A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
So I went out to buy the smallest car I could. Just to drive downtown to work. There's really two choices where I am: A Hyundai Venue or a Mitsubishi Mirage. There's a month+ wait on either, and used ones seem to only lose about $1k of value a year.
Appparently There's no market for small cars though!
Maybe don’t mandate ridiculous profit margins and/or don’t send it all to upper management? Just spitballin.
Have they tried making cars that most people can actually afford? The only people I've seen by the F-150 are YouTubers doing reviews, seriously that's it.
My local lumber/hardware store has purchased a bunch of them for deliveries in the city. Ford EVs are everywhere I look now. Second only to Tesla. Anecdotal, but I'm sure not all of them are YouTubers. Most of them look like actual working trucks with gear in the back (for the lightning. Obviously not for the Mach-e which I see more of)
Lets look at Ford's entire EV Lineup:
Ford really covered the entire spectrum of practical car types there.
The F-150 Lighting is an F-150. Snooze.
Why call the Mach-E a Mustang? It looks more practical/chubby like a Ford Fusion. It is classified as an Electric SUV. You have alienated Mustang users by your design and non-Mustang users by its name. You don't have to call it a Mustang because it goes fast. It's an EV. we know it goes fast.
They glued an iPad to the Infotainment system (unlike the 2024 ICE Mustang). They keep pointing out on their website that the Mustang can't tow. Why not? It does not have a transmission. Users online say it can tow 3500lbs with mods. Sell that.
It's not the fault of the suppliers. I don't even care about the price at this point. Ford just didn't design a competitive EV.
Let's* look at
The Mach-E is an extremely competent family hauler that mom and dad can enjoy driving. (It is a chubby Fusion with a lift gate.) How many people tow with their family SUVs? A very small minority. The car itself is excellent as-is, no need to pretend it's a towing vehicle.
I agree with every point you make other than the battery swap one. I really don't think there's a future in it. It's a cool feature but it just seems so overly complicated for basically only a very small convenience. A convenience that only exists if you're used to ICE cars. After a while people are not going to care because they will be so used to electric vehicles they'll just get used to charging them up every now and then whenever they stop anywhere, so it'll be a non-issue.
Battery swaps are only really useful if your battery is completely dead. Most people aren't going to completely drain the battery under normal operation. Your average commute is less than an 60 mile round trip, if you charge up every night you can essentially pretend you have an infinite battery.
People are going to look around and ask, why am I paying so much money to get a battery swap capable vehicle, when I only use the feature maybe once or twice a year on a road trip?
I feel like we've had this discussion elsewhere... :-) I apologize for the long reply, if so.
Here's why I think battery swap makes sense:
Here's why swapping makes sense: it removes all of the above.
Every issue becomes a non-issue if there were universal swap stations sprinkled around neighborhoods.
Like most things, there's a trade-off:
The first one is mitigated by the fact that the solution is to just swap again. Or even better, have a smart BMS that reports back to the swap station data on charge depletion. That way it knows to take the bad battery packs out of circulation or refurbish the cells. It can also setup economics where the older packs cost less to swap, for people willing to trade fuel cost for convenience.
The second is where I think the logic is inverted. The battery locked inside my car is degrading over time and is actually dragging down the resale value. Taking it out of the equation means the resale value is now based on other attributes: wear and tear on motors, telematics, and consumables (tires, brakes, etc) all of which will be cheaper to replace than the battery.
The third one is the most important. We're 10-15 years into the EV adoption cycle. It's not too late to plan ahead, if people actually demand it. NACS adoption announcements show us it's possible for carmakers to agree on a single standard.
Notice I haven't mentioned distance travel. That's because stopping for a long charge can be a positive experience for some people who could use the physical break, but a pain in the ass for those who need to get to their destination quickly. Depends on which camp you fall into.
The distribution of non-Tesla supercharger networks in the U.S. is so uneven people have to decide whether to take an EV or ICE, depending on how close their destination is to a major highway. Yes, we can build out thousands more stations, but that's not addressing the concern of those who just want to get from A to B and don't have hours to spare.
Outside the U.S. the situation is much better, which is why EV adoption is going more smoothly (helps having a better selection of models). Also, in many parts of the world, public transportation is actually viable, so NO CAR is an option. But the A to B time and resale value concerns stand for many people looking for their next car.
Back to EVs. Here in the U.S. if you drive on a busy holiday to a major metropolitan area, once you get there, you're risking spending a substantial part of that trip waiting and worrying. For a spot to open up, for how long to budget for charging, and how much to trust the app telling you there's an open spot.
Personal anecdote: Today, I wouldn't buy an EV in Southern California unless I could charge at home. Next time visiting, I'll rent an ICE. It's that bad.
