Musk Says Tesla Model 3 Owners Will Have To Pay To Use Supercharger Stations

 

 

 

 

• Life ain't free and they will find a way to charge you for just about anything anymore. 

 

• I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.  

Planned obsolescence will really take hold here.

While I agree with the first statement above, unless manufacturers POINTEDLY install OBVIOUS obsolescence tech, the fact that the vehicle is powered electrically should not incite mass 'this is outdated, gotta get a new one' mentality in the market. Phones incorporate a LOT of fleeting tech & apps which yes, are subject to superficial judgement, but these types of features in vehicles are pretty much independent of the power plant propelling such. Phonesa re also a HELLUVA lot more affordable than cars- most people don't shoulder a loan to own one.

 

Even subsequent generations of EVs that have improved range still should not see mass incentive to upgrade… this is in the same vein as IC vehicles' MPG improvement in subsequent gens. It's not usually enough to cause a trade- the costs are too steep for most consumers.

 

I think what you miss is that EV is only at the start of the learning and investment curve where IC is at the end. With a EV we could be just months with major improvments with technology investments or we could be years it all matters on how it progresses and that remains the great unknown. . 

Based on other electronics I suspect that will see much greater changes in the EV auto than we have seen year to year in a IC car. Also electronic today fail after so long with age. or they just get old and incompatible.

Unrelated and those supposed "hurdles" are no reason to stop pursuing the current EV path. IC, like the horse and buggy, will be a passing thought eventually. Not for a long time still but it will happen. That's the nature of technology and progress.

 

Great point, like the horse and buggy that is still used today, the 1940's was a turning point for many in going to the car and yet not until after WWII did the car become de facto standard. Bigger question is will it take 50 years to go from hose n buggy to petro auto for ev auto to replace petro auto as the common auto?

 

Me think about half that time if not less. 10-20 years at most.

 

The change over depends on the technology and how it meshes with the everyday lives and needs of the consumer. Some folks can live with it today with no issues but more could not or just refuse to as it would require them to change their daily habits. 

The goal is to make a EV that would not change the habits or life style of a ICE owner. We are not there and the Volt is a compromise that price has held back. 

We will get there but there is not real time table as development comes at it's own pace. It could be 5 years the break through happens or it could be 25 years.

Case in point I would not mind to have an EV to drive to work. I have a place to charge it and it fits my pattern of driving. Now for weekends and trips No Way. I am on the run and very spontanious and would hate to be restricted by the charging times. Note also I would resist fast charge as it degrades the batteries at a faster pace. 

 

 

 

• Life ain't free and they will find a way to charge you for just about anything anymore. 

 

• I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.  

Planned obsolescence will really take hold here.

While I agree with the first statement above, unless manufacturers POINTEDLY install OBVIOUS obsolescence tech, the fact that the vehicle is powered electrically should not incite mass 'this is outdated, gotta get a new one' mentality in the market. Phones incorporate a LOT of fleeting tech & apps which yes, are subject to superficial judgement, but these types of features in vehicles are pretty much independent of the power plant propelling such. Phonesa re also a HELLUVA lot more affordable than cars- most people don't shoulder a loan to own one.

 

Even subsequent generations of EVs that have improved range still should not see mass incentive to upgrade… this is in the same vein as IC vehicles' MPG improvement in subsequent gens. It's not usually enough to cause a trade- the costs are too steep for most consumers.

 

I think what you miss is that EV is only at the start of the learning and investment curve where IC is at the end. With a EV we could be just months with major improvments with technology investments or we could be years it all matters on how it progresses and that remains the great unknown. . 

Based on other electronics I suspect that will see much greater changes in the EV auto than we have seen year to year in a IC car. Also electronic today fail after so long with age. or they just get old and incompatible.

Unrelated and those supposed "hurdles" are no reason to stop pursuing the current EV path. IC, like the horse and buggy, will be a passing thought eventually. Not for a long time still but it will happen. That's the nature of technology and progress.

 

There is no reason not to keep pushing the technology I never said anything close to that. I just don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket and we should keep working on ICE, EV and even Hydrogen. 

The ICE is far from dead and not quite the Horse and Buggy. The simple fact is until the EV is better in every way than a ICE it is still just an option not a primary in the market. Prices need to come down, batteries need to get better, infrastructure needs to be built up and the cars need to be  able to be recharges in the same time as a fill of gas to satisfy most people. 

There is a segment of society that hold great fascination for the EV and are willing to put up with the in-convinces. A larger segment can not afford them and even more really have little knowledge on them if any interest. This will take time to change minds. The more and better product will do that but it will still take time and even better products. 

The simple fact is EV cars are coming but keep the spade in the shed as it will be a good while before they toss the last scoop of dirt on the ICE. The market will be a mix for a good while yet. 

Hyper, I think the degradation issue with batteries is almost over, both Tesla and GM/LG has stated that even with fast charging, it will not reduce the expected life of the battery and they still will continue to warranty it for 100,000 miles. Even Nissan is now on record as saying that their new battery pack that will give the leaf a 200+ mile range for generation 2 expected to be unveiled next year and in production by end of 2017 or so the media speculates will not be affected by fast charging.

I believe the battery packs are probably built with additional cell capacity to take into account the DC fast charges that give you 80% charge fast.

• Life ain't free and they will find a way to charge you for just about anything anymore. 

 

• I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.  

Planned obsolescence will really take hold here.

