7 ms·

Price? (for normal people) Yes there are EVs cheaper than teslas at a comparable price to ICE cars, but they don't seem to have comparable performance and util

by tomxor 9y ago

Price? (for normal people) Yes there are EVs cheaper than teslas at a comparable price to ICE cars, but they don't seem to have comparable performance and utility. I can't make an economically minded decision to buy an EV today unless i'm an EV enthusiast or I have lots of money to spend on luxury. (That was Elon Musks whole point of Tesla in the first place, but the market doesn't seem to have substantially shifted since) Also for second hand cars, maybe it's different in the US, but in the UK the vast majority of people buy used cars at prices well below the "new price". It's going to take quite a while for EVs to trickle down to that price range for it to be economical for 90% of people to bother considering it.

sandworm101 9y ago
Every EV owner in my area seems to also own a gas car too. My landlord commutes in an EV but his wife has a normal suv for all the kid stuff. (Im in BC where long higheay trips are very much the norm.) EVs are fine if you can afford to keep a second vehicle to cover all the things they cannot do.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  BC is a bit of an exception because of the low density. In a higher density area, you can count on public transit to take you long distances and use the electric car to make up the difference. One of the benefits of going full electric would be smog reduction. Again, BC doesn't really have a smog problem because of low density, but somewhere like Toronto or LA would benefit hugely from not having gas and diesel vehicles clogging up the streets (and air).
  - sandworm101 9y ago
    BC's density is both low and high. For the entire population, it is very low. But if you start with something like 80% of the population, that lives in two or three tiny places, basically the GVRD, Victoria and Kamloops. The BC population is best described as being very dense but surrounded by vast areas of emptiness. Draw a line from West Vancouver (one of canada's most expensive suburbs) to alaska. You will cross only two roads. Dense urban city, a small fence, then thousands of miles of nothing.
- smudgymcscmudge 9y ago
  I know two couples who have replaced one of their ICEs with Nissan Leafs. Now one of them is economically commuting in an EV daily and they retain the ability to take road trips in their partner’s car. But I don’t see a reasonable way for a single person to have only an EV in my area either. There’s just too much >50 miles away.
  - Retric 9y ago
    250 mile EV's can make 500 mile day trips just fine as long as you can use a charging network. IC's are better if you're doing that every weekend, but most people don't drive over 200 miles a day very often.
- Retric 9y ago
  Over the last 20 years a 250+ mile range electric would have worked fine for every trip I have actually taken. (Assuming the current charging infrastructure.) Now, with slightly different habits renting an SUV 0-4 times a year is minimal effort and cost. So, yea if you do 1000+ mile trips monthly without flying then electric is not going to work, but that's unusual.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    120miles is the capacity of affordable EV today. We hope it gets better.
    - nil_is_me 9y ago
      Chevy Bolt is 240 miles..
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        My Ford F150 with a 36-gallon tank is around 550 miles.
        EADGBE 9y ago
        Shhh... that's the not the example they're wanting :)
        Retric 9y ago
        A 4 door Solar car can do a 3,000++ mile range. But, surprisingly people care about other things. https://solarteameindhoven.nl/stella-vie/ https://solarteameindhoven.nl/stella-vie/
        mikestew 9y ago
        Congratulations, you win this week’s Unsolicited Non-Sequitur Award. We return you to our discussion of electric cars, already in progress.
    - Retric 9y ago
- opportune 9y ago
  This is probably a reflection more of the demographic that can own EV's: wealthy people, likely older with children. Personally if there were a good EV in my price range (perhaps the model 3) I would have no need for a gas-powered car. I don't regularly need a large range and on the once-very-few-months occasion where I do need more range, I can just rent a car
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    Suv/minivan/wagon aren't wealthy cars, they are suburban/rural family cars.
    - opportune 9y ago
      I guess I don't understand the original post then. Of course if you live in a rural area you'll need a car with longer range than an EV. Most people don't live in rural areas, so most people won't need to own a gas powered car to go alongside their electric car. It just seems like an unfair complaint about electric vehicles - the problem isn't the EV's, but people buying them without having a good use for them. I don't buy a jackhammer and then complain that I have no use for it
      - sandworm101 9y ago
        The classic mom-with-kids is on the road all day. EVs dont have the range/endurance to do the school runs, shopping, then haul the kids to sports. Ive also never seen one even attempt to haul the boat to the lake for a weekend, a very middle class thing in my area. (Rich people dont store thier boats at home.)
