The EV fact thread

[markjay]

Legacy automakers find it hard to make a profit on their EVs - so they are desperate to continue making profitable ICE & hybrid vehicles as long as possible,
The cynic in me might even think that some of the awful EVs that are being made by legacy manufacturers are made that way to dissuade buyers from purchasing them - thus fulfilling their prophecy of “slow sales of EVs”
They are basically cunning, lying barstewards!

As Henry Ford is often quoted: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”

(Though he may not have actually said that....)

 

[optimusprime]

Electric Vehicle Mobile Cremation ..

 

[Dryce]

Legacy automakers find it hard to make a profit on their EVs - so they are desperate to continue making profitable ICE & hybrid vehicles as long as possible,
The cynic in me might even think that some of the awful EVs that are being made by legacy manufacturers are made that way to dissuade buyers from purchasing them - thus fulfilling their prophecy of “slow sales of EVs”
They are basically cunning, lying barstewards!

I'd apply a different logic.

Manufacturers jumped on the EV bandwagon. Numbers of sales started looking optimistic around three years ago and that likely created overconfidence in terms of where the sales curves were going to go. (There may have been a covid effect masking actual trends).

In general - regardless of what benefits an EV might actually have - the vast majority of EVs are being sold to customers with tax incentives. Only 1 in 6 EVs are bought by private customers according to the SMMT.

Manufacturers are in a bind. Their business is based around selling new vehicles (a cynic might add that it's about the finance actually making the money rather than manufacturing - but the two are related). If they are not selling vehicles at an optimal volume then their costs go up - also their margins may need to go up so vehicle prices go up and likely that means they sell fewer vehicles - a death spiral.

Getting a new generation product to the customer takes time and investment. So the investment shifted to EVs - pulling back from that inertia is a problem in terms of time and cost. Moreover the 2030 or 2035 cutoffs for sales means that manufacturers are likely in a real bind - any investment in better ICEs is potentially lost.

If you are a legacy carmaker at the moment and are looking 7 to 10 years ahead then the reality facing your business is difficult.

My impression at the moment is that the showrooms have put the EVs to the back. It's ICE and hybrids at the front. That's not a conspiracy - that's retail reality in that the customers are mainly looking at those cars.

 

[Dryce]

As Henry Ford is often quoted: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”

(Though he may not have actually said that....)

But it's entirely plausible - though in modern times it maybe can be misunderstood as the underlying reasoning behind the answer to what people want is actually logical within the context of their time.

The Model T was manufactured from 1908 to 1926.

There were a huge number of horses still in use after 1926. So even after Mr Ford (and others) were offering vehicles for sale over many years they didn't replace horses.

(There were huge numbers of horses and mules used in WW2 but these seem to be invisible because WW2 is perceived generaklly as being 'modern' and mechanised).

The transition from horse to ICE took what - a generation ? two generations ?

 

[markjay]

I'd apply a different logic.

Manufacturers jumped on the EV bandwagon. Numbers of sales started looking optimistic around three years ago and that likely created overconfidence in terms of where the sales curves were going to go. (There may have been a covid effect masking actual trends).

In general - regardless of what benefits an EV might actually have - the vast majority of EVs are being sold to customers with tax incentives. Only 1 in 6 EVs are bought by private customers according to the SMMT.

Manufacturers are in a bind. Their business is based around selling new vehicles (a cynic might add that it's about the finance actually making the money rather than manufacturing - but the two are related). If they are not selling vehicles at an optimal volume then their costs go up - also their margins may need to go up so vehicle prices go up and likely that means they sell fewer vehicles - a death spiral.

Getting a new generation product to the customer takes time and investment. So the investment shifted to EVs - pulling back from that inertia is a problem in terms of time and cost. Moreover the 2030 or 2035 cutoffs for sales means that manufacturers are likely in a real bind - any investment in better ICEs is potentially lost.

If you are a legacy carmaker at the moment and are looking 7 to 10 years ahead then the reality facing your business is difficult.

My impression at the moment is that the showrooms have put the EVs to the back. It's ICE and hybrids at the front. That's not a conspiracy - that's retail reality in that the customers are mainly looking at those cars.

