These articles always miss the most important point. People are buying EVs because they're better. That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally. That market pull allows for an S-curve in the technology, since it reduces market risk for investing in each increase in scale.
This is a completely different scenario than what the article suggests, which is that EVs are some kind of medicine for climate change that society is trying to have discipline about. Not so. It's a life or death situation for the auto industry, they don't have a choice. They either join the race or die. This makes most concerns about the transition irrelevant. For example, laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been.
Some* people are buying EVs because they're "better". Other people, like me, have zero interest in most modern vehicles, whether EV or not. I have zero interest in a vehicle that gets software updates, or that can choose for itself to slam the breaks on, or that has the ability to upload my data for collection, or that can be remotely disabled, or that isn't built to be maintained easily in my garage, or that has giant touchscreen nonsense. I realize I might be in the minority, but that's OK.
I feel that most modern vehicles are designed and built purely to make as much money as possible, rather than to actually a good, reliable, maintainable vehicle. And it works, because the average consume either doesn't care or is easily to manipulate.
If you want to convert more people to EVs, start building some that I'm remotely interested in. That and invest into solid state batteries, I'm mostly waiting for that too. Solid state batteries would solve most of the issues with EV tech.
The way the EV market has been going so far has reminded me of the NoSQL hype of the early 2000s. It suddenly became important to have "web-scale" datastores and a lot of new hotness didn't use SQL, so folks started associating NoSQL with scalability, regardless of whether some SQL databases could scale, or some non-SQL databases couldn't.
Fast-forward to the present day where I've recently overheard someone say they "want an electric car so it can drive itself". Tesla has made self-driving (for some definition of self-driving") and over-the-air updates and giant tablet entertainment screens synonymous with EVs, to the point where it seems like every major manufacturer is including those features on every new EV they launch. I'd also like to see essentially an anti-Tesla EV - a simple, good car that happens to be electric, without it being a "smartphone on wheels". Make the entertainment system a double-DIN stereo and I'll know I've found the right car :)
What you're looking for is basically the Prius Prime. Sure it's not fully electric, but it gets 40 mile electric range (which for a lot of people is enough for the day to day), gets legit 70 mpg at 40-55 mph, and around 50mpg at 70mph. No fancy tech, but it drives.
The Prius Prime is definitely a "smartphone on wheels" by any measure. In fact, a lot of people appear to covet the lowest end model because it at least has some knobs for the AC. The upper models force the driver to use an enormous touchscreen with shitty responsiveness and shitty UI/UX.
And at least in the U.S. it has had a 25 mile electric range for the past decade or so. Only the 2023 model claims to have a 40 mile electric-only range, and that hasn't been released yet.
What would be great is if Walmart released some kind of electric vehicle analog to their old Sceptre tv models. Steering wheel, pedals, battery, and of course a flash drive reader that autoplays any mp3s it finds. (Premium version could add a cigarette lighter.)
I have a set from Thrustmaster for my combined driving and flight sim rig, it works really well for mfd input. (F16 mainly).
A set of blank buttons eg at the bottom of the display that could be mapped to in display functions would have been very useful.
(I've gotten used to how it is now - and actually really like it after a year - but not going to say it couldn't have been done better. It would look less minimalistic, however.)
Playing games can hardly have any consequences, but driving does. All those buttons/knobs are designed to minimize the chance you have to look for something.
Virtual keys somehow alleviate a little bit as there are reduced physical keys but still, you will probably have to press multiple buttons to do one single task.
Wehn driving, you don't want to move your sight away from the road. Thus, muscle memory is super important. But touch screen simply rendered all that useless.
I have a 2015 Volt with 98k miles. Still drives great and charges to full capacity. Chevy dramatically over built the first gen, it was the second gen where they were forced to actually limit their design based on lame goals like "making a profit"
I have a '17 second gen that I'll be selling within the next 3 years. 60k miles on it right now. Gotta sell it before it has a $20k boat anchor on board. Unless something happens and I get the battery replaced under warranty for some reason, then I'll continue using it.
How is it misleading? It seems to be a standard measurement for vehicles that can move via both gas engines and electric motors.
It gets around 42 mpg when running purely on the gas engine. Based on the distance I have traveled and the amount that I have used the gas engine, it works out to 172 miles per actual gallon used.
MPGe is what you would refer to for your fully electric car.
That's right, the moment Toyota actually jumps on the full EVs, I hope they preserve that direction - those would be amazing cars.
There's one fancy thing from Prius I don't think anyone else does though - the heads up display, which looks amazing and I would really like to have. (It's still optional, so you don't lose the usual dashboard)
I actually really wish Toyota kept pushing their plug in hybrids. The Rav4 Prime get 40 miles on its battery and 40 mpg as a small suv is impressive plus 600 miles worth of gas in it. My neighbor pretty much uses most of the battery during his commute, charges it and uses the battery coming back. He can take it on long road trips without any stops too.
There was a moment in 2017 when I was sure the GM Volt would usher in an age of series hybrids with larger and larger batteries. Then Tesla released the M3 and GM released the Bolt and the Volt was subsequently discontinued.
There must be some solid reason as to why mid-capacity batteries in a hybrid don't make economic sense for car companies.
Batteries getting cheaper and required emissions equipment getting more expensive and complex have made PHEVs a tough market. For most small and mid sized cars and crossovers the cost of equipping a full ICE drivetrain along with a reasonably sized battery and electric motor drivetrain pencils out to about the same price they can make a full battery electric car for, especially when pure BEVs tend to have higher government incentives compared to PHEVs (varies by location).
Packaging is also a big downside. Fitting a 10-20 kW battery and a full combustion drivetrain takes a lot of space, so BEVs with packaging advantages over even pure ICE cars priced around the same number suddenly look a lot more attractive to the potential buyers who overlap a lot between PHEVs and BEVs.
With clever engineering a PHEV doesn't really need a "whole drivetrain". You can use the fact that you have a motor and a big battery to solve a ton of problems that ICE engines typically have.
To make an ICE efficient, you want to give it a big transmission with a lot of gears so it stays in peak efficiency RP, undersize it, and put a big turbocharger on. This produces a relatively heavy drivetrain that has lag when you put your foot down.
When you have an electric engine and battery, you can take the same small engine, but instead of a transmission, you just steal energy and put it in the battery when you don't need power and give it back instantly when you put your foot down. This removes almost all the weight and complexity of the transmission, keeps your engine at peak RPM, and gives you the responsiveness of an EV.
But the engineering cost to do all that is very expensive and unique, two things car makers hate and avoid at all cost. There is a reason the long discontinued Volt is still the best PHEV around and only BMW i3 has ever had your proposed layout. No one else has been willing to spend the money required to really optimize a PHEV and i3 could use more power getting up hills than the engine could generate, so your battery % could drop with the engine running. The OEMs want a 'good enough' PHEV to qualify for subsidies with minimal spend and allocate all the real resources to BEVs since they see the end of combustion.
Plus it's not just the mechanicals. You still need a gas tank, exhaust, catalytic converter and all the other ancillaries that come with combustion. That all adds to the bill of materials, engineering and assembly complexity, and packaging constraints.
> The OEMs want a 'good enough' PHEV to qualify for subsidies with minimal spend and allocate all the real resources to BEVs since they see the end of combustion.
I think a lot of this comes from seeing PHEV as "worse EV" rather than "better ICE". Car manufacturers see their business as building ICEs and EVs as a weird distraction that you have to throw money into as basically a PR expense (although this has started to change in the last couple years). The engineering cost here is expensive but not especially unique since it could pretty easily apply to the entire ICE fleet. The fact that the Prius has existed for 25 years, but most cars sold today don't have regenerative braking is kind of crazy. It's not like OEMs haven't put a ton of engineering into ICEs, they just haven't considered hybrids as "real engineering".
Except no cars do that. That's called a serial hybrid, which never shipped, unless you count oddballs like the BMW i3, with the optional "range extender".
I read a review of a prototype BMW mini. The turbine (fixed RPM) + batteries seemed like a great combination. Plenty of HP for highway cruising, plenty of battery+AWD for great acceleration. Turbines are efficient, crazy small for the HP, and have few moving parts. The downsize is having a fixed RPM, which would normally make them unacceptable for a car.
The reason is because hybrid drive trains don't make sense, as evs get cheaper. I suppose there is less demand. I was hoping for a car with 100 miles ev range and 250 more miles gas range. Then you get a lot of weight from two drive trains and the batteries.
If you've got 40 miles of range when it's new and you're doing a full cycle of the battery twice a day, won't the battery basically be dead weight within 3 years or so?
that's not how car batteries work. phone batteries suck because they are incredibly space and weight constrained and they're too small to effectively include thermal management. Toyota warrentees their hybrid vehicle batteries for 10 years/150k miles for 30% range degredation. after that, since it's a relatively small battery some looking around suggests that the cost of an out of warrentee replacement is roughly $4000, and needing the replacement is relatively rare over the life of the vehicle
Not only is Toyota's warranty on Prius batteries quite good, a good chunk of the battery issues with older Priuses come down to corroded terminals. A dealership will happily throw a new battery in there for a few grand, but a good indie hybrid mechanic knows to try the cheap and easy fix of cleaning the terminals before replacing the battery (and will recommend reconditioned battery packs for a serious $$ savings)
Been driving our Rav4 PHEV for 2 years soon. My wife drains the battery once a day on her way to work. We still get 65+ km (40 miles) in winter and over 80km (50 miles) in summer, driving mostly in the city.
Heads up displays are common for most carmakers (maybe apart from cheapest ones like Dacia or chinese brands), but they are always a premium equipment for (big) extra charge.
Our bmw 5 series from 2014 has it. It is amazing tech, easily the best improvement for me in car driving in past 2 decades. Constant visual contact with road and surroundings, while being aware of my current speed to the level of single kmh, speed limit, car navigation, switching songs/volume with knob on steering wheel, perfectly readable in all conditions and never obtrusive. I just dont look inside the car anymore. The problem is when I drive car without it, it feels severely lacking and ancient (like driving long stretches on highways and a lot of speed radars without cruise control).
Well I paid for it 20% of the price of new, 6 years old with 90k km on it. Even if I had to invest another 20k into it on repairs (which I wouldn't and I won't), its so much better value than new ones. After 1.5 years and 20k km, seems like aircon died (getting it fixed soon) but that's it.
I'd never buy a new car, price/value compared to used ones is ridiculously bad, not grokking who does that unless its like 1-5% of their annual salary. Even then its just throwing tons of money away. Electric cars seem to me much worse in this, hopefully this changes over time.
So no ultra expensive cars, you can have it for the price of really basic new cars (if I ignore maintenance but this can be managed by not using official repair shops, which is good idea anyway since they just love swapping whole expensive blocs instead of fixing actual problems). On top of massively better crash security, comfort, proper fun driving etc.
Because on average you'll pay the same in repairs or replacement compared to a more recent car. You got lucky, and that's ok. But the prices aren't completely made up. Your BMW costs a lot less, because the expected average time it will survive is low. Anecdote != data and all that.
On the other hand, having an ex-demo car from a dealer meant no silly markup and when the transmission fell apart after 4 years, I got it replaced for free instead of paying thousands to an independent shop. There are pros and cons.
(And yes, completely new cars have silly markup, but used ones with low mileage don't)
The name does actually have a meaning: bZ(Beyond Zero emissions) 4 (based on Rav4) X (Crossover)
That said, I wish they had just called it the Rav4 Electric. I believe mass adoption comes from car companies integrating the electric models into what (non-cutting edge) consumers already trust (Chevy is the only one really embracing this idea)
Considering this model was announced before they asked Toyoda to step down for failing in EV adoption, I suspect it was named to not sully the reputation of an established model.
> That said, I wish they had just called it the Rav4 Electric. I believe mass adoption comes from car companies integrating the electric models into what (non-cutting edge) consumers already trust (Chevy is the only one really embracing this idea)
There are some more. Peugeot has electric models with the same naming as their ICE models but an "e" on front (e-208, e-2008, etc.) Hyundai has the Ioniq in EV and non-EV versions. And there was also a Volkswagen eGolf, although I think that one has been abandoned to be replaced by models with electric-specific naming.
The new Prius looks like they've got what Tesla is about, as laid out in this comment chain down to here. It's aesthetics, ease of use, frictionless experience, etc.
The iPhone moment was often referred to as the smartphone revolution, but 15 years later, the experience it offers are not fundamentally different from advanced flip phones it replaced, just better. Technical aspects of an iPhone, such as touchscreen user interface, non-replaceable battery, jailbreakable OS, were not fundamental in disrupting the market.
> Put Lidar in there and just get it right. Stop w/ this non-sense.
This is a popular refrain among people who are not studying Tesla’s progress particularly closely, and/or are unfamiliar with the utility LIDAR actually provides. Tesla FSD still has some way to go before it is ready to be a properly autonomous robotaxi — but where it's failing are not areas where adding LIDAR would help.
Tesla's vision stack is already sufficiently capable of mapping the three-dimensional environment with sufficient precision.
Tesla FSD needs better planning strategies when faced with unusual obstructions like novel construction zone diversions. Adding LIDAR wouldn't help there. Tesla FSD desperately needs more road sign reading skills. LIDAR can't read road signs. Tesla FSD will eventually need to recognise law enforcement officers and respond to hand gestures. LIDAR cannot translate hand gestures into actionable driving instructions, and certainly can't assess the plausibility that the person is a LEO.
> Lidar's are excellent at verifying that the 3d model map is correct.
IIRC Tesla does use LIDAR in their test vehicles to measure the ground truth of their 3D model maps. They just don't do that with every single car on the road.
Certainly that is the current Tesla PR spin that their vision stack is good enough to not need it, but it is hard to see why LIDAR wouldn't be useful for defense in depth against the situations like people tricking Teslas into painted tunnels like Wile E. Coyote. Especially when we all know the reality is that LIDAR is extremely patent protected and expensive to buy because of that and Tesla dropping LIDAR was pure cost cutting.
(Self-driving seems to me to be somewhere you absolutely want as much defense in depth and redundant sensors as possible.)
I'd like to see someone exposing a Tesla to a intricately produced Wile E. Coyote tunnel. I would predict that it would stop, because the vision stack leans heavily on motion vectors to map out drivable space. And even if it didn't, the tunnel could only be painted to have the correct perspective at one point along the road. Moving closer would result in the model seeing the road get narrower, causing the car to slow down (narrower roads necessitate slower speed) until it gets within a few car lengths — at which point the painted road would appear so narrow as to be literally undriveable.
If Tesla hasn't already tested this in simulation, I'd be astounded.
Also if a false tunnel good enough to fool FSD beta, I'd suspect it'd also be good enough to fool a decent proportion of human drivers too.
Aside from whatever Tesla is doing, LIDAR has some fundamental technical deficiencies such that it is unlikely to ever be a viable long term solution. I find the arguments against LIDAR compelling with the context of having worked with this data.
LIDAR would certainly solve the problem of crashes, which is indeed a serious issue.
But I don't see how you could drive with it. It couldn't identify lane markings or exits or traffic lights or cones. And if you can do that well, you should be able to avoid hitting things.
Clearly Tesla hasn't solved that and maybe never will. But adding LIDAR wouldn't really solve the problem.
It's not LIDAR alone it's a combo. The problem of course is that Tesla/Elon is being stubborn and unwilling to put the "expensive" lidar claiming that pictures is enough to work on.
Volvo seems to be getting it right hardware-wise with it's forthcoming EX90 (electric XC90). 250 meter range LIDAR (kept clear from ice, snow and dirt by it's own heat emisssions and nozzles at the end of the windshield wipers - you can tell it's not designed in California), 5 radars, 8 cameras and 16 ultrasonic sensors.
their real problem is frame to frame consistency, due to lack of a world model.
this is what Elon talked with Lex a year (or two?) ago. (they mentioned it as how to know you are in a school zone, and remember you are in a school zone, etc)
Sounds like they're working on the world model at least in places. With the removal of the parking sensors, they've started remembering obstructions that are now out of the cameras' vision.
I see LIDAR self driving vehicles all over the place around Phoenix and Tempe. My Tesla’s autopilot can’t reliably stay on the correct side of the road going through intersections.
The one that few people think about is that use of LIDAR interferes with other LIDAR. LIDAR works mostly because almost no one is using LIDAR. By contrast, passive optical scales infinitely even if it is more difficult and there is an existence proof that it is possible. Automotive companies view LIDAR as a dead-end even though it works well (in some environments) now.
LIDAR has some issues in rain and snow, and can't read road markings or signs (or make out colours). And it's pretty expensive currently. A combination of LIDAR and cameras is likely what'll end up working best, they complement each other nicely.
Just to nitpick/paint a less absolute picture: Having worked at a couple companies using lidar, you can make out stuff like road markings based on relative brightness (especially if retroreflective paint is used), in ideal conditions, but that's of course not everywhere.
Camera are better in low light than our eyes
Computers are faster than our brain
Software (Neural Net) are not at the level of our brain, in particular they do not fine tune constantly to the current conditions and problems. But they are getting there. Just looking at the visualisation in FSD you can see how accurate the system is at recognizing all the cars, their position, theirs speeds, etc. Human only only track a few objects and only when they catch our attention. Furthermore theirs system has 8 cameras, no distraction, sleepiness, etc.
I saw this visualisation recently in a taxi. It was constantly changing its mind about things. One second a scooter would appear as a garbage bin, the second it would disappear and then show up as a scooter again. Pedestrians would only be displayed while they moved. I was surprised how inaccurate it was.
And cameras are really bad at noise levels at low light and don't nearly have the dynamic range levels needed for good night vision.
Depend on version of fsd. They used to go through a normalization process that tried to make the video similar in differents conditions. This has been ripped off and now the signal go strait to NN.
I heard (and saw video) where the camera detected animal in the dark that were impossible to see to the naked eyes.
It’s possible their system is not that good, but eventually cameras will outperform the human eyes in every way if that’s not already the case.
Our perception is not that good, but our brain filter it out and make us believe that we see the full picture were if fact we see only what catch our attention.
Just wait for better cameras? Big pixels solve the noice level problems and multiple cameras solve the problem of dynamic range. People also can not measure distance to static things if seing capability is limited to only one eye (riding bicycle is possible with one eye but driving a car is not).
You can just turn off or disable the internet connection from the car (take out the circuit breaker for the modem). It turns out the things on even my 8 year old tesla were really useful. I liked streaming music for free, voice recognition, maps with up to date traffic. But the car would still work great without an internet connection. Some people are driven crazy by not enough touch screen buttons, it's never bothered me.
But you can just turn off all internet connections and go on your way.