        mercutio2 9y ago
        A Bolt can certainly do everything you mentioned, except possibly haul a boat. You can fully recharge at home overnight with an inexpensive Level 2 charger. And a new Bolt is definitely cheaper than most new SUVs.
dalbasal 9y ago
I agreed. It's about prices Musk realized the economics and decided (best underpants plan ever) to start at the enthusiast-luxury end with the sports car. But, his crucial point was that for people already in the luxury market, he'd be able to quickly drop the enthusiast requirement. The cost of batteries that compete with a fuel tank on range does not scale with the rest of the car. Tesla now competes on a side-by-side basis, price considered. They are only in the higher price segments still, but have definitely reached the tall part of the curve with the 3s. He also predicted that the luxury threshold^ above which an EV competitive, would gradually fall. So, so far he's been right (tsla as an investment... separate discussion. The other stuff ...charging stations, used car markets, etc.. those are are effects, not causes. I do think the last leg of the price game will be tricky though. Subsidies don't make sense anymore. The innovation has been stimulated already. The volume is going up and keeping up subsidies will be expensive. People will also eventually kick up a fuss about subsidizing some yuppie lawyers nice new car. Cleaning these up is a process because they're a mess. Manufacturer subsidies, buyer subsidies. Lower car tax, which is now a carbon tax. The biggest subsidy is probably fuel. 40l of petrol (about 500km) costs €50-€55. Half of that is tax. VAT & excise. EVs are exempt by default. These are serious, budget busting taxes. My guess is that EVs will eventually need to pay these, one way or another. They still need roads and such. Long road until you can pick up a 7 years old Tesla for €5k, but we seem to be on it. The destination will be inevitable long before we reach it. ^The price category.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Subsidies don't make sense anymore. The innovation has been stimulated already. Debatable; subsidies can make sense for other reasons (internalizing externalities unrelated to innovation) than stimulating innovation.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    Agreed. Subsidies should continue, but I would couple them with a carbon tax in a few years, when there are many more EV options on the market, the prices have been lowered, and there are EV chargers everywhere. Then introduce a large carbon tax and launch a "dump your ICE car for an EV" program for lower income people where they can get an half the car subsidized but the EV can't cost more than $20,000. Use the large carbon tax to fund these subsidies. To increase the effectiveness of the program say that by 2030 ICE cars will be banned in cities and no new sales of ICE cars will be allowed.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
The general prediction is for the total-cost-of-ownership to be lower in the next few years, and for the upfront price to be lower a few years after that. Governments and corporations are making plans based on those assumptions. I've not heard anyone credibly argue against it, though there may be quibbles about the exact timing. (And of course, there's geographical variation based on gas prices, government policy, average driving distance etc. so some areas will get there first). Price deflation of new cars should force the prices on second hard cars down too. So any argument about EVs being expensive or elitist or whatever is wrong in the medium term.
- tomxor 9y ago
  Yes i agree, it's all timing. My comment is in response to the current state of the EV market. > The general prediction is for the total-cost-of-ownership to be lower in the next few years, and for the upfront price to be lower a few years after that. I think upfront price is more important than most people think. The problem with the "total cost of ownership" argument is it ignores the fact that money now is worth far more than money later, effectively increasing total cost of ownership. For a concrete worst case example consider the difference in upfront cost between ICE and EV, make it into a loan, add interest and _then_ compare it. Personally i'm totally up for all the benefits of low maintenance though and would happily trade in an equivalent price up front. I hate the complexity and unreliability of ICE, although the excessively integrated computer systems in EVs sound like another mess to look forward to.
  - civilitty 9y ago
    This fact is very easy to forget for most of us here, given the salaries in tech. When you're working multiple jobs or are underemployed and trying to support a family, each dollar is some suffering you can alleviate or a problem you can solve now and that is much more important than long term investment. You can't invest if you can't even guarantee that you can feed yourself for long enough to benefit from it.
    - ghaff 9y ago
ghaff 9y ago
Product life and price for batteries will be a big consideration. A lot of young and poorer people buy pretty cheap "beater" cars that they keep running as best they can.

