I used to live in W. Palm Beach, and had acquaintances on Palm Beach. My guess is they thought they were buying a "luxury golf cart" and didn't realize it was an actual car.

:)

That's what it felt like when I drove one lol :bellyroll:

Ultimately, it should feel like a better golf cart just like a car is a better lawn mower.

Surprisingly, the best part of the driving experience is the instantaneous torque, linear/predictable torque curve and not having a middle man (transmission) to dilute and interfere with the process. I've never felt more directly linked to the engine and to the throttle than in an EV. NA manual is next. NA PDK is next, FI manual, and it just goes downhill fast from there.

I liked the steering of the Model Y. Yes the instantaneous torque was nice, but it was so easy (and lacking fanfare) that it also got boring in a hurry. My opinion of course.

Seems like everything he mentioned is either not an issue or as much of an issue, or it won’t be an issue in the future when it matters.

I actually talked with my dad about this again. It is an issue with the little PCB board on the back side of the charger plug causing it to not recognize some chargers. Their car is a 19', I guess this was updated on the 21'+ and the boards are just now available to update older cars in 22', they are just hard to get. $58 from Tesla for the part, people are scalping them online for 200. Can't order it online, have to wait for one to be in stock.

Lithium deposit found in US may be among world’s largest, study finds

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...st-study-finds

So that is 44 billion to 88 billion pounds of lithium, and at 17 pounds per vehicle (using the article's numbers) that would be 2.5-5 billion cars. We have a few other large deposits of lithium in the US that we know of, plus other less concentrated sources. There is a deposit in the state of Maine that is 11 million metric tons, or 24 billion pounds.

https://www.boston.com/news/environm...%20in%20length.


https://investingnews.com/media-libr...146&quality=80

That's all well and good until they find some weed that only grows on top of a pile of lithium and the company isn't able to mine it.

That's America with everything. We have a lot of lawyers and a lot of bureaucracy in the land of the free. No one wants it in their backyard, including pipelines, fracking, etc. In the end, it'll be the economics and the lesser of two evils that will win out.

Gotta love the contradiction:

1. We could largely reduce CO2 emissions by replacing old cars with modern mild hybrids instead of EVs
2. On the other hand, we're actively pushing the sale of Jeeps and Rams across the globe. I doubt those emit less CO2 than a 20 years old Camry..

Oh and FCA "absorbs the 40% extra cost of EVs because they can't be passed on to the customer"? I didn't know they were a charity :D. And that basically implies they can take a strong hit to their margins and still turn a profit, i.e. ICE buyers are getting trounced :)

Not really. companies do this all the time. You sell a lot of one thing, and not as many of another, but you spread the cost of everything over the entire product line. It's not unique to automakers.

Except it's different, in that the people forcing EVs on the populace are also the same people that don't want materials for said EV's mined within the US. Wanna make EVs here? Great, then source the materials here as well. Don't make China the new Middle East.

It's somewhat unique when the government is forcing the huge shift, not capitalism.

Except we’re not talking about subsidising the sale of 200 unprofitable supercars with thousands of hatches.

They’re #3 on the EU BEV market, which in total represents about 2M cars per year. Taking a hit due to 40% higher costs on that market would be huge for them. Yet they’re posting record profitability at >14%.

Something in M. Tavares’s interview is therefore fishy or at least bleeding heart.

Well, there is that. I have no level of support for the government being in this business, but I think that ship has sailed, we can't put the Genie back in the bottle at this point.

Sell more ice to make up for ev losses. Great for the planet.

Renounce any faith, get a daily covid booster, cut your **** off and buy an ev.

ah nice you're back to drinking and posting again

Not what I was saying but sure.

The price is higher because they want to recoup their investments immediately, or they don't have economy of scale to produce EVs as cheap as other manufacturers, which is unfortunate for them. They should work on scaling things and taking advantage of the tax incentives, grants and other programs available. Most likely they are, so the question is, is it 40% despite those programs, or is it 40% with those programs. Frankly, I don't by it unless they are severely behind the curve, which is possible.

Wright's Law states that for every doubling of production there will be a subsequent drop in price of 20%, but the range can be 10-25% across most industries with 15% being more common for the automotive industry (Citation). There was about 78 million vehicles made worldwide last year with 14% or 10 million EVs sold. Not bad, but if that double to 20 million then 15% cheaper, and if it doubles to 40 million then 15% cheaper, and if it doubles to 80 million then 15% cheaper. If a car cost $50k now then it will go to $42.5k, then $36k, and finally to $31k, under the scenario above, very roughly.