>Fast-forward to the present day where I've recently overheard someone say they "want an electric car so it can drive itself". Tesla has made self-driving (for some definition of self-driving") and over-the-air updates and giant tablet entertainment screens synonymous with EVs
There are even people in this very comment section that think that way ;)
Yeah, I just drove a brand-new (16km on the odometer) Peugeot 308 for a trip in France. It was a complete piece of shit that I spent the entire trip yelling at. Always-online via 4G cellular (prompting for a system update on every shutdown and prompting me to go through their tutorial on every startup), glossy touch screens (zero analogue/physical gauges of any sort), constantly forcibly steering me back if I go near the painted line (such as when I'm trying to make extra space as I go around a driver who can't seem to stay in their own lane) which I was not able to turn off, beeping incessantly every single time I park because I am vaguely close to a curb or a random plant or small object (another thing I couldn't turn off), all controls on said touch screen with a horribly-designed UI... Oh the fuel gauge stopped working the night I was taking the car back to the rental company, gotta love that. They charged me for refilling 1/4 of the tank even though I completely refilled it - the gauge is simply faulty. I'm sure the charge will be reversed once we're done dealing with that, but you don't expect something as fundamental as the fuel level gauge to fail within ~4000km of driving. The steering wheel isn't even round, and of course because it's all "drive-by-wire" software-driven it literally feels like driving one of those arcade racing simulators, including the pedals. I don't know if new US/JP vehicles are like this but driving Peugeot and Renault rentals in EU has taught me that new cars appear to be total trash. I still can't believe people pay some tens of thousands of dollars for such atrocious computers on wheels.
Renault was making good non luxury electric cars, that are still on the road today, in 2012. Their engineering is so good, and they are so simple, that they just do not stop. Their aftermarket prices show how much the market prefers EVs.
I’m only winding French car owners up. I owned a Peugeot for a few years and I loved it!
Sure, bits of it used to fall off with alarming regularity, and it’d just turn itself off when stopped at the lights periodically… but apart from that…
Haha, I am really happy with my 2019 Renault, too (I never wanted to own a french car, but the model we bought was the only one in the entire market that fit all our requirements). There is and should be no french car without its little "strangenesses" and ours is no exception. Still: overall we couldn't be more happy, had zero technical issues, and enjoy the fact that besides the occasional "why did they do that??" it has also lots of "how great that they actually thought of this!"-moments
That is not what your link says. There is no mention of any type of live data tracking, just the deployment of black box loggers (which need not be online) for vehicle data to be used in the event of a crash.
I had lately an VW Golf as rental car. The car itself, was yes, ok. But the touch interface. What did they think?!? It was f.. bright and no way to make it darker, because it was already in the darkest mode. It was so annoying at night. And when the heating was on, after a while the touch screen had trouble to feel the touch. And just bellow the touch screen, there had been so modern clickless touch buttons. Often when you clicked something on the touch screen bottom, you accidently activated also a button from below the screen. Symbols on the map are often to small for fingers (while driving anyway). I mean, it's 2023 and we know how to do such things. Who does such things test and accept?
This is working-as-intended. Some modern cars only have a very approximate sensor in the fuel tank, and then use computer modelling of fuel use to make the gauge look like it is going down smoothly. After all, the engine knows exactly how many ml it injects with every stroke, so can measure fuel use very precisely - the only unknown is what you are putting in.
Therefore, they assume that you never fill up less than say a half tank. If you fill up less, it will pretend you didn't fill up at all, and the gauge will still say three quarters when it is full to the brim.
The only way to get the gauge and actual tank back in sync is to use up at least half a tank, and then refill all the way.
Back in my day, before all the newfangled shiny sensors you would get an accurate fuel tank reading every time - except if you were going around corners, accelerating or breaking, or had done any of those in the past few minutes and the spring returning the float was feeling slow that day.
Otherwise it was, like all things back in the good old days, incredibly precise +/- 10%
I think it's because fuel tank sensors frequently break, due to being buffeted by sloshing fuel, and sometimes getting corroded if there is a little salt water in the fuel, so car manufacturers have decided to use other methods other than a float and variable resistor...
I'm not sure what is actually used instead, but I'd guess they just measure the pressure on the inlet to the fuel pump. An absolute pressure sensor only costs 3 cents and the fuel pump is probably already on the CAN bus.
Can't tell about US cars but for JP manufacturers, aim for Mazda. They seem to get it right on all the points you described, and more (at least my Mazda 2 does)
Yeah I have an RX-8, it is amazing and basically the perfect car IMO (though the visibility is not as good as I'd like, and of course the rotary engine has its uhh, shortcomings). Mazda would definitely be high on my list for a new vehicle. I had a 2008 Honda Fit as well which was quite excellent. It seems like I'd probably have to stick with like late 2000's if I wanted a new vehicle... >_>
> It seems like I'd probably have to stick with like late 2000's if I wanted a new vehicle
Unfortunately that's not possible for me: Crit'air certificates (which are based on EURO ratings) are being enforced. Our city is going to ban anything above and including level 2 by 2025.
It means I will have to let go of my other car (a '08 Civic Type-R, rated level 2) which is a damn shame and completely absurd to have to scrap it given its overall (at ~100000km it's mint-like) and yearly (2000km/yr, emission contribution is well below the noise floor) mileage.
That's also why we bought a 2020 Mazda 2 (level 1). There's AirPlay but apart from that it's all good. 3 trim levels which basically add HUD, bigger wheels, leather. Everything else is included from the basic one, zero options, completely opposite mindset from the software-gated nonsense. The engine compartment has plenty of room for maintenance and I could swear it was designed to hold a much bigger engine. The screen is touch-able, but disables touch over, like, 2km/h. Ultimately I just use the dial joystick, which is just so good. So, definitely, you don't need to go back 20 years to get a car you are in control of.
I have a Tesla model Y. It’s definitely different to operate than any ICE car I’ve ever had. But Tesla made it kinda easy to help you transition. They sent me like five videos to watch about 25 minutes total I think. I watched them and was able to
get in it and drive it 400 miles home without issue.
I once owned a 306 Peugeot (90s) as a student vehicle and it went way over 350'000 km without any noticeable problem. The TU series engines of Peugeot were beast of a kind and pretty hard to kill as long as you minimum service them.
Recent Peugeots are like any recent, EU-made cars: full of electronics, fragile piece of tech and with turbo-compressed engine that favor fuel consumption over reliability. VW and German counterpart (which I also drove) tend to be the same crap.
Nowadays, almost only the Japanese constructors stand off for their reliability.
Agree. I'll be sad if all we do is simply electrify our shitty 5-ton asphalt tanks.
With the price of modern automobiles you would think the industry was absolutely ripe for disruption. If IKEA came out with an electric tuk-tuk for $4K I suspect the Big Three would lose their shit.
> If IKEA came out with an electric tuk-tuk for $4K I suspect the Big Three would lose their shit
Seems like they already exist (not from IKEA of course), but that sort of vehicle isn't allowed on the road in the US so I don't think the Big Three are too concerned.
In the US, a 3 wheeled vehicle can be sold as a motorcycle and then the regulations are quite lax (though I think helmet laws might kick in). Look at a Polaris Slingshot as an example.
Speak for yourself, I've been in line for an Aptera ever since the solar reboot.
I don't drive a ton of miles, but it's over roads where a bike would be literal suicide. A performant runabout with a bit of cargo space is exactly what I want, and if it only needs to be plugged in a few times a year, so much the better.
I'm keeping the A-Team van for when I need to move minicomputers and their peripherals, but an Aptera could do like 95% of my driving.
Would an Arcimoto FUV work for you? Those are available now. (They don't have solar panels and probably have much worse aerodynamics than Aptera. On the other hand, I think Arcimoto has the right idea with front/rear seating rather than side-by-side.)
I think they have half-doors now. It's kind of a weird thing not to have fully figured out at this point, but I give them credit for actually releasing a product and iterating.
I had a co-worker who actually put $1000 down on an Elio years ago, but as far as I know, they've never come close to making one. I'd be fine driving something like an Aptera, but I just looked and it's like $33K, so I'm not really seeing the savings. I'm also keenly aware that I'm not most people.
It's still more than a Chevy Bolt which looks like a regular sedan and not some retro-futurist science experiment to meld an airplane and automobile that you drive down the road.
Personally, as a 2012 Volt owner I certainly wish the Bolt looked like a regular sedan. It's an ugly modern American "cross-over" (they like the weird ugly "EUV" term in marketing) that isn't a proper sedan in any classic sense but also doesn't commit enough to being a proper hatchback or a light truck enough to make sense for why it is so "cross-over" looking. To me it is a very ugly duckling with no true home in car fashion.
I like the "dolphin tricycle" look of the Aptera. But I suppose I also like retro-futurism and science experiments and in general cars that look like they would take off for the sky if not caged to the ground.
I'd drive an affordable electric car that looks like that, but it's a bit too "look at me" for my taste. A basic box on wheels with doors that moves from A to B is more my thing (I currently drive a Chevy Cruze). See also the Polaris Slingshot; I'm not trying to look like a superhero off on my way to fight crime.
Or something like a Fiat 500 with a Cabrio top (they made a gas one, but not an electric as far as I know). Still a bit odd looking, but more cute than mean or science-experiment.
I've fallen in love with videos of a lot of Chinese sedans. I very seriously think that if import tariffs get worked out and the Chinese EV companies make a serious effort, they have a ripe opportunity to blow up in the US market the way that the Korean sedans did for Gen X and the Japanese sedans did for the Boomers.
(That's such a dumb cycle: Americans forget that they love sedans until an importer starts importing them in bulk. The importer themselves forget Americans love sedans and move on to trucks/SUVs like everyone else. Some new importer needs to come along to disrupt the market again.)
(Related to that, I also fell in love with the Honda e and knew that to be futile love because Honda of America is a truck company.)
For short range urband deliveries in London, in seeing small 4 wheeled electric vehicles that are technically bicycles. This had the advantage that they can use cycle paths, so not need insurance, driving licence, or to any design validation.
The Arcimoto FUV is a 3-wheel electric that's available in some states now. I'm not sure if there are some states where helments are required, but generally they aren't.
Wow what a great idea! This car kinda looks like they are using a Chinese partner to do design and/or creating the build process. Seems like this segment could really use a Tesla like competitor. There has got to be more they can do in that $9k budget to deliver the very best micro car. They can't possibly be squeezing out the best that the LFP battery can offer. I guess maybe their potential budget or scale is limiting what they can deliver to the market.
Yeah, I would think of it as closer to riding a bike than driving a car in that respect. People do it all the time but you want to be careful about route selection.
Well I wouldn't ride a bike on the sorts of roads I had in mind either (and I'm generally comfortable riding on busy roads, but only when there's enough dedicated space for bikes.)
That's what I mean by thinking of it more like a bike. Just because a road is legal to ride on doesn't mean I would want to, you have to take the scenic route sometimes. But at least you're not getting rained on, and you can haul a lot more groceries up a hill than I would want to while biking.
These exist in Europe, for example the Citroen Ami[0] which is about 8000 euros or Renault Twizy[1] which is 12k euros. There are cheaper vehicles like this but I can't remember them offhand. You see these kind of micro EVs in every town basically, pretty sweet.
Getting a driver’s license in France is significantly more difficult than the US. But there’s a hack in that younger kids can drive these smaller cars with an easier to get license.
Oh, is that why I felt like drivers in France are the best I've encountered? I've driven a couple tens of thousands of km's there in total (both city and country) and been regularly impressed by the responsible and conscientious driving in comparison to anywhere else I've driven (17 countries total now). Maybe a bit too much tailgating though if you're not driving "fast enough" on those single-lane country roads, but otherwise great driving skill IMO.
In most of Europe we require drivers to take both classroom training, practical training and to pass both a classroom test and a practical test before they can get their license. My impression of the US is that in most states you just have to show up and drive around a few cones on a parking lot to get your license.
In New Jersey, there is classroom training as part of school curriculum that is typically done in public school around the end of age 15 going into 16 (since people generally get a license while they are still in school). This training consists of teaching the material issued in this booklet[1] which is the official NJ rules and regulations for driving in the state. At the end of the training, there is an exam (typically computerized these days).
If you are past the age where you'd be in school, you can get the official state issued driving booklet and self study or you can attend a third party school which teaches the booklet. Either way you take the same exam.
Passing that exam entitles students to receive a learners permit that allows limited driving privileges (tags must be placed on the car indicating the driver is on a learners permit, restricted hours driving, must be accompanied by someone with a full license, etc.)
Permit holders must complete at least 6 hours of practice over a 6 month period under supervision.
After a year a driving test is conducted and that determines if you are eligible for a probationary drivers license or if you require more training time.
If you pass, you are upgraded to a probationary license. The probationary allows unsupervised driving but with other restrictions (time curfew) for 1 year. No incidents during that year allow you to graduate to a full unrestricted driving license.
> Oh, is that why I felt like drivers in France are the best I've encountered?
I want to hug you, how much has the world hurt you for you to think that? French drivers are terrible. Not the worst (they’re not italians, to say nothing of americans, or south-east asians) but they’re still really rather bad.
hahaha! really? It's purely my subjective judgement, but it may also have been pure chance/coincidence that I encountered good driving in FR compared to other countries. I mean in terms of actual driving skill like not doing dangerous/stupid things, driving with precision in difficult/complicated/narrow roads, anticipating risky situations or avoiding collisions, behaving respectfully/responsibly, appearing to be actually aware of what's happening etc.. In some places it felt like most drivers are basically asleep or barely conscious...
problem with these is that they are ugly but give something that look og mini or fiat 500 and can go 125km/h cost something like 8000 euros I would buy it immediately.
>With the price of modern automobiles you would think the industry was absolutely ripe for disruption. If IKEA came out with an electric tuk-tuk for $4K I suspect the Big Three would lose their shit.
Not gonna happen. Regulatory capture. And each line of regulation is backed by an ungodly number of people who will screech to high heaven if you even think about removing it. Like imagine for a second the vapid HN hand wringing and concern peddling that a headline to the tune of "NHTSA comprehending removal of backup camera requirement on some vehicles" would prompt. It's easier for the regulators, the analysts, the automotive companies, everybody, to just keep rolling with the status quo rather than amass the political capital to challenge it.
So long as society is rich enough to afford all the fluff cars will continue to have all the fluff.
> NHTSA comprehending removal of backup camera requirement on some vehicles...
My understanding is that NHTSA has a visibility requirement. You can make a car without a backup camera provided the driver can see behind them. Seems pretty reasonable.
I think the transition to EVs has far more upside than downside, but weight (to your comment about "5-ton asphalt tanks") is a real and significant downside. Batteries aren't light!
For anyone good with a two-seater, it seems like a people's car to me. Plenty of space for groceries, starts at $25K, exceptionally easy and cheap to charge at home, and committed to "right-to-repair," publishing all their manuals and selling the parts to anyone. It could be the modern equivalent of the original VW Bug.
The cheapest new car in 2023 is the Nissan Versa for $15,730, but most of the ten cheapest cars are around $20K. [1]
The Versa gets 32mpg. The Aptera is the same basic design as their original diesel model which got 300mpg, and it's electric. It'll be way cheaper to run, it won't require as much maintenance, and you'll be able to do your own repairs.
The current US average gasoline price is $3.42/gal. [2] If you drive 32 miles per day, that's $104/month in gasoline with the Versa. Using LendingTree's calculator for a 60-month loan, $104/mo is worth a $5900 difference in purchase price, and that doesn't count maintenance savings. [3]
So yeah, by modern new-car standards I think it's about as close to a people's car as you can get. And batteries keep getting cheaper.
Looking at the original prices and adjusting for inflation it looks like the Fiat 500 and the 2CV were about $10000, and the Type 1 Beetle was around $15000. So $25k does seem rather high for a people’s car.
I’m not sure the prices I found (450k lira, 350k francs, and 4000 marks) are all correct though.
Funny how the people insisting on the "workhorse" thing in practice just take it on a clogged highway to go to work or to some fast-food drive through :)
Unfortunately we are in an arms race with the shitty asphalt tanks.
In most of the USA, trying to navigate the world in an electric tuk-tuk surrounded by enormous pickup trucks and SUVs with distracted pilots is basically a death sentence. If an accident doesn't get you, the apathy and road rage toward small vehicles will — they may shove you into a ditch simply for fun.
Those exist. Neighborhood electric vehicles have been available in the US for years and can legally be driven on many urban streets. The Big Three don't care.
IKEA isn’t cheap any more and has been massively hiking prices like the rest of the world (while throwing in some artificial scarcity). It’d be more like $8k !
The extra weight will significantly increase road wear, which is unfair because the road maintenance is paid by a gas tax, which EV drivers are not paying.
The weight of EVs has literally no relevance in the face of trucks, which everyone else subsidises. A loaded semi causes about 3 orders of magnitude the road wear of a large sedan, per unit of distance.
Buying enough vehicle that even your exceptional use case for it isn't pushing the limit of what it's capable of is absolutely a hallmark of upper middle class/white collar consumerist culture.
A socially awkward teenager gets more ass than rear seat of your average HNer's 4Runner or Model 3. IDK why the internet always shits on pickup drivers.
Regardless, I don't think you understand how impactful "a couple orders of magnitude" are. Even the heaviest of light vehicles, like a Hummer EV are of negligible effect on a road that has to handle any proportion of medium and heavy truck traffic.
I think the criticism is fair - charging takes time.
I'll speak personally from my parents who are pushing 70. They purchased a Tesla because of the EV credits and overall price attractiveness.
My dad tells his friends about it because the driving experience is so much better. He presses the "gas" and it's instant and the handling is very good. He likes to say never goes to the gas station anymore.
I think it's easily arguable that you could get a lot of the same benefits of drivability and handling in say a BMW or Audi. The last one is a paradigm shift.
The way you've done things is now different, better (in that life is a bit easier). It's not yet a massive one, so I agree the numbers who are switching will be slow, but steadily it'll get there.
The auto industry is pushing ever larger SUVs, which often don't even have the sightlines in front of the vehicle to see a kid standing on the sidewalk in front of it.
I feel like the solution to this would be to mandate a certain degree of visibility all around a vehicle. I mean, the backup camera on the vehicle I recently rented became borderline useless after a couple days, because of constant rainy weather ensuring the camera was always completely covered in dirt and mud. The image was like if you took a 160x120 photo and scaled it up and then applied some kind of "splatter dirt" filter on top. I just didn't even use it, because looking out the actual windows (like I always do) was more effective. If a vehicle is designed in such a way to literally not even allow proper visibility, that should exclude its acceptance onto the market.
> If a vehicle is designed in such a way to literally not even allow proper visibility, that should exclude its acceptance onto the market.
I mean, 100% agree on that.
As for the usefulness of backup cameras... I don't have one myself but I've rented a few cars with them and they do give you significantly more visibility when backing up than the rear window can provide, even in a reasonably sized sedan. But sure, rain might interfere. I don't think the fact that it's not perfect means it's not useful.
