The Irony of ESS

[Gee-pah]

Love it, tolerate it, or hate it, I've read so many posts here about how ESS won't engage for owners (mostly 3.6L owners like me), and how this has to do with the design, and high numbers of problems (that's anecdotal, not scientific) with the ESS/Aux battery.

Even before COVID, where the far less frequent use of my Wrangler and trickle charging it now makes more sense, I was using a trickle charger to get ESS to enable.

In fairness to fact I'm a relatively infrequent short trips Wrangler owner (COVID or not, just more so given the former,) but I think the system should have been designed to engage, when all the (reasonable) criterion for it doing so (e.g. not on a hill, engine warmed up, [power] steering wheel not turned too much, etc.) were met, as frequently as the vehicle can successfully cold crank for all driver types......not only after a long traffic-less highway trip, where the smart alternator has time to charge the batteries at battery preserving adjustable voltages.

I don't have issue with a two battery design: it makes sense given the potential power draw of (aftermarket) things during an ESS event, and need to preserve the other (main) battery to effect the crank. I have issue with the size, type, and reliability of the factory ESS/Aux battery.

This said: here is the irony as I see it. The EPA sets guidelines, you may not agree with, to reduce ICE emissions, without also (I think?) setting policy for how reliable the systems that effect this reduction (ESS) are. On top of this, although FCA did test their JL product extensively before release, I wonder how much of that testing expressly involved (in know this sounds contrary) NOT operating the vehicle, as a test of battery reliability--or simulating same with battery load devices and/or cold climates, to determine how reliable their ESS system was. In fairness, if they didn't, real blame falls on the EPA if they didn't codify ESS reliability metrics. FCA isn't incentivize to waste money on tests (higher prices for you and me) not stipulated in the CAFE testing rules.

I guess my point is that love or hate CAFE standards, if the EPA was going to enforce them, they're only as good as the reliability of the mechanism used by manufacturers to implement them (in this case ESS), and EPA MPG test runs of a single or few vehicles within a particular make and model is only 1/2 a true test of the reliability of the gasoline saving mechanisms like ESS in that make and model, if those vehicles aren't also monitored by the EPA over the production run of the vehicle for the reliability/frequency of those gasoline savings mechanisms to engage.

Sponsored

 

[DanW]

It's yet another example of government overreach with good intentions and bad outcomes. If it weren't there, we'd not have the silly and overcomplicated 2 battery system. Think of all the unecessary engineering that was wasted on this effort, from the 2 batteries to the heavy duty starter to the special coatings on engine parts to protect them from the increased wear of all that starting/stopping.

I guess the good that comes from it is that I'll probably never have to replace a starter and maybe those coatings will take the longevity of these PUG Pentastars to a whole new level when ESS is not used.

I've had zero trouble with my battery system after almost 3 years and 40k miles. But I've mostly not used the ESS system, thanks to Tazer JL.

When my batteries go, I'm replacing the small one with the best equivalent AGM battery I can find and the big one with a Northstar or Odyssey pure lead AGM. But mine appears to be going strong. It'll be interesting to see how long they go before one or both craps out.

The greatest monument of all to this kind of government overreach is the gas can. Have you tried to use one of the newer approved gas cans? They are absolutely ridiculous and hazardous in their own way. But hey, if it saves one life......

 

[jeepoch]

Andy,

While not totally disagreeing with your irony, I don't believe more government is the answer to everything. Granted they [the bureacrats] are there to set requirements through environmental mandates, I would much rather have a market based input where consumers also have the ability to steer those requirements at least to some degree.

Clearly this has not happened based upon the shear amount of hatred of this feature. Many Jeepers spend hundreds of dollars to permanently defeat the ESS system. How does this then help with the objectives the bureaucrats attempted to accomplish?

As always (always), if the consumer majority disagree with some unwanted feature, a free market niche will be more than willing to meet the demand of those consumer desires (for profit of course). A.K.A the Tazers and SmartStartStop type of products. Only with even more tyrannical heavy hand of more government mandates (via federal, sometimes non-legislated rules still with the force of law) through cease-and-desist orders will then be required to truly stifle these consumer demands.

