From Hagerty's: Rob Siegel's thoughts on electric conversion for classic cars.

Dear V-8 Buick observers of the classic car scene.

Hagerty's has a piece by Rob Siegel on some of the issues associated with converting a classic car to an all-electric drivetrain:

https://www.hagerty.com/media/opini...tric-conversion-be-prepared-to-pay-big-money/

Honestly, it is a rambling and poorly written piece with a bit too much emotion on the part Rob Siegel. However, it raises issues I think we all need to be aware of.

Cheers, Edouard

 

Much like brand new EV's, it's just not on a price parity. There's a well-established Co in CA that primarily does battery-electric conversions on old Beetles, and the cost is $50 grand for the conversion (materials & labor). Why would anyone dump $50K into a vehicle worth - what - $5K? (I literally have no idea what a '70s Bug goes for).

 

Nor do I care.

 

It’s just about virtue signalling, I’m saving the world...

 

the electric's are coming, the electric's are coming. should mean battery powered.
back into the turf/landscaping business, i deal with commercial 'mean green' electric mowers. 8 hr day machines. there is a landscaper in fla with over 100 employees and is all electric. there are 8 hr tractors for orchard work. W/O DRIVERS!! i have a chain saw and weed wacker, both battery. there is more coming out. the company i worked for will be taking on another electric line. we deal with towns, states and the feds. they all are looking to go electric on a lot of there next purchases. look at mower tires. the lastest is michelin 'tweel' wheels. they are run flat. costly, but the drivers can't break them. long term advantage.
the majority of our world is electric and going more electric. but wait........ there's more. lol

 

Another wasteful read, nothing new was learned or discovered but did cause me to ponder. How many people realize that the movement of electrons powers all vehicles. Are all vehicles therefore electric? I digress, not looking to have a conversation on the this. Thanks for posting though sometimes we just need to read a little more if only for entertainment.

 

Dear Chad and V-8 Buick "digital people watchers,"

I think you missed my point in posting this. Agreed, not only was there not anything new in terms of information, but worse Rob Siegel seems to be unaware of the very serious objections to Lithium-Ion powered cars that are just in the shadows. What I found interesting is what it reflects about the "mainstream" in the collector car hobby. At least in my mind, it is a serious (and disconcerting) abandoning of what a classic car is all about to pander to a dubious claim of what is necessary.

I have a bachelors degree in Physics and a PhD. I think I can make some very educated guesses about what is realistic about climate change. Our society is making commitments without any clear understanding of the science involved. In this respect, it shouldn't be a surprise. The only reason we survived COVID is that virus failed to mutate aggressively enough to kill us, not because our science (or the public behavior) saved us. What this piece represents (and scares me) is that those folks who lead the collector car hobby are just as spineless as the rest of the general public.

If we care about the classic cars we own, it is a very serious wake-up call. We are mostly likely going to have to try to hang on to the cars we love without support of those we have counted on in the past. If Hagerty's is luke-warm on the idea that we should be allowed to hang on to our internal combustion classics, exactly who is going to stand up for our rights to keep these cars?

That was my reason for posting the piece and my worry . . . . .

Edouard

 

I think the article was an attempt at writing something that would get the author printed and paid, and it worked for him. Classic case of ‘Man Bites Dog!’
But be aware of it, and prepared to lobby your legislators-you never know when a lawmaker, or squad of lawmakers, will decide to make a name for themselves…

Patrick

 

Hi Edouard,
I definitely missed your point but the points you re-affirmed were not lost collectively from my general awareness. My opinion was the initial posting was a clear as the article linked. It was an entertaining read. I genuinely appreciate the information share here on this site but rarely on this topic of electric vehicles, conversions, and related social economic matters does a structured well focus conversation occur.

In my reply I actually hinted at the lack of understanding people have in the basics (electron movement). Your other points about legislation and controversy of Lithium based batteries are great point as well, but I suspect if you expand on these and/or others comment, their lack of disciplined and objective conversation will result in this thread being locked. We could discuss the fact that sodium based batteries are under development and less harmful. We could discuss the actual changes in electric motor design that increase efficiencies. We could discuss preserving our privilege (not a right) of owning and driving classic cars that do burn gasoline. We could discuss the amount and content of emission classics burn on today's fuels and then even the more environmentally conscience owner could add a catalytic converter. But like this thread, I regret even replying to this because of how these discussions get shut down. I have discussions elsewhere but not here. Its not, in my opinion, worth even posting the article as you had. It was an entertaining piece. If a conversation does occur here on this site it would require active moderation and a strong commitment of participants to stay on track/on topic in the discussions.

 

i honestly havent found how ev is any cheaper really.

 

It will be cheaper because the cost of gasoline and gasoline cars will be artificially driven up. A bright future awaits us.

 

If I may be a devil's advocate, one can EASILY spend that kind of money turning your favorite nostalgic (read really old) vehicle into a sub 10 second barn stormer or do a frame off restoration on same vehicle. Question is the same, why would anyone dump that kind of money to do either of those things?

 

of course that will happen but so will cost of electricity. love rich people who are trying to save the environment from the jet planes huge ships and 400k super cars lol. i spent a few days in a uber high dollar hotel (not on my dime) and got to see all elites. rich people are worse idiots than middle class ever thought about. eating 50 dollar hamburgers that taste worse than a fast food place lol.