While I agree with the first statement above, unless manufacturers POINTEDLY install OBVIOUS obsolescence tech, the fact that the vehicle is powered electrically should not incite mass 'this is outdated, gotta get a new one' mentality in the market. Phones incorporate a LOT of fleeting tech & apps which yes, are subject to superficial judgement, but these types of features in vehicles are pretty much independent of the power plant propelling such. Phonesa re also a HELLUVA lot more affordable than cars- most people don't shoulder a loan to own one.

 

Even subsequent generations of EVs that have improved range still should not see mass incentive to upgrade… this is in the same vein as IC vehicles' MPG improvement in subsequent gens. It's not usually enough to cause a trade- the costs are too steep for most consumers.

 

I think what you miss is that EV is only at the start of the learning and investment curve where IC is at the end. With a EV we could be just months with major improvments with technology investments or we could be years it all matters on how it progresses and that remains the great unknown. . 

Based on other electronics I suspect that will see much greater changes in the EV auto than we have seen year to year in a IC car. Also electronic today fail after so long with age. or they just get old and incompatible.

Unrelated and those supposed "hurdles" are no reason to stop pursuing the current EV path. IC, like the horse and buggy, will be a passing thought eventually. Not for a long time still but it will happen. That's the nature of technology and progress.

 

There is no reason not to keep pushing the technology I never said anything close to that. I just don't think we should put all our eggs in one basket and we should keep working on ICE, EV and even Hydrogen. 

 

The ICE is far from dead and not quite the Horse and Buggy. The simple fact is until the EV is better in every way than a ICE it is still just an option not a primary in the market. Prices need to come down, batteries need to get better, infrastructure needs to be built up and the cars need to be  able to be recharges in the same time as a fill of gas to satisfy most people. 

There is a segment of society that hold great fascination for the EV and are willing to put up with the in-convinces. A larger segment can not afford them and even more really have little knowledge on them if any interest. This will take time to change minds. The more and better product will do that but it will still take time and even better products. 

 

The simple fact is EV cars are coming but keep the spade in the shed as it will be a good while before they toss the last scoop of dirt on the ICE. The market will be a mix for a good while yet.

And everything you just mentioned about EVs happened with ICE, hence my horse and buggy reference. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when.

Technology is converging. Let me explain that a bit. Landlines vs cellphones. Back in the 80's with the brick, there was no reason why cellphones had anything over land lines other than no strings. Voice reception was $h!ty, coverage was bad, and Motorola lost billions of dollars.

Now look at cellphones versus landlines. I still think landlines have excellent reception, but cellphones have become so much more. For some people, it's their book, their computer, their camera, their airline ticket, their ordering catalog's, their internet....

And the connected car, whether gas or electric will be forthcoming. Imagine the Volvo concept - where your car becomes your personal sanctuary, the car drives itself so the driver can go snooze off or watch a movie, or read a book or drive all the way across America, find itself the place to plug-in or get wirelessly charged, sync w/ your Apple Pay if you have iPhone, pay all the tolls, all at once. Electric cars, may not take over. But, being willing to accept the advanatges. For example - your can "fuel" your car at home, instead at a gas pump. You can do things with EVs, like the Bolt, Model 3, next Leaf....there's more to come.

 

• Life ain't free and they will find a way to charge you for just about anything anymore. 

 

• I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.  

Planned obsolescence will really take hold here. 

While I agree with the first statement above, unless manufacturers POINTEDLY install OBVIOUS obsolescence tech, the fact that the vehicle is powered electrically should not incite mass 'this is outdated, gotta get a new one' mentality in the market. Phones incorporate a LOT of fleeting tech & apps which yes, are subject to superficial judgement, but these types of features in vehicles are pretty much independent of the power plant propelling such. Phonesa re also a HELLUVA lot more affordable than cars- most people don't shoulder a loan to own one.

 

Even subsequent generations of EVs that have improved range still should not see mass incentive to upgrade… this is in the same vein as IC vehicles' MPG improvement in subsequent gens. It's not usually enough to cause a trade- the costs are too steep for most consumers.

 

Phones are cheaper but the way companies do their plans now...you basically are getting a loan out for a phone. Granted it's "interest free"(even though they are charging you one way or another). but it's still a loan, 2 years and then the phone is yours. 

I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.

You... you mean like cars?

 

I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.

 

You... you mean like cars?

 

At least cars hold their value after the initial depreciation. Cell Phones and lap tops are generally worthless accept for the Apple offer at the store for a used one they scrap. 

Then there are trucks that generally hold their value very well as even a fire wood special with the bed head together with a chain in place of a gate can still bring $2K. 

This is the real question. 
 

Would EV cars be where they are at today if the government has not forced the issue in some places with Zero emissions and government funding on kick backs and department of energy loans?

If the EV car was so perfected and superior in all aspects would counties like Norway have to pass laws to force nothing but EV cars? 

While the issued have forced the EV to where it is at today it is still not where it should be to satisfy everyone reasonably. If a product is right and good generally it does not need laws to help it or government kick backs to pay for it.  

A lot of ground has been gained but there is still work to do. Like I have said they need a balanced approach to all types of power and auto usage. Not one will be a fit all for everyone even in the distant future. 

Too bad we can't get cars to run on BS as Washington could power us all for a life time. 

I see electric cars as being much like lap tops and cell phones. Most will hold little value getting old as they will be the old models no one wants as the ranges will be shorter and the technology will be very out dated in 5-10 years.

 

You... you mean like cars?

 

At least cars hold their value after the initial depreciation. Cell Phones and lap tops are generally worthless accept for the Apple offer at the store for a used one they scrap. 

 

Then there are trucks that generally hold their value very well as even a fire wood special with the bed head together with a chain in place of a gate can still bring $2K.

