Will This Pandemic Be the Nail in the Coffin for Some Automakers?

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by emg


No, the pioneering stage for EVs was back in the 1800s. People have been trying to make them work better than ICEs for hundred and fifty years.


Yes, they were started earlier. Never mass produced. As a mass produced product, they are in their infancy.
The 1st mass produced EV was the EV1 in the 1990s.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Why even bring up the model S … it's in a price range for what, 5% of population …


I've been seeing relatively low mileage used ones starting at $35k.

 

[4WD]

Man, that's a huge drop from new price.

 

[dwcopple]

No kidding $60k depreciation seems way off

 

[4WD]

I went to CarGurus for grins … lots of them around half of original price …
… but don't know the risk factors on used Tesla

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Facts are funny things, just like statistics. People tend to wrap them around their point of view.

Battery degridation is real. Just how bad it is is yet to be understood; there is not enough data, yet

In my opinion, the biggest issues are charging, range anxiety and cost

How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? But it does not necessarily mean you have to sit on a charger for hours. Every owner I know has an ICE car as well.



Facts are facts because they are proven- its the conclusions drawn from them that are manipulated as in this subject.

Its "3 blind men and en elephant" method of cherry picking data to support an agenda while deliberately suppressing facts that put it all in context.

Use the bolded example- that's a non sequitur statement because in terms of the battery and load- that distance is relative to the vehicle geometry, resistance and payload.

The 4 ft long electric roller skate can do it but the panel truck loaded with crew, tools and parts may only get 50 miles. Yet the recharge requirement is the same ( time and energy)

Significantly changing energy release (discharge and charge) is a property of the materials and conversation of energy- that's not a mystery and well known so this "veil' always saying we need new technology is a red herring because there is little ability to change the material resistance and ability to react. Some improvement yes but not significant.

Its not as much a point of view as it is the engineering realities of those who actually are in the business versus those peddling a fantasy.

These things don't fail because they don't work ( they do)- they fail because they do not have the potential ( stored energy available) in terms of materials manufactured, ability to generate energy ( electricity) or anything else in a 1:1 comparison with dino/nuclear energy. (not even counting the infrastructure to support it).

That's where it matters. Sure theres a niche segment and a degree of benefit but never a 1:1 replacement as the green people try to sell.

Its a physical impossibility. All the faith, belief, hope, marketing and argument ad populum reinforcement isn't going to change it.




Exactly right overall in my opinion ↑↑↑↑↑↑

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Facts are funny things, just like statistics. People tend to wrap them around their point of view.

Battery degridation is real. Just how bad it is is yet to be understood; there is not enough data, yet

In my opinion, the biggest issues are charging, range anxiety and cost

How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? But it does not necessarily mean you have to sit on a charger for hours. Every owner I know has an ICE car as well.



Facts are facts because they are proven- its the conclusions drawn from them that are manipulated as in this subject.

Its "3 blind men and en elephant" method of cherry picking data to support an agenda while deliberately suppressing facts that put it all in context.

Use the bolded example- that's a non sequitur statement because in terms of the battery and load- that distance is relative to the vehicle geometry, resistance and payload.

The 4 ft long electric roller skate can do it but the panel truck loaded with crew, tools and parts may only get 50 miles. Yet the recharge requirement is the same ( time and energy)

Significantly changing energy release (discharge and charge) is a property of the materials and conversation of energy- that's not a mystery and well known so this "veil' always saying we need new technology is a red herring because there is little ability to change the material resistance and ability to react. Some improvement yes but not significant.

Its not as much a point of view as it is the engineering realities of those who actually are in the business versus those peddling a fantasy.

These things don't fail because they don't work ( they do)- they fail because they do not have the potential ( stored energy available) in terms of materials manufactured, ability to generate energy ( electricity) or anything else in a 1:1 comparison with dino/nuclear energy. (not even counting the infrastructure to support it).

That's where it matters. Sure theres a niche segment and a degree of benefit but never a 1:1 replacement as the green people try to sell.

Its a physical impossibility. All the faith, belief, hope, marketing and argument ad populum reinforcement isn't going to change it.


The bolded example is simply a question one needs to ask when considering an EV purchase.
People ask me about my car to see if it might be right for them.

 

[Brick B-Body]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by emg


No, the pioneering stage for EVs was back in the 1800s. People have been trying to make them work better than ICEs for hundred and fifty years.


