SirMagnus89

Well-Known Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
199
Reaction score
232
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jl Sport 2 Door, Mojito!
I think 'Magneto' would be better suited as a color name, rather than a vehicle designation. No one is going to call their EV a 'Magneto' Wrangler or whatever. Was there ever a 'JE' Wrangler? as in JL, JK, Etc.
Is that on topic well enough to suit? :dance:
You know how Jeep loves throwing special editions at the Wrangler though. Imagine an X Men Magneto edition Wrangler. Just like when Hyundai put out that Iron Man Kona and the Nissan Rogue One edition. People eat that stuff up.





Advertisement

 

pablo_max3045

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
580
Reaction score
530
Location
Germany (ex-pat)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Rubicon
Occupation
Engineering project manager
Now we are doing the same thing, excpet this time forcing people to buy cars that will be over priced, and giving a kickback from the taxpayer to entice them to buy the PC SUV instead of a gas or hyrbid.
Do you have any idea how much money the US governments dumps into subsidizing oil? In the US alone, 20.5 billion a year goes to oil subsidies.
Electric cars get a tiny tiny fraction of that.
How about we stop ALL subsidies on oil and then you tell us if you feel the same way. Not trying to be combative or anything, but I think most people don't really get how much of our tax money goes to big oil. And I have worked and have many friends who still work in big oil.(yes.. as an American living in Germany I still have to pay US taxes since only only the US taxes based on citizenship and not residence)
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
187
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
I get what you're saying. It makes no sence at all to put an auto trans behind an electric motor but it just appears like they did is all. Unless that is just the housing and they used it as a means of adapting the E Motor to the transfer case?
Sorry, missed this. Yeah that's a thought, they could be simply using a similar shaped case to act as a bellhousing of sorts.
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
187
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
Gary, your cartoon tends to put on the same level theories that were made when less scientific methods and tools were available as they are today. The theory of global warming, or more precisely what's causing it may be wrong, but never have independent scientists gotten behind a theory like it as much as the other examples you sight. Truth is it is likely correct in whole or major part, including what's causing it, and we have a finite amount of the fuel that's causing it compared to the expected capacity and longevity of the sun, even if somehow the CO2 producing fuel was found to be harmless here.

(True, finding CO2 producing fuels harmless would slow the speed at which we need to transition.)

With time, like many theories it may be tweaked. We my find that the cause and effect between CO2 and heat is more or less correlated under certain currently unknown circumstances. Heck, the theory could even be wrong but we can't afford to assume anything other than it being correct.
Sorry, missed this. There's no argument that hyrdrocarbons are finite, and that long term we need to move to renewables (and nuclear fusion for baseload generation....the Texas situation just showed what happens if you put too many eggs in the renewables basket).
Point is, climate change is extremely complex, saying the science is settled is extremely short sighted, especially considering how hard policies like carbon taxes will be on the poor.

Hell they still don't understand why the last ice age began and ended over extremely short time periods. (the planet both entered and left an ice age in ridiculous short timespans).

One thing you should realize, nearly all climate study funding is geared towards this one result. I've read climate scientists discuss this phenomenon, very dangerous waters for science. Basically you're at risk of your funding drying up if you are showing results that don't follow that dogma. Hence why they've been caught doctoring data (deleting temp sensor data points that don't align with the hypothesis, using more temp sensors in "heat islands" like paved cities that weren't paved 100yrs ago, etc).
All very sketchy. As with most things, I believe the truth lies in the middle, and technology will fix this problem naturally when EVs and renewables become cheaper/better than ICE cars and coal fired baseload generation.
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
187
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
It would be interesting to see some sort of transmission put behind an electric motor. Correct me if i am wrong but wouldnt that make the car more efficient and extend the range with the electric motor turning at lower RPM at higher speeds much like the ICE?
No.

Don't think of electric motors in the same realm as ICE. Their torque curve (and power consumption) is almost perfectly flat from 0rpm, no need for gearing unless your design goals include very high top speeds. A Transmission just introduces extra parasitic loss, weight, complexity, and extra failure points.
Here's a model S dyno result. I've driven one, and rodded the hell out of it, even at 100mph couldn't detect one ounce less of torque when standing on throttle (is it called that?), it was bizarre, and CRAZY throttle response. They're unreal:
1613592483352.png
 

Jehovasfitness

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
134
Reaction score
97
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
JLUR and '04 Z06
People that state "the science is settled" do not understand science. I'm amazed that in this day and age this basic fundamental rule of science has to be explained.

