An auto CEO came very close to saying the right thing about heavy EV batteries

[ahg]

i don't think "efficiency" is in the purchase calculus of any Hummer buyer, EV or not.

IIRC mileage was the first complaint of Hummer H2 buyers.

Sponsored

 

[dbsb3233]

Possibly, but it is also easily manipulated by cutting supply to keep pricing up if it goes too far down.

I just don't see it as being stable with that big of a demand drop.

Electricity pricing also can get wild but at least where I am, the power company has to request approval from the state and I believe have to show their justifications for the price request change so that's made my electric rate remain static even when we had some wild issues the last couple of years.

Oh yeah, "stable" is never a word I've use for the oil market. It's always volatile. But in general, as demand gradually softens for gasoline, that's a downward price pressure until supply adjusts. That will create oversupply gluts, forcing investment in new drilling to slow to a crawl, which will depress supply, which always pushes the pendulum too far the other way, then we correct back. Back and forth it goes.

 

[dbsb3233]

IIRC mileage was the first complaint of Hummer H2 buyers.

Particularly since gasoline was $1.40/gal when the H2 came out, and gradually rose to over $3 over the next 5 years.

 

[woody]

Current technology should have been available at least fifty years ago
SUVs??? Who sold us that garbage?
Solid state makes the weight arguments mute. It has been there for years. Why not available?
Why so little residential solar?

COGU, along with American automobile manufacturers, controlled politicians and a lack of a legitimate press combined with no real reasonable regulation

And whose portfolio does not include these stocks?

 

[Guss-E 2021]

I guess that 80% of my pickup use is the 1500lb trailer to the big box home improvement store or helping friends move, hauling things to the landfill, etc.

The rest is towing a travel trailer across wide stretches of the southwest desert (250-350 mile stretches with maybe one or two gas stations). We have an approximately quarterly camping trip that's 500 miles round trip, with two reliable gas stations and a couple of others that sometimes work but are often out of service. We often have to check with friends who may have passed through recently whether the gas stations are operating. While I have no fears of that trip in the Mustang, there isn't a 6500# towing capacity EV truck that can do that trip...yet. If I had my 'druthers, I would rather see the infrastructure improve than buy a giant battery, but the dead-dinosaur infrastructure is almost as old as the dinosaurs, so I won't hold my breath for better charging infrastructure--it's not a NEVI-compatible route.

I'm pretty sure I need to accept that a hybrid is the better choice for me, despite the fact that there aren't really even any hybrid pickups that can do what I want or "need" either.

I'll keep waiting.

Right Space. For users like you, the industry is going to have to discover the nuclear fusion of batteries.

I would imagine, though, there is huge financial incentive to do just that. Hopefully you won't have to wait long.

 

[JoeDimwit]

My F150 Powerboost hybrid gets about 11-12 mph when towing 10k (trailer & miniex) and gets 24 when summer driving w/ no load, winter is 19mpg. In 13k total miles I've gotten 19.4 miles/gal with about 20% towing. My 2015 EcoBoost only averaged 16 so I think hybrids are the way to go. No way would I get a Lightning for real world towing. My MachE is for fun.

It, Lightning doesn’t have the 5 second power limit… more fun out the back of the track.

 

[JoeDimwit]

But that’s also a two edged sword as well in that a larger battery requires longer to charge.

 

[dbsb3233]

My F150 Powerboost hybrid gets about 11-12 mph when towing 10k (trailer & miniex) and gets 24 when summer driving w/ no load, winter is 19mpg. In 13k total miles I've gotten 19.4 miles/gal with about 20% towing. My 2015 EcoBoost only averaged 16 so I think hybrids are the way to go. No way would I get a Lightning for real world towing. My MachE is for fun.

Agreed. This rush to "electrify everything" is overshooting the mark. Unless/until batteries get magnitudes better, there will always be some use cases that are poor fits for EVs. Some things should just stay gas/hybrid, and that's fine. With just modest improvement in battery tech, most passenger vehicles can work up to a 50% market share and probably even 80% eventually. Trying to force-fit that last 20% where it doesn't make sense would be illogical.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

And whose portfolio does not include these stocks?

Mine, very purposefully, does not include fossil fuel stocks. But I'm in the very small minority.

 

[mkhuffman]

not really:

from 2018: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421518302891
from 2019: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988319302749
from 2022: https://blogs.worldbank.org/transpo...ves-right-why-market-power-distortions-matter

for general energy credits, tesla likely would have starved in the cradle without them:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/tesla-electric-vehicle-regulatory-credits-explained.html

most of your points are about today's market dynamics now that tesla has been successful - not what might have happened between 2012 and 2020 without government incentives. interestingly, china's heavily subsidized/incentivized market is a major driver as well.

i don't disagree that government incentives now need to move to the side in some areas and let the free market innovate but there are definitely areas they are still needed: community charging is one since there is very little economic incentive to do so in the face of large upfront capital costs.

These reports only demonstrate that government policy can influence the free market, which is true. They do not prove that fewer regulations in areas that would make it easier and less expensive to build and operate a BEV would not do the same thing. In fact, I am sure that kind of change would have a much bigger impact than government giving people incentives and forcing the change to happen.

 

[dbsb3233]

But that’s also a two edged sword as well in that a larger battery requires longer to charge.