I have a VW Golf and they solved the rain problem by hiding the camera in the hatchback latch. It pops out when you need it and hides away behind the badge when you don’t.
I haven’t priced out what replacing that little motor will cost someday.
I have a Toyota Verso, and the backup camera is close to the tailgate handle, beside the license plate. No moving parts etc, and rain per se isn't a problem, however it tends to get dirty in foul weather. I have a habit of just wiping the lens with my thumb every now and then, works well enough.
And yes, it definitely makes parking in a tight spot easier.
Nobody is going to disagree that windows should give as much visibility as possible and people should know how to drive with them, but it's not physically possible to see something (or someone) on the ground close behind your car without a camera. I'd recommend testing with a traffic cone or something, I think you might be surprised how far back a little kid has to be before you can see them in the mirror even in a small car.
If you won't use them, you should at least be happy that other people have them so they don't back into you. Cars are dangerous.
The problem is crash test requirements require cars be built in a way that limits visibility. Giant pillars in case of a roll over, and lots of air bags stuffed everywhere.
Something had to give, and that thing was visibility.
i almost crashed the other day because a car was "hiding" behind the A(?) pillar. I was driving through the same intersection I do every day, looked both ways and made sure no cars were coming from another close by intersection. It was clear, or so I thought. When I turned left onto the road I suddenly had a car on right. It must have been perfectly behind the A-pillar when I approached the intersection and when I started to turn left. Scary.
The camera on your rent car seems to garbage. My car's camera works on 99% of the time. It's better to design a car with better view, but also rear camera is a huge upgrade for safety.
They're mandatory in the US, Europe, China and India for starters. At this point it's probably harder to find a country where they aren't.
As for why, the safety data shows that cars with backup cameras are safer for the public than those without, same as seatbelts, airbags, or any number of other safety technologies. You shouldn't need any of them, but they're there to improve the situation when reality inevitably fails to meet our expectations.
Also mirrors right? If you “can’t” drive without assistive mirrors, you shouldn’t have a driver’s license, period. In fact, anything mandated after the first Model T rolled off the line is dumb.
I've heard mandatory backup cameras have to do with the rear end collision safety ratings which seem to only be able to be passed by building up the back end of the car leaving a much bigger blind spot when you are backing up.
Backup cameras were required because of a string of tragic “family member backs over own child in driveway” incidents. If it saves one life… and all that is easier to sell if it’s toddlers.
That’s just as ridiculous as saying headlights shouldn’t be required because you shouldn’t be driving somewhere where you can’t see the road clearly. The point is that the tech makes driving easier and safer and at some point the tech is stable enough that it makes sense to require it.
One reason to argue about Nissan is how much they've let their head start stagnate.
The Leaf was Ghosn's baby and some of the ouster of Ghosn was Japanese Nissan leadership getting cold feet about EVs (because none of their Japanese peers cared about EVs "so why should they?") right at the point in time where they should have accelerated.
(The EV concerns being on top of/correlated with conspiracy theories that Ghosn was too friendly with French-owned Nissan sibling Renault because they were just about all-in on EVs and Ghosn was hoping for early economies of scale, faster, but that looked to Japanese investors too much like a French coup for Nissan ownership. Also, my favorite alleged part of that conspiracy was Ghosn saw Nissan of America as an SUV/Truck-loving albatross around Nissan's neck and suggested that the very profitable division get renamed back to Datsun to make it easier to pull the ripcord and jettison the entire division once EVs started to get popular enough and its absurd profits became absurd losses.)
I don't know if the truth will ever come out how much of a crook Ghosn was or was not, versus the spin of the Japanese court system and many conspiracy theories that came out of all that, but that saga definitely seemed to put the breaks on Nissan's EV efforts at a bad moment and they do seem to be lagging behind where they should be considering their head start with the Leaf. It's a fascinating story no matter what the facts were on the ground.
Leaf is decidedly not awesome. The lack of liquid cooling means it runs into thermal limits very easily and battery degradation has been a real issue for them. CHAdeMO is arguably the better spec, but since it's a dead plug for north america and can't handle AC people with leafs are going to find themselves tethered very close to home.
If someone needs a commuter only car they are okay, but I think I'd get a bolt over a leaf if I wanted a cheap used commuter EV.
Yes. It would be fine if the Leaf was cheaper. But at least around here, Leaf costs Tesla money, and getting worse product for the same money makes no sense.
I would LOVE a full EV Mazda 3. Mazda 3 was and still is my first car and I'd love to stay in the family (rust issues aside).
Unfortunately they have a history of lagging in this space, either due to mentality or just the fact that they don't have the money to transition over without help (hence them partnering up with Toyota).
Fun fact: One of their chief designers: Franz von Holthausen just happened to become the lead designer at Tesla! Him leaving Mazda was well documented back in around 2010. He talked about how was frustrated that at Mazda any green initiative was always nothing more than a side project. Hopefully things have changed now.
I think its coming. At least I'm assuming our local Mazda dealer isn't planning a DCFC installation because they think the MX-30 will suddenly become popular in the southeastern US.
>or that can choose for itself to slam the breaks on
Given the possibility that this feature could save your life or another driver/pedestrian's life, I don't see a strong objection to this. Driving is one of the deadliest activities that we tolerate as a society and the more we can do to reduce the risk the better. I agree with everything else though, I don't want an iPhone on wheels.
it can also end your life or another driver's or pedestrian's life; slamming the brakes on is how a tesla model s caused an 8-car pileup on the bay bridge a couple of months ago, though astoundingly that somehow failed to kill anybody
generally speaking individual people are better at choosing risk tradeoffs than governments are, both because they know more about their own situations and because their incentives are better aligned
this is why liberal societies are not only much wealthier but also have much higher life expectancy than authoritarian societies. but governments aren't uniquely corrupt; they're just organizations with great unaccountable power, a somewhat more extreme version of any large corporation. we shouldn't entrust ford or tesla with the ability to kill with impunity any more than we should entrust the fbi with it, or for that matter pinkerton or peabody or pullman or the teamsters
so you should be able to freely choose which slamming-on-the-brakes software to run on your own car, or to run none at all
> it can also end your life or another driver's or pedestrian's life; slamming the brakes on is how a tesla model s caused an 8-car pileup on the bay bridge a couple of months ago
Come one... I thought I was on a scientifically-minded website. That's not how things work. It's like saying seatbelts are bad because they sometimes trap people in burning cars. Yeah, that's true, but it happens orders of magnitude less than crashing and splattering your brains across the highway if you aren't wearing one. That's the point x)
> this is why liberal societies are not only much wealthier but also have much higher life expectancy than authoritarian societies
Worth noting this is referring to classic liberalism where individual rights and freedoms are a top property, not modern liberalism where universal rights are protected by larger governments and laws that limit individual freedoms in the name of the greater good
It's an empirical question what the ratio of false positives to true positives is. If the ratio is 1 to 10000, for example, I think that's tolerable and a net positive. You also have to account for humans making similar mistakes.
But humans aren't always logical. Especially when it comes to low probability events that have a high impact if they do occur. Like plane crashes, or to a lesser degree car crashes.
Yeah but in this case, the impact is the same whether you die from human error or automation error. I would rather reduce the overall probability of death by 50% even if probability death by malfunctioning equipment goes up by 1%.
Additionally, the risk exposure of owning an EV is pretty bad. The initial cost is extremely high, the immediate depreciation is high, fluctuating energy costs impact TCO, fast chargers are effectively more expensive than petrol here limiting long range economy, longevity data is fairly limited, there are serious difficulties getting them repaired and the complexity results in reliability issues. At this point I don't know anyone who's bought an EV who didn't eventually replace it with another vehicle, apart from one guy who has a Model S as a drive ornament and never uses it.
Seems like a poor investment. I'll stick with my 2014 Citroen which I can replace entirely for the first 20 nanoseconds of depreciation if I buy an EV. And the 5 year fuel cost is paid for by the second 20 nanoseconds of depreciation :)
>Additionally, the risk exposure of owning an EV is pretty bad.
I'm not sure where you're getting that data from, maybe it's different where you live.
> The initial cost is extremely high, the immediate depreciation is high
I dispute that the initial cost "extremely high". Higher, yes, but those prices are coming down. The depreciation here in Ireland is a lot less than a traditional ICE car. My 3 year-old Mini Electric had lost a lot less, percentage-wise, than the comparative ICE model when I traded it in recently. My service costs for those 3 years were zero.
> fast chargers are effectively more expensive than petrol here limiting long range economy
The key word in that is probably "here". In Ireland, I can do 300 miles per €25 of fast charge. My previous diesel car would have cost €50 for the equivalent distance.
Have you had the opportunity to charge your EV at home? I think in most countries, charging your EV at home is the only way to make EV cheaper to drive than ICE.
I live in an apartment building with chargers in the underground carpark, so that's where I usually charge. It's cheaper than public chargers, but not quite as cheap as a home one.
Having said that, fast charging is still cheaper than running an ICE, as I mentioned in the parent comment.
I don't think we can universally say that fast charging is still cheaper than ICE, this statement will not apply everywhere in the world. In most EU countries I've been to or lived in, fast charging was more expensive than driving an ICE car with an economy engine. The cost of public charging in my home country for example equals to a fuel consumption of 6.5L/100km in cost, while an economy ICE car consumes less than that.
Ditto. At one point, car makers realized that if their cars lasted too long, they would not be able to sell more of them when most people had one. Modern cars have various unreliable and anti-maintenance features to make sure you are going to buy the next one in 10 years time. All these tracking is also a profit source since the data is sold.
That’s hyperbolic. Toyota is still selling the same quality cars (if not better) than their 2004 - 2009 Prius I’ve seen go 550k and similar miles repeatedly.
> If you want to convert more people to <product>, start building some that I'm remotely interested in.
This is such a peak HN comment. The best part is that the author admits they’re a tiny minority. If they are a minority, isn’t it rational to ignore them and make something the majority wants?
Top HN comments will tell you all kinds of wild things about what HN commenters think are essential to succeed. For example, client software should never be written in electron and never contain telemetry if it wants to succeed. Most successful text editor used by 75% of all developers? That’s VS Code, written in electron and chock full of privacy busting telemetry.
I’m reminded of the top comment on the original thread revealing Dropbox, asking “why would I want this when I can simply use ssh + curlftpfs + git”. I’m sure many HN users are capable of doing that, and yet Dropbox found more than a few takers in the real world.
At this point I honestly believe that the top HN comment talking about a product is useful to read because it’s going to be the opposite of correct in every way.
This thread is filled with “EVs don’t work because they don’t cater to my outlier use case today”. Firstly, you’re an outlier. EVs do well for the majority whose commute is less than 300 miles. Secondly, they don’t need to cater to outliers today, they can gradually fill niches as they become more mainstream.
> The best part is that the author admits they’re a tiny minority. If they are a minority, isn’t it rational to ignore them and make something the majority wants?
I didn't see any data either way, so it remains to be seen if s/he is really in minority. Even sales number might be bogus for approx. the same reasons why A/B might be bogus. “Most consumers buy EVs with touchscreens, therefore they want touchscreens”. No, they don't, given choice they would choose differently. The big problem, which GP pointed correctly, is lack of decent choice, and it follows TFA.
> This thread is filled with “EVs don’t work because they don’t cater to my outlier use case today”. Firstly, you’re an outlier. EVs do well for the majority whose commute is less than 300 miles. Secondly, they don’t need to cater to outliers today, they can gradually fill niches as they become more mainstream.
They either need to fill the niches by 2035, or “EV transformation” will be a failure for a significant chunk of population, who will feel let down by whoever decreed that they need to change without providing viable alternative (solving existing problems within their purchasing power). Currently it doesn't take much to fall outside scope of the market: for example it's enough that you have 3 kids aged 4, 2, 0 and carrier fitting drastically reduces your choice (or bumps the price beyond reachabilty). EV won't happen if you can't be a low to mid income 5-people family, for whom lack of car means significant degradation of living standard.
Everyone says things like this thinking "Tesla" in their head, while in the real world there are all sorts of EVs that are just cars that happen to be electric.
That’s a hilarious comparison knowing the build quality of teslas. You’re getting sold a shiny yugo for the price of a merc, but it has a Maserati power train so it goes fast.
The quality of Berlin, Shanghai and Texas made Teslas have been pretty great. Maybe you should listen to what actual experts like Sandy Munro say instead of believing in fake news.
It is one of the best cars I have ever driven. I like driving.
I think the very heavy battery helps.
That said, modern electric cars are given away for free (the one I'm getting is). The only thing you pay for is the battery. I found this out by pricing replacement batteries....
The whole model of car making is going to collapse if batteries become cheaper, but for now: By a battery and get a car thrown in.....
The used EV battery industry hasn't even started yet. Even the very first Nissan Leafs and Tesla Model S's are still running on their original batteries, way longer than the manufacturers expected.
When we start actually getting used EV batteries on the market in masses there will be multiple industries repurposing them and thus giving "expired" EV batteries resale value.
A 50kWh battery that's "unusable" for EV use (let's say 30% degraded) is still a 35kWh battery - which is insanely big for storing solar power in a home. Or it can be split to multiple sections and 3 RVs can get a 10kWh battery that they can charge at any EV charger or even at a campsite.
How many decades? Because mid-range and up euros routinely did that multiple times over in the 80s. So you’re either thinking 50+, or you’re thinking reliability issues on early direct injection.
> Cars barely made it to 100k miles decades ago. They didn't even have 6 whole digits on the odometer and rolling over was an event
That would be a lot of decades ago. Cars from the 80s routinely went well over 100k. The 70s cars I remember as more cantankerous but if taken good care of (which was simple because the cars were simple) they would as well.
Ironically, a hundred years from now I predict that the only working museum/collector cars left will be those from the 1990s and earlier. Newer cars will not survive as long, with all the fragile electronics that require maintenance with factory equipment that will no longer exist in a century.
>" The 70s cars I remember as more cantankerous but if taken good care of (which was simple because the cars were simple) they would as well."
What's more complicated about taking care of a car today? In fact it's easier as the number of maintenance items has gone down
Cars still have oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, air filters, maybe differential fluid, and spark plugs
Car NO LONGER have distributor caps, spark plug wires, power steering fluid[3], and timing belts. Finally you don't need to adjust the timing, the throttle cable tension, for FWD cars [8] you eliminate the need to change differential fluid, and you don't need to "lube" anything.
------------------------------------------------
> Cars from the 80s routinely went well over 100k
That heavily depends on the brand. American cars were piles of garbage in my opinion and I'm sure I could find some source to support that. You are right about Japanese cars and that was a new phenomenon at the time. Here's a NY times article about how cars are now (in 2012) lasting more than 200k miles.
My friend had a 91 Civic that lasted for about 250k but I had multiple GM cars (86 lesabre, 91 corsica, 88 6000) where either the transmission went or bent valves (exceeding the cost of the car at the time in the late 90s when I owned them) without even getting to 120k.[6] Anecdotal but again Honda and Toyota were so popular the US government made Japan limit the number of cars coming in.[3]
Newer cars are less complex in key areas. I quickly mentioned this in the first section but there's more:
- Spark plug wires are gone. Since they carried high voltage from the distributor cap they needed thick insulation and that insulation would crack due to heat cycling. once small cracks appear it would arc to the engine or other wires because of the high voltage. Now we have ignition coils which aren't considered a maintenance item (they last at least 100k but really more depending on use)
- No more distribution caps (due to ignition coils). Caps were a maintenance item
- No more power steering fluid, and power steering pump because of EPS racks. This also eliminates the hydraulic lines
- Throttle by wire which eliminates the throttle cable that would get stretched out and sometimes break. This also allows for cruise control without the use of vacuum lines [9]
- In the past cars have timing belts, timing belts can break and if your engine was an interfere engine the valves will contact the piston causing a massive repair bill. Today almost every car has a timing chain which lasts significantly longer to the point where it's not a maintenance item.[1]
Starting the 80s we got OBD 1 then later 2 which provides sensor data. This allowed you to see the real symptom of the car instead of the apparent one. For example, car has a rough ideal but really it's running lean. Besides the massive performance and efficiency increase because the ignition timing can be based on the exhaust contents , temp, air flow levels, etc it also makes it easier to fix things by providing data on how the engine was operating. Today cars have even more computer diagnostic systems to help repair them.
------------------------------------------------
Finally let's get to the electronics you are concerned about. Cars now have more control modules, (which are mini computers for systems, like the door controls) then in the past. There's door modules[2], ambient lighting module, cruise control, etc. The point is you don't repair these modules you just replace them. You aren't soldering little resistors onto a board or something. It's no different than replacing a steering wheel. It's just a thing. [5]
Many of these modules are for optional luxury items. If 20 years from now the ambient lighting and module doesn't work in my car who cares. If lane assist, blind spot detection, or the rear camera breaks then the car is just like the older cars you think are better.
I'm sorry to make this accusation but you are probably letting nostalgia, the current climate of simmering anger at the world, and the desire for things you grew up with and are comfortable with to form your opinions.
I want to put a millennial into a muscle car from the 60s and they'll see the over boosted power steering, the giant v8 that was overrated in power and get 10mpg, a body that leans in every corner, tires that can't grip, and a chassis that feels like a rubber band when you turn. A modern 4 cylinder turbo hot hatch would destroy them and outlast them.
------------------------------------------------
[1] Some older cars had timing belts and non-interference engines. This means that if the belt broke the piston wouldn't contact the valves and the only repair you'd have to pay for is the timing belt and towing. Still annoying but better. Timing chains make more noise and because of their weight create more drag on the engine but with engine covers and the power today it doesn't matter
[2] In the past cars didn't have as many modules even for things like like power locks. Power locks used to just have control wires and power running directly to other parts of the car where relays might turn them on and off.
The advantage of having a module is computer control. For example the following features are present on many new cars:
- lock the car when you start driving
- unlock in park
- windows up when rain is detected
- auto down and up windows (all the way).
- car can't go into drive when the door is open
- specific door warnings (though old cars had a general one)
Doing all this by running wires around to other devices is insane so there's a module the window switches, lock switches, door sensor, door locks, window motor, and etc all connect to which then receives control info from other modules
[3] A few performance cars and maybe some older models of mass produced cars still use hydraulic steering.
[4] Mostly due to "perceptions" of American quality, small cars becoming popular, and the horrific engines in American cars in the late 70s and 80s as American manf had little experience with small engines that people wanted because of the gas crisis. There's also an emissions issue. American quality has somewhat equalized after the late 90s IMO
[5] Modules do need to be programmed with the config for your particular car. Buying one for your model and in your country usually means it's fine. There are also programmers that aren't expensive and dealers will often do it for a fee.