1613149496989.png


Currently most science is pointing to climate change a combo of man made carbon coupled with the pre-existing trend of warming up from the last ice age that literally just happened yesterday in the grand scheme of these cycles. The rate of change in temp has increased dramatically, no doubt. I'm pretty thankful it's not going the other way, an ice age would damn near be the end of us.
This is false. Man made climate change is the largest driver in the speed of things. This is not debatable given current evidence. If that changes, then it can be debated.

You trying to hide behind your use of science and other fancy terms would not fool climate scientists, maybe dudes on a jeep forum though.

www.skepticalscience.com
 

AnnDee4444

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
2,220
Location
Earth
Vehicle(s)
Jeep
This is false. Man made climate change is the largest driver in the speed of things. This is not debatable given current evidence. If that changes, then it can be debated.

You trying to hide behind your use of science and other fancy terms would not fool climate scientists, maybe dudes on a jeep forum though.

www.skepticalscience.com
I'm not claiming I know all the facts, but I'm pretty sure you're just proving the point of that comic.
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
187
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
This is false. Man made climate change is the largest driver in the speed of things. This is not debatable given current evidence. If that changes, then it can be debated.

You trying to hide behind your use of science and other fancy terms would not fool climate scientists, maybe dudes on a jeep forum though.

www.skepticalscience.com
LOL always fun dealing with the hardliners that treat climate change as a religion. Nobody that understands science, or has formal education in science (I do) ever uses the words "not debatable". That is literally anti-science. The fundamentals of science is that everything is debatable, that's way science is ever changing. Hell even newtonian physics comes under scrutiny once we started understanding/discovering quantum physics.

Even the IPCC acknowledged that there is debate about responsibility of climate change, i.e. how much is natural (we just had an ice age yesterday in relative terms to age of earth, and glaciers were disappearing well before our carbon ramped up) vs how much is due to our carbon contribution.
 

Gurk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
Location
SE PA
Vehicle(s)
Current: Ordered JL Hemi Sold: JL, JK, TJ, XJ
Occupation
IT Infrastructure Security
Rob: A couple of things.

We only have public free speech in this country as a product of case law, which has interpreted the founding father's "an open exchange of ideas" in the 1st amendment as such. And I don't need to tell you the importance of protecting free speech for the good it brings, just point out its intentions for being and limits. Disclosing national secrets, shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when the is none...not protected.

Forums have a right to control your speech, which at least here seems to happen far far more IMHO to control incendiary words than limit people's thoughts and opinions. You and I gave that right to this forum, as a part of our voluntary desire to be here.

Green though I somewhat am and more aspire to be you'd think I have issue with the 392. I do not; not at all, except for the following fair caveat.

Those who choose to purchase the vehicle should, considering global warming, be required to pay a premium for its large ICE plant and a premium for the fuel to run it.

That's all I ask.

And I ask this so those surcharges can be used to fund the cleanup of the environment that using this vehicle will cause. And sure, plenty of CO2 pollution goes into creating all vehicles, and the batteries of green vehicles aren't exactly the most landfill friendly things out there, etc.

But here's the thing. Hate the fact though I do, global warming is not open to debate. And those (myself included) who contribute to it have responsibility to remediate the damage no less than that we cause.

Please feel free to debate this respectfully sir.
Global Warming.. a huge threat, clearly.
This explains why all of the famous Pontificates fly around in Lear Jets to lecture and receive awards.
Let us also not forget to mention some very famous people purchasing waterfront mansions in the last couple of years. Hmmm rising seas...
Meanwhile, China, India, and Russia have no plans anywhere in the near future to decrease their use of fossil fuels so I guess we are all doomed.
 