Umm, that depends on the car. Compare the values between an Accord and Avenger (when they were both new) to what they were worth just six months later.

Great point, like the horse and buggy that is still used today, the 1940's was a turning point for many in going to the car and yet not until after WWII did the car become de facto standard. Bigger question is will it take 50 years to go from hose n buggy to petro auto for ev auto to replace petro auto as the common auto?

 

Me think about half that time if not less. 10-20 years at most.

Look at it this way. Technology/advancment in hybrids/EVs is all well & good, but you still have to get people to BUY THEM.

Hybrids have been here for 15 years now, and while everyone is jumping to offer 1 or more EVs, last year hybrids/electrics only grabbed .6 of the market.

Stated again :: 15 years = 0.6% of the market.

So 10-20 years to reach 51% is just about completely out of the realm of possibility.

My guess is a minimum of 30 years. 

 

Great point, like the horse and buggy that is still used today, the 1940's was a turning point for many in going to the car and yet not until after WWII did the car become de facto standard. Bigger question is will it take 50 years to go from hose n buggy to petro auto for ev auto to replace petro auto as the common auto?

 

Me think about half that time if not less. 10-20 years at most.

Look at it this way. Technology/advancment in hybrids/EVs is all well & good, but you still have to get people to BUY THEM.

Hybrids have been here for 15 years now, and while everyone is jumping to offer 1 or more EVs, last year hybrids/electrics only grabbed .6 of the market.

 

Stated again :: 15 years = 0.6% of the market.

 

So 10-20 years to reach 51% is just about completely out of the realm of possibility.

My guess is a minimum of 30 years. 

 

Trend lines do not have to be linear 

They don't, but certainly usually are in this industry.

They don't, but certainly usually are in this industry.

No, not really.

In 1985 you could count the number of mid-size SUV/Crossovers on one hand, today, you'd need an excel spreadsheet just for the ones that are no longer in production. 

Look at the adoption of Turbo-4 cylinders since 1980.... flat line and then huge spike. 

 

They don't, but certainly usually are in this industry.

No, not really.

 

In 1985 you could count the number of mid-size SUV/Crossovers on one hand, today, you'd need an excel spreadsheet just for the ones that are no longer in production. 

 

Look at the adoption of Turbo-4 cylinders since 1980.... flat line and then huge spike. 

 

May need to use an asterisk that the models we have today were spurred mostly due to regulations not peoples choices. 

If it were not for regulations we would till be mostly RWD and V8 yet today as the automakers would not have deviated to what was required not asked for. 

EV and hybrid autos were never high on the list of auto buyers as it was something few asked for. But now like the turbo 4 regulations made MFG's invest and in time the auto buyers will adapt like they did to FWD Turbo small sedans. 

Note during the adaption to smaller FWD cars the truck market and SUV market exploded. Was this just coincident or by choice of the non adapters?

Generally people do not like change but they will change if they have to or sub the next closest thing in this case trucks.

The CUV is doing well mostly because it is a little more roomy and usable over a small sedan. Also cheaper than than a full size SUV that is off the charts. Again adaption not their first choice.  

Adaption is what the market is hoping for. So far it has been reluctant to many hybrids and EV cars but as they get better and there are less choices adaption will set in. It is Like in the Dish commercial people are settlers. In time we all settle  on many things.  

 

They don't, but certainly usually are in this industry.

No, not really.

In 1985 you could count the number of mid-size SUV/Crossovers on one hand, today, you'd need an excel spreadsheet just for the ones that are no longer in production. 

1985 is…. 30 years ago. For the record; I stated "a minimum of 30 years for H/EVs to hit 51% of the market.

I got what you posted DD, but I just don't see a massive huge swell pushing H/EVs over 50% of the U.S. market in a mere 10 years. There is a considerable list of obstacles to overcome.

Even Tesla's 400,000 pre-orders --if condensed into a single year-- is only 1 percent of the market by itself, and 400,000 is 8 times Tesla's output last year. 

In order to 'make it' in 10 years, H/EVS would have to increase marketshare 50%/yr :

'15 : .6%

'16 : .9%

'17 : 1.4%

'18 : 2.1%

'19 : 3.2%

'20 : 4.7%

'21 : 7.1%

'22 : 10.6%

'23 : 16.0%

'24 : 24%

'25 : 36%

'26 : 54%

True....about most people not wanting to change....status quo, and only change when they have to....preferably/

How does this tie in with electrics?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/norway-ban-gas-powered-cars_us_57559c81e4b0ed593f14f4f6

From the link:

Title:

Norway Might Try To Ban Gas-Powered Cars

From the article that was written...today:

Norway might try to leave gasoline in the dust. 

The Scandinavian country’s four major political parties reportedly agreed last week to ban the sale of gas- and diesel-powered cars by 2025, according to Electrek, citing a story in Norwegian paper Dagens Næringsliv. Though there’s some dispute about whether all parties actually support the proposal, it appears to be more ambitious than similar plans that have been considered recently in other parts of the world. 

India and the Netherlands have both batted around proposals to stop sales of gas-powered cars in the coming decades. Neither country has enacted a plan to see this through yet. In addition, several U.S. states, including New York and California, have weighed banning sales of gas-fueled cars by 2050. In contrast, Norway would seek to phase out gas-powered car sales much sooner.

 

By 2025...

New York and California by 2050....

Maybe...

By hook or by crook...

By want,  or by necessity...

By force or by will....

The electric car WILL replace the internal combustion one very very soon. 

We could go round and round in circles trying to undermine the power of the dark side...