Yes, they were started earlier. Never mass produced. As a mass produced product, they are in their infancy.
The 1st mass produced EV was the EV1 in the 1990s.


The 1996-1999 EV1 saw a total production volume of 1,117 units. The consumer lease program was essentially field beta-testing with the general public as a test participant.

Studebaker Electric mass produced electric cars from 1902 to 1912, for a total of 1,841 units. It goes without saying that the total US auto market was significantly smaller during 1902-1912 than it was in the late 1990s.

These Studebaker Electric cars made up a larger percentage of the total vehicle fleet of the time, and they were actually owned by private individuals rather than a bank and leased.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Facts are funny things, just like statistics. People tend to wrap them around their point of view.
As pointed out many times, the manufacture of batteries is the primary cost and causes most of the emissions in the life of an EV.
Well, the poor manufacturing processes contribute more than 60% of the emmissions. Irresponsible and profit based rather than ecological based.

Government subsidies are not unique to EVs.

Battery degridation is real. Just how bad it is is yet to be understood; there is not enough data, yet. Tesla (and others I'm sure) are tracking results. We need better batteries. Who can say when we will see them?

In my opinion, the biggest issues are charging, range anxiety and cost.
I would not own our car if I could not charge at home. Starting every day with a full charge is incredible; ICE cars cannot compare. Living in Silicon Valley with solar panels is certainly not everyone's opportunity. A few owners, who charge at work, never charge at home and never use a supercharger.
You learn how to deal with range anxiety. How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? But it does not necessarily mean you have to sit on a charger for hours. Every owner I know has an ICE car as well.
These cars are expensive; I have to believe many buy them as a fashion accessory. They might be better off with a Civic or Corolla. But that's true of many purchases. Model 3 prices are lower than ever. If your situation is optimal, your overall cost might be lower than a Camry. And that's saying something. And you won't find a Camry that's as fun as a Model 3...

All good.

There is saying that statistics is like a bikini, it shows a lot, but covers most important parts.
Facts are just that, facts. You cannot wrap them around your point of view. They are constant, they cannot be manipulated.

 

[bbhero]

Ahh "facts" .... That is in the eye of the beholder too....


And "facts" can be used to manipulate...

Comprehensive "facts" that are actually told or noted that tell the complete story... Rare to hear or see that in today's times.

Case in point... I heard a very well known radio person state a fact about how someone had won a election recounted after the election by a number of members of the local and national media... This person correctly stated the "fact" that the person who won that election won by counting the votes 5 different ways... Which was true...

However.... That same certainly well known radio person left OUT the other "fact"... That the other person in that election had won that recount 3 different ways.....

Again.... Comprehensive "fact" telling is where almost everyone in a certain occupation fail miserably.... And that occupation is not hosting a radio show... It's the "real" tell it like is occupation that just about never does this...

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by Brick B-Body

The 1996-1999 EV1 saw a total production volume of 1,117 units. The consumer lease program was essentially field beta-testing with the general public as a test participant.

Studebaker Electric mass produced electric cars from 1902 to 1912, for a total of 1,841 units. It goes without saying that the total US auto market was significantly smaller during 1902-1912 than it was in the late 1990s.

These Studebaker Electric cars made up a larger percentage of the total vehicle fleet of the time, and they were actually owned by private individuals rather than a bank and leased.

Wow, I've never hear of the Stude EV.
And I am sure your point of the car making up a higher percentage of the cars sold is true; cars sales numbers were a fraction of today's sales numbers.
Were there other power sources, such as steam?

Following your point, I imagine there were less gas stations at the time. Was there range anxiety for ICE cars?
If so, things don't really change that much; history repeats itself.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by Brick B-Body

The 1996-1999 EV1 saw a total production volume of 1,117 units. The consumer lease program was essentially field beta-testing with the general public as a test participant.

Studebaker Electric mass produced electric cars from 1902 to 1912, for a total of 1,841 units. It goes without saying that the total US auto market was significantly smaller during 1902-1912 than it was in the late 1990s.

These Studebaker Electric cars made up a larger percentage of the total vehicle fleet of the time, and they were actually owned by private individuals rather than a bank and leased.

Wow, I've never hear of the Stude EV.
And I am sure your point of the car making up a higher percentage of the cars sold is true; cars sales numbers were a fraction of today's sales numbers.
Were there other power sources, such as steam?