If the bureaucrats would work with, rather than only stipulate the consumer's wishes will compromise or options be realized in order to still make some headway into the overall goal(s). It should never be an 'all-or-nothing' approach. The art of engineering is to satisfy the highest number of requirements with the most practical solution(s) possible

Furthermore, FCA and all other automotive producers must then try to engineer and develop solutions which meet these requirements because they are the entities that actually are looking for a revenue stream by actually selling something (a vehicle). The government neither produces or sells anything. Their only revenue stream is taxation. So the burden of a tangible result is on the production mechanism, never the bureacracy.

Furthermore, the automotive producer must make practical tradeoffs (compromises) in order to satisfy the market with affordable products independent of the forced mandates. If no one can afford their products, the overall political agenda must then be accomplished through subsidies. Otherwise people continue to use their old gas guzzling, emmision spewing, outdated old beaters. Hence no real progress.

The answer has to be a merging of objectives and consumer desires. Why do you think there is only an ESS disable pushbutton? Why not an enable? I'm also certain the automotive industry fought tooth and nail for the pushbutton period. The bureaucracy would have much more preferred no option at all. ESS is your new normal. Deal with it.

The car companies on the other hand realized this would likely render their offerings unsellable. So ESS is by default factory enabled everywhere on each and every ignition event. It can only be (begrudgingly) disabled one and only one event at a time. Stupid, stupid consumers. They can't be trusted to make their own important decisions.

So ESS would be much more successful if it could be controlled at a much finer granularity. Let the consumer be able to advocate a more involved tolerance. Perhaps with tactile feedback gauges that physically show how much impact they're making (or wasting). I'm sure that many drivers would change their habits if they can truly see how much emmision output and fuel savings metrics they can control.

Today, nearly no driver understands these dynamics. They just turn the key and go, then get aggitated when their vehicle is behaving differently than they're used to. If they could see, sense and control these parameters, many would gladly adjust for the benefit of both themselves and the population as a whole.

Unfortunately, direct feedback is never fostered for whatever reason. My hunch is to try and kill all ICE technology altogether as swiftly as possible in order to implement the ultimate agenda of battery only powered vehicles. Any mechanism (whatsoever) to lengthen the viability of ICE powerplants is totally unacceptable. It's the all-or-nothing headlong plunge into everything non fossil simply because of the politically advantageous position of saving the planet.

From a scientific position, the health of the planet includes many, many factors more than just carbon. Economic well being appears to be the lowest possible factor with such environmental based approaches independent of any cost. Economic ruin is an acceptable outcome. Clearly, and you're no scientist if you don't consider all facets of migrating towards a practical and viable approach. Also obviously all current battery technology woefully lacks the potential energy of even a very small tank of gas.

Yes, we're making progress but we can't destroy our entire economic structure by phasing fossil energy out prematurely. It can't be all or nothing and you are being extremely naive, foolish or even outright stupid to help hinder our chance at a reasonable and practical transition.

ESS and it's reluctance is proving we're going about this all wrong. When will we learn to adapt gradually, rather than just throw the baby out with the bath water, furthermore at the soonest political (bureaucratic) opportunity!

Jay

 

[Gee-pah]

Dan @DanW I respect your opinions, and maybe I'm being pedantic, but in my way of seeing things, this isn't government overreach so much as it may be government misreach. Let me explain:

To my way of thinking, overreach is policy that infringes on individual rights more than it benefits society. Misreach is poorly implementing well intentioned policy (or policy that can't realistically be enforced) that has likelihood of producing greater benefit to society than the infringement on individual rights, when done correctly.

The gas can example, I agree is misreach even if reduction in emissions are effected by the designs and emission reduction is good thing and the benefits to society are greater than our individual frustration dealing with these new cans. And by the way, any of those presumptions can be up for question.

The misreach comes I believe in any :Tom, Dick or Harry (or Jane)" being able to buy a kit that permits the placement of a coverable vent hole and new spout on the can.

Regarding ESS, to be honest, I am no expert in the legalese of the CAFE regulations.

But to briefly clarify my position, some hate ESS some don't--I get that, and I hope that fact can be taken out of the equation on this thread. I hope people can separate bad policy with, had that policy been better, good possible outcome. Of course to the reader who neither buys greenhouse gases harm, or hates such impositions like ESS, they're likely to think the best policies a waste.

But let's suppose we see the reduction of automobile emissions as a good thing. If so, government's installation of policies to reduce it, at least in theory, isn't a bad thing: of course presuming the testing methods used by government to enforce and regulate those reductions are fair and make sense. If they aren't, I don't see it as the battle cry to do away with CAFE standards, but rather adapt policy that better and truly enforces them.