[6] My experience with American cars was everything breaking besides the engine, then that going.
- Headliner would fall off and rub on your head
- The door that controlled recirculation of air would break because it's a cable connected to the knob on the hvac controls
- Plastic trim pieces came off or rattled
- Door locks would stop working or require two key turns or if I had a fob two button presses
- Rough idle and erratic idle
- AC definitely didn't work past 60k, probably R12 leaks
Rather have a cool new electronic feature break today than no AC
[8] Most popular style drive config is to have the engine in the front and front wheel drive. The diff is built into the transmission in this situation (called a transaxle) If your car is AWD or RWD with the engine in the rear you need to replace the differential fluid every so often. Larger SUVs are AWD, some sedans, many pickup trucks.
There are a few performance FWD cars that have a limited slip differential that requires a fluid change, super rare though (Elantra N, Golf GTI maybe R, Veloster?)
[9] Vacuum lines were how cool features pre 2000s worked in cars, like cruise control. Problem is the lines got cracked and a slow vacuum loss was difficult to diagnose and often caused unusual issues. I've been in so many older cars where cruise control just wasn't working.
> The point is you don't repair these modules you just replace them.
You replace them if you can find a replacement. It's a lot harder to make ICs for outdated cars than mechanical parts for old cars, which was probably the OP's point.
Let's say you want a trunk lid for a 1965 something. If you can't get a used part having that made is extremely difficult. You would need plans or precise measurements and a machine shop.
Control modules are just software and you could probably make a generic one that takes different flashes with a variable pin layout, think raspberry pi.
This is done today to an extent with power upgrades. Take a look at a jb4 for a bmw b58. It intercepts data signals for different components, like the turbo, and changes values. It's just basic software.
> Control modules are just software and you could probably make a generic one that takes different flashes with a variable pin layout, think raspberry pi.
That's not going to pass SMOG checks. It must be the factory control module, and it that's no longer in production, too bad.
For track cars it's fun to replace the electronics with customizable units, but you can't get away with that for a street car (in California at least).
Older cars aren't subject to smog protection and if the module is set to the OEM configuration it will. I only used a tuning module because it's an easy example
> Older cars aren't subject to smog protection and if the module is set to the OEM configuration it will.
Only cars prior to 1974 are not subject to smog check in California.
And part of the smog check is a visual inspection which will fail in the presence of any non-factory emission related equipment (such as engine control modules) even if their behavior is 100% identical to factory.
> What's more complicated about taking care of a car today? In fact it's easier as the number of maintenance items has gone down
Electronics is what makes todays cars very difficult to repair down the road.
You're right in that when they are new it's actually easier to repair. Just plug in the diagnostic computer, it tells you what's wrong, you replace the whole module and done.
This gets very expensive though. For example I had a BMW with a brake light problem. In any old car that's a $0.25 bulb change, or worse case $10 in wiring if you need to replace all the wiring to it. Easy to do by anyone at home. On the BMW? It was a $1500 brake light control module that had to be programmed with a factory computer that only factory technicians have access to so on top I had to pay labor.
The real problems come when the cars get older. Any voltage variations from aging cables makes the whole system (everything is interlinked, unlike old cars) become very unpredictable. A friend is a BMW factory mechanic and the horror stories are endless.
As I noted in a peer comment, I had to sell for scrap a ~60K (when new) BMW that was mechanically and cosmetically perfect but had so many electronics glitches that it was impossible to repair without spending tens of thousands of dollars. What a waste. Such a problem is never possible with older cars, since the electrical system is simple and easy to diagnose and repair.
All the things you list as complex (spark plug wires, vacuum tubes, distributors, etc) are mechanically and electrically extremely simple devices. That's what makes repairs so easy at home without access to esoteric parts that might be out of production or factory tools not available to consumers.
What if, after hearing about the heated seats subscription, Ford patented the self-repossession so that BMW could never implement such a terrible idea?
Future cars will be moved forward by electric engines. That's not even debatable.
The power, reliability and efficiency are in a whole different bracket than in ICEs.
What IS up for debate is how the power for those engines is stored in the car. Currently we're going with batteries or liquid combustion fuels (PHEV and serial hybrids).
Yes, there are very specific use-cases and industries where EVs don't work today, but the tech is developing insanely fast.
TBH, the maintainability probably isn't as bad as you've imagined. Short of full battery replacements, there isn't much on a Tesla 3 or Y that is significantly harder than other cars.
And the factory service manual is available for free. Aside from HV parts, most parts are directly orderable from the service center as well.
Battery replacements shouldn't be hard. A lot less work than an engine, for sure. I had the battery replaced in my Bolt a couple months ago and it was about 6 hours from when I dropped it off to when I picked it up. I think the actual job is like 3 hours or something.
Yes and no. The powertrain is big and expensive, but it's a fairly small fraction of the car's complexity. (And some parts of the cabin climate system are probably also high-voltage for power and packaging reasons, but that doesn't change the discussion here.)
But everything else, the instruments, the infotainment and telematics, the ADAS, the windows and wipers and headlights, seats and airbags and lock solenoids, the list goes on... That represents a lot of complexity and cost, a lot of moving parts, and it's all still 12-volt. Partly for legacy reasons, partly for safety. (There was a push 20 years ago to go 42 or 48 volts to make the wire thinner while still being LV/SELV safety, but legacy held it back.)
Plus all the undercar stuff, wheels and bearings and control arms and bushings, half-shafts and CV joints and boots and swaybars, wheels and tires and stuff, that just never changes, and since EVs tend to be heavier, they tend to be harder on all that stuff than their ICE counterparts.
So there's plenty of stuff you can service with good old mechanic skills and tools, and plenty of it needs servicing.
Actually, Tesla is moving to 48v on their new(er) systems. This is a good thing and I can't wait for the rest of the industry to follow them. 48v has been needed for years and I'm glad someone took the first shot at it.
Aside from the things already mentioned, its important to note that "HV parts" isn't always an intuitive category.
For example, the charge port isn't a HV part, since it isn't energized by the car and requires no special skills to replace it. This is useful, since its also one of the most likely parts to take physical damage.
A lot of the other wear items are suspension related and are pretty conventional parts.
And, of course, there's a vibrant aftermarket of used parts for Tesla in general, so even HV parts are not necessarily hard to come by.
I too would love a vehicle that is both energy efficient and not designed solely as a way to extract as much money from me as possible, but sadly the corporatists who run our world have decided that we can't have such things as it would mean some very rich people would get richer less fast, which is the one thing that's truly not allowed in any circumstances the world today.
Car companies know full well there's a huge market of people just like us that want exactly the vehicle you're describing, but it would make them less money than the subscriptions on wheels garbage they're forcing on us now, so get ready for a future where every car is over $100K and costs $10K a year in subscriptions.
Like I, Robot (2004) is supposed to be near-futuristic dystopian, and the one super memorable scene I think was - will smith is driving his car and then, well the Tesla Analog - US Robotics shuts him down and tries to kill him.
The government already has enough room planting bombs in cars and cutting brakes, I don't think I need a corporate overlord to have their thumbs in that.
Recent article (forgot the link, but I’m sure it’s on google) basically said BMW, VW, and many others are abandoning solid state batteries because of its negligible performance compared to LiFePo4 and regular NMC batteries that are easier to produce and are slowly improving their density and stability.
"Some"? Try "most". I've never seen anybody outside HN and environmental communities who think of EVs in the context of saving the environment. Indeed, everybody I know use their EVs in very environmentally-unfriendly ways such as using fast charging often.
There are some very promising alternative battery chemistries out there, graphene-aluminium being one of them. Sodium is another that is perhaps closer to commercialization (there's some chinese EV already that has them).
I bought a used 2013 Fiat 500e last year for $8k. It's perfect for my wife's commute (50mi roundtrip; comes home with 20% remaining charge). We plug it into household 120v overnight. It drives like a zippy little gocart.
It wouldn't be ideal for a one-car family, but as a commuter it's better and cheaper.
My own insecurities, but 20% remaining daily would definitely have me on a bit of an edge. Is it a smoothly linear battery consumption, or is it possible to drop from 16% to 4%, seemingly at random?
Using an overly simplistic 80% used for 50 files would imply .63 miles per battery percentage. Meaning she only has slack of 12.5 miles to empty the tank. Which is less concerning when you can rely on ubiquitous gas stations.
It's extremely linear, modulo speed. It is possible to project your arrival state of charge within 1-2% even for a destination two hours away across significant topography.
On flat land. Throw in hills and the number of projected range miles used by every real mile goes up very quickly.
I don't remember the specific numbers anymore, but we had two Fiat 500e cars and commuting over a mountain drained a lot of projected miles even though the climb was just a few miles.
And weather. My colleague has a Leaf, his range is cut by a 30-40% in winter, and he is saving on the heating too to save range, so it is double uncomfortable.
The Leaf is somewhat famous for having poor battery management; it's one reason we avoided them. I don't think a used Leaf could handle a 50mi roundtrip commute, especially with a 10yo battery.
The Fiat does have a range penalty for cold weather (it occasionally gets below freezing in the part of California I live in) and running the heater (one way; usually it's warm enough by the trip home). My wife still gets home with > 10%.
Keep in mind this is a 10yo car with an 80mi range; newer cars have bigger batteries.
> Commutes are extremely predictable, it's the same every day.
Tell that to my colleague, who due to an accident near a major junction, took over an hour to travel a key couple of miles on his commute home from work yesterday.
Some journeys are "predictably unpredictable" during rush hour.
Well, the good news about an EV is that if you're creeping along at barely any speed, the consumption is going to be way lower than a comparable gas car. Basically all you're using is AC/heat. A gas car comparably is much less efficient while idling.
I went back to look for my notes on this and this is what I experienced: The Fiat would use up about 30-40 miles of indicated range to go uphill less than 10 miles. But it would only regenerate 2-3 miles (of indicated range) on the downhill side.
EV batteries are very reliable at showing state of charge. Even if it says it has 1%, you can rely on having that whole 1% left.
In a cellphone you have just one cell, and the phone turned on can be pulling near its maximum power draw, so it's unstable and unpredictable.
In a BEV you have thousands of cells, so differences between individual cells average out, and you don't draw peak power unless you're racing (and the car is smart enough to not let you smoke tires at 1% battery).
You never let your ICE car get below a quarter tank? This is even easier to deal with than the ICE scenario where you find yourself low and still have to get yourself to the gas station. OP finds themselves low as they pull into their driveway/filling station.
A quarter tank of fuel leaves me with >80 miles of range remaining. That enables nearly any impromptu trip I am likely to engage, along with the ability to refill basically anywhere. Rolling the dice with ~13 miles available on a daily basis would make me uneasy. What if there is an accident that re-routes traffic? Some kind of hazard that has me stuck for hours? What if I want to go to the mall after work?
I want EVs to work, and my next car is quite likely to be one, but limited locations for quick re-fueling are a real concern of mine.
2) From a time when batteries were much worse than today
3) With low original range
4) Not including the extra 10-20 miles or so that most car makers add to the "0" point, similar to how a gas tank isn't quite empty when the display says it is.
I'm guessing OP bought it for relatively cheap and is saving $20-$30 a day running it like that. That's worth the taxi / tow / calling your spouse, when you get stuck twice a year.
> you can stop at a charger and top-up. It's a small battery, it doesn't take long
the problem is scaling.
gas takes on average less than a minute per car to top up the tank (gas pump emits ~0.5 liters per second, my car tank capacity is less than 30 liters), if a battery charge requires say 15 minutes (I actually don't know the real number, but I have a feeling that it's usually more than that) that's 15 times longer waiting times and 15 times less capacity per station.
We don't use the Fiat for road trips, but we often caravan with friends with Teslas. Every couple hours they stop at a supercharger station for 15 minutes. It's really not that bad; we stop as often just to keep our kiddo sane. The stations usually have interesting services next door.
Supercharger stations usually have dozens of spots; gas stations typically have maybe ten? An EV station just needs one parking spot per car, so they are much more space efficient than gas stations. The only real constraint is electrical infrastructure.
BTW it averages much more than 1m per car for fueling. Person gets out of the car, fishes around in their purse for the credit card, fiddles with the cryptic instructions on the pump, walks into store to piss and buy junk food... if you've had to wait at a busy station, you'd be acutely aware of just how long fueling actually takes. Humans are slow.
Most people in cities will be charging at home though, the big supercharging stations will be along the highways where people are driving for hours. And with how simple car chargers are, they can just be a part of supermarket parking lots, etc.
> Most people in cities will be charging at home though
That's exactly where the US and the rest of the World diverge.
In most of the rest of the World people in cities are precisely those who would not be charging at home, because it would be impossible.
Besides, my car is parked 5 minutes walking away from where my house is.
And I've been extremely lucky to find a parking spot so close.
If what you meant is that the cars will be charging at night while they are parked on the streets, think again.
On street chargers here won't be a common thing for the next 20 years, at least.
Not to say that it's impossible, but it's hardly a worthy switch, from the POV of users.
A much better solution would be drastically reducing the dependency from cars, instead of electrifying them and marketing them as the next cool thing, so that a lot more cars will be clogging and occupying a lot of parking space on our perfectly cyclable and perfectly walkable pavements and roads.
Once EVs are more common, it will make more sense for parking lot operators to offer charging services for more income.
You say that it will take over 20 years to roll out on-street charging, but somehow reducing the dependency on cars can be done quicker or easier?
I live in Japan, which is often touted as a very public transit-friendly society, but I have 2 kids and could not live without a car. Especially in the summer with 36C+ temperatures, or during typhoon season. Believing that we can have a future with zero cars seems very unrealistic.
Yep. I had range anxiety far, far more often with my old petrol car than I have with my new electric.
I've set my charge threshold to 70% now - so that's what I start with every single day -representing about 400km.
I'd have over 400km of range only with a relatively freshly filled car before. And from there it's easy enough to put off refiling until you absolutely HAVE to have more fuel.
The key point is "we plug it into household overnight". So basically impossible for anyone living in the apartments (most of the Europe at minimum). At least in the next decade, looking at electrification rates.
No. I own a car and I live in the apartment. Car is parked on the underground parking or can be parked around the building on the street spots. None of those are wired for charging and it would be incredibly expensive to do it now (I've also seen several new building in process of being build, just this winter, and there were no charging stations in the parkings too).
So my closest charging option is a station 25 minutes away from me (on bus). And that station has 10 posts, while in the surrounding area live maybe 50000 people, or so. Not very time friendly. Also because of the charging time it means that there is even no point to leave car at the station and take a bus home, because by the time I will get there I would need to go back immediately (25+25 minutes=50 min, and charging is about an hour or two).
Also price. People charging at home use a cheap electricity, while station charges really high prices. In the EU city I'm right now, the difference is x4.5 times. So while me and a rich guy in a private house are paying the same price for the petrol now, tomorrow when we both have EVs I will be literally subsidizing him indirectly, by forced to use much more expensive public charging.
I really want to own EV since early Tesla years, and often check news about the progress in this industry, but really don't see how can I do it.
The Chevy Bolt is pretty cheap, especially with a rebate.
There are a lot of people who just can't afford a new car. That's a legitimate concern. EVs are gradually working their way into the used market.
EV conversion is another option that's currently only for moderately well-off people with a lot of free time, but with the right kits it could be a more routine thing.
> The average transaction price (ATP) of a new vehicle in the U.S. hit a record high in December at $49,507, an increase of 1.9% ($927) from November and up 4.9% ($2,297) from year-earlier levels. New-vehicle inventory levels are increasing from historic lows earlier in 2022, but prices remain elevated, according to data released today by Kelley Blue Book, a Cox Automotive company.
> How much is a new Mitsubishi Mirage (for instance) where you are?
Looking at a random local Mitsubishi dealer's website, it looks like a 2023 Mirage is around 19-20k. Which is cheaper than a Bolt, but if you qualify for the full federal rebate or have big state rebates it'd come out about the same price.
They do have a 2017 Mirage listed for $9,900, which is a lot less than the Bolt. The site doesn't say it's used.
> I'm talking about people who can afford a new ICE vehicle, but won't/can't pay the extra to get an EV.
To anyone who believes this: I strongly urge you to start tracking all your vehicle expenses. I've been doing this for over 15 years, and when I compare my reality with estimates/calculators online, the latter significantly overestimates the cost of repairs/maintenance.
As a concrete example, the last time I used the official government calculator to compare ICE vs a comparable sized EV (e.g. size of Honda Accord), it gave the breakeven point at 7 years, with the following assumptions:
1. Gas at $7/gal (you pick the price and the chart adjusts accordingly - if I picked a more reasonable price the breakeven point was way far out).
2. It estimated repairs/maintenance for ICE at over $2000/year starting from year 1.
Bullet 2 above is ridiculous. I have all my car related transactions. In over 20 years of owning cars, I never came close to $2000/year. Note that:
1. I buy old cars (typically 8 years old when I buy them) - so they need more repairs than the one that's 1-3 years old.
2. I'm not a car person. I do whatever my mechanic recommends. I follow the maintenance schedule in the manual. I'm not cheaping out on repairs.
Similarly, the Edmunds TCO calculator also spits out some insanely high repair numbers.
When you track the expenses like I do, it becomes hard to believe that the up front extra cost for an EV will ever be compensated by gasoline and repair costs.
EVs are, frankly, really expensive right now.
(I will note that when I buy cars, I do thorough research on "reliability", with the aim of minimizing repairs).
My 2012 leaf has never been in a shop other than a tire shop. I haven't even had to change brake pads.
My 2004 Volvo and 2003 ranger were constantly throwing errors I spent thousands chasing, some of which required replacing the same part twice. Oh and don't forget about oil changes.
Now the Leaf MSRP in 2012 was $36K. The equivalent sized Yaris was $17K. Currently, the used 2012 Yaris is worth $1600 more than a used 2012 Leaf (assuming 110K miles). When you factor in tax benefits, the extra repairs the Yaris would need, and adjust the cost for fuel, it's not obvious that the Leaf was a better buy. Also, the real maintenance/repair costs would be significantly lower than what I quoted above, because those repairs were due to buying fairly old cars.
(And then factor in how much I actually spent on purchasing cars in that time period because I bought used: $12500 and the Leaf looks even less appealing).
Of course, the Yaris is way better if going out of town.
Anecdata, but everyone I know who bought a Leaf till about 2016 said it was not usable as a primary car - too short a range in cold weather. One person said "I can't commute to work and back, and do errands, without recharging."
As for Volvo/Ranger: Do you not take some responsibility for those purchasing decisions? When I was buying my first car, I was told to stay away from BMW, Mercedes, and Volvo. I was a student and was told I'd never be able to afford even minor repairs. In fact, a friend who was an engineer in Austin at the time bought a used Mercedes, and soon after the AC stopped working. He never got it fixed - he would use it only in the winter while he drove his Corolla the rest of the year.