Lets face it...we all have a little bit of fear and anger in all of us...

We will all succumb to the power of the dark side one way or other sometime...

Greased Lightning is awaiting its Tesla battery transplant and electric motor...

Dont hate the messenger, man!

Im only quoting what he is saying...

Deep down inside...we all know.... its the EV  the one that we want! Ooo,Ooo,Ooo!!!

 

 

They don't, but certainly usually are in this industry.

No, not really.

In 1985 you could count the number of mid-size SUV/Crossovers on one hand, today, you'd need an excel spreadsheet just for the ones that are no longer in production. 

1985 is…. 30 years ago. For the record; I stated "a minimum of 30 years for H/EVs to hit 51% of the market.

 

I got what you posted DD, but I just don't see a massive huge swell pushing H/EVs over 50% of the U.S. market in a mere 10 years. There is a considerable list of obstacles to overcome.

 

Even Tesla's 400,000 pre-orders --if condensed into a single year-- is only 1 percent of the market by itself, and 400,000 is 8 times Tesla's output last year. 

 

In order to 'make it' in 10 years, H/EVS would have to increase marketshare 50%/yr :

'15 : .6%

'16 : .9%

'17 : 1.4%

'18 : 2.1%

'19 : 3.2%

'20 : 4.7%

'21 : 7.1%

'22 : 10.6%

'23 : 16.0%

'24 : 24%

'25 : 36%

'26 : 54%

 

And the huge surge in SUVs started in the early 90s.

New York and California by 2050….

2050 - 2016 = 34.

India & the Netherlands (wants to ban IC vehicles in the "coming decades")…neither country has enacted a plan to see this thru.

This is a most likely the best manner to achieve the 'goal', outlaw existing product. Not that I would advocate that, I hate force applied "for my own good". And mostly because these 'greater goods' are never applied to those imposing them. Yea; I'm suddenly convinced.

- - - - -

LOTS and LOTS of talk and grand ideas. Good, I have no problem with discussion & ideas, but inevitably they must go thru 'practicality & reailty filters'. Or, just enforce it by law/fines and practicality & reality can go take a dirt nap.

And the huge surge in SUVs started in the early 90s.

1991 is still 25 years ago, not 10.

For the record; the Suburban is 81 years old and the Wagoneer is 50. 

Well, I think it'll come down to this really. Automakers have a lot of niche models now to cater to multiple buyers. How much duplication is there possible before it just isn't feasible?

Almost every car and truck will by hybridized by the end of the next decade for sure.

You are right Balthy, that politicians don't think through certain things....and yes, whether India or the Netherlands have not planned for it logicallyhell, New York and California too...

We all know though, what happens when politicians get that gleam in their eye...

Also, most people around the planet are having a change of heart towards pollution and the dirty car...

Yeah yeah...I know...coal burning electric plants...yada yada yada...

The EV is the golden boy as we speak...

No matter what...most people are ready to adapt to the EV, and don't care about the EV adapting to them...and most people have turned a blind eye with every dirty little secret involving electric infrastructure, batteries and everything else concerning EVs, Hybrids and such...

Hence my colourful post above...its full of those messages that I posted in this post...

The thing is...EVs are the next best thing to hit mankind...and by hook or by crook, the popular vote for EVs is only growing...

Between Silicon Valley types that think that they could change the world with autonomous driving, or the green people advocating emissions free electrics...(yeah I know...emissions free and coal burning electric plants...) and they are here to stay.

The gasoline powered car's days are numbered.

When most politicians around the world are battle yelling for the EV, most sheep will follow.

Some sheep (like me) live in an area where its beneficial to my local economy and we as a society are ready for EVs....other sheep don't know what havoc EVs might cuase if petrol powered cars are banned...don't matter, the times, they are a-changin'.

PS:

What adaptation requirements are there?

People charge their EVs from home!!!

WHEN range will be as good as petrol powered vehicles, the need for charging stations DECREASE!!!!

Plus...charging on the fly roadways are in our reach where we dont even have to stop!!!

Its the electric infrastructure that needs to be beefed up...are we as a planet producing enough electricity to support a world wide EV revolution??!!!  

THAT is the question...

 

And the huge surge in SUVs started in the early 90s.

1991 is still 25 years ago, not 10.

For the record; the Suburban is 81 years old and the Wagoneer is 50. 

 

I did say mid-size.

I did say in 1985 you could count the number of mid-size on your hands. - S-10 Blazer and Ford Bronco II were out in 1983, XJ Cherokee and Toyota 4Runner in 1984, Nissan Pathfinder in 1985, Mitsu/Dodge Montero in 1985.  That was essentially it in 1985.. 6 mid-size SUVs 

1989 - Geo Tracker, Second gen 4Runner

1991 is when the boom really started - The Explorer really exploded the popularity of the segment. Also in 1991 - The Isuzu Trooper and Rodeo. Oldsmobile Bravada joins in the 1991 refresh attempting to be the first attempt at a luxury mid-size. Land Rover Discovery I

1993 the Honda Passport, Grand Cherokee, Kia Sportage, 

1994 Toyota RAV4, Subaru Outback, 

1995 Honda CR-V, Second Generation of GM Mid-sizers, Second gen Nissan Pathfinder, Acura SLX, Second Generation Explorer, Third Gen 4Runner

1996 Infiniti QX4, Mercury Mountaineer, Land Rover Freelander

1997 The king of the Mid-Lux segment the Lexus RX, Dodge Durango, Lincoln Navigator, Mercedes M-Class, Subaru Forester

1998 - Land Rover Discovery II

1999 - Second Generation Grand Cherokee, Cadillac Escalade, BMW X5

2000 - Acura MDX, Pontiac Aztek, Buick Rendezvous, Toyota Highlander,  Ford Escape/Mariner

After 2000 it gets far too complicated to continue the chart.