My point is that even, maybe especially the most green of people, those most in favor of ESS and more, for the government entity responsible for enforcing vehicle manufacturers to save gasoline, to not check that those systems manufacturers choose to implement, are holding up and operating over the life of the vehicle is to "secure the barn by closing the door while leaving the window wide open."

In this analogy, securing the barn is test driving the vehicle for MPG with ESS and and off, and penalizing manufacturers who don't incorporate latching ESS systems (ones that default to the "ESS engaged" position, baring tech, each time the vehicle old cranks.)

Closing the window, the part that's missing, is ensuring that owners of a make and model see that emissions saving mechanism engage with greater frequency that I suspect it is in the 3.6L JL.

I do recognize that anecdotes of a system's failure has to be taken with a grain of salt in any forum given the propensity for members to be outliers (complainers and "fanboys.") I don't know how many ESS systems are truly not engaging. I suspect "more than should be failing." This observation is in no way meant to criticize this or any forum, just to bear reality to the kinds of people often attracted to any subject area of interest a forum covers.

 

[DanW]

Dan @DanW I respect your opinions, and maybe I'm being pedantic, but in my way of seeing things, this isn't government overreach so much as it may be government misreach. Let me explain:

To my way of thinking, overreach is policy that infringes on individual rights more than it benefits society. Misreach is poorly implementing well intentioned policy (or policy that can't realistically be enforced) that has likelihood of producing greater benefit to society than the infringement on individual rights, when done correctly.

The gas can example, I agree is misreach even if reduction in emissions are effected by the designs and emission reduction is good thing and the benefits to society are greater than our individual frustration dealing with these new cans. And by the way, any of those presumptions can be up for question.

The misreach comes I believe in any :Tom, Dick or Harry (or Jane)" being able to buy a kit that permits the placement of a coverable vent hole and new spout on the can.

Regarding ESS, to be honest, I am no expert in the legalese of the CAFE regulations.

But to briefly clarify my position, some hate ESS some don't--I get that, and I hope that fact can be taken out of the equation on this thread. I hope people can separate bad policy with, had that policy been better, good possible outcome. Of course to the reader who neither buys greenhouse gases harm, or hates such impositions like ESS, they're likely to think the best policies a waste.

But let's suppose we see the reduction of automobile emissions as a good thing. If so, government's installation of policies to reduce it, at least in theory, isn't a bad thing: of course presuming the testing methods used by government to enforce and regulate those reductions are fair and make sense. If they aren't, I don't see it as the battle cry to do away with CAFE standards, but rather adapt policy that better and truly enforces them.

My point is that even, maybe especially the most green of people, those most in favor of ESS and more, for the government entity responsible for enforcing vehicle manufacturers to save gasoline, to not check that those systems manufacturers choose to implement, are holding up and operating over the life of the vehicle is to "secure the barn by closing the door while leaving the window wide open."

In this analogy, securing the barn is test driving the vehicle for MPG with ESS and and off, and penalizing manufacturers who don't incorporate latching ESS systems (ones that default to the "ESS engaged" position, baring tech, each time the vehicle old cranks.)

Closing the window, the part that's missing, is ensuring that owners of a make and model see that emissions saving mechanism engage with greater frequency that I suspect it is in the 3.6L JL.

I do recognize that anecdotes of a system's failure has to be taken with a grain of salt in any forum given the propensity for members to be outliers (complainers and "fanboys.") I don't know how many ESS systems are truly not engaging. I suspect "more than should be failing." This observation is in no way meant to criticize this or any forum, just to bear reality to the kinds of people often attracted to any subject area of interest a forum covers.

I see your point, but I think government misreach is a symptom of overreach, or a product of it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Spaffy]

The greatest monument of all to this kind of government overreach is the gas can. Have you tried to use one of the newer approved gas cans? They are absolutely ridiculous and hazardous in their own way. But hey, if it saves one life......

Please don't mention approved gas cans again. I threw up a little in my mouth there.... probably from all the gas I've spilled trying to use them.

 

[DanW]

Please don't mention approved gas cans again. I threw up a little in my mouth there.... probably from all the gas I've spilled trying to use them.