Regarding the Ranger: I'm looking at reliability scores and they're poor, even for brand new ones.
> Also, if you haven't changed brake pads, I wonder how many miles you've driven it. Was this your primary car?
I don't know about Leafs specifically, but brake pads usually last a long time in EVs due to regenerative braking. You might not use brakes at all if you can avoid doing any hard stops.
Individual experiences will vary. I would say that your strategy is generally optimal, all thought harder to execute right now as the market is bonkers.
Buying 8 year old cars is a lower cost strategy ss your filtering out the lemons. You can’t buy the shitty BMW 3 series as it’s been converted to a Coke can by that time. :) Even then you’re lucky as stuff starts breaking due to age and mileage.
I drove a 2003 Pilot until 2019 and it hit a bunch of repairs at 125k and then at 250k major repairs came up just due to age and frame rust. I still miss that car!
> Even then you’re lucky as stuff starts breaking due to age and mileage.
Things definitely do break, hence the repairs I've done. I don't think I got lucky 3 times in a row - I researched and bought known reliable vehicles, and always paid a mechanic to go over the car before I bought it.
I've posted actual repair numbers since 2012 in this comment:
I think more relevant is that many of the middle class do pay significant taxes, they just don't have enough federal tax liability to be able to claim the whole credit.
It's a shame the credit isn't refundable. It's weird that you can be too poor to get the whole subsidy.
Which end of the segment? Cells don't degrade uniformly, so refurbishing the existing battery is gonna be a couple hundred bucks to tear the car down and expose the battery, and then identity the bad cell and pop in a new one. At the other end of the segment, a battery for a Tesla that has more range than when it was new is gonna run you more than a couple grand. Depending on the heat it was exposed to, and number of cycles and really the age of the vehicle, it change when you'll have to replace the battery. It's worth pointing out that batteries do need to get replaced at some point, but also who knows if the used ICE car you're buying is gonna have problems passing smog, or if the cooling system's gonna crap out on you 3 miles after you drive it off the used car lot.
> Cells don't degrade uniformly, so refurbishing the existing battery is gonna be a couple hundred bucks to tear the car down and expose the battery, and then identity the bad cell and pop in a new one
This sounds great, for which EVs is this available?
"For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents [..] Battery packs can cost tens of thousands of dollars and represent up to 50% of an EV's price tag, often making it uneconomical to replace them.
While some automakers like Ford Motor Co (F.N) and General Motors Co (GM.N) said they have made battery packs easier to repair, Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) has taken the opposite tack with its Texas-built Model Y, whose new structural battery pack has been described by experts as having 'zero repairability.'"[0]
The cost to replace a Model Y battery is around $13K (no where near 50% of the cost of the vehicle). More than that, the battery will probably outlast the lifetime of the vehicle, with a design lifespan of approximately 500K miles.
Yes, eventually when the battery dies it won't be repaired as such - instead it is designed to be nearly 100% recyclable.
Similar to many Apple or Xbox repairs, they swap it for one they've previously refurbed and tested, then add yours to the pile to be refurbed for another customer rather than make you wait for your specific battery to go through the process.
Here's where right to repair is exceedingly important. Obviously if it were up to Tesla, you'd only be allowed to go to them for repairs, at their full markup. But here's the secret - they have a huge markup, but no monopoly on electrical engineering. Like the video shows, 3rd party repair shops can repair these things. It's not rocket science - you're thinking of a Elon Musk's other company, SpaceX.
But $5,000, down from $22,500, is still more than "a couple hundred bucks to hundred bucks to tear the car down and expose the battery, and then identity the bad cell and pop in a new one". Now, in my haste, I wrote "cell" when I mean "module", sorry about that. The car for which I'm referring to that job is at the bottom of the segment - a first generation Nissan Leaf. They first came out in 2010 and here's a 12 year old used one for $6k (https://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/ctd/d/redondo-beach-20...). It's almost guaranteed to have at least one bad module if you're buying something that particular car (they didn't have battery cooling systems that generation) and that old (simply due to the number of charge cycles).
The procedure for finding the and replacing the bad module is documented at:
If you take your Nissan Leaf to a shop that specializes in them, they'll likely have modules for cheap off salvaged cars, but we don't have access to those prices here. So let's say a refurbished battery module is anywhere from $60-250 and then kick $200 in labor to your cousin who's good with cars to watch those two videos and replace the bad module for you unless you're that cousin, then spend $250 on a battery module and buy yourself a nice voltmeter.
Official battery replacement jobs on a Nissan Leaf are going to run you much more (multiple thousands) but if you have a Nissan Leaf, or any electric car really, you should be aware that that's a total ripoff. Everyone knows you don't go to the dealer for repairs on an ICE unless you want to get ripped off, and the same is true for EVs.
If you actually follow what happened to Hoovie, that $5k job didn't work. He used that vehicle on one of their 'Car Trek' series and it had BMS errors and basically threw a fit because the batteries were unbalanced. Tesla is right to want the entire pack to be replaced, because having cells with two very different aging characteristics is bad for the battery overall.
Obviously there's some batteries that are tolerant of this (Prius' commonly have this repair on their NiMH batteries), but it's not universal.
Worth noting that just replacing cells on an old battery pack is kind of iffy. If the new cell has a different capacity and/or internal resistance than the old cells, it might not balance properly. Probably not an issue if it's within the range of what the BMS can deal with, but there is some risk that swapping cells might cause problems.
Having said that, I don't have first-hand experience refurbishing EV battery packs. Someone who does this kind of repair regularly might have a better idea of what you can or can't get away with.
Batteries last anywhere from 1000 to 2000 charge cycles, which for most EVs is 200,000 to 600,000 miles. And at the end of that you might expect the battery to hold 70-80 of its original charge, so even then it's not necessarily a write-off.
The engine on my car is 20 years old, and still pretty fine. Will an EV battery last as long (say 160K miles)?
Not trying to be adversarial - genuinely curious. I only buy old cars (median is 8 years old), and I keep them for a while (5-10 years), and I often wonder whether EV cars that old would be a decent buy or not.
We don't really know for current EVs how calendar aging will affect them, but we can look at older EVs with now-obsolete batteries. Some of them are fine, some of them aren't. Chevy famously did a recall on their Bolt battery packs, and a lot of Nissan Leaves had their batteries go bad. The problem with the Nissan Leaf is they only had passive cooling on the battery. So, lesson learned. Basically everyone does active cooling now.
In theory, lithium iron phosphate batteries should last a very long time. That's what I'd go for if you want the best longevity, but they also have a lower energy density and can be damaged if you charge them in below-freezing temperatures. (Presumably all the cars with LFP have smart charging systems that disable regen and refuse to charge when the battery is too cold, and hopefully most of them have battery heaters.)
With batteries there's this weird dynamic that if it last for a reasonably long time, by the time you need a replacement the new batteries /should/ be much cheaper and more energy dense. Unfortunately, there aren't really any companies making 3rd party aftermarket batteries for old cars. Maybe that will change, and maybe the industry will standardize on some generic battery module design. For now, the replacement battery options seem to be a) buy a replacement from the OEM, b) find a replacement from a low-mileage junkyard vehicle or c) reverse engineer the BMS and install an equivalent custom battery constructed from new or used cells/modules, possibly using some kind of custom-fabricated battery box. It'd be great if you could just walk in to any auto parts store and buy a replacement battery pack, but we're not there yet.
As I posted above, batteries typically last 1,000 to 2,000 cycles, which gives most EVs between 200,000 and 600,000 miles of battery life -- and at the end (barring going out with some sort of fault) you can still manage 70-80% of the original charge.
The prices have changed a lot since November 2022; Tesla became eligible for the $7,500 Federal tax credit again, and they dropped their prices significantly to qualify. Right now a base Model 3 is around $36k after tax credit.
Right, meaning there are a lot of car buyers who pay less than that. In many cases a lot less. I'm one of them(!)
The last time I bought a new car I paid $11k, although that was around five years ago. Since then, over many tens of thousands of miles, that vehicle has transported our family from A to B and back again.
I'd love to own an EV, but I can't afford to pay a significant premium for one.
If you don't need the extended range of a brand new battery, I think you'll be able to pick up a used one for cheap soon enough.
My parents bought a Tesla a few months ago because their Leaf's battery life fell below the point where they could get to work and back reliably on a single charge and they spent months waiting for a battery replacement (they're still waiting). If their supply problems continue, people are going to start dumping more and more used electrical cars and going back to gas or to companies that can actually keep up battery supply like Tesla.
Used Teslas are already on the market. Theres a used 2012 and 2014 the next city over from me for $25k and $34k, respectively. Doesn't seem too bad for a car that was over $100k when it was new.
That still sounds steep to me. 10 years old beta technology in a category where technology has been progressing very fast so that new (<<$100k) models are far superior vehicles, not to mention the "beware the third owner hellkat" issue.
Yeah but then have the issue known as "driving a Prius". Might not be a problem if you're in California. Hell that'll get you positive "saving the Earth" smug points. Elsewhere that might be an issue to be avoided at all costs though.
Prius is the most popular car for Uber, I don't think its virtue signaling (quite the opposite, if you happen to drive a Prius, people will just assume you are doing Uber on the side), just these people are trying to make money and a Prius is a good way to make Ubering cost effective.
I'd actually be quite happy to drive a Prius, I was just being hyperbolic. Some people would be afraid of being judged for driving for Uber and would reject a Prius just for that specific reason. But we can't control how everybody feels. Mainly it's just that lets not pretend that an old luxury car, BMW or Mercedes or otherwise, and a new Prius are in the same market segment. They may cost a similar dollar amount, but they're bought by different buyers.
A Prius perhaps wasn't the most relevant comparison. I might have been letting my disdain for for fancy cars influence my argument. Maybe one of those silly sporty looking Camrys would be more appropriate haha.
That said, I wouldn't trade my Prius for a Tesla (well I would, but I'd then trade it for a new Prius). Whatever image they present, they're good cars.
Don't get me wrong, Priuses are good cars, just that they have a stereotype associated with them these days given how successful they are in the ride share and taxi markets. I hope Toyota makes a good economy EV soon, but they've been obsessed with hydrogen for too long.
The biggest risk with those is the battery pack. If they haven't had a pack replacement under warranty since ~2016, they will have a much higher than average failure rate.
Third party repair is ~5-20k + shipment costs. Tesla is ~15-20k.
> If you don't need the extended range of a brand new battery [..]
My OH drove the best part of 200 miles, round trip, on the spur of the moment to pick me up at an airport late in the evening after my flight was badly delayed, she got to the airport just as I came through baggage reclaim so was at the airport less than 10 mins. That was just last week. By sheer coincidence I drove to pick her up at the same airport the week before, although at least I knew that journey was coming ahead of time.
What do used EV owners with smaller and/or degraded batteries say to each other in that scenario? "Sorry, I can't come and pick you up, the car's not charged?"
A car that can't manage to drive to a local airport and back in one go is exhibiting a fairly critical flaw, at least for people like us.
>My OH drove the best part of 200 miles, round trip, on the spur of the moment to pick me up at an airport late in the evening after my flight was badly delayed[ ...]
> A car that can't manage to drive to a local airport and back in one go is exhibiting a fairly critical flaw, at least for people like us.
Isn't this a standard trade-off? I have a sedan rather than a SUV or a pickup, and last year when I wanted to move some large items I couldn't. That's fine, because the other 99.5% of days I don't need that much capacity. Unless you frequently need to go on 200 mile trips on a whim, it's not as big of a dealbreaker than you think.
You can go to a supercharger after the first leg and spend 10-15 minutes there. It's really not the issue you'd think it is reading all the concern from people online. And Tesla batteries degrade much slower than you'd think based on experience with consumer electronics.
> It's really not the issue you'd think it is [..]
I appreciate that there are a lot of happy Tesla owners, indeed there are two in the office I'm working in this week, their Model 3s are parked outside. I had a ride in one recently, it was fun. Not something I'd buy, though.
Is it possible that EVs still aren't the good fit you think they are for a substantial proportion of price-sensitive consumers?
Also, the political landscape around EVs may still be evolving. This month the EU's policy to ban the sale of new combustion engine cars in the bloc by 2035 was substantially weakened after pressure from Germany[0], and the UK's policy is as a result - shall we say - "wobbling"?[1]
> Is it possible that EVs still aren't the good fit you think they are for a substantial proportion of price-sensitive consumers?
The reality is flipped around. The vast majority of consumers, even price sensitive ones, would be better served by an EV. The edge cases trotted out in conversations like this are the exception, not the norm.
New bolt is what, 20k after incentive? I would assume in 5 years those will be cheaper used. No one is selling 11k gas cars worth a damn last I checked, either, there just isn't a huge supply of used electrics at the moment.
Not that I'm telling you to buy an EV, but EV's are like 6% of (new)sales this year iirc, I expect next year is 7-8%, then 9-11%? After 10% of sales and all the growth is in EVs I expect the market to change quickly, like gas car sales to just fall off a cliff as legacy automakers really start to scramble. Well, at least in the US, seems China has a much higher EV share.
Anyways, yeah, probably somewhere in the 4-7 year range from now, there will be some good options in cheaper, used EVs for people, and probably more than just the Bolt that has decent range at low end new pricing.
Until their a substantial used inventory and more deliveries, sure, EVs are not attractive to the people you refer to. At least in the US.
There are cheap EVs. The Bolt costs $26,500, and that doesn't seem to include a rebate. The Leaf is $28k before tax credits. Yes, they are nowhere near $11k, but I'm not sure you can buy much of a car at below $20k these days.
Most people looking at EVs though are more interested in the average rather than below average prices, so the EV market tends to gravitate to the $40k-$60k price range to chase that demand.
Tesla's Investor Day was mostly about the ways they're working on reducing costs. They won't get to $11K anytime soon, but they might manage $25K, and that's still in the low end of the market for ICE cars these days.
They could probably get there if they wanted to, but the profitability for them wouldn't make it interesting enough, and the low end, where it really sells (i.e. outside of the USA), is crowded by Chinese car companies.
In one of Sandy Munro's videos, he said he thinks Tesla can manage costs of $19K. The size of the market increases dramatically as you go down the price curve, which makes a $6K profit per car plenty interesting.
That certainly seems to be what Tesla thinks at least, unless they were completely lying to investors about the volume they hoped to achieve.
Why invest 200 million USD to make 1 billion when you can invest the same to make 10 billion? The problem is that expanding isn’t free, you take the most probable business first. The low end is growing rapidly, but the players already there will ensure that Tesla doesn’t make $1k of profit per vehicle. They can’t compete with a Wuling Mini EV for $4k, or whatever BYD has up to the model 3 price point.
I don't see many Wulings for sale in the US, and Tesla is selling plenty of Model 3 in China.
Tesla did take the most profitable business first. Now they're expanding to the mass market. You might disagree that it's the best strategy, but it's the one they're following; if you don't believe me, just watch Investor Day.
I've never bought a brand new car (EV or otherwise), and probably never will. The value proposition just isn't there when cars lose double digit percentages of their value the second they're driven off the lot, and drop down to like half their initial cost or more after only a few years.
The depreciation curve is steeper in some manufacturers than others. It's overstating the case to say, e.g., that Toyotas lose half their value in only a few years. I also have only ever bought used vehicles but my most recent Subaru was ~6 years old and still more than 50% of MSRP of the current, newer model year.
I like driving, and my next car will most likely be an EV, not because it's "better' (whatever that means), but because the Australian Taxation Office has modified the treatment of EVs to make buying anything else financially stupid (if you buy your car through a business entity).
Personally I'd rather have a PHEV with ~50km EV-only range at freeway speeds, which would mean using EV-only for ~90% of my driving, while being able to use petrol for towing & longer trips, but (a) there are none available yet with a sensible price / performance mix (in Australia at least), and (b) the ATO has already indicated they will not continue to treat PHEVs favourably in the long-term.
I'm also Australian and have ordered an EV a few months ago because of the FBT incentives. You're right that there's an extremely limited selection of vehicles in Australia. Hopefully that changes with the new favourable tax regime.
Can you elaborate on (b)? I hadn't read anything that indicated PHEVs are out of favour, but I haven't paid attention since the initial flurry of news.
"Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles - 1 April 2025 onwards
From 1 April 2025, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle will not be considered a zero or low emissions vehicle under FBT law."
However, I mis-remembered it - if you buy a PHEV by 1 April 2025 it will remain FBT-free.
> "laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been."
These laws serve to create certainty around boardroom tables, which helps speed up investment decisions. For an automotive industry executive, it's easier to commit billions to convert your factories to producing EVs when you're not bothered by nagging "but what if there is still demand for combustion vehicles in the 2030s?" questions.
The executives get 90%+ of their compensation before 2035. So they care very little about the health of the company in 2035. What this means in practice is that companies like GM will say "We are going electric very soon" but not actually accomplish much. Here is an article from 2012. You can find very similar ones every 2 years since then. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-gm-evs/gm-aims-to-build-5...
That’s not how careers work. You don’t get promoted by saying “I’ll do something very soon about that” and doing nothing. You get promoted by having something interesting to show to your bosses who can then look good to their bosses. With a clear objective set preparing to meet it is a clear way of getting promoted. The issue will be more that people prefer getting promoted by doing a bunch of stuff that looks like it’ll get you over the line, but often isn’t. I’m sure we will make a lot of progress by 2035, but it won’t be anywhere near “done”
The laws aren't just a single cliff-edge, but set targets to be achieved along the way. For example, Europe demands zero emissions by 2035, but also requires each automaker to reduce emissions by 55% between 2021 and 2030. In practice, that means the majority of vehicles sold will need to be electric by 2030. That means every car company needs to be taking action now to avoid facing billions in fines in coming years.
Right, exactly the reason why governments around the world first try to subsidize EVs through various schemes (tax rebates, discounts, etc), and then it doesn’t work - threaten to stop non-EV sales in 10 years. All of that because the EVs are a better product that consumers are screaming for. Right.
This is normal to increase supply. They're expensive partly because they're produced in smaller volumes. Economies of scale haven't made them cheap yet, so subsidies are needed to break this chicken-egg problem.
Rebates also help overcome the higher upfront cost. The total cost of ownership of EVs can be lower than an ICE car due to cheaper energy and low maintenance, but the upfront cost is a barrier.
And then there's the fact that a lot of people don't know how good EVs are, so they base their purchasing decisions on myths and assumptions, and need a push to even try them.
This is not a good argument. EVs are expensive. But having electric vehicles clearly has an advantage. And it may be in the government’s interest to drive adoption.
However I disagree with the GP’s statement that people are not buying them as a solution to climate change. People definitely believe they are part of the solution. I’ve heard of people installing induction stoves to remove their reliance on gas.