Gurk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
Location
SE PA
Vehicle(s)
Current: Ordered JL Hemi Sold: JL, JK, TJ, XJ
Occupation
IT Infrastructure Security
Well reasoned and thoughtful post there Gee-pah. You must be an old guy like me who has seen a lot of change in their day. I am with you on your thoughts, and believe in paying my own way on whatever it is that I want to do. Electrification is coming, and when it gets here in full force and with the economies of scale, the performance gains we’ll see will make the ICE look like stone knives and bear skins by comparison. I can’t say I won’t always have a fondness for the ICE, I will, and I’ll probably keep a few around as long as I can, but I look forward to the exhilarating performance that electrification will bring, as I’m a fast car guy at heart, and it’s gonna be fun. You mention science-based subjects quite a bit, in particular, global climate change. It is complex, and poorly understood as yet with respect to all ramifications, but it IS occurring, and on that, the science is settled. Some people do not “believe” that, and do not understand either that “belief“ in it is completely irrelevant. The old phrase “shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up faster“ comes to mind, but a lot of people don’t seem to get that either. I liken in my own head global climate change to a charging grizzly with killing on the brain, or to an event like rapidly rising flood waters, both of which are terrifying and potentially lethal. Deal with such forces and deal with them quickly and efficiently, or die. If such a force of nature as a grizzly is charging you, you can close your eyes and emphatically deny its‘ existence. It will not matter. The bear will roll over you without effort, and tear you apart with little effort, if it so chooses. It does not care about or even know of your beliefs, wishes, hopes or dreams. The bear simply does what it does. Global climate change is in many ways the same. It is the largest charging grizzly the world has yet seen, at least in man’s existence. It doesn’t care if none of us “believe“ in it, it will quite simply do what it does. Global climate change is the charging grizzly magnified exponentially, and all of us collectively are puny in its’ path. We can deal with it, but also like that charging grizzly, we don‘t have much time. I applaud Jeep and the other automotive manufacturers for seeing the handwriting on the wall, and making something happen to do their part to deal with it, on their own and without multiple new government regulations forcing their hand. Despite the potential lethality of a charging grizzly, or of global climate change, I personally find both quite comforting in a way. Both just are. They are forces that are going to do what they do, science can prove the existence and qualities of both, and they do not comply with or trifle with the fantasies or “beliefs“ of men. They are simply fact based straight shooters doing what they do without any bullshit. In this day and age, and scary though they may be, I find them quite refreshing. For me, refreshing too is the coming Magneto. Good job Jeep. As much as I must admit that I love the idea of the 392, give electrification a few more years of innovation and there will be an electric Jeep with a motor at each wheel that will leave that 392 like it’s backing up. But don’t take my word for it, just wait and see. And remember some old guy told you so. ;)
Is the science settled when most of Academia are given grants to come up with predetermined outcomes? Is there any freedom of thought in Academia today? I know the answer to that one.
 

Gee-pah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
1,053
Location
SanFrancisco
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
Sorry, missed this. There's no argument that hyrdrocarbons are finite, and that long term we need to move to renewables (and nuclear fusion for baseload generation....the Texas situation just showed what happens if you put too many eggs in the renewables basket).
Point is, climate change is extremely complex, saying the science is settled is extremely short sighted, especially considering how hard policies like carbon taxes will be on the poor.

Hell they still don't understand why the last ice age began and ended over extremely short time periods. (the planet both entered and left an ice age in ridiculous short timespans).

One thing you should realize, nearly all climate study funding is geared towards this one result. I've read climate scientists discuss this phenomenon, very dangerous waters for science. Basically you're at risk of your funding drying up if you are showing results that don't follow that dogma. Hence why they've been caught doctoring data (deleting temp sensor data points that don't align with the hypothesis, using more temp sensors in "heat islands" like paved cities that weren't paved 100yrs ago, etc).
All very sketchy. As with most things, I believe the truth lies in the middle, and technology will fix this problem naturally when EVs and renewables become cheaper/better than ICE cars and coal fired baseload generation.
While we don't agree on all points Gary, I respect your thoughts.

Climate change IS very complex, from complete understand of its cause, to how to fight it, to how to fight it as equitably as possible: your thoughtful points about carbon costs hitting the financial struggling most are duly noted, agreed, and respect regardless.

I do appreciate that the funding for such research and the agenda for the check writers is of critical importance for objectivity to prevail. And you're right, fair sums of that money for this stuff comes from those who want further proof of the cause and effect, even if for only societal rather than personal financial gain, and that this can influence results.

But we also need to remember that big oil has hugely funded its own studies seeking to show no correlation, or correlation not causation (big tobacco's original claim as well on cancer and heart disease) between CO2 and temperature.

We can assume that if such studies found things advantageous to oil's agenda we'd be hearing about it.

I worry though that when people hear "not settled science" their take is not in my opinion the correct "we don't have all the answer yet, but we still need to be transitioning off of hydrocarbons like gangbusters as there is very strong evidence of this cause and effect"

but rather that

either "the temperature rises are a hoax, or not important if real, or have to no connection to CO2 emissions, or there's nothing we can do at this point anyway."

The latter reminds me of big tobacco's response in the 1960s that in helping to keep weight off, cigarettes might actually be good for you. Plenty of people then resisted the negative effects of cigarettes like some do today CO2 emission. "Grandpa smoked every day until he was 92," I remember people telling me. And is was true. The problem was the 10 grandpas in contrast who died before 60 from smoking.

I hope you're right about our ability to resolve this issue as a species. I worry that selfish interest will find people saying, "let the next guy fix it," until we've reached a point of no return, and fear has us changing our ways too late, but in ways that might have made a difference had they been adopted earlier.

"That's why we're enacting laws now," some may say. But in my "let the next guy fix it" adage, I worry that we may find "the next guy" here equal to "other nation states."
 