Lol, that's why it makes the point so well. It is the poster child of government intrusion. I was being nice by saying it was well intentioned. I'm not always sure of that when something turns out so badly.

 

[aldo98229]

Car and Driver estimates that ESS reduces fuel consumption by 0.1%. That is it.

The reality is that ESS has negligible impact on actual MPG and, by extension, on CAFE numbers. Its main role is to cut emissions during idle, which is a problem in many parts of Europe.

So JL’s ESS was developed primarily to satisfy EU carbon emission requirements. You can thank Fiat for that.

Having said that, there are a million reasons why these systems fail. E.g., Fiat, like most European automakers, don’t have a good track record with electrical systems in general; FCA is notorious for squeezing costs out of suppliers, which can result in parts that fail too early, etc., etc.

The real irony is that North America sales generate 70-75% of FCA’s global profits; most of it coming from Jeep and Ram. And despite an ambitious global expansion plan, 80% of Wrangler production remains sold in the US and Canada.

 

[Gee-pah]

Andy,

While not totally disagreeing with your irony, I don't believe more government is the answer to everything. Granted they [the bureacrats] are there to set requirements through environmental mandates, I would much rather have a market based input where consumers also have the ability to steer those requirements at least to some degree.

Clearly this has not happened based upon the shear amount of hatred of this feature. Many Jeepers spend hundreds of dollars to permanently defeat the ESS system. How does this then help with the objectives the bureaucrats attempted to accomplish?

As always (always), if the consumer majority disagree with some unwanted feature, a free market niche will be more than willing to meet the demand of those consumer desires (for profit of course). A.K.A the Tazers and SmartStartStop type of products. Only with even more tyrannical heavy hand of more government mandates (via federal, sometimes non-legislated rules still with the force of law) through cease-and-desist orders will then be required to truly stifle these consumer demands.

If the bureaucrats would work with, rather than only stipulate the consumer's wishes will compromise or options be realized in order to still make some headway into the overall goal(s). It should never be an 'all-or-nothing' approach. The art of engineering is to satisfy the highest number of requirements with the most practical solution(s) possible

Furthermore, FCA and all other automotive producers must then try to engineer and develop solutions which meet these requirements because they are the entities that actually are looking for a revenue stream by actually selling something (a vehicle). The government neither produces or sells anything. Their only revenue stream is taxation. So the burden of a tangible result is on the production mechanism, never the bureacracy.

Furthermore, the automotive producer must make practical tradeoffs (compromises) in order to satisfy the market with affordable products independent of the forced mandates. If no one can afford their products, the overall political agenda must then be accomplished through subsidies. Otherwise people continue to use their old gas guzzling, emmision spewing, outdated old beaters. Hence no real progress.

The answer has to be a merging of objectives and consumer desires. Why do you think there is only an ESS disable pushbutton? Why not an enable? I'm also certain the automotive industry fought tooth and nail for the pushbutton period. The bureaucracy would have much more preferred no option at all. ESS is your new normal. Deal with it.

The car companies on the other hand realized this would likely render their offerings unsellable. So ESS is by default factory enabled everywhere on each and every ignition event. It can only be (begrudgingly) disabled one and only one event at a time. Stupid, stupid consumers. They can't be trusted to make their own important decisions.

So ESS would be much more successful if it could be controlled at a much finer granularity. Let the consumer be able to advocate a more involved tolerance. Perhaps with tactile feedback gauges that physically show how much impact they're making (or wasting). I'm sure that many drivers would change their habits if they can truly see how much emmision output and fuel savings metrics they can control.

Today, nearly no driver understands these dynamics. They just turn the key and go, then get aggitated when their vehicle is behaving differently than they're used to. If they could see, sense and control these parameters, many would gladly adjust for the benefit of both themselves and the population as a whole.

Unfortunately, direct feedback is never fostered for whatever reason. My hunch is to try and kill all ICE technology altogether as swiftly as possible in order to implement the ultimate agenda of battery only powered vehicles. Any mechanism (whatsoever) to lengthen the viability of ICE powerplants is totally unacceptable. It's the all-or-nothing headlong plunge into everything non fossil simply because of the politically advantageous position of saving the planet.

