6 ms·

I'm really grateful to Tesla/GM/Nissan and the people buying their cars. It seems like even with all the missed milestones (mostly Tesla) they're still dragging

I'm really grateful to Tesla/GM/Nissan and the people buying their cars. It seems like even with all the missed milestones (mostly Tesla) they're still dragging the industry forward by leaps. I wonder what it would look like without them. Remember, the original cellphone cost $4000-something, before inflation. I don't even like cars, I like trains and walking and hate what cars have done to our cities and villages, but electric cars are the first tech in a long time that has given me a sense of optimism for the future that I've only ever felt looking at old advertisements[1] from before I was born. If there were Beatitudes for technology, maybe they'd go like: "Blessed are the early adopters, for they allow the meek-pocketbook'd to inherit the earth." [1] https://imgur.com/FRKdZ2o https://imgur.com/FRKdZ2o (Have you ever seen an advertisement this positive? Ads these days mostly seem to fall into categories like glib humor and narcissistic 'buy this because you deserve it/you're the best/you can't be the best unless you have it'.)

thephyber 9y ago
> I'm really grateful to Tesla/GM/Nissan and the people buying their cars. I find it interesting that it's GM and not Ford. In the pre-2008 years (when Ford didn't need a bailout but GM did), Ford was investing in and rolling out gas-electric hybrids while GM was very heavily invested in SUVs and opted to minimize hybrid development while maximizing the $500/unit upgrade to "FlexFuel" type ICE drivetrains. When the price of gas spiked in 2005-2007, Ford benefitted while GM was reeling. I wonder if the restructure during the bailout changed GM's priorities...
- mywittyname 9y ago
  Ford's electrification strategy was and still is hybridization (much like Toyota's). Personally, I think Ford/Toyota's strategy is best. Any improvement in the pure EV space also impact hybrids. It's completely possible for battery tech to improve to the point that a hybrid option is basically no cost (or at a cost savings). As in, instead of offering a V6 or turbo 4, a Ford can offer a hybrid drive train at the same price as those engines, but with the better performance and fuel economy. Also, keep in mind that Ford is a really a truck builder with a car division. The bulk of their profits come from F-series pickups and EV pickups are probably a long way off, but hybrid pickups are coming this generation. I think Nissan and GM are capitalizing on the fact that Ford and Toyota are sitting back, watching how the market evolves. But so far, neither the Leaf, Volt, nor Bolt have earned any any real ROI.
  - oillio 9y ago
    Hybrids lose so many benefits of a pure EV vehicle. EV drivetrains are much simpler. No complicated transmission or ICE. Easier to produce, scale, and maintain. Hybrids require all the complexity of both systems, and the weight.
    - foolfoolz 9y ago
      benefits to who? the best thing for the car buyer is a standard ICE car - every mechanic out there can fix it. the worst thing out there for the consumer is an electric car that can only be fixed by the dealer
      - martin_bech 9y ago
        How are you going to get gas, when the rest of us are driving EVs?
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        That's a great argument against every new technology in a car. For example, only a subset of body shops can do aluminum.
    - thinkling 9y ago
      FWIW, extra complexity and complicated transmissions can be largely avoid with the "range extended EV" approach, where the gas engine is a generator producing electricity and doesn't drive the wheels directly. That said, the best vehicle in that style that I can think of, the Chevy Volt, does actually allow the engine to drive the wheels and has two planetary gear/clutch systems. On the plus side, the gas engine is expected to need much less maintenance than a regular engine that's used in a much wider power range.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        You want the BMW i3 with range extender, the gasoline engine only attaches to a generator.