2000 - 1985 = 15 years.  If I continued to 2002, there would have been examples from more dead brands than there were models available in 1985. (Saturn, Isuzu, Mercury, Pontiac, Hummer, Geo, Suzuki, Oldsmobile)

End Result is that we are moving at breakneck speed and change is going to come much faster in the next 5 years than they did in the last 10 years.

Expect the unexpected and that would say that what seemed normal for 1970 to 2000 will be consolidated to half that time as we move forward with the EV world I believe.

Times are a changing whether you like it or not.

My opinion of the general event (the swing towards EVs & hybrids) is immaterial to the event itself.

I'm not against it, I like more choice. EV should work well for a large swath of consumers. Of course, they're not going to be appealing or practical for all, and talk of banning IC vehicles state-wide is ridiculous, and that I reserve the right to speak against.

But I'm not going to jump on the hyperbole train WRT EVs and the Great Changing of the Automotive World, no matter how many colorful memes are posted.

I wait to see actual results (H/EV sales) before I pick up the vuvuzela and do a rhythmic dance. Right now, to date, H/EV sales have been disastrously poor. Growing, yes, but still disastrously poor. 

{insert 'deal with it' meme of your choice here}

This would be a perfect "Deal with it" meme...

You said my choice, right?

It even has a vuvuzela in it!

My opinion of the general event (the swing towards EVs & hybrids) is immaterial to the event itself.

I'm not against it, I like more choice. EV should work well for a large swath of consumers. Of course, they're not going to be appealing or practical for all, and talk of banning IC vehicles state-wide is ridiculous, and that I reserve the right to speak against.

 

But I'm not going to jump on the hyperbole train WRT EVs and the Great Changing of the Automotive World, no matter how many colorful memes are posted.

I wait to see actual results (H/EV sales) before I pick up the vuvuzela and do a rhythmic dance. Right now, to date, H/EV sales have been disastrously poor. Growing, yes, but still disastrously poor. 

 

{insert 'deal with it' meme of your choice here}

+1 

Because well informed stance, plus Buick Invicta, and Ford C.O.E 

Those tasty machines need to be on the road!

My opinion of the general event (the swing towards EVs & hybrids) is immaterial to the event itself.

I'm not against it, I like more choice. EV should work well for a large swath of consumers. Of course, they're not going to be appealing or practical for all, and talk of banning IC vehicles state-wide is ridiculous, and that I reserve the right to speak against.

 

But I'm not going to jump on the hyperbole train WRT EVs and the Great Changing of the Automotive World, no matter how many colorful memes are posted.

I wait to see actual results (H/EV sales) before I pick up the vuvuzela and do a rhythmic dance. Right now, to date, H/EV sales have been disastrously poor. Growing, yes, but still disastrously poor. 

 

{insert 'deal with it' meme of your choice here}

Yes this is an evolution not a revolution of change. As of now companies are not even making money on the EV cars and little on the Hybrids. A lot of ground needs to be covered to make them more affordable and universally accepted. 

Too often people who live near salt water think the entire country has the same wants and needs as they do. Nothing could be more different than the life in Iowa and LA. No one may be wrong but they do have different needs and lifestyles and that is why it will take all forms to settle this transformation. 

Also along the way what ever is discovered can change the direction fast here. Who knows the EV could lose out to a yet undiscovered technology that may be found in the next ten years. 

Something new can always be just around the corner and you never know it till you discover it. 

 

My opinion of the general event (the swing towards EVs & hybrids) is immaterial to the event itself.

I'm not against it, I like more choice. EV should work well for a large swath of consumers. Of course, they're not going to be appealing or practical for all, and talk of banning IC vehicles state-wide is ridiculous, and that I reserve the right to speak against.

 

But I'm not going to jump on the hyperbole train WRT EVs and the Great Changing of the Automotive World, no matter how many colorful memes are posted.

I wait to see actual results (H/EV sales) before I pick up the vuvuzela and do a rhythmic dance. Right now, to date, H/EV sales have been disastrously poor. Growing, yes, but still disastrously poor. 

 

{insert 'deal with it' meme of your choice here}

 

Yes this is an evolution not a revolution of change. As of now companies are not even making money on the EV cars and little on the Hybrids. A lot of ground needs to be covered to make them more affordable and universally accepted. 

Too often people who live near salt water think the entire country has the same wants and needs as they do. Nothing could be more different than the life in Iowa and LA. No one may be wrong but they do have different needs and lifestyles and that is why it will take all forms to settle this transformation. 

Also along the way what ever is discovered can change the direction fast here. Who knows the EV could lose out to a yet undiscovered technology that may be found in the next ten years. 

Something new can always be just around the corner and you never know it till you discover it. 

 

You are reaching here Hyper....deep deep reaching trying to justify your own bias against EVs...

"As of now companies are not even making money on the EV cars and little on the Hybrids. A lot of ground needs to be covered to make them more affordable and universally accepted."

While this statement may be true....its a general statement...

Didnt GM and Chrysler go bankrupt and Ford mortgage the entire company because  they were losing money by building petrol powered cars?

And....in Tesla's case....too many factors involved on why they lose money....just like in the good ole boy Detroit 3's case on why they lost money....