>This is not a good argument. EVs are expensive. But having electric vehicles clearly has an advantage. And it may be in the government’s interest to drive adoption.
That's OK (ignoring all the other environmental costs of EVs and the continued car use, as opposed to public transit).
But it doens't fit with the "they buy them because they're better/fancier/cooler" narrative. As another person writes below: "I like driving, and my next car will most likely be an EV, not because it's "better' (whatever that means), but because the Australian Taxation Office has modified the treatment of EVs to make buying anything else financially stupid."
> That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.
Aesthetics are one thing, although I find Teslas to be quite boring and even outdated, but the claim regarding Tesla's functionality is heavily debatable. Tesla is basically rediscovering why cars are the way they are and also struggling with quality.
The problem is that the media's endless obsession with Tesla means that criticism of their products become mainstream news, whereas criticisms of the average Toyota or Ford are never more than bullet points in car reviews. A few key points which contradict the assertion of Tesla "struggling with quality":
• Tesla products consistently get high satisfaction ratings by their customers. [0] (Perhaps panel gap consistency isn't as high on the list of customer importance as car reviewers think it is?)
• Tesla products have been consistently rated as among the safest cars on the road with respect to crash-worthiness. Most notably the recent assessment of the Model Y by Euro NCAP. [1] Maybe the panel gaps aren't perfect, but the chassis under the skin seems to have been well engineered.
• Toyota, the supposed world leaders in car manufacturing, recently admitted — in public no less — that the Model Y is "truly a work of art". [2]
Tesla ranks amongst the lowest in reliability in Consumer Reports. Tesla has also intentionally underreported warranty fixes by not labeling them as such. Tesla has a poor reputation for fit and finish.
Consumer satisfaction is going to be heavily skewed and untrustworthy in a case like Tesla where one is buying a premium vehicle with a lot of hype and fraudulent marketing. I wouldn't associate it with quality. Personally, I have sat in several Teslas. They all feel cheaper than my Kia.
Safety is also loosely correlated with what is meant by quality. And another manufacturer's, particularly one going through a lot of drama and turmoil regarding EVs, anonymous sentiment is irrelevant.
So what you're saying that subjective notions of "feel" are important to the idea of product quality, but whether the product is actually well engineered is just "loosely correlated"? Wow. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to emphasise that which favours your opinion and disregard that which runs counter to it.
EVs are quieter due to lack of engine noise. This is especially noticeable when paused at intersections. EVs don't "idle." There's also no engine shake, something which never bothered me in ICE cars until I started going back and forth between an EV and an ICE car. (Most) EVs have a single gear, which means you always have power when you want it, like when you want to overtake someone heading up a hill. You don't have to wait for your car to find a lower gear when you mash the accelerator. EVs don't have exhaust. Mostly not an issue for the driver but still nice. If you have a home charger, EVs start every day with a full "tank." EVs are typically have cheaper maintenance and fuel costs, which, in some cases, offsets the higher upfront cost. There are downsides too, of course, the biggest being charging times (if no home charger or road trips), range (if you travel a lot) and upfront cost, but if you can sort those, they are huge improvement. I'll never own an ICE car again.
> Do American power points not charge an EV? It’s come up repeatedly on this thread that you need a home charger.
Standard outlets (like what you plug your phone/computer charger into) in the US are 120V and 5-20A.
US homes sometimes also have outlets that are 240V/20-40A traditionally used for electric clothes dryers, and those are what home Level 2 EVSEs (not technically chargers) are usually plugged into, or sometimes a dedicated 240V/40A RV plug is installed for EV charging.
That said, if you don't need to charge fast, or don't drive more than 30 miles a day, a 120V outlet can more than suffice for daily charging needs.
100% to the GP on the smoothness/silence, and also regen braking as you said. I just love the torque; you can accelerate hard, an ICEV would be broadcasting the same level of acceleration with at least a 1km radius of noise yet here we are in complete silence.
Please add remote/scheduled control of AC/heater, remote unlock to the list. These are seriously awesome.
On my 244v, the Tesla mobile charger that came with my 3 is plenty good enough. I try to charge from the PV, so an 8A cap from that isn't terrible.
I'm not a one-pedal driver, but I do love regenerative braking.
danans is right about charging at 120v. It's doable for some, depending on their needs (at a charging speed of 3-5 mph). But I live in a townhouse, and my parking spot is far enough from my electrical panel that I'd have to run a cord past my neighbor's unit. I had to have a trench dug and conduit laid to bring power out to my spot, and at that point it just makes sense to go for a charger with 240v (which charges at 30-50 mph).
Many hybrids are also quiet and fixed gear ratio. I won’t switch back to gasoline-only cars for many of the same reasons of comfort. I’d love an EV but I still have to drive long distances regularly, and hybrid range is often even better than most gasoline cars.
The Prius architecture is always terribly described, but it's effectively a differential. Always in mesh, no gears to shift. The speed of the wheels is varied relative to the speed of the ICE by shifting power between generators and motors.
So, to the driver it feels like a CVT with very fast ratio adaptation, but mechanically there's no ratio being varied. It's all fixed gearing, and the variation is done with motor RPMs and torque.
Most all hybrids that operate in series mode, or primarily in series mode.
The Chevy Volt and all current Honda hybrids work this way. The main motor spins the wheels directly at a fixed ratio. The engine primarily operates as a generator. Then they do have a lock up clutch to connect the engine to the wheels when their speeds align at cruise and there is an efficiency gain to be had from eliminating conversion losses. https://youtu.be/QLUIExAnNcE
Also, technically most Toyota hybrids are also fixed ratio, most of them use planetary gears with two electric motors to simulate gear ratios with respect to the engine. It is somewhat confusingly called an eCVT, although the variable part isn’t the gearing, it’s the speed of the motors connected to the gearing. What changes is the relative speeds of MG1/MG2. It’s like a differential in a car, but backwards.
Parallel hybrids are the ones that drive like regular cars. Like Honda IMA, Hyundai’s hybrids, anything labelled “mild” hybrid —- those all have old school transmissions.
I used to love driving my wife's sporty little Carolla. Felt kind of like a go-kart compared to my Tacoma. Now I have a Chevy Bolt and I'm so spoiled by the quiet, the lack of engine shake, very smooth acceleration curve, rarely moving my foot onto the break. It handles better, it accelerates faster, it feels better in normal traffic conditions, and it feels MUCH better in heavy traffic because I have so much more control. I like it better in pretty much every way.
>like when you want to overtake someone heading up a hill. You don't have to wait for your car to find a lower gear when you mash the accelerator.
I believe whilst this has shifted over the years manual shifting is still more common than automatic.
>EVs are typically have cheaper maintenance and fuel costs
Depends on where you live. Much of Europe has seen a spike in electricity prices. Bit more bearable when you have solar panels but those don't help in the evenings/night when most of the charging happens.
I recently bought an electric car and it is an enjoyable experience. It makes no noise, there is loads of space everywhere. I don't visit gas stations anymore, I have less stress in traffic situations; the car handles all the workload of heavy traffic. I rarely use the brakes and mostly drive using one pedal. It is by far the most comfortable car I have ever driven.
The cheery on top is its performance. It feels awesome to have a supercar available at a moments notice if you want too, although it gets normal and boring very fast. Also, it is scary to have loads of torque and you have to respect that.
Overall, electric cars offer a very good bang for the buck.
In the end, mechanically, the cars are very simple and you feel that simplicity. They feel polished and well engineered
I get a Renault Zoë occasionally through our car sharing. It's my favourite of the cars available for all but very long trips. But I agree that you have to respect the torque, even in a minor car like the Zoë. I find myself sometimes accelerating dangerously just because it's so much fun!
Try it in very slow and in particular stop-and-go traffic. The acceleration curve is very smooth and predictable and makes these conditions a lot less stressful.
If you have a garage, by far the biggest benefit is charging overnight, starting the day with a full charge, and never having to go to a gas station. If you don't have convenient home charging, I'm not sure I'd recommend an EV just yet.
We got ours in December, and the most unexpected benefit for me is sitting at stop lights, in traffic, or in a drive through. When the car is stopped, it's essentially off. No engine idling vibrations, no noise, no emissions. It's kind of peaceful. I hadn't really realized how much idling in a gas car bothered me before.
I in general don't like driving, and I don't understand how anyone who's ever owned an EV could ever want to go back to an ICE vehicle:
1. As others have pointed out, the maintenance is much less. Not to mention, of course, the electricity costs much less than equivalent gas.
2. The cars are just so much cleaner for an individual. No gas smell, no oil changes, etc.
3. They are much quieter.
4. Even if you drive a lot more slowly, the smooth acceleration is much more pleasurable. Plus, the quick acceleration does come in handy when you want to get out of uncomfortable situations.
I compared costs to drive a Tesla model y for 1000 miles and a Toyota Camry hybrid for 1000 miles when buying a car recently.
With my electrical costs in SF Bay Area, that cost was $94 per 1000 miles on a Tesla and $100 per 1000 miles on a Camry hybrid.
However Tesla was $20,000 more than a Camry and Camry had wider, more comfortable seats.
We went with a Camry and judging by its reliability record I would probably not have to worry about anything other than a fluid change for a decade or two
> With my electrical costs in SF Bay Area, that cost was $94 per 1000 miles on a Tesla
With the EV2-A rate plan [1] (which you should definitely use if you drive an EV any significant amount), the 1000 miles cost much less if you limit charging to the off peak times.
The Model Y gets 3.3-3.8 miles/kWh. Let's say 3.6 miles/kWh average.
The savings in operational energy cost for the Tesla will never pay for the difference in price, but the Model Y and Camry are fundamentally different cars in performance and functionality, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.
A more sensible comparison would be between a top-trim Camry XLE ($35000) and an entry-level trim VW ID.4 ($40000 - $7500 tax credit = $32500).
But you have a point that there are very few inexpensive midsize EV sedans on the market right now.
EV-A rate is a non-starter because it pushes your electrical costs to between $0.46 and 0.57 per kWh between the hours of 3pm and midnight.
Sure you can try to shift your laundry to the morning, but I suspect there would still be higher overall energy costs with EV-A especially if you have a family.
The only way electric car would make sense with my rates is if I paid few thousands to install a second meter or paid tens of thousands to install solar.
I bought a used low mileage 2020 Camry hybrid LE with 47+ mpg and front hip room(ie seat width) 4 inches wider than that of model y for $26000.
Comparable mileage wise teslas model ys were being sold for about $47000.
I searched through MYLR forums and Facebook groups and landed on reported 0.27-0.265 kWh/mi which is pretty close to your estimate of kWh per 1000mi.
The biggest challenge for me was that I would not be able to arrive at $0.26 per kWh without further investments into my electrical infrastructure which would further reduce the cost savings from going electric.
Tesla MYLR while being better at acceleration is ultimately not a model s - it’s a family car like a Camry. There are some benefits to it being electric or a hatchback but they did not justify an upfront cost and a fairly negligible cost of driving reduction.
Note: this could be a CA issue as I’m aware that our energy costs are easily 3 times of some other states
PS I was specifically seeking out LE trims on Camry because they offer 5mpg advantage over more expensive trims
Yes, California has some of the worst electricity prices in the country, something like 3 times the national average.
OTOH, I pay 4 cents per kWh to charge my EV after 10pm. I pay about as much in electricity costs per year as I was paying for gasoline per month on the last car.
Great acceleration helps make being a terrible driver that doesn't know how to merge less uncomfortable for you at the expense of whoever is behind you.
You can roll through the ramp doing your best impression of a semi truck at 20mph and then when you realize you're about to have 500ft to merge into traffic that's going 60-70mph you can mat it and be going traffic speed in that time.
And the best part is that everyone will think the work van behind you that wanted to carry 40mph through the ramp but couldn't because you were in their way is the one who's doesn't know how to merge when they can barely do 45 by the end of the ramp.
Having a zero pollution power source lets the car do things that would be unsafe in a normal vehicle. Preheating, or precooling is safe in an electric car but can cause dangerous accumulation of carbon monoxide if running a fossil fuel engine.
That’s just a random example.
Generally EVs are cheaper to operate, are quieter, have a lower centre of gravity, and are more spacious.
In theory they could be cheaper and more reliable, but currently Tesla makes mostly luxury models and has poor quality control. That’s just them, and isn’t anything to do with EV technology.
Other manufacturers will eventually make a cheap EV with better reliability than a Toyota.
> Having a zero pollution power source lets the car do things that would be unsafe in a normal vehicle. Preheating, or precooling is safe in an electric car but can cause dangerous accumulation of carbon monoxide if running a fossil fuel engine.
Which is like, relevant inside a building only, at which point preheating and cooling isn't that useful
If you're going to preheat your car in the garage in the winter, you're probably better off installing a heat pump to heat the whole garage. Heating the car itself with its resistive heating is going to be very wasteful.
With EVs you need to heat the batteries, not just the cabin, so that's a huge amount of mass that needs to be heated up. If you try to run the batteries cold on an EV it's going to kill the range because current battery chemistry is not optimized for low temperatures.
Which would be great for heating up the cabin but I think too small to heat up the whole mass of the car including the batteries, especially if the temperature is below-freezing!
my model 3 with a heat pump does just fine for both cabin and battery in Canadian winter. My uninsulated, detached garaged built in the 1920s would be astronomically expensive and irresponsible to heat. Instead I spend about 10-20 cents worth of hydro to heat the car before I go somewhere through an app. By the time I get my coat and boots on the car is nice and warm.
There is also more than enough heat to get the battery into the right thermal conditions for optimal DC Fast charging on road trips when it's well below freezing. I have seen exactly the same charge curve in both summer and winter, peaking at 170 kW (max for Model 3 SR+) and slowly tapering.
OP was clearly talking about pollution at point of use. But even so, having a choice of your source of energy is important. Creating and maintaining the infrastructure for gas also pollutes, beyond the usage.
Number one thing I love about mine, when I press the 'go' button, it goes.
They have a lot of power and because you don't have to bring an engine up to RPM and shift, and bring up to RPM, and shift.. and on..
That power is also instantaneous. However far down I push on the pedal, I'm at that speed basically right away.
Another huge thing, is that they are quiet. There is still a bit of road noise from wind and the physical contact of the wheels with the road. But compared with almost any typical car, its basically silent.
Also, they don't stink. You might not notice it, but your car smells. It gets on you and the people around you. My car doesn't smell like gas or exhaust or anything.
Oh and not to mention, basically nothing ever goes wrong. There is so much less to go wrong on an EV. We don't have a bunch of coolant and pumps sloshing around effectively trying to cool a giant, shaking, moving lump of iron. With out all that rattling, things just don't need as much maintenence.
> We don't have a bunch of coolant and pumps sloshing around
I thought all mainstream EVs were liquid-cooled? I'm sure the motor and battery still need cooling, though perhaps less than exploding dino juice engines. If this weren't true, Tesla wouldn't sell branded jugs of coolant ;-)
Cooling systems for regular ICE cars need to dissipate around 1/3 of the nominal engine power. So if you have a modest 150hp car (112kW), the cooling system needs to be able to dissipate around 40kW of power. In reality it's even more, because you need to have some safety margin.
The cooling system in an EV are much, much smaller. You're looking at maybe about 20kW for a Tesla Model 3 with 450hp motors, and this includes heat rejection from the air conditioner.
(on the other hand, the air conditioner on EVs is a _critical_ component, because the main battery can't tolerate being heated to more than +90C like regular ICE engines)
Yup. The "1/3-rd of mechanical power" is an empirical rule.
However, it seems reasonable once you think about it.
The mechanical power of a car is about 25-30% of the total heat generated. So a 150hp car actually generates about 450hp of heat energy. Most of that power is indeed lost in exhaust. The 1/3 of 150hp is 50hp, around 10% of the total.
I suppose you must be right but I've never even touched or had to think about that. My technician hasn't mentioned anything either. I suppose maybe because there isn't a big oily thing the coolant is moving through it isnt a bother?
* they are quieter.
* they are smoother.
* you may not care about performance but lots of people do like it.
* they require less maintenance (which is a cost saving, sure, but also a convenience issue)
* if you can charge at home you don’t have to take time to visit the gas station.
Considering my wife got her wallet stolen at a gas station (thief came right in the unlocked passenger door and swiped it from the center compartment), this is a huge perk for us. Gas stations are also all environmental disasters.
I rented a Tesla 3 the last time we took a trip. It has some fundamental flaws (shitty rear window visibility) that have nothing to do with it being an EV, but it fully convinced me that my next car will be electric.
It's quiet
It's fast -- you say you know, but it's not about the acceleration as much as it is the immediate response: put the pedal down, and you're accelerating. Doesn't matter if you're stopped, going 30, or going 60 -- you have speed on demand, and it changes how you drive.
I guess some people don't like it, but one pedal driving (letting the regen do the braking just by letting off the accelerator) was awesome for me: I used the brake pedal less than ten times over a week, and my gas car seems tedious to pedal now.
Not sure how to describe the rest, but it was just better. I like my gas car much less now.
All those oil changes PLUS changing the engine and/or transmission in 10 years (for me that’s about 150k miles). I drive a hybrid, which has some of the advantages and some of the disadvantages of both. I need to be able to do cross-country trips, but EV’s appeal to me on their lower long term costs and all the advantages others have mentioned.
I bought a plug-in hybrid several years ago, Prius Prime with 25 mile battery range. It is a good transition, as I wasn't ready go go all electric at the time. My next vehicle will be an EV.
Since we are no longer commuting, we rarely need to buy gas. It is essentially an EV, that has the convenience of gas power when going on long trips.
Buy a $200 inverter and you can have basic power (lights/router/modem, aquariums) in the case of a power outage. I've had to do this two weeks in a row in our third-world-power Silicon Valley.
I like it because an EV is a gas vehicle. It's also propane powered vehicle. It's also a diesel. It's also solar powered. It's also natural gas. It's whatever generator you can find to plug it into at that moment in time.
In the event of economic uncertainty, the gas stations are the first to run out and begin rationing resulting in miles long lines. An EV has many, many options to keep you operating in a disaster scenario.
Plus, unlike gas cars, my EV is always fully charged ready to go every morning. How many people have a 1/4 or even an 1/8 of a gas tank sitting in their driveway right now?
If you enjoy having to change your oil every 3-6 months , then EVs might be disappointing because there's no oil to change. There are no transmissions, no gears (for most EVs at least), the cars are mostly silent, can't asphyxiate you in your garage, don't have to be jumped if you left the lights on all night, and you should be able to get many hundreds of thousands of miles where the car will drive mostly the same in ten years as when it was new (save for battery life decrease). Dealing with gas pumps and trying not to get gasoline drips on your shoes is a thing of the past.