Following your point, I imagine there were less gas stations at the time. Was there range anxiety for ICE cars?
If so, things don't really change that much; history repeats itself.




A couple of notes here;

The vast majority of households only had one car.

Service stations back in the day were small. Two or three pumps was the norm.

Most people didn't drive all over back then. The Interstate freeway system was still under construction. US and state highways were the only way to travel and they went through towns and cities thus slowing down travel time.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by PimTac

A couple of notes here;

The vast majority of households only had one car.

Service stations back in the day were small. Two or three pumps was the norm.

Most people didn't drive all over back then. The Interstate freeway system was still under construction. US and state highways were the only way to travel and they went through towns and cities thus slowing down travel time.

I would imagine the majority of households had zero cars. I think less than 1M cars were registered in 1912.
Does that makes sense?


Vehicle Registrations

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk


Following your point, I imagine there were less gas stations at the time. Was there range anxiety for ICE cars?
If so, things don't really change that much; history repeats itself.


It does repeat itself especially for those who didn't learn the first time.

There is no "range anxiety" then or now because there is no such thing as "range anxiety". Its a made up term to gain a psychological advantage over those who "oppose" the proper group think that allows for a degree of insult, demeaning or classification by some imagined "thing". Its no different than "assault weapon", "Gun show loophole" or a host of other charged "classifications" that have no legitimate purpose whose actual definition changes by the need of those using it to weaponize as needed.

Back then people had and were not afraid to use common sense, reason and accountability ( and knew how to walk) so they had no "anxiety" about how far they could go without a fill up.

Today the "anxiety" stems from knowing we are being lied to ( by selective manipulation of information deliberately furthering numerous hidden agendas) regarding the true story on green energy. It has nothing to do with the range of an EV over a ICE.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk


In my opinion, the biggest issues are charging, range anxiety and cost

How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? But it does not necessarily mean you have to sit on a charger for hours. Every owner I know has an ICE car as well.

The bolded example is simply a question one needs to ask when considering an EV purchase.
People ask me about my car to see if it might be right for them.


The problem is that the "question" is both dimensional and dependent on several different scenarios and is not linear or standard and the publication of information ( from those holding it) that highlights these items to make the "right question" as it fits them is being withheld and misrepresented.

The "question" is better phrased as:

Given my total payload ( which determines vehicle size, cost and other things), how many miles over LEVEL terrain can I reasonably expect from the battery in my vehicle before requiring a recharge.

Then more follow on questions

Then at that rate: 'Given the loading and charging cycles of my vehicle and requirements, what is the reasonable expected life and cost of replacement?)

Then add things like total inactivity f0r charging times ( vehicle is unavailable for use)

Total cost of charging's (installation and energy)

If I need a spare to use while charging, what is the time to change and cost of that?

If my mileage is substantially reduced what is the available charging stations or will I have to import charging? ( suppose none at the job site or multiple parts runs requiring in route charging)

This is a lot more involved than a single line Q&A

Those are the questions that promoters of green don't like to answer ( and its not because they don't know them)

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk


In my opinion, the biggest issues are charging, range anxiety and cost

How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? But it does not necessarily mean you have to sit on a charger for hours. Every owner I know has an ICE car as well.

The bolded example is simply a question one needs to ask when considering an EV purchase.
People ask me about my car to see if it might be right for them.


The problem is that the "question" is both dimensional and dependent on several different scenarios and is not linear or standard and the publication of information ( from those holding it) that highlights these items to make the "right question" as it fits them is being withheld and misrepresented.

The "question" is better phrased as:

Given my total payload ( which determines vehicle size, cost and other things), how many miles over LEVEL terrain can I reasonably expect from the battery in my vehicle before requiring a recharge.

Then more follow on questions

Then at that rate: 'Given the loading and charging cycles of my vehicle and requirements, what is the reasonable expected life and cost of replacement?)

Then add things like total inactivity f0r charging times ( vehicle is unavailable for use)

Total cost of charging's (installation and energy)

If I need a spare to use while charging, what is the time to change and cost of that?

If my mileage is substantially reduced what is the available charging stations or will I have to import charging? ( suppose none at the job site or multiple parts runs requiring in route charging)

This is a lot more involved than a single line Q&A

Those are the questions that promoters of green don't like to answer ( and its not because they don't know them)

The question is simply one of many in deciding if an EV and which EV is right for a given person. It is not the only one but it is key.
FYI range anxiety is real. It is the #1 issue owners need to understand, learn about and hopefully overcome.