I dont know Toyota's finances concerning the Prius...but because I know Toyota has the largest war chest of all auto makers, and because I know Toyota does not like to bleed money either....and that is why reluctantly they killed Scion and NOT Prius too, only scaling back Prius a tad suggests to me that Prius is actually a decent business model for them...

OK...not as popular...at the moment, for them to expand Prius, but enough loyal fan base to continue on with Prius...

Also...

400 000 plus pre-orders of the Model 3 suggest that EVs dont have THAT much work convincing people to buy EVs..

The Chevrolet Volt has also carved a sweet little niche for itself too...

As does the Nissan Leaf.

So nay to that statement...

"Too often people who live near salt water think the entire country has the same wants and needs as they do. Nothing could be more different than the life in Iowa and LA. No one may be wrong but they do have different needs and lifestyles and that is why it will take all forms to settle this transformation."

True.

Goes both ways though...

In Quebec...where I live...EVs make sense...a helluva lot of sense...

No one may be wrong...and yes we live differently than Los Angelenos and Iowans and therefore we all have different needs and lifestyles....but...if Los Angelenos and Quebecois are ready for EVs, that does not mean that people INSIDE these types of areas should just accept the  dooms day predictions from  people OUTSIDE these areas.....you know....

Washington state : 7 million people

British Columbia: 4.5 million people

California: 40 million people

Quebec: 8 million people

Ontario: 13.5 million people

That is at least 73 million voices that will probably make EVs  a very huge success in the next 5-15 years....there are other states and provinces also....but I think 73 million proves a point....not a majority by any means, but enough to at least be a niche???!!!

So while it does take all forms to settle a transformation....in at least these 2 regions (1. West Coast- Cali, Wash. and BC and the CDN East Coast of Ont & Que) and any other parts of North America too....this transformation has already begun, and are not scared to change either...time and money are the ONLY restrictions....the oil barrier has already been broken....

"Also along the way what ever is discovered can change the direction fast here. Who knows the EV could lose out to a yet undiscovered technology that may be found in the next ten years. 

Something new can always be just around the corner and you never know it till you discover it."

This statement smells of desperation...

Again, while it may ring true...because once again, its a general and vague statement that applies to EVERYTHING technological in ANY given time...

The problem here is....in 2016....there is no other technological tour de force that could rival ELECTRICITY...

The Chinese and the Greeks of ancient times....they worshiped electricity....Raiden and Zeus.....they were not dumb, they knew what the power of electricity meant....they just did not know how to harness it....

We do....

We learned how to use it to our advantage for quite sometime now.

BUT....We are just learning NOW how to keep it long term....

I dont think there is another fuel source as miraculous as electricity out there..

Maybe light...but I think it will take a visit by outer space immigrants to teach us to harness the power of the sun....as we havent got a clue yet to use that to our advantage....we use some of it to our advantage....nuclear fission and fusion....but we do great harm when we are not careful with it...or when we feel like imitating  vengeful Ancient Greek Gods with it....

400 000 plus pre-orders of the Model 3 suggest that EVs dont have THAT much work convincing people to buy EVs..

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people".

Balthy...

That would be on par with Ford's Mustang in 1964...

THAT little figure grew into a  hot contested niche for the next 50 years.

At its height, 7 or 8 models...

EVs....in 2016...well....in about 5 years from now...most every single auto maker will have at least 1 100% EV automobile in their stable....

Most will have an average joe model along with an expensive one.

And....there are more car brands today than there was in 1967-1968-1969...at the height of the pony car wars....

Back then, not every car brand wanted to join that war....mid size muscle was enough...

Today....ALL brands want to be in the EV scuffle.

Genesis CEO has this to say:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/449914/genesis-planning-an-electric-vehicle/

The Genesis chief believes that “full electric cars will be the future in the auto industry”. It’s not known when Genesis’ electric vehicle will debut, however, or if it will be a standalone model

 

Porsche and Audi and M-B think this too...

GM also thinks this...The Bolt was launched to compete with the Model 3 for a reason...

Nissan too with the Leaf....in fact, the Bolt is to compete against the Leaf AND the Model 3 even  though that all three enjoy a different part of the segment...

Sounds familiar?

A lot like the pony car wars of the mid-60s....

A Barracuda, a Challenger and a Mercury Cougar were a slight step bigger.

A Trans Am and a Javelin were quirky on purpose to be different.

And the classic formula...

With the Japanese trying to spin their own unique twist on it with a Fairlady Z and Celica...

I see that with EVs today...

If EVs were only a smidgen of the automobile pie....I dont see how could many automakers be wasting billions on a niche that will NOT be sellable....yet Porsche, Rolls, M-B, BMW, Audi, GM, Hyundai, Acura and so forth are wasting billions trying to chase a 1% point in market share.

Once a CRV, RAV4 etc equivalent EVs are reality, governments can stop any EV incentives as they won't be needed.

Frogger, you are unto something...

So far...EVs are sedans...

Sedans took a HUGE tumble in sales this past month...and CUVs took a huge spike in sales...

Like Frogger said...once the CUV EVs for average joes start rolling off the assembly line...so will the popularity of the EV will rise...because, after all, a CUV IS fast becoming the vehicle of choice for the masses...the Bolt as a small hatch may not be the one...but a Chevy Equinox style EV ala Tesla Model X, but cheaper in price...will definitely make a splash...

A Model 3 SEDAN took 400 000 pre-orders...imagine what an affordable Chevy EV CUV could do...or a Buick Encore EV...remember, the Verano SEDAN was canceled because the Encore CUV is very very in demand!!! 

This is why I think the Chevy BOLT will be a huge success for GM.

Balthy...