We should all keep in mind that around 10 years ago one Elon Musk showed the 'big 3' automobile makers in America his exhaust pipe (pun intended), and they looked at his funny cars' perplexing popularity and said "Hey, we can also do that!"

Well, no they can't. It takes more than a motor, battery, and 4 wheels to make an EV that people want to buy - it takes both the engineering genius and the financial cunningness of Elon Musk, neither of which are available in abundance in the 'bricks and mortar' car manufacturing industry.

 

[markjay]

But it's entirely plausible - though in modern times it maybe can be misunderstood as the underlying reasoning behind the answer to what people want is actually logical within the context of their time.

The Model T was manufactured from 1908 to 1926.

There were a huge number of horses still in use after 1926. So even after Mr Ford (and others) were offering vehicles for sale over many years they didn't replace horses.

(There were huge numbers of horses and mules used in WW2 but these seem to be invisible because WW2 is perceived generaklly as being 'modern' and mechanised).

The transition from horse to ICE took what - a generation ? two generations ?

I think that the point here (assuming he actually said that) is that visionaries have vision, while people lack vision. And it's very difficult for visionaries to 'sell' their vision to the people, who generally just want more of the same. The 3 big US automakers have been successfully making and selling giant V8 equipped pick-up trucks for almost a century now, because that's what the people want, so why take a risk on new ideas and new products? See for example:

This is America’s best-selling vehicle for 42 years running

In Dearborn, Michigan, a new Ford F-150 rolls off the line every 53 seconds

www.voanews.com

And then Elon Musk upset the apple-cart, and the rest is history.

 

[Dryce]

I think that the point here (assuming he actually said that) is that visionaries have vision, while people lack vision.

I constructed my response to address this.

I understand the point entirely - selling a new and better way of doing something - it can be hard to convince people. If you want an example look at the IT sector - it is perceived as modern and cutting - but in a recent post on the worldwide IT debacle it was pointed out that Apple's MacOS is based on UNIX. UNIX is late 1960s / early 70s. We're in the mid 2020s. 50 years.

So even after Mr Ford's Model T became obsolete there still horses in widespread use.

In reality as a new product type - Mr Ford's product may well have been better in some ways - but not to the point where even after the Model T itself was superceded after nearly 20 years of manufacture that it had replaced the horse during those years. Horses were still important for 20 years after that.

Customers may sound wrong at times. But they live in a world where the decisions they make to change from one technology to another may be complicated than just accepting the new technology. What they will buy today and what they expect to buy tomorrow can be completely different.

I suspect Tesla understood the perspective of the question properly - from the start.

 

[BTB 500]

On the subject of Tesla ... in the news today:

July 24 (Reuters) - Tesla shares slid 8% in U.S. pre-market trades on Wednesday after the electric vehicle maker's profit margin fell to a five-year low, raising the urgency of making lower-priced vehicles to power sales rather than relying on price cuts.

The company's stock price tumbled 7.9% to $226.40 in early U.S. pre-market trading, setting Tesla on track to lose about $63.7 billion in market value.
Tesla's EV deliveries have fallen for two straight quarters as the lack of affordable new models turns buyers to rival EV makers.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-slides-bleak-profit-margins-exposes-need-affordable-evs-2024-07-24/

 

[markjay]

The company's stock price tumbled 7.9% to $226.40 in early U.S. pre-market trading, setting Tesla on track to lose about $63.7 billion in market value.
Tesla's EV deliveries have fallen for two straight quarters as the lack of affordable new models turns buyers to rival EV makers.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[SmartAmg]

Electric Vehicle Mobile Cremation ..

Infernal Combustible Engine

 

[BTB 500]

Good news (not) for driveway charging (OK, off-road parking in general) ...

Driveways in England could be CHARGED PER METRE under radical tax plans from London Mayor Sadiq Khan. The Labour Party Mayor could charge home owners who concrete over gardens under radical new tax plans in the capital city.

The London Climate Resilience Review has warned that paved gardens increase the likelihood of water flooding. It concludes with a suggestion that the Government should consider introducing stormwater charges based on the amount of non-porous paved surface in a garden.

Porous surfacing that allows rainwater to drain away has decreased by nearly 10 per cent across London since 2001, as more households choose to pave over their gardens to create driveways. The increase has come as more councils have imposed charges for residents to park their cars on the street, particularly in the capital.

