,41, and 59 beginning around page 40 of this regulatory document:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/truckbus10/tbfsor.pdf
In short, the bogus PH.D. belonged to Hien Tran who was subsequently "demoted, disciplined, and removed from all regulatory support work." CARB withdrew the original PM health report and prepared a new version, without input from Mr. Tran, which was completed in August, 2010.
I didn't immediately find any evidence that Tran was "grossly incompetent" or that "he did not know how to do air quality research, so he had to make up numbers." I'm interested in any link you may have to specifically support those claims. It's possible to fake a Ph.D. credential and still write a competent report although it obviously hurts the report's credibility.
I have not read his original report or the revised version but I have the impression that the regulations are largely based on the following independent non-CARB study:
http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/RR140-Krewski.pdf
The leading critic of CARB's work in this area seems to be Dr. James Enstrom from UCLA's Department of Environmental Health Sciences. He wrote a paper saying there was no evidence of increased mortality from particulate matter in most of California (perhaps due to unique local California conditions). CARB gave a detailed response in the regulation link above.
Enstrom lost his job soon after and sued claiming he was fired because his colleagues didn't like his conservative politics and, among other things, his other paper saying second-hand tobacco smoke was relatively harmless (funded by tobacco industry grants). He was reinstated as a "retired researcher" last year, his library card and email access were restored, and he was given $140,000 to settle.
James Enstrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you saying my information is not correct, or are you saying the Internet is not reporting enough data?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
You said it pretty concisely. The whole idea of the carpool sticker program in the first place is to promote new alternatives and given the situation of the CNG market (not good), they put it under the white program to give it some extra boost on the demand side.
If you go all the way back to the start of the program (when hybrids were still eligible): is a hybrid with only one person necessarily cleaner per person than a carpool of 2/3 or more people in one conventional ICE car? The answer is no (and CARB certainly was criticized for this). However, the idea was that this sticker program can be used as a lever to increase demand for new technology cars (while ZEV credits was used as a lever on the supply side).
I brought up the sticker program because it had a clear differentiation of what California considered a true EV and what is a plug-in hybrid. The i3 REX is categorized as a BEVx for the ZEV program (a special category of plug-in hybrid that gets the same ZEV credits as a BEV). There was speculation by "range extended EV" advocates that it would get the white sticker, but clearly CARB saw differently and defined it as a plug-in hybrid. Volt obviously was also considered a plug-in hybrid.
Last edited:
Thanks for reiterating / clarifying this (after I and perhaps others muddied your original point).
I'm saying you made a rather strong allegation:
Although I did not spend much time looking, I did not see anything to substantiate those claims (which are separate from saying he mislead people about his PH.D.).
Do you have a link to supporting evidence?
Without injuring discrete sources, do you believe that somebody who would falsify their CV can be trusted?
On the public record, there is absolutely no doubt that the CV was false. There was no doubt the diesel particulate study was false. There was no doubt the diesel particulate study was used by 3rd parties as fact years after it was was proven to be false.
If it becomes necessary to make up shiit to support government policy, it becomes necessary to overthrow the government in question.
It's not just air quality, or racial issues, or foreign affairs, or taxation levels, or human rights. It is a mindset that overrides any issue that says "We The Government Can Do No Wrong!".
People piss and moan how crooked our businesses are in the US. But our businesses are not directly in control of our lives like our government is.
I agree we should strive towards clean air. I do NOT agree we need Joey Stalin to run our government to achieve that goal.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This point I think he agrees.
Both of these are "citation required". His CV may have been false, but that does not necessarily say the report he wrote (with help from others which are actual PhDs and peer reviewed by PhDs) was falsified. A falsified report is a completely different allegation (there have been PhDs that have been caught using falsified data, so having a PhD or not has no bearing on falsifying data).
Also, as Jeff linked, in response to criticism about Tran's credentials, CARB withdrew Tran's report which was issued in October 24, 2008, and commissioned a new one (without Tran's involvement) which was released on August 31, 2010. That's already 5-6 years ago. The regulation which the report was based on didn't go into effect until December 3, 2009.
Diesel particulate regulation in question:
Statewide Truck and Bus Regulations
Link describing the general history of PM health impact report (including dates of changes).
Health Impacts Analysis: PM Mortality Relationship
Link to retracted 2008 report in question (it was archived if you follow the links in the one above):
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/PMmortalityreportFINALR10-24-08.pdf
Link to updated 2010 report:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/pm-mort/pm-report_2010.pdf
Last edited:
Read the news. It's not just 'Mr. Tran', and not just 'California', and not just 'environmental issues'.
If you are fine with elected officials with unlimited power and no oversight you should live in another country where that is acceptable.
Once it was discovered that Tran falsified data, his boss ignored it. When a researcher at UCLA pointed it out, he got fired.
To this day, the original study in question is still used as fact.
Luckily, it was not a study to put people in ovens. This time.
It will be interesting to see what the reaction on this board will be if a 'California Study' proves a Toyota Mirai saves baby seals, and a 6000lb Tesla Model X kills kittens by the thousands.
California is current leased by Toyota as far environmental issues go. So should Toyota get pissed at Tesla, things will get ugly quick.
Footnote: Toyota sells lots of diesels globally, but does not sell diesels in California. This is not unrelated. The HOV Green Sticker program stopped when Toyota pulled the Prius Plug-in.
Toyota has always been exempt or assisted by CARB initiatives.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
This is like saying an obese man's diet is better since he eats more proteins than someone thin.
I bet Leaf drivers drive more % of their mileage in electric than Volt's.
I am not sure if Volt drivers drive slightly more EV miles than Leaf drivers, or slightly less. If I remember GM's data correctly, the Volt drivers drive slightly less EV miles.
However the % miles electric is likely higher for the Volt drivers, since any trip regardless of length starts with about 40 EV miles, and they can have opportunities to charge when stopped at destinations during the day. Leaf drivers have to use their IC engine for the entire trip, unless ther long range car is a Volt or a Tesla.
This circles back to my earlier point: The Bolt EV is not competition for the Model 3. Neither are any of the other 200+ mile cars without DC fast charging networks. 100 mile cars or sub-100 mile cars like the Leaf, also without DC fast charging networks, are doubly challenged to compete with the Model 3.
The only competition for the Model 3 are ICE and hybrid cars, including PHEVs like the Volt. I suggest the we should be comparing the Model 3 to the Chevy Volt, instead of Bolt EV. Best done in a different tread however.
GSP
EREV - that unique subset represented by Chevy VOLT and BMW I3-REX.
You could create a Tesla (or Bolt) equivalent if you placed a Volt genset on a small trailer and pulled it behind you on trips. Your continent would now be your oyster.
GM has done most of the heavy lifting already in creating the Volt's systems - talk about readymades! I'm off to find a proper wreck.
--
You could create a Tesla (or Bolt) equivalent if you placed a Volt genset on a small trailer and pulled it behind you on trips. Your continent would now be your oyster.
GM has done most of the heavy lifting already in creating the Volt's systems - talk about readymades! I'm off to find a proper wreck.
--
Similar threads