I'm not aware of any EV that requires/recommends differential oil change schedules. Pretty much all fluids in EVs are 'lifetime' because there's no chance of fouling caused by engine blowby, unlike gas cars.
Even gas cars typically have 'lifetime' differential oil fills these days. With no chance of contamination from blowby, there's not really any other mechanism for degradation besides oil just degrading over time from heating/cooling.
- An order of magnitude safer in terms of fires per mile
- Much quieter ride
- Much less maintainence, less moving parts, brake pads almost never need to be replaced, no transmission, no oil changes
- Internet-connectivity-related features, generally much nicer user experience
- You can use them as a mobile office, they can be camped in with the heating on overnight, there's no concept of idling and no carbon monoxide issues with sitting in an EV with the car on as long as you want
- If either your home or office has charging, you basically leave full every time
One other thing not mentioned - they brake faster. Like hybrids, EVs have dual brake systems - regenerative + brake pads. On an EV, the regen can be much more powerful than a hybrid since the motor/batter are larger.
One other thing not mentioned - they brake faster.
No, they do not. Any car has brakes that can overcome its tires. All that is added by regenerative braking is the ability to lock the wheels more quickly.
Tires and weight (which EVs have a lot more of) are the larger factors in stopping distance.
One thing I like about strong regenerative braking is how quickly it responds. If some kid darts out in front of me, there's a fraction of a second while I get my foot onto the brake pedal before the car starts to slow meaningfully. But with regenerative braking, the car is already slowing down significantly just by me lifting my foot. Just a little extra built-in margin, which is nice.
> No, they do not. Any car has brakes that can overcome its tires.
Well yeah, that's why we have ABS right?
But there's more to it than that... having a good way to engine brake (and in this case regen) keeps your brakes cool and prevents them from overheating. Regardless of stopping power in ideal conditions, overheated brakes are not safe.
Have you ever overheated your brakes? I’ve managed to do it twice. It took a $25 dollar set of brake pads about 8 laps on a race track. It takes multiple repeated hard stops of >~50mph delta to overheat even crappy bargain basement brakes on an economy car.
Brake discs on modern cars are vented and work like a centrifugal fan to cool them actively. They continually shed heat, so even dragging a brake pedal the entire way down a long mountain, as many drivers will do, is well within safety margins. So to overheat them, you have to get the heat in fast. Like 0-100-0-100-0-100-0 fast.
On the road, the only vehicles that experience brake fade are loaded trucks descending a grade, or suspects in a police pursuit.
I don’t think overheating brakes is that common of a problem either outside of a sports car on a race track or a truck going down a mountain. The real advantage of regen brakes is way longer between pad changes and less accompanying dust.
I'm not sure this is true. They're a lot heavier and on most cars the brakes should be powerful enough to lock the wheels which is the max braking power you're going to get.
To compare a car which is available in both ICE and EV, a 2018 Fiat 500e (electric, with a tiny battery bank good for only ~90 miles) weighs almost 3000 pounds, whereas the same car with ICE is ~2400lb.
> The 500E is a retrofit of an ICE, not a ground-up EV. All you can derive from that comparison is that retrofitting is inefficient.
That's all true, but I'm uncertain how much difference it can make. The bulk of the weight difference comes from the batteries, which will be there whether a retrofit or new design. Everything related to the ICE systems was removed, so it's not like there was any leftover weight from the conversion.
Weight distribution can likely be better in a chassis designed solely for EV, but total weight seems likely to be about the same either way.
I agree, it's a "linear extrapolation of business as usual" assessment, the kind that Tony Seba calls out in his talks on disruption.
The future of EVs isn't even "battery electric car" so much as it is "new models of transportation". Tesla's business model was in the classic mode of consumer tech where it targets enthusiasts at a premium. The broader auto market, though, is getting nibbled away by a combo of new communication and transport services for each vertical - you can buy or rent an e-bike, hail a Waymo, have Wal-Mart deliver by drone, as well as "just" do more from home, online, and save a trip. Some of these things are early in their deployment but largely proven, others are already widespread but with room to go further.
In a disrupted market, you can't pick winners easily, but you should always bet on the new asset classes, because the alternative is a ghoulish non-future.
As an EV owner, I completely agree that they are better cars to drive for most people. Handles better, cheaper to run, more fun to drive, and range isn't an issue unless you drive all day to far places.
But
Until the infrastructure and manufacturing scale are bootstrapped, they can only reasonably compete with the help of subsidies.
And
You can also say that ICE cars, as a component of the hydrocarbon industry, get a lot of subsidy from the insane amounts of military cost deployed to ensure a steady oil supply.
Altogether societal beliefs that get people elected are having a strong influence in the way things go. In spite of EVs being better cars, if society decided to tilt back the balance of support towards ICEs, I think the market would snap back pretty quickly.
>> People are buying EVs because they're better. That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.
As someone who rode in a Tesla Model Y for the first time last week I disagree. It was horrible. Inside it was very spacious but felt plasticky and cold (I did like the glass roof through). The worst bit though was the ride. Every small bump was felt like a pothole. And within five minutes I felt motion sickness due to the persistent bouncing around. I can’t say anything about drivability (this was 30mins in an Uber) but if I see my Uber driver is in a Model Y next time, I’ll happily cancel and wait for someone else.
All of this has less to do with fundamental problems with electric vehicles and more to do with your opinion on a particular car (fortunately there are other electric car makers besides Tesla) and the driving style of your driver (granted, the stronger acceleration of an EV combined with an aggressive driving style or jerky steering can lead to a bad experience for passengers).
The other point these people are missing is that this allows for flexibility in choosing our fuel. Anything that can be converted into electricity (gasoline, coal, nuclear) can power an EV. It’s not limited to green power sources.
You should have added "people with money". Regular people don't have the luxury of paying up to 50% more for a car that often times is inferior to what they currently have.
> which is that EVs are some kind of medicine for climate change that society is trying to have discipline about
The obvious point, of course, is that EVs will not solve climate change or anything close. Mass automobile ownership has 99 problems, of which EVs solve 1. The key to better quality of life, as well as stronger mitigation of climate change, is boring stuff like trains and trams and bike lanes and walkable cities.
Cars are great (1) for rural areas and (2) when they are at maximum occupancy. Anywhere else, especially cities, and they are a disaster at almost any level you can think of.
Are you a single car family? Until battery tech allows for either huge range or recharging as quickly as a gas car, I still see the utility in owning an EV for commuting and around town and a gas car for road trips. It doesn’t have to be either/or for most.
Better in some ways, worse in others. If you are just driving around town, plugging in at night is probably better than having to fill up at a gas station. If you are driving your family, including young children halfway across the country to visit in-laws, having to stop for hours while waiting for your car to charge is much, much worse. Even if charging stations become ubiquitous.
I'm sure it will get better. But the parent said EVs are better now. My point is they aren't for everyone. I purchased a vehicle in recent past, I looked into getting an EV, and came to the conclusion that none of the options, especially ones I could buy used, would fit my needs. Five years from now? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. And I really hope I won't need a new car that soon.
your username says it all. ugh is what I always think when someone complains about roadtrips.
I personally do not have kids, but I love roadtripping my Tesla. With my ICE car, I used to drive as fast as possible, as long as possible thinking that's the way, but I'd also end up so burnt out after 8 or 9 hours of driving.
I'm going to make a 12 hour drive this weekend, it'll end up being around 13 hours with a Tesla, but my Fiancé and I are making a list cool things we'll do when we make the stops, and we'll actually enjoy making the trip over the 13 hours. Each stop will be around 15-20mins every 3 hours which is perfect for getting a stretch, snacking, or going to the washroom.
I'll also have the newest updated FSD11 for the highway which has been a large improvement over the previous autopilot on highways - the biggest for me is that it now bias's over to the left (or right), if I'm passing a large semi (or if the semi is passing me)
The overlap between places with lots of charging stations and places I would really like to spend and hour for lunch while on a road trip isn't huge.
I'm not saying you cannot road trip with an EV. Lots of people obviously do. But there is something about having to plan your route in detail before you leave and having all your stops dictated to you by your GPS which feels unappealing.
Do you eat or work at the gas/charge station? If no, then you also need to add trip travel time from work to the charger and back. And possibly city transport ticket fees for two trips if the charger is far away.
>That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.
Could've fooled me. Firstly almost all Teslas look like ugly frogs to me. And a Tesla Model S was also the first time I've noticed a car have misaligned front and rear doors while walking past a car.
I'm also not sure about the functionally part, unless it's just "electric motors are nice". I still see Tesla owners complain about the lack of CarPlay. Then there's the various issues that have come up. The ones that I remember: seatbelts falling off, steering wheels falling off, doorhandles breaking, doorhandles being inaccessible due to ice buildup, non-automotive LCD panels breaking inside hot/cold cars, and infotainment system bricking eMMC chips due to excessive logging. The self-driving features also look suspect, with some cars being unable to parallel park themselves, causing some weird behaviour on road, or crashing into obstacles when using the summoning.
As someone who has to walk/ride next to an endless stream of filthy cars and trucks daily, I cannot wait for the road to be at least 50% EV, but not sure if it will happen in my lifetime.
Doesn't solve the fine dust brake particles flying around at every intersection (many with asbestos) but it will radically reduce diesel particulates and other exhaust nastiness.
I mean the bigger issue is that cars and trucks aren't going away and EVs are clearly important, but the much more important problem is investing in public transit, especially in the United States. We don't need everyone to "transition" to EVs -- we need everyone to transition to trains.
This comment seems at odds with one you posted yesterday, which said that individual responsibility for climate change doesn't extend beyond the voting booth. But unless I'm misunderstanding this latest comment, it suggests that we individuals are wrong to want private transportation, that we should be happy with taking whatever public transportation is available and walking the rest of the way. Even when public transportation is expanded as you say it should be, that still won't be the same as taking a car all the way from one building to another. Assuming that the point is to put an end to the negative impact of private transportation on the climate, this suggests that we are in fact responsible for changing our lifestyle to address climate change. Am I misunderstanding?
Prioritization of public transit over EVs is a policy issue which is facilitated at the voting booth. We need fewer EV subsidies (or targeted to more important EV markets) and greater public investment in transit. I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy a new EV in favor of taking your city's crappy bus service and walking a mile in the rain. I'm saying that your city should invest in making the bus a better choice than your car so that you want to use it; society should set up the incentives accordingly.
As the saying goes, public transit succeeds not when the poor can afford the bus, but when the wealthy choose the bus.
Then I'm skeptical about whether public transit can actually succeed. Why would the wealthy ever choose the bus over taking their own vehicle all the way from point A to point B? Does public transit succeed according to that criterion in countries other than the US? Is it necessary to somehow force the wealthy to do what is less convenient for the individual?
If the bus is faster and more convenient, more people will use it. Get cars out of city centers and reduce parking, and increase transit access -- more tram and bus routes with priority access through traffic, separated cycle routes, metro and long distance rail, etc. In my home city of Amsterdam it works very well -- over half of all travel is by bike alone.
I can say I read about 1/4 of the way through the article and although I’m interested in the authors research, I did get the feeling the author hadn’t actually driven an EV - which may not be true, but I agree the author didn’t touch on the idea that EVs may simply offer a superior driving experience.
"Better" how? I want a range the same as petrol car, with a recharging time the same as it takes me to pump gasoline into the tank. Until I have that, EVs aren't 'better' for me in any way. I drive 300 miles point to point several times a month and with an EV the journey time is an hour longer, and definitely not 'better'. That's not to say that EVs won't improve, but by 2035 will we have 700 mile range EVs that charge to 100% in 3-4 minutes?
The chassis, interior, and "technology" in combustion engine cars is largely the same for every manufacturer that produce EV + internal combustion because of economies of scale. So that's not a unique selling point.
> I drive 300 miles point to point several times a month
EV's won't be better for you any time soon; unless the solid state batteries with a higher energy density become the norm. For long road trips, ICE vehicles are more convenient. That being said; I've drive an electric car (Model S) twice from Norway to Spain (3700 km ~ 2300 miles), so it's definitely doable, but it does add time compared to a doing the same trip with a regular ICE car. At highway speeds you can probably add 1 hour per every 2-3 hours of driving.
We had an i3, and when on a summer vacation we noted our "usual" trip took about an hour longer due to a couple of recharge stops. However my SO, which drove the whole way, said she actually preferred it as she felt less exhausted when we arrived thanks to the extra stops. As such she was able to do more the evening we arrived.
Obviously others prefer to get there ASAP, but yeah, isn't necessarily clear cut.
My problem with long road trips in an EV are not just the time added. Especially if you drive across Europe and rely on the supercharger network, you will notice that they are very often located in the middle of nowhere; next to a gas station or McDonald's. Not cool places to hang out for 45 minutes. There was one supercharger on my way to Spain (I think it was outside Bremen?) that was located next to a shopping mall, or "factory outlets" for Puma/Adidas etc. At that location 45 minutes flies by like nothing, it's actually to little time. But at some random gas-station, hotel or McDonald's in the middle of nowhere, 45 minutes feels way to much…
There’s nothing except you preventing you from taking an optional longer stop in an ICE car (with more flexibility on where you take it instead of being limited to just “anywhere within walking distance of the fast charger”)
Several metrics. Clearly the only ones you care about is maximum range and minimal recharge/refuel time. But for many others there are other metrics that are more important, where a BEV is better.
For example, for us, being able to recharge at home is a major plus. It's been 6 months since we used a public charger, and our car is used daily. Especially my SO appreciates this, as she hated having to fill up with gas at the end of the day rather than going straight home to sleep. Not to mention it's way cheaper than gas, at least here.
Noise is another one. In slow moving traffic, it's so nice and quiet. We got an ICE rental last year while our car was being serviced (got hit by someone who didn't honor our right-of-way), and we'd completely forgotten how noisy (and stinky) an ICE car is.
Just some examples. Not saying BEVs are perfect, but range isn't the only metric that matters for everyone.
> The chassis, interior, and "technology" in combustion engine cars is largely the same for every manufacturer that produce EV + internal combustion because of economies of scale.
Precisely why I'm looking at BEV's that don't have an ICE variant. So much better with a pure BEV design.
> I want a range the same as petrol car, with a recharging time the same as it takes me to pump gasoline into the tank.
The "recharging time" part is easily achievable with battery swapping, which is already big in China. The luxury car maker Nio is introducing it to Europe, Norway first.
Battery swapping also reduces the sticker price of cars. You don't pay for the battery up front; you pay for it over the lifetime of the car in swap fees. The advantage is if you don't need much range for the next week or so, you can choose an old partly used-up battery pack for a lower price than a brand new one.
Range is more difficult, but there are grounds for optimism that this won't be so much of a problem in 2035.
Edit: Ample[2] is working with manufacturers in the west to try to create a "gas station" industry model for battery swapping, where any manufacturer's batteries work with any manufacturer's cars.
300 miles, this is like 5-6 hours? You don't want to take a break for 15 minutes to go the bathroom and get a bite? That is all you need to add during your drive if you start with a fully charged battery. It can also be done at pretty much any point besides the first and last 50 miles.
Genuinely curious, what EV can give you a comfortable 300 mile with a good threshold, and charge in 15 minutes from a regular EV point?
As I said in the other reply, there's a paucity of EV chargers in the UK that are not along a major route, there aren't a large number of them, and they're rarely 'superchargers'.
The Tesla Model 3 has a real world range of 300 miles [0].
You want to give yourself a 50 mile buffer. So you need to add about 13kWh of energy along the route. That's like 8 minutes with a 100kW charger round it up to quarter hour.
285 miles on the highway isn't bad but that's only in mild weather. People in the North (American and Europe) live six months of the year in cold weather. Then they get 217 miles on the highway. In Europe this isn't even three hours of driving. And this is one of the best ranges on an EV under $70k.
It's a very common scenario for hundreds of millions of people. I'm really happy that your EV works for your family's use case. It doesn't work for mine.
What you want might never happen, especially the charging time part. If you pull out a calculator, you will find out the current required （under domestic voltage) to charge a 80kWh battery in 2 hours is already staggering. In 3-4 minutes at your home? I don't see it anytime soon.
This is not real world. Here is one (https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_uuid=550e4ca1-4a68-4ef...) My family regularly travels from Denmark to Austria for skiing. This route is 10:36:00 of driving, and 2:26:00 of charging. And that's assuming the chargers are free. They're often not. In reality - and I have tested this with a rental - charging occupies 30%+ of total driving time. This is absurd on a road trip.
I think EVs are great - for short trips. They're clearly terrible for longer trips. We all hope they get better.
Based on time to charge vs time to pump gas, let's be charitable and say you need 30 minutes to charge an EV fully, vs. 5 minutes on a pump, so you'd need 6x the number of publicly available EV chargers to replace an existing gas station.
I'm sure every car park will eventually get more EV points, never one per space though, but we're not there yet. We're not even at 6x the gas station pump count yet.
I'm sure I'll be in the last group of people to buy an EV.
I drive a part motorway, part countryside route that has very, very, few EV charging points, and on many occasions they've been full or broken, or both.
EV cars are good for cities and city to city along motorways. Anywhere else, not so much.
The UK charging experience has improved rapidly in the the past few years and will continue to do so. That is, buy an EV today and it's only going to improve tomorrow as more and better charging infrastructure is rolled out.
I understand the point you're making, and I have heard a number of the remarkable advances in "alternative" energy technologies. But I don't think that very many people believe that if the market were left to itself the climate will solve itself.
> I don't think that very many people believe that if the market were left to itself the climate will solve itself
Even if every single car across all of Europe and the USA were to magically become an EV overnight, the climate will not be "solved", although the power grid would instantaneously collapse.
Disclaimer: I am ignoring the environmental implications here.
Arguably they are not from many different POVs.
They are better for car makers, they can market them at any price they like and States all over the globe are subsidizing them, so that people can afford them.
In my Country buying an EV means paying 33% more for the same exact car, but with less autonomy, which is not a great proposition for the majority of the people living here that need a car.
The real solution would be removing cars from the streets as much as we can, which is about 50% of them more or less.
To follow on your analogy: saving car industry by switching to EVs would be like saving horse carriage industry by putting an engine on them in 1920.
For some people range matters. It’s particularly an issue for the electric trucks that Detroit is making big noises about.
For regulators EVs have been a deal with the devil since they are driving affordable and efficient cars (e.g. Toyota Corolla class) out of the market. in exchange for big promises about the EV future, Detroit is free to sell all the oversized trucks and SUVS they want today.
> For example, laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been.
If that were true, there wouldn't be any such laws in discussions and in the books. Just like there never was a law to ban flip phones, people just migrated on their own.
There are lots of incentives to push people to EVs such as federal tax breaks and HOV lane access.