    - 9y ago
j4ship 9y ago
"wonder what it would look like without them" ... they are following a trend in tech they see, not inventing physics. Its our phds and universities that prusue the underlying science. Companies make a cost analysis on the RandD and reep the profits ... if it wasnt GM it would be another company, and eventually it will be most companies if the tech proves itself to be as good as the propaganda says. All in a days work of capitalism , making sure hard work it rewarded and that we keep striving for better I dont praise GM for their work , I pay them , a fair market price. Thats what they deserve, but they are not gods they are just good engineers and business men doing their jobs and hopefully our schools keep creating them.
- manmal 9y ago
  Enterprises tend to stay in their local optimum until they are pushed out, and are forced by a competitor to look for another cow to milk. And there’s a reason for that - finding another cow to milk is expensive and risky. If Tesla had not been created, those other enterprises would have milked the gasoline cow for way longer.. perhaps another decade? I’m grateful that Elon is sticking out his neck on a daily basis, potentially slowing global warming as a result.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    >Enterprises tend to stay in their local optimum until they are pushed out, and are forced by a competitor to look for another cow to milk. And there’s a reason for that - finding another cow to milk is expensive and risky. That's a very nice statement of the innovator's dilemma.
gitah 9y ago
This is a very Silicon Valley / US bubble mindset. Telsa/GM/Nissan have made much contribution but your are missing the major factor driving the EV industry forward which is government industrial policy. The real reason is EU and China have announced their intention of banning ICE vehicles around 2030 with China having very aggressive EV marketshare goals starting next year. Companies that do not meet EV sale goals will have to buy credits from others that do just like a carbon emission market. This is causing all major automakers to not be complacent and invest heavily in EVs.
- Aron 9y ago
  Government policy would cave-in if the private companies lacked innovation and told them it was impossible. You need existence proofs like Tesla, who are highly leveraged to making EVs work and don't care a wit about preserving the old business.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    As a concrete example, consider the government effort to shift ethanol-to-be-mixed-with-gasoline from food-based sources to non-food sources like switchgrass. No one figured out how to efficiently turn switchgrass into ethanol, so it failed. And that was despite a huge economic incentive. In contrast, the government effort to promote electric cars, solar energy, and wind energy appear to be really paying off.
- sandover 9y ago
  This is misleading. These (quite recent) changes in governmental policy have come about as a result of things that Tesla managed to achieve, firstly, on its own, and secondly, through its effects on the behavior of other automakers. No major automaker was meaningfully working on EVs before Tesla; now they all are. Indeed, to a rare degree, the shift we're seeing in a major sector of the world economy is the result of the unilateral actions of just one person: Elon Musk.
  - sgc 9y ago
    Without hard proof, but having watched the last decade of environmental tech developments wit interest, I agree with you pretty much completely. None of those policies would exist if there was no hope of the success of the commercial technology within those timeframes. It would be like legislating nuclear fusion power generation. Nobody else did much of anything until Tesla began succeeding, and more importantly prepped the consumer market for EV demand.