 

That would be on par with Ford's Mustang in 1964...

THAT little figure grew into a  hot contested niche for the next 50 years.

At its height, 7 or 8 models...

 

EVs....in 2016...well....in about 5 years from now...most every single auto maker will have at least 1 100% EV automobile in their stable....

Most will have an average joe model along with an expensive one.

Expressed as percentages :

400,000 Tesla Model 3 orders (which no one believes will be filled in 12 months), is 1% of the current U.S. marketshare. Much more likely scenario is that Tesla builds 100K Model 3s in it's first full model year, or 0.25% of the market. Not that I believe Tesla should be gunning for mass volume above all else (IE; quality & reliability), but that's what Tesla has stated.

The first full model year the Mustang sold 559,451 units, which was 6.3% of the 8.8 millions units sold that year. Not "on par" at all.

- - - - - 

I realize the EV is getting mad hype, and that every brand is thinking or introducing one. Many many brands have convertibles, too, but they're still only about 1.5% of the market.

Does most brands having a convertible equate to 'mass acceptance', or is it legitimately determined via meaningful market penetration instead? 

400 000 plus pre-orders of the Model 3 suggest that EVs dont have THAT much work convincing people to buy EVs..

 

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people".

Every new market car started at less than one percent.

Perspective.

 

 

400 000 plus pre-orders of the Model 3 suggest that EVs dont have THAT much work convincing people to buy EVs..

 

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people".

Every new market car started at less than one percent.

Perspective.

 

Mic. Drop. 

Drew, if you're reading through this... can we get a little mic-drop character???? 

 

Balthy...

 

That would be on par with Ford's Mustang in 1964...

THAT little figure grew into a  hot contested niche for the next 50 years.

At its height, 7 or 8 models...

 

EVs....in 2016...well....in about 5 years from now...most every single auto maker will have at least 1 100% EV automobile in their stable....

Most will have an average joe model along with an expensive one.

 

Expressed as percentages :

400,000 Tesla Model 3 orders (which no one believes will be filled in 12 months), is 1% of the current U.S. marketshare. Much more likely scenario is that Tesla builds 100K Model 3s in it's first full model year, or 0.025% of the market. Not that I believe Tesla should be gunning for mass volume above all else (IE; quality & reliability), but that's what Tesla has stated.

 

The first full model year the Mustang sold 559,451 units, which was 6.3% of the 8.8 millions units sold that year. Not "on par" at all.

 

- - - - - 

I realize the EV is getting mad hype, and that every brand is thinking or introducing one. Many many brands have convertibles, too, but they're still only about 1.5% of the market.

Does most brands having a convertible equate to 'mass acceptance', or is it legitimately determined via meaningful market penetration instead? 

 

Most brands do not have convertibles. A minority do (15 brands do, 19 brands do not, not counting high end like Bentley/Rolls/Lambo), and of those a good half of them are 2-seater roadsters rather than convertible versions of a 4 person coupe, meaning those cars are a niche of a niche. 

Eventually, most brands will have an EV. That will be an bigger brand adoption rate than convertibles. As far as manufacturers, all manufacturers will have at least one amongst their brands. 

Brands that have EVs now or announced as coming shortly.

Ford, Chevrolet, Tesla, Nissan, Fiat, Hyundai, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, VW.

I am of the opinion that the PHEV method of going EV are the next big step though.   Plug-In Hybrids that can run in EV mode for 30 - 60 miles will get people used to charging up on the go... at the mall, or at work, and at home.  It is this step that will get many of the future chargers installed.... as more PHEVs are sold, full EVs will ride on the coat tails. 

 

 

400 000 plus pre-orders of the Model 3 suggest that EVs dont have THAT much work convincing people to buy EVs..

 

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people".

Every new market car started at less than one percent.

Perspective.

 

You obviously skimmed over my post above RE the 'new market' Mustang.

400 000 plus pre-orders of the Model 3 suggest that EVs dont have THAT much work convincing people to buy EVs..

ONE percent of the market is not "convincing people".

Every new market car started at less than one percent.

Perspective.

You obviously skimmed over my post above RE the 'new market' Mustang.

Most brands do not have convertibles. A minority do….

Well, I just threw that out there, I did not check the numbers because the point wasn't convertibles.

Also, a convert is a whole 'nuther bag of walnuts (some don't want, some have security issues, longevity issues, pricing issues, etc).

But WRT EVs, altho the difference isn't that tangible (vs. a folding fabric roof & cramped rear seat), there still are very real considerations for a LOT of consumers (range, cost, reliability… range, etc) So much so that these are commonly stated, and while a convertible's attributes are well known (see above), there is a significant unknown component to EVs for many people (can I charge it @ work, do I need special elec upgrades in my home, what are the associated costs, etc).

THAT'S where "convincing" people comes into the picture. Anyone can pretty much answer the question 'is a convertible for me' after a few minutes of reflection. With EVs, outside input is often necessary.

It's obvious that EVs are up & coming, and are going to spread. No argument.

How fast and how widely is open to wild conjecture at this point, and little else. 

At one time, there were people who wondered where they'd be able to find gas for their new cars. No one knew how far they could go before finding another gas station. It was not near as convenient as feeding your horse for the next trip.

Again, perspective.

 

 

Every new market car started at less than one percent.

Perspective.

You obviously skimmed over my post above RE the 'new market' Mustang.

No I didn't and I maintain my stance. Rare exceptions to this rule does not change that fact. To compare a Gas powered Mustang (you know, that fuel that had already been in use for 70 years or so) to a completely new tech EV is very shortsighted. Remember, cars started out at one percent in an age of horse and buggy with many of the same concerns being expressed here over EV cars. It's not hard to see why your "1%" remark doesn't hold a whole lot of water here, as a result.