It forces car companies to plan for a certain future, not a possible one. That leads to an increased line up of cars for consumers, increases competition allowing consumers to afford those cars. It also forces everyone to thing about charging infrastructure etc.
Doesn't this depend on the criteria by which you're measuring "better"? Personally, aside from reduced climate impact, they aren't better on any any count that matters to me, and are worse on a few.
Define “better”? I need something to haul around a family of eight with enough towing capacity to add some fun to those trips. They don’t even make an EV that ticks those boxes, let alone something “better”.
> I need something to haul around a family of eight with enough towing capacity to add some fun to those trips.
I can't decide if this is trolling or not. I mean, it's an EV thread, so this kind of wild edge case gets repeated like it's everyone's use pattern instead of the 1 in a million case it really is.
Assuming it's true, there are damn few ICE vehicles that suit your needs either. You're looking at a full size (HD truck size) van. Chevy Express 3500 or something along those lines.
Though the few people I know that are in a remotely similar situation break it into two cars rather than try to find an 8 passenger daily driver.
I have to disagree. I absolutely have the money to buy a Tesla, but I don't. Why?
I don't want a giant button-less touch screen, for starters.
Next: I don't want to find myself stranded in my state the second I go a ways away from a major city, which is STILL an issue. (I'm almost 50, my parents are still alive. Their house is nowhere near a charging station. It is literally in the middle of nowhere)
Finally, I was close to buying a Tesla before...I wanted to do my part to help avoid Climate change. Then Elon Musk showed he was an asshole. Now I won't touch Tesla because Musk is involved. The fact that Tesla vehicles have suddenly become so pronounced in my state (A certain southeastern state that became internationally known for a school shooting yesterday) is testament to why he is doing things this way. He is just trying to drive new sales and he is seemingly succeeding by buying into republican nonsense.
Please don't be that idiot. Don't buy anything sold by Mr Musk.
Thanks.
I am waiting on Ford to ramp up the F150 electric production, however. Power my house in a power outage? Yes please. Haul what I want? Oh boyyy...
It's funny how I'm sure we're both individually reasonable people but we have wildly opposite points of view on pretty much everything you said. I drive a Model Y and consider it the best possible car regardless of price for me and my family.
> I don't want a giant button-less touch screen, for starters.
Eh. I'm neutral on this. In some ways it's awesome, like when I want to orient myself on a map or scroll through my music options. In other ways I wish I didn't have to fumble around in a nested window to change climate settings. If Teslas had a few more physical buttons but kept the huge screen I'd be happy.
> Range anxiety, parents live nowhere near a charging station
I've gone on so many road trips and never once got into an iffy situation. 320 mile range gets you a lot of places. My parents also live two hours away from where I live (Seattle area), but there are superchargers on the route there and a couple of level 2 charging stations closer to their house. And I put in a level 2 charger at their house, so I can always leave with a full "tank".
> Elon
I'm in WA state, which is as blue as it gets. Despite that, Teslas everywhere. Some of my friends who are die hard Democrats (or even further left), still happy Tesla owners. For me, life is too short to filter everything I do through a political lens.
Although if I wasn't already in love with the cybertruck I would be considering a F150 lightning, so I guess we have that in common.
> Next: I don't want to find myself stranded in my state the second I go a ways away from a major city, which is STILL an issue.
Unless you live in one of the large northern states, you probably can charge enough for a round-trip in a station along the way: https://supercharge.info
Or you can do a nice thing and install a charger at your parents' place.
I think you're getting a touch screen on all EVs, but some have more buttons than others. My general preference after having lived with buttons for decades and a touchscreen + voice command for four years is the fewer buttons the better.
Re: being stranded, I used to live in TN, and I still routinely drive through there. My hometown is practically a village in the middle of nowhere and it still has a supercharger only 30mi from it. I'm having a hard time believing you can get "stranded" anywhere in TN. In the incredibly unlikely absolute worst case, pull out your mobile charger and charge from an RV or 120V outlet.
Re: Musk, I didn't like his antics when when I bought my 3 four years ago, and I liked his behavior even less when I bought my Y this year. If I didn't patronize businesses with executives who behaved in ways I didn't agree with, there would be no one left for me to do business with.
Good luck with the Lightning! Ford's projecting they will lose $3B on EVs this year, but I hope they pull through.
Yep, 120V countries are harder for at-home charging. Japan and USA as the two biggest ones.
My car is charging from a normal socket at 2.7kW right now. I could go up to 3.6kW, but the included charger only goes up to 12A and I really don't need the extra charging speed.
I get 100-150km charge overnight easily. 5% -> 100% is ~17 hours and I rarely go under 40% in everyday driving even though I charge only to 80% to save the battery as per manufacturer instructions.
Ignoring the hype, Tesla cars aren't better objectively from a purely functional approach. If I fill my current vehicle with diesel, I can drive 500 miles, fill up the tank in less than 15 minutes and drive back. With a Tesla or any other EV, I will spend several hours at charging points. EVs are great for local rat runs to the supermarket or nearby restaurants. However, they are still painful if you want to travel more than 100 miles.
Battery technology improvements will arrive. However, it takes time to productionise research prototypes.
During one of my holidays, I drove a self-charge BMW rental. It technically could still be sold after 2035. However, it had an electric range of less than 50 km before it switched to petrol. Car manufacturers will lobby for such loopholes to be allowed well beyond 2035.
I own one, I have never spent more than an hour waiting for any charge. The waiting time is also not wasted, I'll go eat or work on the laptop. Cumulatively over the year I have definitely spent less waiting at a charging station than I did with the fossil car I had previously. Most of the time it's just charged itself overnight when I slept.
It is SO MUCH CHEAPER to drive the EV than it is the ICE. Fuel cost ALONE pays for the monthly payments. Let alone having a modern car, better ergonomics, etc.
Do you hear yourself? You are admitting you have to stop for an hour any time you do a long trip, and apologetically claiming you can find something useful to do in that time. What kind of bs propaganda did you swallow? When I’m doing a road trip I don’t want to add one hour minumum per every few hundred miles, assuming I can find a charging station. Range limitations are the second reason why people don’t buy EVs, behind required home infrastructure expenses (a hidden one time tax).
My partner and I both drive cars that are almost 20 years old, so do our parents. Oil changes, tires, and a monthly fill up for $60 or trip fillup of $120 for about 700 miles. That’s it.
Todays EVs are like cell phones from 1985 with styling that appeals to the Pokémon generation.
I drive for about 300 miles, or five hours, then charge while we stop to stretch, eat, go to the bathroom, and the car has another 300 miles on it, at which point we stop for the night because we’ve been driving for 10 hours. It’s about the least painful experience I’ve ever had. But this is also very much a point in time discussion. I’ll wager in 5 years EV come with enough capacity to drive a full day without break or longer. The reality is that today 5 hours of continuous drive time is plenty of time to warrant a break long enough to recharge to capacity unless you’re big on deep vein thrombosis and drive with a catheter.
The only time I remember charging for 1h was when the charger happened to be a free 50kW charger. Why not.
During road trips it's much more like 15 minutes every 3 hours. Completely enough to keep going until people inside the car can't take it anymore, not a limitation of the car/battery. You make it sound like the stopping part is the hard part not sitting in a car that long.
It clearly works for you, and that is great to hear. When travelling with small children, an hour can be a long time. During busy periods like Easter, there are generally huge queues for the superfast charging stations close to the main motorways in the UK.
Technology will advance, and more superfast charging stations will be available soon. However, as the article highlights, there are still challenges. Unless you can charge at home, and unfortunately, not everyone can, EV trips can be more expensive. Time will solve this, however, that doesn't mean that the government can dictate policies without ensuring there is proper investment in EV infrastructure.
Waiting an hour to charge sounds horrific. That charges also takes much longer than filling a tank. And what if you need to recharge multiple times on a trip? I agree with the user above. EVs are awesome for short trips. They're terrible for long trips. We hope this improves over time.
This is the worst case outlier where the charger happened to be free in a city center location and I had nowhere to be.
Our typical usage of the car:
Wife drives for work to another city 185km away in the morning and back in the evening. So 370km round trip.
During summer: she leaves with the car charged to 90% and arrives back with more than 10% left. Zero time waited charging anywhere.
During winter -20C: she leaves with the car charged to 100% and battery prewarmed. Arrives at the destination with about 45% battery left. On the way back she spends 10 minutes at a 150kW fast charger next to a service station that happens to serve her favorite Goulash. Arrives home with more than 10% battery left.
It is great to hear it works for your wife. I am forgetful and clumsy, and there would be days I will either forget to charge the car or not plug it in properly. This is not a big deal for an ICE car (petrol or diesel). However, you need a lot more discipline driving an EV car.
This is what the article is trying to highlight. For many people, EV cars are perfectly fine to use right now. However, only 25% of cars on the road are plugin electric (UK figures). Most of these are hybrid cars, reverting to fossil fuels when the EV battery drains. If you want to get to 100%, the government needs to do more than formulate policies.
Going to the gas station every week sounds horrific. I'd rather wait a bit on the one trip I take every other year than be forced to go to the gas station in the winter instead of plugging in when I get home.
This corroborates the point. You almost never travel far, so EVs are great for your use case. For those of us who do travel more regularly, EVs are very inconvenient.
> Tesla cars aren't better objectively from a purely functional approach.
I think this isn't as clear cut as it might sound. It depends on the usage pattern, local fuel cost etc. I drive a diesel too, but my next car will be an EV.
If you have cheap gas and/or regularly travel so far you need to charge on the road, then both the economy and convenience goes down the drain very quickly.
But if like me you have electricity at $0.10/kWh, you have 3x25A wires to your house, you can charge in your driveway, you very rarely need to charge on the road, and the diesel price is $10 per US gallon then the economy and convenience is completely different and much more favors EV.
Oil is heavily subsidised too.
And that’s before things like dumping masses of CO2 and other nastiest into the air are factored in. It’s amazing that this can just happen and the cost externalised.
> That's the whole point of Tesla making attractive vehicles, aesthetically and functionally.
They're not, though. They make cheap plasticky ugly cars with an interior fit and finish on a par with 1990s Eastern Bloc cars, and expect you to somehow cope with a massive touchscreen while trying to drive, and then charge "proper car" prices.
No gas stations, huge in cold climates. Instant acceleration which is physically impossible in ICE cars. Quite and no exhaust, so you can run them in a garage for preheating/cooling. Electricity is cheaper than gas. Less maintenance.
A lot of the advantages are dependant on a garage and mostly using the car to get around town and not road trips. If those don't apply to you then yea ICE cars are probably better.
Only new sales, and that can be and likely will be moved farther to the future. If there are almost no charging options (relative to the number of cars) even in big cities, then ban will go nowhere. E.g. if it's year 2035 and I still won't have anywhere to charge EV, then I won't buy it, bans or no.
PS: 500-1000 stations per 1000000 of people with hundreds of thousands of cars is nothing really. Sure, they can service some luxury EVs now, and that's about it.
The market always wins, and the market for EVs is about to be massive. A beautiful thing about capitalism is that when a large market exists, smart people and resources flow toward solving every discrete problem standing in the way of tapping into that opportunity. Yes, some of these challenges exist, but none of them are insurmountable.
No, they are not. It may be for some particular use cases, but generalisation is naturally bad idea.
Objectively they are vastly inferior to combustion engine cars (unless we bring Tesla to comparison). Low mileage, slow refuelling, very low lifetime. Slow acceleration.
If they were better as you state, governments wouldn't come with all sorts of subsidies to coerce people into buying EV. Market would correct itself and combustion engines would be a part of the past. But it's not happening, and I assert would never happen in future.
This is somewhat along the lines of my current theory, which is that night owls vs early birds is about sensitivity to the environment. The reason night owls stay up late is not because it's late, but because it becomes quiet enough that the environment they're sensitive to stops taking attention and they can direct that attention inward. According to this theory, it would make sense for introverts to be more affected by this as they would accumulate an "introversion deficit" throughout the day.
That's roughly my thinking on Toyota's strategy if we give them the benefit of the doubt. They want to own a larger piece of the ICE pie as it shrinks. This is a great strategy. What they might not appreciate is that the oil pie will also shrink and that both of these industries will have increasing costs across their entire supply chains as volumes diminish. Their vehicles will suffer for both ICE tech and gasoline propulsion and be completely outcompeted on cost and convenience. This will happen over a much shorter time frame than they expect.
Green solutions are part of the continuing decentralization through technology and will be just as popular in developing countries as in first world countries. One practical example of this is that green tech can be financed in bite-sized chunks, compared to the large commitments needed for power plants.
Like many things, it's about how far into the diminishing returns you want to go. At some point it's more effective to apply further investment to other parts of the ecosystem.
> they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding.
I think it's entirely possible to memorize algorithms superficially. These types of interviews are selecting for exactly the type of person that is good at that rote memorization, and are otherwise selecting for a very narrow type of skillset.
It's unreasonable to not expect pathological outcomes with such a rigid system, especially when some people are themselves specialized for the ability to game social systems. Nothing is free. There are always trade offs when choosing one approach over another.
Well, that's an appeal to authority. It also assumes the companies wouldn't be successful with a different hiring approach. In reality the issue is way too complicated to really break down. These companies operate at a large scale and went through rapid growth spurts, and what they believed was a great way to hire was also an implicit tradeoff they were making for the sake of growth.
I'm sure the companies themselves understand that much, and understand a variety of the tradeoffs involved with the way they hire. What they might not understand is that they are at the exploitation stage of their lifespans. There's an entropy-like process as a company matures and cycles through its workforce which leads it to becoming highly specialized.
My bet is these companies don't understand the various ways in which they're limited, and therefore the ways in which they're limited in filtering candidates. And even if they did, they couldn't really hire any other way now even if they wanted to because they don't have the internal diversity for it, that possibility has long since closed on them.
My guess is they are mid-layer activations in the brain that your consciousness (attention?) is connecting to, or which are being directed to the lower layers and interpreted as input.
> It turns out that hallucinations comprising spirals, circles, and rays that emanate from the centre correspond to stripes of neural activity in V1 that are inclined at given angles. Lattices like honeycombs or chequer-boards correspond to hexagonal activity patterns in V1.
As the company grows the types of people that are attracted and unattracted by the company change, as do those that are accepted and rejected by it. For example, risk averse people are attracted to mature companies, and they don't like risk takers.
One of the consequences is that companies become more specialized and lose deep expertise. To put it bluntly, its because they no longer have people with deep expertise, and even when they do they are ignored by management who tend to be less interested and knowledgeable about the subject matter.
I don't know of any company that has tried to prevent this. It's a general force that permeates everything, including recruiters, HR, their job postings, etc. So even companies that think they're preventing it probably still walk right into it regardless.
Of course, specialization is not necessarily good or bad. In a very competitive environment the company may not have a choice.
I predict the opposite. Tesla sold half a million cars last year and will sell nearly one million this year. The data they have access to is increasing by orders of magnitude. I bet there is a point, let's say 20 million cars total, where they can pull so much high quality data that they will be able to surpass lidar capabilities for the purposes of self driving.
The lidar/no lidar discussion is a fun one because people have different ideas about how the world works. Personally I think LiDAR is the modern version of expert systems. It appeals to a logical/geometric intuition but the approach is brittle to real world contact, especially when paired with HD maps which are a great way to drive yourself into a local maximum.
The fallacy here is that the scale of the neural network used by Tesla is sufficient to capture the problem of driving given enough training. There is no guarantee that a reasonably priced neural network can encompass the task of driving.
Having training data beyond a certain point is overrated, and Tesla's advantage in gathering it is overstated. Other companies are capturing this data as well. Is there any indication that the data Tesla is collecting is of a higher value, or is it just more bytes?
It seems as if the people gobbling up the "Tesla has the data! Autopilot will keep getting better!" line have never trained a neural network in their life. Models converge. Loss stops decreasing, regardless of more incoming data. Extreme manual data cleaning effort becomes required to prevent overfitting. Model architecture has to change and hyper parameters have to be tweaked. Then you're back at square one as far as testing goes if you change any of those things.
The notion that Tesla's model HAS to keep improving simply because they will be able to pile on more (unlabeled!) data is laughably false. And, in fact, quite insulting to the intelligence of even the most casual ML engineers.
> And, in fact, quite insulting to the intelligence of even the most casual ML engineers.
Exactly, casual ML engineers. The issue of plateauing tends to occur because there is no more novelty to be had in the data. What mega-experiments like GPT and similar have shown us is that actually you can keep adding novel data and keep improving the model. Kinda inelegant, yet effective. The problem is, most institutions can't add more novelty beyond a certain scale, since that usually means shoveling more money at data storage and compute, on top of the novelty collection.
Tesla merely has to open the money tap to get more of both compute and storage, and let the real-time data flow in.
> Tesla merely has to open the money tap to get more of both compute and storage, and let the real-time data flow in.
And if you watch the other parts of the presentation, you'll see the bits about them buying clusters with 5k+ A100 GPUs. Presumably they intend to do something with those. Probably not streaming Fortnite concerts.
I would agree if their increase in data was linear, but it is increasing by orders of magnitude, which should have qualitative consequences for what they're able to accomplish as they claw their way through 9s. I don't see how it's possible to get progressively more 9s without scaling in both data and compute.
The point of the higher scale isn't just more data, it also makes it easier to solve the unbalanced data problem, because rarer and rarer scenarios will appear in large enough numbers to work with.
You make it sound extremely manual and sequential when reality is anything but.
A team with funds like Tesla, Google, FAIR is going to be using NAS and have a continuous testing pipeline. Tesla has arguably the best environment for continuous testing which is the most difficult part of improving a model. Andrej even said in his talk that their supercomputer is in the top 5 for FLOPs.
SOTA on ImageNet for the past few years has been driven by pre-training on massive datasets. Vision transformers are increasingly more common and are extremely data-hungry.
I'd say the data that Tesla collects is of lower value, because it doesn't have sensor info from a different modality. Other companies are getting a good reference to ground truth for both camera to lidar and lidar to camera. I don't know how much more valuable accurate distance sensing over a 3d field is compared to not having it, but I so know it's more valuable.
It may be valuable enough to require a few petaflops less computing power.
We are chasing the 9s... diminishing returns are still returns. If 10x the data improves from 99.999 to 99.9995, that is still progress. Maybe 100x data gets you to 99.9999.
Are we even at 80% yet, compared to non-drunk/drugged/sleep-deprived regular human drivers? All of the videos I've seen are well below the driving capacity of a human taking their first driving lesson.
This is a completely different scenario than what the article suggests, which is that EVs are some kind of medicine for climate change that society is trying to have discipline about. Not so. It's a life or death situation for the auto industry, they don't have a choice. They either join the race or die. This makes most concerns about the transition irrelevant. For example, laws banning gasoline cars by 2035 are as useful as laws banning flip phones by 2015 would have been.