Gee-pah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
1,053
Location
SanFrancisco
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
Global Warming.. a huge threat, clearly.
This explains why all of the famous Pontificates fly around in Lear Jets to lecture and receive awards.
Let us also not forget to mention some very famous people purchasing waterfront mansions in the last couple of years. Hmmm rising seas...
Meanwhile, China, India, and Russia have no plans anywhere in the near future to decrease their use of fossil fuels so I guess we are all doomed.
I'll bite. One of those pontificates is Bill Gates. And at his own admission he is one heck of a CO2 producing person. Owning your own jet can rack up your carbon footprint fast.

But as he stated on 60 Minutes this week, he voluntarily offsets his footprint with carbon credits he pays for and is seeking to invest in all sorts of technologies to address climate change---albeit, in fair disclosure--in part for the money it will make him.

This said, Gurk, in fairness you are right about many of the pontificates being not only hypocrites but arrogant ones, thinking their carbon credits come in the people they can get to adopt new and hard lifestyles while they burn jet fuel talking about it and not offsetting their footprint.

As for the waterfront properties. Many rich people are not wise, and that global warming isn't happening at the speed of an airbag opening, likely to sink such properties long after their owner's gone, in no way negates the certainty of global warming's effect anymore than does one cold winter. It just doesn't work that way.

@BearJewJonny : you're right. I must apologize. This stuff is at best tangential to the Magneto and belongs elsewhere. In my defense, I seek to be in response here, balancing out things people say, not initiating debate with non-science based provocation.
 
Last edited:

Maller

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
59
Reaction score
104
Location
CT
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLU Mojito!
@BearJewJonny : you're right. I must apologize. This stuff is at best tangential to the Magneto and belongs elsewhere. In my defense, I seek to be in response here, balancing out things people say, not initiating debate with non-science based provocation.
You sure about that? I posted calling out your silliness for saying something is not debatable, then in the next thought say you're open to debating. You then assumed my position on every topic you felt like lecturing on. I've never publicly stated my position on any of the topics you raised. Nor do I wish to debate a keyboard warrior.

If you seek to be in response, you're failing and should re-evaluate your approach.
 

8flat

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
187
Location
Montana
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR
While we don't agree on all points Gary, I respect your thoughts.

Climate change IS very complex, from complete understand of its cause, to how to fight it, to how to fight it as equitably as possible: your thoughtful points about carbon costs hitting the financial struggling most are duly noted, agreed, and respect regardless.

I do appreciate that the funding for such research and the agenda for the check writers is of critical importance for objectivity to prevail. And you're right, fair sums of that money for this stuff comes from those who want further proof of the cause and effect, even if for only societal rather than personal financial gain, and that this can influence results.

But we also need to remember that big oil has hugely funded its own studies seeking to show no correlation, or correlation not causation (big tobacco's original claim as well on cancer and heart disease) between CO2 and temperature.

We can assume that if such studies found things advantageous to oil's agenda we'd be hearing about it.

I worry though that when people hear "not settled science" their take is not in my opinion the correct "we don't have all the answer yet, but we still need to be transitioning off of hydrocarbons like gangbusters as there is very strong evidence of this cause and effect"

but rather that

either "the temperature rises are a hoax, or not important if real, or have to no connection to CO2 emissions, or there's nothing we can do at this point anyway."

The latter reminds me of big tobacco's response in the 1960s that in helping to keep weight off, cigarettes might actually be good for you. Plenty of people then resisted the negative effects of cigarettes like some do today CO2 emission. "Grandpa smoked every day until he was 92," I remember people telling me. And is was true. The problem was the 10 grandpas in contrast who died before 60 from smoking.

I hope you're right about our ability to resolve this issue as a species. I worry that selfish interest will find people saying, "let the next guy fix it," until we've reached a point of no return, and fear has us changing our ways too late, but in ways that might have made a difference had they been adopted earlier.

"That's why we're enacting laws now," some may say. But in my "let the next guy fix it" adage, I worry that we may find "the next guy" here equal to "other nation states."
Very good points, and I completely agree, too many people come at this as it's a complete hoax, which it certainly is not. And yes, big oil acts exactly like tobacco companies with their denials.
I just can't stand the sky-is-falling fear mongering about AGW. The other day I read a piece about some climate scientists that believe once we drop our carbon output significantly, the atmosphere and climate will stabilize extremely quickly. It's not often you ever hear any good news, so that was nice.
If you look at historical examples, clever humans have come up with technology to "fix" all sorts of extremely challenging problems. Everything from plagues/disease/infant mortality via medical tech breakthroughs, to how in the world will we feed 7billion people (ag technology). This will be similar.
 

Advertisement




Quadratec
 



Advertisement
Top