Sure the Mustang (which I point out was not brought up by me here) was gas-powered, but it very much was a "new market" vehicle (and a relatively frivolous one at that; a sporty, small fun car). It blew up the marketshare pie. 

Again just to put it in perspective: Mustang, full model year #1 : 6.3% of the market in the U.S.

EVs plus hybrids, 15-some years after intro, every model totaled together : 6.6% of the market.

I'm just not seeing the 'mass acceptance' picture as painted by many / some journalists. To date, it's a terrible thin slice of pie.

That MAY certainly change, the future is unwritten, but it takes time to turn an ocean liner around.

I still am of the opinion that 10 years isn't remotely close to the time required to clear 50% of the market.

Every new market car started at less than one percent.

Perspective.

You obviously skimmed over my post above RE the 'new market' Mustang.

No I didn't and I maintain my stance. Rare exceptions to this rule does not change that fact. To compare a Gas powered Mustang (you know, that fuel that had already been in use for 70 years or so) to a completely new tech EV is very shortsighted. Remember, cars started out at one percent in an age of horse and buggy with many of the same concerns being expressed here over EV cars. It's not hard to see why your "1%" remark doesn't hold a whole lot of water here, as a result.

Sure the Mustang (which I point out was not brought up by me here) was gas-powered, but it very much was a "new market" vehicle (and a relatively frivolous one at that; a sporty, small fun car). It blew up the marketshare pie.

Again just to put it in perspective: Mustang, full model year #1 : 6.3% of the market in the U.S.

EVs plus hybrids, 15-some years after intro, every model totaled together : 6.6% of the market.

I'm just not seeing the 'mass acceptance' picture as painted by many / some journalists. To date, it's a terrible thin slice of pie.

That MAY certainly change, the future is unwritten, but it takes time to turn an ocean liner around.

I still am of the opinion that 10 years isn't remotely close to the time required to clear 50% of the market.

Again, a gas powered car finding a niche in a world filled with gas powered cars and gas stations with which to power them, is not a convincing argument. That cars were even considered 100 years ago in the horse and buggy age (which is where EVs are at currently) is the more apt comparison here. Not sure why this is so confusing.

Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean that it isn't coming.

As far as manufacturers, Ford, GM, FCA, Nissan, BMW, Tesla, Mitsubishi, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, VW, each have at least one EV in production or starting production in the next 12 months.  Mazda has one but doesn't sell it in the US. 

That leaves.... Jaguar/Land Rover and Subaru as the hold outs? 

Again, a gas powered car finding a niche in a world filled with gas powered cars and gas stations with which to power them, is not a convincing argument. That cars were even considered 100 years ago in the horse and buggy age (which is where EVs are at currently) is the more apt comparison here. Not sure why this is so confusing.

Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean that it isn't coming.

The fact that the initial Mustang was gas powered is NOT it's 'new market' factor. Propellant is irrelevant to the 'new market' bar being set in this reference.

And I do "see it" (see end the end of post #92), but again; I'm not questioning 'if', only 'how quickly'.

I think my end of the discussion here has been very much on point.

Tesla is going to be selling the 60 kWh Model S (which actually has a 75 kWh battery) for a starting price of $66,000 before any credits. That is a 200 mile range car. If they can get the batteries cheaper a Model S starting at $60k in 5 years time seems doable.

Cars like the Leaf, and Mitsubishi miev-i whatever don't sell because they aren't any good. Stuff like a Soul EV or B-class, or Focus electric are too expensive compared to the gas counterpart.

Once Tesla and others start building good EV's at reasonable prices, gasonline power is dead.

Again, a gas powered car finding a niche in a world filled with gas powered cars and gas stations with which to power them, is not a convincing argument. That cars were even considered 100 years ago in the horse and buggy age (which is where EVs are at currently) is the more apt comparison here. Not sure why this is so confusing.

Just because you "don't see it" doesn't mean that it isn't coming.

The fact that the initial Mustang was gas powered is NOT it's 'new market' factor. Propellant is irrelevant to the 'new market' bar being set in this reference.

And I do "see it" (see end the end of post #92), but again; I'm not questioning 'if', only 'how quickly'.

I think my end of the discussion here has been very much on point.

Let me say this another way Balth because you're not getting it. The Mustang was a bad comparison for reasons already given. The example I gave is much more relatable to what is going on with EVs today.

Range and infrastructure. Those are the same problems that existed when the automotive industry wanted the automobile to be the defacto choice for personal transportation. It is the same thing today with EVs. That is what makes this one percent argument ring hollow.

Time, of course, will tell.

IMO, the dawn of the industry is an even worse example to compare to. FAR too different, horses & automobiles, than a gas vs. electric (otherwise functionally identical) automobile.

The tech jump with EVs isn't remotely close to the former. 

Of course, at the dawn; electrics (and steam) were initially more popular than gas.

Time, of course, will tell.

 

IMO, the dawn of the industry is an even worse example to compare to. FAR too different, horses & automobiles, than a gas vs. electric (otherwise functionally identical) automobile.

The tech jump with EVs isn't remotely close to the former. 

 

Of course, at the dawn; electrics (and steam) were initially more popular than gas.

Pay attention to what I'm actually saying though. The similarities between the two are most certainly to do with range and infrastructure (like fuel stations then vs charging stations now for example). I cannot make this any clearer and it is a far more similar deal than to bring up a Mustang like Olds attempted to do.