BYD's batteries are already cheaper than $100/kWh, and part of that is because they have a huge market share, so they are playing the efficiency game with large economies of scale to their advantage. Not everyone is at that level or even close yet.

https://img.cnevpost.com/2023/09/111...1110174523.jpg

They aren't really the same people. In your opinion, they might come off as the same liberals or left leaning individuals, but there are corporate liberals and green peace liberals, and yet, liberals and conservatives often have the same thing to say when it comes to agreeing to something: they just don't want it in their backyard. This is true of fracking ruining local water supplies, or ranchers not wanting an oil pipeline leaking through their pastures, or someone making a "Giant Wall" through their property who are conservatives. For everyone wanting to save a snow owl, there is someone wanting a local payout/tax for that train or pipeline running through their district/county/city. It is all the same. There are going to be road blocks and vocal objectionists on both sides. It is a paper vs plastic argument, but all the evidence suggests it will be better digging for lithium in a remote area than dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and slowly running through oil reserves.

The government does this all the time. It is nothing new, and it probably will happen without mandates, at this point. There is clear momentum that the investments and incentives are working, so mandates are likely not necessary. Yet, mandates send a clear message that manufactures need to get moving and not fight the change, so in that vein, they are good, IMO.

When has the government not been in this business?

Prior to 1862, if memory serves me correctly. That is when the Pacific Railway Act and the Homesteader's Act were passed. I could be wrong about that though.

Tell me about all the subsidies for gasoline cars and fueling stations back in the 20s.:lol:

Lol how old are you exactly? ;)

Let's just say I have a portrait in the attic....

Also made it illegal to claim ownership of other humans. On the books anyway.
Damn liberals ruining everything.

/S /S /S /S

US Electric Vehicle Sales Reach Breakthrough Pace

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-checkout=true

Ford's Farley recently said EV adoption will be slower than anticipated. He could be right, but by these numbers, there could be mass adoption soon. From what this article is saying, we will likely reach 4 million EVs sold within Q3-Q4, so less than a year. The US sold around 15 million cars, light trucks and CUVs/SUVs, so this is around 6.5% of sales are now EVs. The S-curve of adoption typically goes vertical (especially for recent tech) around the 5-10% mark, so it will probably do the same within the next five years.

https://42c0d044.flyingcdn.com/wp-co...tioncurves.png
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C5...6bl3esfbRZs_3s

Ok.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i...20since%201913.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ad_Act_of_1916

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ay_Act_of_1921

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED123348.pdf

https://www.dbl.vc/wp-content/upload...son-Do-2.4.pdf

If you don't want to parse the above paper, based on federal budgets of the time, through the 1920's the US gave about $2.5 billion/year (today's dollars) in tax breaks to oil and gas.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ergy-timeline/

Not to mention regional efforts such as traffic control (stop lights, train crossings, pedestrian bridges etc.) and education (drivers ed being introduced in high schools and available via local government support) to make automobiles a viable transportation tool.

I was going to do the same as you, but I couldn't tell how Wolf was phrasing is laugh out loud at Dadhawk, saying there were none in comparison to EVs or saying there were a lot, which there has been a lot, as you pointed out. Maybe we will get some clarification after your post.

I was just saying the last time the government wasn't in the subsidy business was a very long time ago, basically agreeing with you.

Yeah, I understood that, but what was Wolf saying?

These guys recycle the black mass of batteries to make lithium that is purer than the virgin materials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H85o...ist=WL&index=1

I was just reading this, although the explanation doesn't make sense. They are canceling the project because of supposedly lower than expected demands for EVs yet the reason the demand is low is exactly because a $30,000 version (with the exception of the walking dead Bolt which is selling like hotcakes) doesn't exist. I think the Bolt demand shows the market is there, I think the real issue is building a vehicle to that price point.

Combination of all.

Apparently all the automakers are losing money on the EVs they build (except Tesla....but they lost money for some 10 years before it started to turn a profit)

so what do you do?
-Continue making these expensive ass EV's with tech up the ass to try to minimize loses.
-Make cheap affordable EV's and hopefully the money loss doesnt take your ICE profits with it.
-Reduce the amount of EV's you make because people are poor and cant afford these expensiveas EV's...and hope the economy of scales balances out or you can get to your possibly cheaper next gen platform to help reduce costs.
-Keep doing what your doing, but knowingly your investment into the battery factory might not pay off as soon or fast as you hope because people cant afford your EV's.

Despite tax credits, EVs are still expensive at POS, and with interest rates being high, I'm sure qualifying for the car might be harder. On top of that, the Tesla Highland and upgraded Y are on the horizon, so people might be holding off before ordering their Tesla. In 2024, tax incentives will be applied at POS, so the cars should be more affordable, and that too may be driving down demand in 2023. Some states have rolled back incentives for 2023 understanding the EV demand is taking off and will maintain most of its momentum at some point in the S-curve without incentives, especially as prices drop, but this can also affect demand.

https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploa...ncentives.jpeg

https://electrek.co/2023/04/20/surgi...se-incentives/

https://www.autoblog.com/2023/10/22/...-work-in-2024/

https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/...t-12.49.48.png

https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/...2030-iea-says/

I remember the bolt/volt being laughed at by Neil cavuto in 2008 or so but it's still here lol. Give gm props for superficially catering to the woke scum with certain vehicles while pumping out ls powered yachts and caddies as well as overachieving vettes

Another one....
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/26/merc...-ev-space.html