From a scientific position, the health of the planet includes many, many factors more than just carbon. Economic well being appears to be the lowest possible factor with such environmental based approaches independent of any cost. Economic ruin is an acceptable outcome. Clearly, and you're no scientist if you don't consider all facets of migrating towards a practical and viable approach. Also obviously all current battery technology woefully lacks the potential energy of even a very small tank of gas.

Yes, we're making progress but we can't destroy our entire economic structure by phasing fossil energy out prematurely. It can't be all or nothing and you are being extremely naive, foolish or even outright stupid to help hinder our chance at a reasonable and practical transition.

ESS and it's reluctance is proving we're going about this all wrong. When will we learn to adapt gradually, rather than just throw the baby out with the bath water, furthermore at the soonest political (bureaucratic) opportunity!

Jay

Jay, I always enjoy your contributions. They're always well thought out, presented, and fair.

I too feel that government is not the solution to all, even assuming all they regulate deserves to be---which isn't the case. Solutions can come from many places, including market forces, especially where "negative externalities" aren't involved (negative externalities: situations where the cost of usage isn't completely reflected in price, like some argue, the need to impose a clean up surcharge on fossil fuel emissions, as I'm certain Jay already knows.)

And I agree, citizen involvement in this "crazy thing we call democracy," is paramount. The problem as I see, at least in this case, is that not enough of said citizenry truly feels they have enough "skin the game" of things likely global warming likely to effect them and future generations down the road, any more than if it does, they are also justifiable thinking about how gasoline to their budget, if not the world at large, is already too expensive to feed their family today.

You talk of the people who defeat ESS. Excellent point. The solution may come in making such things illegal (as if that will stop it) and enforcement (as if the commodity is valuable enough, some people will "find a way" to sell it--witness narcotics.) Still, many owners lack the will or knowledge on how to disable ESS and we can hope for emissions savings in this group--that's if the dang feature works, my original point.

I think the ESS off button was a necessarily governmental concession that allows manufacturers a reduced liability exposure for that "failure to crank post ESS situation" that catalyzes an accident. And I agree the button's absence would lower sales, but less so if all manufactures had to do it. I think we'd both agree that such universal enforcement would increase sales for those selling the tech to defeat it.

As for your mock reference to stupid customers that can't make their own choices here, I agree that the consumer isn't stupid. Where we might disagree is in my belief that the average consumer is more selfish than stupid. To motivate behavior, IMHO, all us higher order primates, especially the non-human ones, often need to see a direct cause and effect between actions and consequences. Exhibiting a behavior and getting an immediate treat or electric shock: that's effective.

Something like "down the time road your town will be underwater from higher global temperature flooding..." is, IMHO, less effective.

I wish I could agree with you that more user control of ESS and its benefits could change behavior. I'm afraid that when owners see how little they are saving, (as much as it adds up in aggregate,) it won't help the green cause, dare I say have the opposite effect.

Well informed policy makers must concede that the death of ICE is greatly overrated and on a faster timeline than reality will allow. Given the current state of battery technology, liquid fuel holds so many more BTU's/weight, which the last time I checked, was a pretty darn critical attribute in the world of flight.

I'm not sure that economic well being sits at the bottom of the totem pole of green initiatives. Yes, there are many pressing issues for our survival, right down to where the ever growing food insecure population (COVID) will get its next meal, with far shorter time lines than environmental change, but plans need to be put in place now for this slow moving killer to not doom us as well.

Some believe we are adapting slowly Jay, in fact too slowly. We're trying to incentivize a battery society, complete with its own environmental problems (pollute the ground versus the sky) by making the relative cost of electric propulsion cheaper, to incentivize its purchase and economies of scale that offer further reduction in its price via mass production and innovation. And yes, plenty of greenhouse gas goes into the making of such vehicles.

I have no idea where the balances correctly lie. All I know, as the premise of my OP, is that ESS systems that don't engage due to poor design don't help the green efforts that incentivized them.

Peace.

 

[Bruce Willys]

Car and Driver estimates that ESS reduces fuel consumption by 0.1%. That is it.

The reality is that ESS has negligible impact on actual MPG and, by extension, on CAFE numbers. Its main role is to cut emissions during idle, which is a problem in many parts of Europe.

So JL’s ESS was developed primarily to satisfy EU carbon emission requirements. You can thank Fiat for that.

Having said that, there are a million reasons why these systems fail. E.g., Fiat, like most European automakers, don’t have a good track record with electrical systems in general; FCA is notorious for squeezing costs out of suppliers, which can result in parts that fail too early, etc., etc.