by tomxor 9y ago

sandworm101 9y ago

Every EV owner in my area seems to also own a gas car too. My landlord commutes in an EV but his wife has a normal suv for all the kid stuff. (Im in BC where long higheay trips are very much the norm.) EVs are fine if you can afford to keep a second vehicle to cover all the things they cannot do.

jbob2000 9y ago
BC is a bit of an exception because of the low density. In a higher density area, you can count on public transit to take you long distances and use the electric car to make up the difference. One of the benefits of going full electric would be smog reduction. Again, BC doesn't really have a smog problem because of low density, but somewhere like Toronto or LA would benefit hugely from not having gas and diesel vehicles clogging up the streets (and air).
- sandworm101 9y ago
  BC's density is both low and high. For the entire population, it is very low. But if you start with something like 80% of the population, that lives in two or three tiny places, basically the GVRD, Victoria and Kamloops. The BC population is best described as being very dense but surrounded by vast areas of emptiness. Draw a line from West Vancouver (one of canada's most expensive suburbs) to alaska. You will cross only two roads. Dense urban city, a small fence, then thousands of miles of nothing.
smudgymcscmudge 9y ago
I know two couples who have replaced one of their ICEs with Nissan Leafs. Now one of them is economically commuting in an EV daily and they retain the ability to take road trips in their partner’s car. But I don’t see a reasonable way for a single person to have only an EV in my area either. There’s just too much >50 miles away.
- Retric 9y ago
  250 mile EV's can make 500 mile day trips just fine as long as you can use a charging network. IC's are better if you're doing that every weekend, but most people don't drive over 200 miles a day very often.
Retric 9y ago
Over the last 20 years a 250+ mile range electric would have worked fine for every trip I have actually taken. (Assuming the current charging infrastructure.) Now, with slightly different habits renting an SUV 0-4 times a year is minimal effort and cost. So, yea if you do 1000+ mile trips monthly without flying then electric is not going to work, but that's unusual.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  120miles is the capacity of affordable EV today. We hope it gets better.
  - nil_is_me 9y ago
    Chevy Bolt is 240 miles..
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      My Ford F150 with a 36-gallon tank is around 550 miles.
      - EADGBE 9y ago
        Shhh... that's the not the example they're wanting :)
      - Retric 9y ago
        A 4 door Solar car can do a 3,000++ mile range. But, surprisingly people care about other things. https://solarteameindhoven.nl/stella-vie/ https://solarteameindhoven.nl/stella-vie/
      - mikestew 9y ago
        Congratulations, you win this week’s Unsolicited Non-Sequitur Award. We return you to our discussion of electric cars, already in progress.
  - Retric 9y ago
opportune 9y ago
This is probably a reflection more of the demographic that can own EV's: wealthy people, likely older with children. Personally if there were a good EV in my price range (perhaps the model 3) I would have no need for a gas-powered car. I don't regularly need a large range and on the once-very-few-months occasion where I do need more range, I can just rent a car
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  Suv/minivan/wagon aren't wealthy cars, they are suburban/rural family cars.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I guess I don't understand the original post then. Of course if you live in a rural area you'll need a car with longer range than an EV. Most people don't live in rural areas, so most people won't need to own a gas powered car to go alongside their electric car. It just seems like an unfair complaint about electric vehicles - the problem isn't the EV's, but people buying them without having a good use for them. I don't buy a jackhammer and then complain that I have no use for it
    - sandworm101 9y ago
      The classic mom-with-kids is on the road all day. EVs dont have the range/endurance to do the school runs, shopping, then haul the kids to sports. Ive also never seen one even attempt to haul the boat to the lake for a weekend, a very middle class thing in my area. (Rich people dont store thier boats at home.)
      - mercutio2 9y ago
        A Bolt can certainly do everything you mentioned, except possibly haul a boat. You can fully recharge at home overnight with an inexpensive Level 2 charger. And a new Bolt is definitely cheaper than most new SUVs.

