WEBSRFR

Wow, are you really that threatened by a 16 year old girl that you have to insult her and call her names? I just can't imagine how anyone could live in a miserable anti-environment echo chamber to have so much anger and hate towards a child advocating for a better environment with clean air for future generations.

Why don't you pick on someone your own level?

The reason Mercedes has stopped developing ICE engines is because they realize increasingly fewer customers in their market demographic are interested in buying cars powered by setting fire to tiny drops of decomposed dinosaur remains.We should be glad Mercedes has committed to building modern electric powertrains so they don't become the next Nokia or Kodak. Mercedes' survival depends on them executing a successful transition to EVs.

I'm sure Mercedes has seen these sales figures and I'm just surprised it took them this long to fully commit to EVs.

In the Model S/S Class market segment, the electric Model S now controls about 40% of the market share, remarkable for a design from 2012! Remember when Mercedes controlled about half the market? .

What's worse is that in the Mercedes C Class market segment, the electric Model 3 has decimated the competition and now accounts for more sales than the BMW 3 Series, Lexus ES, BMW 5 Series, and Mercedes C Class COMBINED. These numbers are just so brutal. Legacy combustion powertrain technology just isn't that appealing in the premium market segment any more.

Mercedes focusing on EVs has less to do with a brave 16 year old from Sweden who happens to care about the environment and the air we all breathe than the fact that for many customers purchasing premium vehicles, they feel a competing EV offers them a better experience. In our household, we used to always buy Mercedes vehicles until Mercedes did not build anything compelling for us to consider buying, compared to an offering by Tesla.





Sources:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/18...n-2018-in-usa/
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/10...y-a-landslide/

Mitch Alsup

On the other hand:: {in Monty Python-esque speak}

Now that Merceded has a 2L 4-banger making 416 HP (208 HP/litre).
A 6 cylinder equivalent would have 624 HP,
A V8 would have 832 HP,
A V12 would have 1000+ HP !

How much more engine development is::
a) possible ?
b) reasonable ?
c) useful ?

In other words, with the current level of engine technology why not just produce a fleet of engines with similar bores, strokes, and cylinder heads; and live with it for a while ?

absent

LOL!
No, I am not threatened by a manipulated and brainwashed teenager and I am not attacking the girl herself( unlike most libs tried to destroy and even physically threatened certain 16 year old boy from Covington not that long ago).
I am threatened by the crooks and psychos who manipulate this girl and programmed her to spew this BS about supposed end of the World environmental catastrophe because this idiocy affects my life and my kids future.
Al Gore in the meantime is laughing all the way to the bank, he came up with the best financial scam of the last thousand years, Bernie Madoff could not tie his shoes.....

Mitch Alsup

So, let me ask you a direct question::

What is the most remarkable discovery concerning climate science since 1950 ?

MTrauman

Folks,

Before you start defending WEBSRFR please remember WEBSRFR has one goal—to stir up controversy on this site and to advertise for TESLA—I still believe this may be an employee of Tesla. Good to see your alive WEBSRFR since you have only had a couple of posts since 2017 when you gave up on advertising why we should all buy Tesla’s instead of our S Class cars. Just trying to keep some perspective as this poster is essentially a troll and you can see that by the posting history. Just look at the post in this thread. Spewing the Tesla stuff. JUST FYI

absent

That climate changes are cyclical and happen regardless of our contribution.
People and institutions with real money of this World do not believe in this hoax, otherwise they would not invest in new infrastructure and would stop giving 40 year mortgages.
life goes on and 10 years from now everyone will be laughing at “Global Warming”, similarly as we laugh at yesterday’s predictions of Global Cooling.

absent

Returning to original thread that somehow became hijacked.
Mercedes AMG is working on a new V12 engine although to be used exclusively by a new Pagani to be released in 2022.
With real manual transmission.

MBNUT1

A Tesla P100D produces 36% of the carbon emissions as an S63 but accelerates from 0 to 60 in 2.3 vs the S63's 3.4. Obviously another liberal conspiracy at work.

MBNUT1

One in five CEO's are psychopaths...

Lack of guilt in psychopaths

Individuals high in psychopathy lack any true sense of guilt or remorse for harm they may have caused others. Instead, they rationalize their behavior, blame someone else, or deny it outright.[21] A person with psychopathy has a tendency to be harmful to his or herself and to others. They have little ability to plan ahead for the future. An individual with psychopathy will never find themselves at fault because they will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves without reservation. A person that does not feel guilt or remorse would have no reason to find themselves at fault for something that they did with the intention of hurting another person. To a person high in psychopathy, their actions can always be rationalized to be the fault of another person.[22] This is seen by psychologists as part of a lack of moral reasoning (in comparison with the majority of humans), an inability to evaluate situations in a moral framework, and an inability to develop emotional bonds with other people due to a lack of empathy.

chassis

Generally I see powerplant development being guided by emissions and fuel consumption regulations. This, in the end game, is not favorable for IC engines.

In the next years discussions will arise regarding the environmental impact of the electric motor and battery system, with concomitant power electronics, copper windings, chemicals and comparatively rare metals.

places

This 100%. Next will be what to do with all the batteries.

Wolfman

You are quite incorrect. Climate science is established and only in the US there is strong movement to politicize the issue. Stupidity and ignorance at work. This should neither be a party or religious issue but is abused for that very reason.