The real irony is that North America sales generate 70-75% of FCA’s global profits; most of it coming from Jeep and Ram. And despite an ambitious global expansion plan, 80% of Wrangler production remains sold in the US and Canada.

That 0.1% is largely going to depend on usage/driving conditions. If someone spends a lot of time stopped in traffic on their commute, it will save meaningful amounts of gas over the lifetime of the vehicle. It wasn't implemented for that reason though (to save an individual money), it's about all the gas saved over the entire fleet which is silly when talking about a vehicle like the Wrangler. If politicians and environmentalists were serious about getting people to save fuel, they would encouraging and incentivize people to ride motorcycles for commuting. It would reduce congestion and traffic (you can fit more motorcycles in the same amount of space one car takes up) and motorcycles get significantly better fuel economy. One of my bikes gets 134 mpg. Even my fast bike gets over 60 mpg, and goes 0-60 in 3.3 seconds.

There is almost no benefit of ESS in my area/normal driving routes. I live in a rural area with mostly 55 mph roads and few traffic lights.

 

[Bruce Willys]

 

[Gee-pah]

I'll bite on gas cans. Without a question I am green leaning and the cans still suck.

Because of this the vent I installed in my environment can has a lid on it, as does the spout, and I use them: the very things regulated to not emit fumes by eliminating them and spring loading them respectfully.

I don't want to be subjected to these new cans because others can't cap their can's access to the outside world. The best I can say about them if they force lazy people who don't bother capping, from emitting as much crap in the air. I don't want to pay a price for other people's stupidity and selfisness.

The laws of physics mandate that gas cans must vent when poured. Mine is facilitated by that vent hole, whose negative pressure finds air flowing into the can throw that hole when I pour, not air and emissions out.

The rest of the new gas cans is about safety, which I've always practiced.

 

[Dkretden]

I have zero issue with cafe standards per se. I have huge issues with Jeep burying a battery that requires me to either rip out a fuse box or rip off a fender to get to it. THAT is not a cafe problem. That is just shit FCA design. And the stupid non-latching switch..... FCA: pay the fine (which I too will pay for) so that I can turn it off and keep it off.

here in denver, the voters just passed a new tax that will raise money for new “green stuff”...... err, ok. Rather than that how about making the lights cycle based on traffic flow so instead of idling for 81 hours, I can actually drive through an intersection when NO ONE else is on the road? GREEN! But I guess this doesn’t count towards hugging windmills that slaughter migratory birds.

 

[Pappy06]

Making the gov regulations, as it applies to the JL, moot, Is the fact that i have driven So many vehicles where ESS works very well. No battery problems etc. My wife’s Q5 is seamless and reliable. I hated ESS unti she bought that car. I hardly notice it. It’s not something to figure out. It has been figured out, just improperly executed by FCA it would seem.

 

[jeepoch]

Jay, I always enjoy your contributions. They're always well thought out, presented, and fair.

I too feel that government is not the solution to all, even assuming all they regulate deserves to be---which isn't the case. Solutions can come from many places, including market forces, especially where "negative externalities" aren't involved (negative externalities: situations where the cost of usage isn't completely reflected in price, like some argue, the need to impose a clean up surcharge on fossil fuel emissions, as I'm certain Jay already knows.)

And I agree, citizen involvement in this "crazy thing we call democracy," is paramount. The problem as I see, at least in this case, is that not enough of said citizenry truly feels they have enough "skin the game" of things likely global warming likely to effect them and future generations down the road, any more than if it does, they are also justifiable thinking about how gasoline to their budget, if not the world at large, is already too expensive to feed their family today.

You talk of the people who defeat ESS. Excellent point. The solution may come in making such things illegal (as if that will stop it) and enforcement (as if the commodity is valuable enough, some people will "find a way" to sell it--witness narcotics.) Still, many owners lack the will or knowledge on how to disable ESS and we can hope for emissions savings in this group--that's if the dang feature works, my original point.

I think the ESS off button was a necessarily governmental concession that allows manufacturers a reduced liability exposure for that "failure to crank post ESS situation" that catalyzes an accident. And I agree the button's absence would lower sales, but less so if all manufactures had to do it. I think we'd both agree that such universal enforcement would increase sales for those selling the tech to defeat it.