thephyber 9y ago

> I'm really grateful to Tesla/GM/Nissan and the people buying their cars. I find it interesting that it's GM and not Ford. In the pre-2008 years (when Ford didn't need a bailout but GM did), Ford was investing in and rolling out gas-electric hybrids while GM was very heavily invested in SUVs and opted to minimize hybrid development while maximizing the $500/unit upgrade to "FlexFuel" type ICE drivetrains. When the price of gas spiked in 2005-2007, Ford benefitted while GM was reeling. I wonder if the restructure during the bailout changed GM's priorities...

mywittyname 9y ago
Ford's electrification strategy was and still is hybridization (much like Toyota's). Personally, I think Ford/Toyota's strategy is best. Any improvement in the pure EV space also impact hybrids. It's completely possible for battery tech to improve to the point that a hybrid option is basically no cost (or at a cost savings). As in, instead of offering a V6 or turbo 4, a Ford can offer a hybrid drive train at the same price as those engines, but with the better performance and fuel economy. Also, keep in mind that Ford is a really a truck builder with a car division. The bulk of their profits come from F-series pickups and EV pickups are probably a long way off, but hybrid pickups are coming this generation. I think Nissan and GM are capitalizing on the fact that Ford and Toyota are sitting back, watching how the market evolves. But so far, neither the Leaf, Volt, nor Bolt have earned any any real ROI.
- oillio 9y ago
  Hybrids lose so many benefits of a pure EV vehicle. EV drivetrains are much simpler. No complicated transmission or ICE. Easier to produce, scale, and maintain. Hybrids require all the complexity of both systems, and the weight.
  - foolfoolz 9y ago
    benefits to who? the best thing for the car buyer is a standard ICE car - every mechanic out there can fix it. the worst thing out there for the consumer is an electric car that can only be fixed by the dealer
    - martin_bech 9y ago
      How are you going to get gas, when the rest of us are driving EVs?
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      That's a great argument against every new technology in a car. For example, only a subset of body shops can do aluminum.
  - thinkling 9y ago
    FWIW, extra complexity and complicated transmissions can be largely avoid with the "range extended EV" approach, where the gas engine is a generator producing electricity and doesn't drive the wheels directly. That said, the best vehicle in that style that I can think of, the Chevy Volt, does actually allow the engine to drive the wheels and has two planetary gear/clutch systems. On the plus side, the gas engine is expected to need much less maintenance than a regular engine that's used in a much wider power range.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      You want the BMW i3 with range extender, the gasoline engine only attaches to a generator.
  - 9y ago

j4ship 9y ago

"wonder what it would look like without them" ... they are following a trend in tech they see, not inventing physics. Its our phds and universities that prusue the underlying science. Companies make a cost analysis on the RandD and reep the profits ... if it wasnt GM it would be another company, and eventually it will be most companies if the tech proves itself to be as good as the propaganda says. All in a days work of capitalism , making sure hard work it rewarded and that we keep striving for better I dont praise GM for their work , I pay them , a fair market price. Thats what they deserve, but they are not gods they are just good engineers and business men doing their jobs and hopefully our schools keep creating them.

manmal 9y ago
Enterprises tend to stay in their local optimum until they are pushed out, and are forced by a competitor to look for another cow to milk. And there’s a reason for that - finding another cow to milk is expensive and risky. If Tesla had not been created, those other enterprises would have milked the gasoline cow for way longer.. perhaps another decade? I’m grateful that Elon is sticking out his neck on a daily basis, potentially slowing global warming as a result.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >Enterprises tend to stay in their local optimum until they are pushed out, and are forced by a competitor to look for another cow to milk. And there’s a reason for that - finding another cow to milk is expensive and risky. That's a very nice statement of the innovator's dilemma.

gitah 9y ago

This is a very Silicon Valley / US bubble mindset. Telsa/GM/Nissan have made much contribution but your are missing the major factor driving the EV industry forward which is government industrial policy. The real reason is EU and China have announced their intention of banning ICE vehicles around 2030 with China having very aggressive EV marketshare goals starting next year. Companies that do not meet EV sale goals will have to buy credits from others that do just like a carbon emission market. This is causing all major automakers to not be complacent and invest heavily in EVs.

Aron 9y ago
Government policy would cave-in if the private companies lacked innovation and told them it was impossible. You need existence proofs like Tesla, who are highly leveraged to making EVs work and don't care a wit about preserving the old business.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  As a concrete example, consider the government effort to shift ethanol-to-be-mixed-with-gasoline from food-based sources to non-food sources like switchgrass. No one figured out how to efficiently turn switchgrass into ethanol, so it failed. And that was despite a huge economic incentive. In contrast, the government effort to promote electric cars, solar energy, and wind energy appear to be really paying off.
sandover 9y ago
This is misleading. These (quite recent) changes in governmental policy have come about as a result of things that Tesla managed to achieve, firstly, on its own, and secondly, through its effects on the behavior of other automakers. No major automaker was meaningfully working on EVs before Tesla; now they all are. Indeed, to a rare degree, the shift we're seeing in a major sector of the world economy is the result of the unilateral actions of just one person: Elon Musk.
- sgc 9y ago
  Without hard proof, but having watched the last decade of environmental tech developments wit interest, I agree with you pretty much completely. None of those policies would exist if there was no hope of the success of the commercial technology within those timeframes. It would be like legislating nuclear fusion power generation. Nobody else did much of anything until Tesla began succeeding, and more importantly prepped the consumer market for EV demand.