That said, I like EV's not for environmental reasons but because it is a technically superior transport.

absent

I really don’t want to get in this silly and pointless argument but just so you know, 500 leading climatologists just sent a letter to UN to counter the Global Warming hysteria.
It’s a great scam and you fell for it(wish I came up with that)
Btw, EVs will be superior when I can drive one to Detroit and back without looking for chargers or going off the path to find one and it will take similar time to recharge as it takes to refuel.

places

Climate has been changing since the beginning. Debates can be made either side, I'm sure there are a lot of smart people out there that don't buy it either, I dare to call them ignorant. As for politicizing, the only reason the EU is all over it is because they are typically pretty left leaning which aligns with environmental/green issues. I think the topic should be challenged as we are being forced to adhere to so many new policies and laws that may or may not be necessary. Laws that have been arbitrarily enacted and passed by one political party at tremendous cost.

As for EV's being superior, that's subjective and yet to be proven. If tech and performance is your driver then probably. Although the charging/range piece is still challenge, not sure what is superior about requiring so much time to charge a car. Fine if an EV is paired with another car in your stable, but not all people can do that. I'm more about luxury and and the overall experience so we will have to wait and see about that, so far I have yet to see any EV's that meet my standards of luxury at a reasonable price point (100K), hybrids some. Incidentally, what happens to all the batteries these EV's come with? Life span? Second use?

chassis

A preview to what EV battery recycling may look like, is the current recycling program for electronics (laptops, televisions, computer monitors, mobile phones, etc.). In my view, the recycling program in the United States for these electronic items is not acceptably convenient to the consumer in terms of time and monetary cost involved.

Full exposition of the waste stream of electronics needs fuller transparency globally, and in the United States, specifically.

places

So what is the projected lifespan for one of these batteries? What's the cost to replace? Will cars be recycled like cell phones or get new batteries?

Mitch Alsup

No, actually, the science has seen no (NO) shift in their long term temperature models since 1950.
In 1950 they though (long term) the climate was going to get warmer.
Today, they think the climate is warmer and continuing to get warmer.
So the BIG NEWS is that, in climate science, the past predictions remain accurate as far into the future as one is willing to speculate.

Mitch Alsup

Willfully ignorant people allowing vested interests to destroy the planet their children will be living on.

chassis

Google says life of a Tesla Model 3 battery is aprox 300k-500k miles, and costs $3k-$7k to replace. Estimates depend on which data source is being quoted/referred to. The jury is still out for me, to compare actual experience to stated claims of life and replacement cost. Cost and environment impact to recycle the battery also needs to be quantified.

Wolfman

I agree that this is derailing this thread but unfortunately you started posting this nonsense instead of staying on topic. This includes your comments about the letter to the UN; just FYI, these 500 are not climatologists
Again the point is that is politicized and shouldn't have a place in this forum besides the off-topic section.

Re. EV's I am the first one to say that tech isn't there yet to replace all uses of ICE engines.
But there is a simple message and wether you agree with it or not; the majority of R&D Dollars of any auto manufacturer is the world are going strictly to EV and PEHV development at this point. At the rate of development I expect cool cars coming our way.

Bankroll

Now that EV performance, and range are somewhat reasonable, I became interested. This was before I learned about the pollution associated with them. Coal fired power plants for electricity, lithium, and colbalt mining for the batteries, that destroy, and kill people. Polluted rivers, and all land around , and near mining, and production sites. Then the recycle, and the magnetics, etc.... Not so green, is it?

Wolfman

I have stated my personal opinion why I am interested in getting an EV that combines the qualities of the drivetrain and performance with a well designed and well build car. For me, the Taycan is probably the first car that checks those boxes although it is too pricey for what it is...
Since EV tech can be more compared to computers/Smart phone I expect the development cycle to speed up and drop prices while improving performance. Am thinking that if they can manufacture Solid State batteries, much if the debate would be done..

In the meantime I am enjoying the latest round of high-performance ICE engines

gary grant

Why don't they have the ability to recharge while driving? I can just imagine what the cost of battery replacement would cost for an s class..

You are so right about the need for more charging stations. Waiting in line with three vehicles ahead of you can be more than an hour.

syswei

EVs make the most sense right now in multi-car households. When taking a long trip, the family can use the ICE/hybrid. In the U.S., the average household owns around 1.9 cars (source).

syswei

I think a better place for global warming discussions on MBWorld is this thread.

On the subject of the letter from 500, Wolfman is right that these aren't necessarily climate scientists...here's the list, which includes titles like "Member American Association of Petroleum Geologists" and "Retired Chemist in the Aluminium and Steel Industry" and "Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Medicine and Center for Environmental Genetics, University of Cincinnati" among others. Certain "news" outlets might have twisted the truth by describing this list as being from "500 prominent climate scientists".

Here's some info I've posted in the past on the aforementioned climate thread:

(1)
If we're going to take the word of non-climate scientists, maybe quality counts?...like Nobel laureates instead of "Member American Association of Petroleum Geologists"...

In 2015, 36 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration on Climate Change. Subsequently, 40 additional Nobel Laureates added their names to the list of signatories. The Declaration:
__________________________________________________ __________
We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.

Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.

In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.

Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk.

Mainau Island, Germany

3 July 2015
__________________________________________________ __________

If someone wants to work at it, they might find the name of ONE Nobel Laureate who comes out on the other side, against AGW.

(2)
If we're going to accept that climate scientists might have more expertise than non-climate scientists, here's a convenient 'summary of summaries' of papers from climate scientists ...I'll offer one quote from it: "In 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming."

Repeating, I think further climate discussion belongs in this thread.