As for your mock reference to stupid customers that can't make their own choices here, I agree that the consumer isn't stupid. Where we might disagree is in my belief that the average consumer is more selfish than stupid. To motivate behavior, IMHO, all us higher order primates, especially the non-human ones, often need to see a direct cause and effect between actions and consequences. Exhibiting a behavior and getting an immediate treat or electric shock: that's effective.

Something like "down the time road your town will be underwater from higher global temperature flooding..." is, IMHO, less effective.

I wish I could agree with you that more user control of ESS and its benefits could change behavior. I'm afraid that when owners see how little they are saving, (as much as it adds up in aggregate,) it won't help the green cause, dare I say have the opposite effect.

Well informed policy makers must concede that the death of ICE is greatly overrated and on a faster timeline than reality will allow. Given the current state of battery technology, liquid fuel holds so many more BTU's/weight, which the last time I checked, was a pretty darn critical attribute in the world of flight.

I'm not sure that economic well being sits at the bottom of the totem pole of green initiatives. Yes, there are many pressing issues for our survival, right down to where the ever growing food insecure population (COVID) will get its next meal, with far shorter time lines than environmental change, but plans need to be put in place now for this slow moving killer to not doom us as well.

Some believe we are adapting slowly Jay, in fact too slowly. We're trying to incentivize a battery society, complete with its own environmental problems (pollute the ground versus the sky) by making the relative cost of electric propulsion cheaper, to incentivize its purchase and economies of scale that offer further reduction in its price via mass production and innovation. And yes, plenty of greenhouse gas goes into the making of such vehicles.

I have no idea where the balances correctly lie. All I know, as the premise of my OP, is that ESS systems that don't engage due to poor design don't help the green efforts that incentivized them.

Peace.

Andy,

Yes, most of this discussion relies, no depends, on informed and empathetic consumer participation. That very well may be the issue. I was certainly tongue-in-cheek about the IQ of the average consumer. I do concur most wholeheartedly that they are indeed smart, just uncaring to anything but their own selfish interests.

I recall growing up where most people were both curtious and polite. It was the rule rather than the exception. Now, if you do anything as simple as enabling your turn signal you'll likely be met with a middle finger, that is if they don't speed up and prevent you a safe lane change. How dare you try and get in front of them? Even though there are thousands in front of them already in their never ending race to get to where their ultimately going.

Society as a whole has gotten a lot less friendly and/or cordial. Sorry but in my heart I blame 'progressivism' with all it's identity politics. There now isn't any group which hasn't been categorized into some sort of victimized tribe (race, class, religion, gender, political thought, medical condition, education, hair color, location, weight, tenure, home ownership, musical preference, career, vehicle ownership, even merely having opposing opinions, etc., etc., etc.). Pick your most favorite category. Maybe more than one. Maybe several if not all? In order to grow towards true inclusiveness shouldn't there be zero of these groupings.

It's very much now like Dr. Suess' "Stars upon Thars". Where some particular group is the most desirable fad to be associated with. The lemmings are all running around trying to change their star to the dujour group of the day. We both know which group most currently 'matters' most. Why?

Haven't 'we' made great strides over time to improve civil rights in general? But unfortunately for many it will never be enough, even if perfection is eventually acheived. Not to defend people with true hate in their hearts, human nature unfortunately will never be perfect. In fact in my opinion some civil rights activists are even now more oppressive and bigoted than some ancestors that they blame.

The collective 'we' no longer either resemble or approve any of the injustices of the past. Yet 'we' are all still blamed by the people with the stars who matter more than anyone else. I would rather think that 'we' are being exploited for political gain rather than the divisions they are fostering and the systemic conditions that they so easily condone. Inclusiveness be damned. Yes there is always (always) room for improvement. But the non-stop barage of never ending accusations of racism is about the most racist crap being extolled. Can we find a way to share and promote our successes and learn to work together in bringing about diversity and inclusivity?

So yes, I totally understand your belief in everyone's selfishness. I believe we've been subtly conditioned, taught or even indoctrinated to be this way. It has happened coincidentally with all these latest progressive agendas. I'm personally not saying any of these social changes are bad, I'm just pointing out how much irreverence towards others is certainly now the new 'norm'. Again why? Shouldn't these social changes bring about less selfishness.

In the big picture of things isn't this even more ironic?

Jay

Sponsored