When it comes to charging stations, I personally like talking to people and have had great conversations with some colorful characters while waiting, but that's also time I'm not spending on the purpose of the trip.
Again, battery swapping would solve all that.
The first time I saw it in action was 7-8 years ago in Taiwan with Gogoro scooters (https://www.gogoro.com/gogoro-network/). Saw someone ride up to a 7-11, pull out their battery, pop in a new one, and be gone in 60 seconds. I was sold.
Bottom line: the best user experience is not having to spend a minute thinking about charging. Ever.
[ Again, sorry for the long soliloquy. This is the sort of topic best hashed over a pint while someone points at how daft I'm being. ]
I'm going to be honest, I got about half way through, I just wanted to add something some folks may not consider in this discussion.
Since I first got an EV almost a decade ago, I have spent less of my life waiting for it to charge than I had previously spent getting gas.
I'll note that everyone's situation is unique, and I've had the fortune/privilege of having private parking next to a 120v outlet at both of my previous rentals as well as my current home, but the 2s it takes for me to plug in every night, and the very rare 30 min charging session mixed into a 6hr road trip (when I'd be stopping for food/restroom anyways) means less time standing around at the charger than I would have spent at the pump.
I recognize this is a hard concept to sell to some ICE drivers, because all they hear is 30-minute charging session, but it's real. Admittedly this is contingent on you having access to an outlet at home or work, which I recognize doesn't apply to a subset of renters.
all they hear is 30-minute charging session
Battery swapping assumes battery and car technology doesn’t change. Just a couple years ago, you’d be looking at hour+ stops to recharge on a trip, now it’s approaching 30 minutes. Some of it’s the batteries, some is a better handle on what batteries can take, some of its newer higher voltage vehicles. If there’s any substance to Toyota’s FUD, it will be closer to 15 minutes in a couple more years.
So far it’s been a huge convenience to just plug in at night like I do my phone, and road trips are only a small percentage. Obviously that’s only a plus for those of us who can do that. We really need to focus on incenting landlords and HOAs to install chargers
How about not having every fucking feature imaginable to add to a car? Safety features? Fine. I don't need a touch screen. I want knobs. Hell, I don't even fucking care if the windows are crank roll. I just need to get to work so I can try to pay the bills that I need to.
I've been thinking that they load them up with "luxury" features to justify the high cost. I've been suspicious that floor liners and such don't really cost hundreds of dollars.
By law you must have a screen in the car. Backup cameras and displays are now required by law in the US as of 2018. So car manufacturers are actually saving money by integrating the knobs and all of the various cutouts and components into the touch screen, not the other way around.
Electric windows are also probably one of the more minor features that cause expense in a modern car. If you’re looking for the actual expense you’re talking about lane keep assist, leather seats, sound systems, and having 10 trim options.
Knobs are more expensive than a touch screen
Yup, and it makes the car look more future-ish to impress potential buyers! It's a win for shareholders and a loss for safety and ease of use.
That's what I love about my VW e-up
Make me a 1968 beetle, that’s electric
B a s i c A F. Please
Yes there are expensive bits and bobs in a car but how about fewer how hard is that?
Safety legislation makes this impossible. A 1968 beetle was a metal shell with few seats in it. Now, EuroNCAP mandates automatic breaking and lane-keep assist to get a 5 out of 5 rating. No manufacturer wants 4 stars or 😱 below, because no mother would allow little bobby to be strapped into a car that "wasn't safe".
It's not the touch screen that makes it expensive. It the structural engineering, the airbags, the driving sensors, the software, the crash testing... The screen is the gloss on top that makes you feel ok about it all costing so much.
Industry regulation is often used as a way to ring-fence an industry from new entrants. Nobody but the existing players have a hope in meeting the regulations, except in this case they been hoisted with their own petard. Companies can't make anything but "luxury" level cars as safety requirements are too high to be able to make "consumer" level cars which comply and also make profit.
We don't need 5 star ratings in a small grocery getter car... not everything needs to be built to atmospheric re-entry standards.
You're right, but that's not how the public think.
It's not quite a beetle but they're definitely electrifying the bus. I imagine a beetle is on the way too, honestly.
They gotta call it the Lightning Bug too or no sale.
Reducing part count and vertically integrating makes more sense to me than asking suppliers to charge less money.
EV parts count is an order of magnitude less than combustion and a much smaller industrial scale production and labor. Foundry casting is a massive operation and the precision of the machining operations is critical with complex setup and alignment. There is absolutely no reason for EV's to cost so much. China is just making them and pricing them appropriately. Scrap the entire outdated and useless patent system and subsidize domestic transportation logistics. Start up some real open market capitalism, screw the oligarchy, and the problems will get solved fast. Every supply chain is corrupt, it's monopolies from top to bottom, and they are all unmotivated and terrible at markets with no competition.