Households in England who have driveways face new 'tax per metre'

The Labour Party Mayor could charge home owners who concrete over gardens under radical new tax plans in the capital city.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[SmartAmg]

Good news (not) for driveway charging (OK, off-road parking in general) ...

Households in England who have driveways face new 'tax per metre'

The Labour Party Mayor could charge home owners who concrete over gardens under radical new tax plans in the capital city.

uk.news.yahoo.com

That sounds like a load of Bollox to me.

 

[markjay]

Good news (not) for driveway charging (OK, off-road parking in general) ...

Households in England who have driveways face new 'tax per metre'

The Labour Party Mayor could charge home owners who concrete over gardens under radical new tax plans in the capital city.

uk.news.yahoo.com

I don't follow the 'driveway' thing - does the new proposal affect all paved-over gardens, or only those who were converted into driveways...?

I.e. It’s not clear if this is actually an anti-motorists move, or just clickbait?

Because, obviously, many people would have paved-over their back gardens (ours was, though this happened before we moved into the flat some 30 years ago, and there's drainage), or paved-over their front garden without actually opening it for cars to be used as a driveway.

Not clear...... can someone explain please?

 

[markjay]

BTW, why is it bad news for home charging? People will have either paved-over their front gardens, or they have not. So you either have a driveway, or you don't. I can't imagine that anyone in his right mind will pave-over their front garden just so that they can charge their car at home..........?

 

[markjay]

And one more thing.... so an unpaved driveway (gravel) is fine then?

 

[tode]

The object of the plan is to reduce the impermeable surface, not to reduce driveways . . .

 

[BTB 500]

I don't follow the 'driveway' thing - does the new proposal affect all paved-over gardens, or only those who were converted into driveways...?

The report specifically mentions driveways ... I guess those are easy to check without gaining access to the property?

I.e. It’s not clear if this is actually an anti-motorists move, or just clickbait?

Not clickbait as it's been quite widely reported. And (allegedly) not anti-motorist ... it's to do with managing surface water runoff.

BTW, why is it bad news for home charging? People will have either paved-over their front gardens, or they have not. So you either have a driveway, or you don't. I can't imagine that anyone in his right mind will pave-over their front garden just so that they can charge their car at home..........?

Someone buying an EV might well want to charge it cheaply in front of their house rather than using commercial chargers all the time. You wouldn't have to pave the entire garden to park one car off road (unless it's a very small garden).

And one more thing.... so an unpaved driveway (gravel) is fine then?

Yes because that's porous, whereas surface water runs off paving/tarmac.

 

[Steveml63]

The object of the plan is to reduce the impermeable surface, not to reduce driveways . . .

I think the real object is to extract more money from residents!

 

[BTB 500]

I think the real object is to extract more money from residents!

Bearing in mind this is from the Mayor of London that's probably right!

 

[markjay]

The report specifically mentions driveways ... I guess those are easy to check without gaining access to the property?

Drones? BTW, they use them during times when a draught order was in place, to check for green (as opposed to yellow) lawns, I think.

Not clickbait as it's been quite widely reported. And (allegedly) not anti-motorist ... it's to do with managing surface water runoff.

The link to 'driveways' isn't clear then - where I live, in the nearby streets there are a few properties with a paved-over front garden (Council-owned, BTW) - presumably this will affect these as well? If it only affects driveways, but not any paved-over front gardens i.e. not including those paved-over gardens where there's no vehicle access, then yes, this could be seen as being 'anti-motorists'.

Someone buying an EV might well want to charge it cheaply in front of their house rather than using commercial chargers all the time. You wouldn't have to pave the entire garden to park one car off road (unless it's a very small garden).

Sure, however there's nothing an EV owner can do about it, i.e. they will have to pay the levy (if there is one) whether they park (and charge) their cars on the driveway, or leave it in the street. In fact, the same is trough to all car owners. I was wondering why you mentioned 'driveway charging' - then quickly said that in fact it affects everyone who parks their car off-street on a paved surface. In short, why is this posted in the 'EV Facts' thread...? Not clear.

Yes because that's porous, whereas surface water runs off paving/tarmac.

What if you have drainage (as we do?) Our paved-over back garden is being drained into the building's rainwater drainage.