True, but that's a nice "problem" to have. Around home it's meaningless as people just charge at home overnight and rarely need more than a small share of the range anyway. It's really about the road trips. Even if a charge takes 10-15 minutes longer on a stop to fill a bigger battery, the ability to skip a charge altogether more than offsets that. It avoids what may be a problem getting that charge (the usual DCFC risks at any station), and enables more routes that short range would make a no-go zone. Brings states that have sparse DCFC coverage more into play.

The most problem-free DCFC is the one you don't have to do because you have the range to skip it.

 

[mkhuffman]

While for sure it’s opinion, there is a lot of evidence to support this.

For one, the electric car existed and died multiple times in the past.

What killed it? The ICE competition and the free market.

Fun fact- there were tons of electric cabs in New York City 100 years ago.


Now as it stands today, there’s no doubt it’s a combination of CAFE standards, government subsidies and carbon credits that got the current BEV movement going.

I don’t think there is enough momentum…….. yet to let the government get completely out of the way.

Why not? Outside of Tesla the profit margins suck. If companies can’t make $$ selling a product, it will die…… again.

Your point about “new electric car companies emerging,” while it’s true, they aren’t doing well and may go bankrupt pretty quickly. And without government help they may have never existed in the first place.

I don't disagree with most of your points, but the fact is that BEVs are better than ICE vehicles in just about every way. As you point out, the biggest problem right now is cost, but the car companies know they will be able to get cost into alignment. Tesla did it, and certainly Ford and the others will. Initially they will lose money, but they know in the long run they will make a crap ton of money selling BEVs.

So maybe the BEV market would be smaller than it would have been without government interference, and that is a big "maybe" IMO, but it is not reasonable to say there would be no BEV market. Yes, previous BEV efforts have failed, but they have kept trying to produce BEVs even without government manipulation. Why would they stop now that the technology has progressed to the point that it is a very attractive business case? So attractive there are new companies (like Tesla) starting up to compete.

Innovation does not need to be mandated by the government. As I posted previously, super cheap electricity would do much more for BEV adoption than anything else. Lots of people are interested in BEVs because they are cheaper to operate. But if governments keep driving up the cost of electricity, making it more expensive than operating an ICEV, what will that do to BEV demand?

 

[dbsb3233]

There's also the "freedom" factor. While we love road-tripping in our Mach-E (30,000 miles of log road trips now), it does take a lot of planning and research to ensure the DCFC exists and looks dependable enough to do that route. And it also limits routes. Some are good but some aren't. And some are downright impossible.

And that's if sticking to the plan with no changes. There's definitely value in having the ability to change your mind at the last minute and just do an unplanned diversion off the interstate for a while. That's a non-issue in an ICE car because you have 400 *real* miles in the tank to play with before needing to refuel. But in a EV we're basically locked into a flight plan between DCFC stations, usually with little room for error. Especially if following the EV trip planners that advise filling just barely enough to reach the next DCFC. And God help you if anything changes.

More range adds more flexibility and more freedom.

 

[kodiakng]

These reports only demonstrate that government policy can influence the free market, which is true. They do not prove that fewer regulations in areas that would make it easier and less expensive to build and operate a BEV would not do the same thing. In fact, I am sure that kind of change would have a much bigger impact than government giving people incentives and forcing the change to happen.

ok, i'll bite: what specific government regulations are hindering (making it more expensive and harder) current BEV innovation industry progress? are those regulations specific to the BEV industry or are they general regulations that cover other industries?

how do incentives "forc[e] the change to happen"? my stance is the incentives (primarily in the form of tax credits and funding for specific projects) are there to encourage a direction to move in and hopefully accelerate that move. they don't "force" anything.

if the free market is so powerful and doesn't agree with that direction wouldn't the incentives prove to be useless?

 

[Mirak]

I'm not saying Ford should ignore the market for people who need longer range, my point is more that there has been an outsized focus on maximizing range for EVs when for most people, that shouldn't be a particularly important consideration, and there is a lot of room for downsizing range to make smaller/affordable EVs.

And I'm not sure what you mean by condescending articles from coastal areas. My take is that both traditional media and newer websites/youtubers have always put a huge premium on range when talking about EVs. I feel like range and charging is one of the key things talked about with any new EV whether you're reading MotorTrend or watching an Out of Spec Kyle video. Do you disagree that this has been a key focus of the automotive media when it comes to talking about EVs?

And tying it into the media, I feel like people researching EVs get spooked into thinking range and charging should be the key consideration driving their purchase when in reality, lots of people wouldn't even need to modify their behavior even a little bit to make due with a 150 mile, 200 mile range EV.

I understand your point. You are correct that much of the enthusiast coverage, and media coverage at large, emphasizes range.

But I don’t think there is a big market of people willing to “make do” with 100-150mi range unless it is at such a significantly lower price point that people can afford to buy them as second/third vehicles.

For example, if Ford could sell a car with comparable comfort and tech to the Mach E but a shorter range for 20k, then yeah, that might make sense. People might buy one as a “city driving car.”

But the argument fails when Ford is charging $40k+. For that price, people expect a car that can satisfy all reasonable use cases, including infrequent road trips.

Even with a smaller battery pack, that would still only shave $10k off the Mach E’s price - at best.

Can you see the problem now? Short range works for dorky little compact people-movers like the LEAF or Bolt, but for the price required of a larger comfier car, people are gonna expect range to satisfy all reasonable use cases.

I’m not saying we need to get into an arms race requiring bigger and heavier battery packs up to 500 miles - on that I agree with Farley - but 300mi range is a very reasonable expectation. Cutting that range to 200mi to save $10,000 just doesn’t work! There will be no demand for that.

Sponsored