In my experience, Tesla sales personnel are very helpful in speaking to many of the points you brought up.
I have spoke with many EV owners of the various makes. I have found them to be very honest about real world use and the ups and downs of their particular vehicle.
Any time I have posted here or on the Lexus site I have tried to be honest.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by PimTac

A couple of notes here;

The vast majority of households only had one car.

Service stations back in the day were small. Two or three pumps was the norm.

Most people didn't drive all over back then. The Interstate freeway system was still under construction. US and state highways were the only way to travel and they went through towns and cities thus slowing down travel time.

I would imagine the majority of households had zero cars. I think less than 1M cars were registered in 1912.
Does that makes sense?


Vehicle Registrations




I didn't go back that far. I was talking about the 50's and 60's.

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by PimTac

A couple of notes here;

The vast majority of households only had one car.

Service stations back in the day were small. Two or three pumps was the norm.

Most people didn't drive all over back then. The Interstate freeway system was still under construction. US and state highways were the only way to travel and they went through towns and cities thus slowing down travel time.

I would imagine the majority of households had zero cars. I think less than 1M cars were registered in 1912.
Does that makes sense?


Vehicle Registrations




I didn't go back that far. I was talking about the 50's and 60's.


You also had clunky bias treads, roads that were half as wide with steep drop offs in the ditch, cross traffic through the middle of freeways and a lot of steep roads with zero snow removal

(And that was in the early 80's)

Yet highway crash, collision and death rates
even despite all that weren't much different than recent months with all our "improvements "

The only place we have made any headway is in low speed accidents. I'm guessing the pointy steel dashes had something to do with that.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by PimTac

A couple of notes here;

The vast majority of households only had one car.

Service stations back in the day were small. Two or three pumps was the norm.

Most people didn't drive all over back then. The Interstate freeway system was still under construction. US and state highways were the only way to travel and they went through towns and cities thus slowing down travel time.

I would imagine the majority of households had zero cars. I think less than 1M cars were registered in 1912.
Does that makes sense?


Vehicle Registrations




I didn't go back that far. I was talking about the 50's and 60's.

Oh, I thought we were discussing the early Stude EV. Apologies.
I certainly agree with what you said.
My father used to tell me as kids they used to brag about how many cars were on their block.
Guessing he was talking about the 1930's?

A far cry from today. I have too many cars, but don't want to part with any.
We definitely did not need the Tesla, my last purchase. It was a gift for my wife.
And Sue uses her TSX the most, by far. She loves that car.

All good.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by PimTac

A couple of notes here;

The vast majority of households only had one car.

Service stations back in the day were small. Two or three pumps was the norm.

Most people didn't drive all over back then. The Interstate freeway system was still under construction. US and state highways were the only way to travel and they went through towns and cities thus slowing down travel time.

I would imagine the majority of households had zero cars. I think less than 1M cars were registered in 1912.
Does that makes sense?


Vehicle Registrations




I didn't go back that far. I was talking about the 50's and 60's.


You also had clunky bias treads, roads that were half as wide with steep drop offs in the ditch, cross traffic through the middle of freeways and a lot of steep roads with zero snow removal

(And that was in the early 80's)

Yet highway crash, collision and death rates
even despite all that weren't much different than recent months with all our "improvements "

The only place we have made any headway is in low speed accidents. I'm guessing the pointy steel dashes had something to do with that.





Yep. Tires were definitely not as good as they are today. I remember when steel belted radials first came out.

On the low speed crashes the biggest injury maker in the car was the steering wheel. Seat belts were just lap belts then.


Getting back to the discussion, this was something I was in a discussion in several months ago. Today a trip between Seattle and Portland can be done in 2.5-3 hours ( no traffic of course). One can drive down in the morning, spend the day and drive back and be home for supper. Back in the day this trip took a big chunk of the day due to the reasons I stated earlier. One could go 50mph on the US highway if traffic allowed but speeds in towns were 25-30 mph. The highway was usually the main drag so lots of stop lights and such. I'm sure this was the same on many similar trips nationwide. The freeways really changed the equation. I remember leaving Tacoma early in the morning and getting to Portland in the early afternoon or so.

This kind of trip would affect the range of a EV I would think. But even today, at 175 miles one way, there would have to be a charging done either at the destination or on the way back.