There is absolutely no reason for EV’s to cost so much. China is just making them and pricing them appropriately.
"Chinese state subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles were $57 billion from 2016-2022, according to consulting firm AlixPartners, helping China become the world's biggest EV producer and to pass Japan as the largest auto exporter in the first quarter of this year." source
Scrap the entire outdated and useless patent system
I don't think that would have the positive effect you think it would.
Doesn't the USA subsidize electric vehicles a ton too with tax credits and other subsidies at both the consumer and producer levels?
Doesn’t the USA subsidize electric vehicles a ton too with tax credits and other subsidies at both the consumer and producer levels?
First, yes, but there's some pretty big differences in the how which change the end result. With EVs there's three types of subsidies:
Subsidies on developing the technology/manufacturing techniques - This is where the government, in an attempt to bootstrap an industry, will pay for some of the up-front costs for developing specific parts of technologies that are too large or risky for a company to do on their own. So there is benefit to the nation and the manufacturer in that the resulting cars can be less expensive because that initial development cost doesn't have to be recovered from the sale of each unit. However, there is no incentive for the manufacturer to produce any more cars than will sell. Both the US and China have used this subsidy to pay to develop battery and EV drive train technologies domestically.
Subsidies on the consumer purchase - This is where a person buys something and gets a rebate on taxes. So a manufacturer/nation benefit on the domestic sale of the unit, and a tiny bit of benefit in helping their economies of scale for production. Remember though, this is a domestic consumption subsidy. The rebate can only be claimed by a citizen in that country under their taxation/monetary system rules. Nobody in Belgium is able to claim the US tax credit of $7500 for purchasing an EV in the USA. So the benefit is really only felt internally. No amount of $7500 rebates claimed in Chicago is going to help someone that wants a US EV in Antwerp. With this subsidy there is no incentive for the manufacturer to produce any more cars than there are people willing and able to claim the rebate domestically.
Subsidies on the production - This is where the manufacturer receives subsidies from the government just for making the car irrespective of which country it ever ends up in. This is where it goes off the rails. The manufacturer gets money from the government simply for building the car. Neither the government nor the manufacturer need a buyer for the car. The manufacturer gets the credit it wants immediately after the car exists. Again, both the USA and China use this too, but the USA policy has the capability to create tiny amounts of potentially unwanted cars ("compliance cars"). A good example of this is the BEV MX-30 EV. The total sales of this vehicle over the last 3 years was only 485 cars. The scale China is using can create huge fleets of unpurchased domestically cars. This ends up creating lots of cheap cars for export.
Its this last point that, if continued, allows for government of China to pay for a chunk of the cost of a buyer in Antwerp Belgium or the USA.
Its this last point that, if continued, allows for government of China to pay for a chunk of the cost of a buyer in Antwerp Belgium or the USA.
I'm failing to see the problem
I’m failing to see the problem
Play it out. If China is eventually the only one making cars, your only choice for a car will be one from China, and they'll be able to make you whatever they want.
Well the way things are at the moment, a Chinese car is one of maybe three affordable options, even with a 100% tariff. Plus they're making the type of car that I want, so I'm still failing to see the problem.
It's also a good move in regards to reducing global CO2 emissions. (I know a world with less cars would be significantly better, but our societies aren't ready to accept that yet). Is the Chinese government thinking along these lines? It would be funny and amazing if they had the ability to force a worldwide green transition through overproduction of green tech like EVs and solar panels. I guess they are overproducing EVs and solar modules, but is preventing the worst of climate change their main motivation?
Well the way things are at the moment, a Chinese car is one of maybe three affordable options, even with a 100% tariff. Plus they’re making the type of car that I want, so I’m still failing to see the problem.
Thats understandable. Its not a obvious process to calculate out macroeconomic moves years and possibly decades into the future.
It’s also a good move in regards to reducing global CO2 emissions.
True.
I guess they are overproducing EVs and solar modules, but is preventing the worst of climate change their main motivation?
Its not. Foreign manufacturers are fleeing China because of the crackdowns by the CCP and more importantly the rising cost of labor in China. Since there are thousands of factories dark and empty and millions of factory workers unemployed, China is trying to boost domestic consumption and exports via government investment in an effort to prop up their sagging economy. They're making and selling EVs in high quantities because they hope the rest of the world (outside China) will buy them.
Thats understandable. Its not a obvious process to calculate out macroeconomic moves years and possibly decades into the future.
I can't help but detect a bit of passive aggression here. Do you calculate out macroeconomic moves decades into the future when deciding to buy a product? I definitely do, seeing as I'm the economic minister of a mid sized country it's more or less my job. But you? Are you an economic minister too? If you're not, it seems a bit ridiculous to be thinking much beyond your own personal finances, yes?