 

Dear Patrick, Chad, Mikel, Walter, and V-8 Buick observers of technology and society,

Just a quick reply because I cannot do anything else. My worries are much more fundamental than can be easily expressed. Assume for the sake of argument that we must end all greenhouse gas emissions, what is the "reasonable" way to attempt to accomplish this goal? By my thinking, it ought to be a matter to be resolved by science and research. Supposedly that is how we made all the progress we have made thus-far.

The trouble is that isn't how the present generation of electric cars came to be. The major automakers poured millions if not billions into electric car technology. Then an upstart company adapts batteries designed for computers and smart devices and that becomes the standard. Is this a example of a carefully researched and thought-out solution?

If we really need to end all greenhouse gas emissions, then failure is not an option. Human beings are supposedly "homo sapiens" (wise men.) Is this the extent we can be wise in confronting crises like this? Ultimately, I worry much more about the war in Ukraine than climate change. Is the world responding in a mature way to the atrocities that is happening there?

Like it or not, our modern world has put its trust and confidence in science and technology to solve our problems. That should worry us right away. Science and technology has an abysmal track record at solving some problems that are very important to us like: how to we all get along. Yet, there appear to be problems where science and technology are well-suited to resolve: like climate change. Then as a society we fail muster those resources to confront the problem and allow instead economics and morality to be our only compass. This is being wise?

Edouard

 

Edouard,
The problem is that there hasn't been a debate on man-made global warming. Dissenting voices have been silenced, removed from institutions or intimidated, and those who toe the official line receive all the money. Google will not even show dissenting voices when you search for them. We can't predict the weather tomorrow with any certainty, but we can predict global temperature averages a century in the future with an accuracy of tenths of a degree? People need to look at the predictions that were made 30, 20, 10 and 5 years ago, and see how accurate those were once that distant future became reality. Hint: Almost all of them failed miserably. But the solution never changes.

But when you have many trillions of dollars on the line, is it even possible to have an honest debate?

I have no doubt that there are downsides to fossil fuels. But to those fossil fuels we owe a quality of life kings in 1900 could not dream. For the first time in history, more people die in this planet from the effects of over-eating, rather than from famine. Cheap energy has allowed this.

People need to do cost analysis before fundamentally dismantling a system that has brought most of the world's population out of the most abject poverty.

Mikel

 

I want more and more people to go EV so petro lasts longer for me.

Regardless of climate change, if there's enough gas to last 100 years, what will be the energy source for those future generations? 100 years really isn't that long.

 

Waiting for the comments to come in that will cause this thread to be locked. Will check back in a few days. Now back to the spiraling topic(s) at hand....

 

My response would be: what is a $5K Bug with a $50K battery-electric conversion worth? Is it worth anything close to $50K, or is it more like $10K? On a vintage Bug, it's very likely going to devalue it vs. a restoration- they get pricey.

Most vintage vehicles see a considerable bump in value going either way (hi-po or nice restoration), and throwing a hi-po V8 in where a tired low-po one was is WAY more cost effective than a BE conversion process. So... what does a battery-electric conversion DO to a vintage ride's value? Cost is one thing, value on the market is another, as we all know.

 

Dear Mikel, Matt, Chad, Mark, and V-8 Buick observers of technology and society,

I won't go as far as your claim, but I think I can demonstrate another that is in a way far more serious: science has failed to prove its case such that the general public is convinced.

Science is supposed to be conducted in places like universities. Professors are supposed to teach, not simply do research. Universities have an obligation to the general public, effectively the public is paying the bill. If global warming is in fact certain beyond any scientific doubt, then the burden falls on those experts to make that truth understandable to the general public. Moreover, democracy in technological world like ours depends on the public having enough scientific understanding to be able to understand issues like global warming (if the effort is made to explain it simply and clearly enough.) So if there is a political morass over climate change, the academics are as much to blame as anybody else.

I hope it won't because what I'm suggesting isn't about controversy but a kind of blindness that should worry us all. As I have said before, for better or worse, we have allowed ourselves choose science and associated technology to be the effective "compass" by which we will steer our future. Science is (unsurprisingly) dependent on the rigors of scientific methodology. It is only through the discipline of scientific methodology that supposedly we can distinguish truth from falsehood. However, what guarantees that anyone or any institution actually sticks to the rigors of scientific methodology? The examples in my postings above clearly demonstrate action without any attempt to methodologically ascertain if those actions are the best. To put it bluntly we are acting blindly. We aren't using the tools we insist are needed so that we can see into the future with any clarity.

Sadly, the phenomena of locked threads is a sign of that collective blindness. Too many problems end up being politicized because very little effort is ultimately made to research the choices and use science to present the public with the alternatives in a way that we all can understand. Once more academics like to talk a lot, but they are very reluctant to take any responsibility - it isn't good for their own job security. As a society we have committed ourselves to count on science and academic wisdom to plot our future. Alas those very experts shrink from their responsibility to present what they know in a way we can understand.

In the end, what else can we be but blind?

I certainly have no answers and plenty of worries . . . . . .
Edouard

 

They are transitioning from the Covid hoax to the global warming hoax. Sheep everywhere are lining up.... baaaaaaah