dalbasal 9y ago

I agreed. It's about prices Musk realized the economics and decided (best underpants plan ever) to start at the enthusiast-luxury end with the sports car. But, his crucial point was that for people already in the luxury market, he'd be able to quickly drop the enthusiast requirement. The cost of batteries that compete with a fuel tank on range does not scale with the rest of the car. Tesla now competes on a side-by-side basis, price considered. They are only in the higher price segments still, but have definitely reached the tall part of the curve with the 3s. He also predicted that the luxury threshold^ above which an EV competitive, would gradually fall. So, so far he's been right (tsla as an investment... separate discussion. The other stuff ...charging stations, used car markets, etc.. those are are effects, not causes. I do think the last leg of the price game will be tricky though. Subsidies don't make sense anymore. The innovation has been stimulated already. The volume is going up and keeping up subsidies will be expensive. People will also eventually kick up a fuss about subsidizing some yuppie lawyers nice new car. Cleaning these up is a process because they're a mess. Manufacturer subsidies, buyer subsidies. Lower car tax, which is now a carbon tax. The biggest subsidy is probably fuel. 40l of petrol (about 500km) costs €50-€55. Half of that is tax. VAT & excise. EVs are exempt by default. These are serious, budget busting taxes. My guess is that EVs will eventually need to pay these, one way or another. They still need roads and such. Long road until you can pick up a 7 years old Tesla for €5k, but we seem to be on it. The destination will be inevitable long before we reach it. ^The price category.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Subsidies don't make sense anymore. The innovation has been stimulated already. Debatable; subsidies can make sense for other reasons (internalizing externalities unrelated to innovation) than stimulating innovation.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Agreed. Subsidies should continue, but I would couple them with a carbon tax in a few years, when there are many more EV options on the market, the prices have been lowered, and there are EV chargers everywhere. Then introduce a large carbon tax and launch a "dump your ICE car for an EV" program for lower income people where they can get an half the car subsidized but the EV can't cost more than $20,000. Use the large carbon tax to fund these subsidies. To increase the effectiveness of the program say that by 2030 ICE cars will be banned in cities and no new sales of ICE cars will be allowed.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

The general prediction is for the total-cost-of-ownership to be lower in the next few years, and for the upfront price to be lower a few years after that. Governments and corporations are making plans based on those assumptions. I've not heard anyone credibly argue against it, though there may be quibbles about the exact timing. (And of course, there's geographical variation based on gas prices, government policy, average driving distance etc. so some areas will get there first). Price deflation of new cars should force the prices on second hard cars down too. So any argument about EVs being expensive or elitist or whatever is wrong in the medium term.

tomxor 9y ago
Yes i agree, it's all timing. My comment is in response to the current state of the EV market. > The general prediction is for the total-cost-of-ownership to be lower in the next few years, and for the upfront price to be lower a few years after that. I think upfront price is more important than most people think. The problem with the "total cost of ownership" argument is it ignores the fact that money now is worth far more than money later, effectively increasing total cost of ownership. For a concrete worst case example consider the difference in upfront cost between ICE and EV, make it into a loan, add interest and _then_ compare it. Personally i'm totally up for all the benefits of low maintenance though and would happily trade in an equivalent price up front. I hate the complexity and unreliability of ICE, although the excessively integrated computer systems in EVs sound like another mess to look forward to.
- civilitty 9y ago
  This fact is very easy to forget for most of us here, given the salaries in tech. When you're working multiple jobs or are underemployed and trying to support a family, each dollar is some suffering you can alleviate or a problem you can solve now and that is much more important than long term investment. You can't invest if you can't even guarantee that you can feed yourself for long enough to benefit from it.
  - ghaff 9y ago

ghaff 9y ago

Product life and price for batteries will be a big consideration. A lot of young and poorer people buy pretty cheap "beater" cars that they keep running as best they can.