Voluntary recalls are actually more common than ordered recalls. Manufacturers usually don’t wait for the NHTSA to get involved.

What makes it a recall is that either the manufacturer or the NHTSA determine that there’s a safety defect or that the vehicle doesn’t confirm to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

So I believe the terminology is required by the NHTSA if it fits the above definition regardless of how the issue is addressed.

Of course this is for the US and this is a recall in China but I’m assuming similar legal requirements are involved.

I’m speaking from a US point of view. To my knowledge there are no 240 watt USB-C chargers in existence.

There are a handful that claim 240 watts but upon closer inspection only provide a max of ~100 watts per port.

There are cables sold with a 240 watt rating but no actual chargers.

I don’t think there are any 240 watt chargers on the market though despite it theoretically being supported. Last I read, there were some doubts around if it was truly feasible. Laptops that require more than 90 or so watts still come with proprietary chargers because they can’t charge at full rate over USB-C.

My Dell laptop is 240 watts and the only way to charge it at full rate over USB is to buy a proprietary $250 charger from Dell that provides two USB cords that must be plugged in together to achieve a combined 240 watts. The 90 watt charger from my old laptop won’t keep it running for more than an hour.

Anyway, hopefully we see 240 watt USB-C in the future but at the moment it seems to be vaporware. Maybe this ruling will push it forward.

Vanilla bean is one. A lot of the people who produce it don’t really understand why we want it.

It’s not though. There are lots of use cases that electric vehicles are not suitable for (many covered in this thread). Sure there’s people who could switch and don’t out of fear or unwarranted concern but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re simply not feasible for a lot of people currently and PHEV’s are a great middle ground that can still vastly reduce emissions and that’s the goal here isn’t it?

Yea those prices are high. You can typically get a rebuilt engine installed for between $2500-5k but you have to go to a shop that specializes in rebuilds. A regular mechanic can’t do that type of work and will just be looking for something they can drop in.

People in the US typically only take domestic flights between major cities and usually only if they are traveling a long distance (across multiple states).

One reason for this is because you usually have to rent a car when you reach your destination anyway. So if you fly two states away to visit family, land in the closest city to where they live, now you have to rent a car at the airport and drive a couple of hours to their house. You’ve now paid for a flight and a car rental and you probably could have gotten there cheaper and just as quickly, if not faster, if you drove.

It’s a great stop gap and it’s the bridge we need. It would reduce the great majority of emissions (those produced by commuters) while allowing people to drive longer distances without worry.

It buys us time to build out charging infrastructure and introduces people to the concept of a plug in vehicle.

Expecting everyone to switch to full electric overnight is unrealistic. There are still a lot of logistical issues we have to solve.

I wish communities would start banning that bot. It’s summaries are mostly awful, typically missing critical details in an article to the point of completely altering itsintent.

This example is particularly egregious though, I think it had a stroke.

In my experience, at least in the US, most people aren’t getting rid of their car because a new car is cheaper, they do it because the cost to repair the old car exceeds the current car’s value. This is actually a very poor justification for buying a new car but it happens all the time. People get scared when they get a high repair bill and jump into a multi year auto loan costing 250+/month.

Cars are expensive here though so you’re unlikely to buy new for much less than 20k and the reality is most consumers aren’t buying base model cheap compact cars.

Of course you may be able to buy used cheaper but people who are afraid of repair bills aren’t usually rushing out to replace one old car with another.

What you described is already done with ICE vehicles. Engines and transmissions are rebuilt all the time. Even cars that are totaled are typically given a second life.

Ultimately it’s the vehicle’s body and frame that determine when it’s at the end of it’s life. You’re not going to put a new battery in a tesla with a rusted out frame.

Arguably the lifespan could be worse for EVs since replacing the batteries is so expensive (more than a typical engine rebuild) that many probably won’t be willing to put that much money into an old vehicle.

He’s actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.

The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.

So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.

I don’t know what provoked the OP’s comment. I just wanted to add context because I personally made a lot of bad assumptions from it before reading the article.

Also I don’t know that your statement is accurate and global warming is never brought up in the article.

They don’t know why the ozone hole is big this year but they suspect it may be related to a volcanic eruption. Article concludes that scientists expect the ozone layer to be back to normal by 2050.

The suggestion is that this is an unusual year for the ozone layer which sees the hole expand this time every year before retracting again by December. They never suggest human behavior is damaging it again.

Yea you could really pay a lot depending on how many channels you subscribed to and especially if you had premium channels like HBO or Starz.

I’m sure we’ll get there though.

I love how the OP said Ford never took a bailout, you reply confirming that, and OP gets downvoted into oblivion.

What? I never said I was trolling. I said I was offering a different perspective.

It’s so bizarre how people are attacking me for that. You would think I said something awful.

I did enjoy the reaction that my original comment got but only because the comment wasn’t intended to stir up controversy or invoke a strong reaction but clearly has.

I was contributing to a conversation with a comment that I feel was quite harmless. I didn’t know free speech absolutism was such a feather rustling topic.

What’s sad is you being mean to a person for simply making a comment on a social media platform.

No I don’t personally believe in absolute free speech I was just trying to offer perspective in response to a comment that was rejecting the concept outright.

I do enjoy the rise it got out of this audience though.

The concept of absolute freedom of speech is based on lessons learned in history and even the present. As soon as you start limiting speech you have to draw a line and nobody can agree on where that line should be. The real issue however, is that it’s ultimately government that decides.

A government that can limit few speech gets to decide what acceptable speech is and that’s a dangerous power in the hands of the wrong people.

There’s definitely consequences to unhinderred free speech but I think history shows us that the alternative is worse.