Here's something you may find interesting: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1776486765463048674
That analysis contradicts the BS your spreading. Here's some more for you to read: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/chinas-unfair-overcapacity/ China is outperforming the West in everything important for the future. Their economy fine. Their growth rates have been higher than the west's for awhile now.
I can’t help but detect a bit of passive aggression here.
Yeah, after repeatedly explaining the macroeconmic implications in multiple ways, you either aren't getting it or you don't care and could be one (in the future) to suffer the consequences. I'm trying giving you the benefit of the doubt but I think I'm running out of patience. Your post indicates you're in a similar position with me. My apologies, if we can both be civil, I'm happy to continue out discussion.
Do you calculate out macroeconomic moves decades into the future when deciding to buy a product?
Not usually, because that would be a microeconomic action.
However, occasionally I do. I don't own a Sodastream because they were manufactured on seized Palestinian land. That one small action on my part has a tiny tiny tiny macroeconomic impact as with my I (and may others) actions the company later moved the factory out of the West Bank. I also chose to buy my solar panels and inverters from domestic manufacturers in the USA because I want to support domestic production of green energy technologies. I don't buy cotton products sourced from Xinjiang either because of the treatment of the Uighur people there by the CCP. I bought my cast iron pan from a Ukrainian manufacturer because I wanted to support their economy in the face of the Russian invasion.
Do you really not pay attention to where the things come from that you buy? Do you not think how your spending is funding things that are possibly against your personal interests?
I definitely do, seeing as I’m the economic minister of a mid sized country it’s more or less my job.
Cool, then you should understand the difference between micro and macro economics.
Are you an economic minister too? If you’re not, it seems a bit ridiculous to be thinking much beyond your own personal finances, yes?
You think you have to be an economic minister of a country to think about the impact of your personal spending power and how your dollars affect or don't affect change?
Here’s something you may find interesting: https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1776486765463048674
First, I wouldn't recommend using someone's twitter post as compelling research. It could lead you down an incorrect path as this one has.
That analysis contradicts the BS your spreading.
The source he's citing about Tim Cook and Apple against China's sagging manufacturing is from 2017 (his source). Being seven years out-of-date means its contradicted by current events. Here's one thats more recent from January of this year:
"Apple's suppliers have so far spent $16 billion to move from China" source
I could post half a dozen more trusted news sources about Apple divesting from China to other areas of India and Southeast Asia.
Here’s some more for you to read: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/10/chinas-unfair-overcapacity/ China is outperforming the West in everything important for the future. Their economy fine. Their growth rates have been higher than the west’s for awhile now.
A wordpress blog post as a secondary source? That source is quoting your first twitter source as its source. I'd be highly worried for the blog post facing a "garbage in garbage out" problem. I read through most of the blog post and see a couple tenuous links of source to conclusion that are worrying me about the objectivity of the author. Further, that blog post author seems to say that all the experts in economics and global banking are wrong and he himself is right. I don't immediately dismiss him for that, but its certainly a red flag.
Something occurs to me. You yourself are claiming to be an economic minister, which, while possible, would usually seam unlikely for a random internet poster. However, you were quick to post that same twitter post as a source here on Lemmy, just like the author of the blog post. Here's the "about" section of the blog you posted as your source:
"[NAME REMOVED BY ME] worked in the City of London as an economist for over 40 years." source
Are you possibly quoting yourself as source? I'm certainly not trying to dox you so I removed the actual name from my post here, if I came too close to guessing right, message me and I'll happily edit my post to remove this part.
Assuming I guessed correctly, I'd actually really like to hear your opinion on Brexit. It seems like it would have some parallels to our discussion here on the importance of support of domestic industries.
We subsidize things all the time too. Foresight and planning with good timing while we have a government that implodes for stupidity and a failure at fundamental game theory is no one's fault but our own. We had a traitor of a president and by all metrics the worst president in all of our history and he is still running for office again. This is the find out part of "fuck around and find out." We hired pure corruption, and now corruption can't catch up to the real world. We failed. The McCarthy bullshit about blaming China for our incompetence is nonsense.
The vast majority of US patents are absolute trash designed to prevent competition for all the wrong reasons. They are used as frivolous nonsense in almost every case. They act as the primary barrier to the average person. There are very few spaces where a startup can build anything big based on real innovation. Yes, I want to make a market so volatile that size itself is a liability of impossible odds. I want to see the oligarchy go broke because exceptionalism is a myth. We are all a product of our environment and our opportunities. Most people have very few opportunities now, so take out the gatekeepers. We're failing anyways. The primary candidate for president is a traitor. You can't get a bigger sign of total failure than that.