5 ms·

This is a very forward thinking move for 2018. I look forward to us all driving Chinese BYD cars at this rate of innovation

ericmay 4y ago
We could solve that problem pretty easily by just not relying on cars.
- zeristor 4y ago
  Less car crash deaths too. But society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars, as opposed to disintegrating if we keep using them.
  - glial 4y ago
    > society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars why?
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Because we've intentionally designed it so that we have to rely on cars or else we can't function, which puts us at the mercy of other countries for our day-to-day existence. If we can't get cheap oil, we can't function because of this intentional fragility.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Solving for battery chemistry is cheaper and faster than rebuilding all of America (outside of a few metros where cars aren’t needed) around mass transit and walkability. Personally, I would love if urban planning was structured in a way so that all new development was anti-car, and redevelopment slowly transitioned away from prioritizing automobiles, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards.
  - syntheweave 4y ago
    I think redevelopment can happen, and in fact the growth in BEV tech is the trigger. Ebike sales have been staggering since the pandemic era started, and high gas prices have kept the trend going. And while some may switch back in time, the entire calculus of what vehicles are feasible for tripmaking changes with small BEV - an assisted cargo bike can go pretty fast! While the highways are out, they use the available battery resources more efficiently than a car for nearby destinations, which are the majority of trips, so in a competition for tripmaking market share they will come out ahead. That makes them part of an emerging virtuous cycle, where more people see an opportunity to save fuel and maintenance costs, so they get bikes, so there are more bikes on the street, so there's more demand for bike infrastructure. This pattern has emerged in every city that has a bikeshare or other micromobility scheme: Consumers can dip into the waters and try it out without being "cyclists" and worrying about theft or maintenance. They can put up with poor infrastructure in other respects as a result and use it for the subset of trips where they feel it's appropriate to do so. And the operators(who are in a profitable, growing market) can provide the financial muscle to sway City Hall's policy and make the infrastructure better - because the resulting network growth goes right back into their pockets. And with learning effects, it becomes increasingly easy to deploy at a larger and larger scale. The first few years when these companies emerged and spilled e-scooters all over the streets made for disastrous PR, but their execution has improved greatly since then, with sturdier vehicles, better battery lifetimes, and closer working relationships with cities to address safety.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > Solving for battery chemistry is cheaper and faster than rebuilding all of America (outside of a few metros where cars aren’t needed) around mass transit and walkability. I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think we can have long lasting and high quality electric cars and also build so that we don't have to rely on cars as much or at all. A lot of people think that reducing reliance on cars means building skyscrapers and density like Manhattan, but it actually means building medium density mixed-use development where biking and walking and perhaps a streetcar are how you accomplish 90%+ of your day-to-day mobility needs. Then you have a car for when you need a car. This means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away, you walk or bike. It means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away because you have a small grocery store in your neighborhood that has everything you need for day-to-day living (you don't need to stock 16 different brands of cereal). It also has some nice benefits where you can better participate in your local government or other civic institutions. One of the other insidious problems created by automobile-only infrastructure is that it weakens society. You can't protest when you have to figure out where to park first. You can't meet your local representative when you have to pay to park and it's a 30 minute drive each way. Etc.
- coding123 4y ago
  Without a solid plan this is a dead end.
ksec 4y ago
I will not be surprised if Ford enter into partnership agreement with CATL sometimes later.
- thisismyusrname 4y ago
  They already did

ericmay 4y ago

We could solve that problem pretty easily by just not relying on cars.

zeristor 4y ago
Less car crash deaths too. But society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars, as opposed to disintegrating if we keep using them.
- glial 4y ago
  > society will disintegrate if we move away from using cars why?
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Because we've intentionally designed it so that we have to rely on cars or else we can't function, which puts us at the mercy of other countries for our day-to-day existence. If we can't get cheap oil, we can't function because of this intentional fragility.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Solving for battery chemistry is cheaper and faster than rebuilding all of America (outside of a few metros where cars aren’t needed) around mass transit and walkability. Personally, I would love if urban planning was structured in a way so that all new development was anti-car, and redevelopment slowly transitioned away from prioritizing automobiles, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards.
- syntheweave 4y ago
  I think redevelopment can happen, and in fact the growth in BEV tech is the trigger. Ebike sales have been staggering since the pandemic era started, and high gas prices have kept the trend going. And while some may switch back in time, the entire calculus of what vehicles are feasible for tripmaking changes with small BEV - an assisted cargo bike can go pretty fast! While the highways are out, they use the available battery resources more efficiently than a car for nearby destinations, which are the majority of trips, so in a competition for tripmaking market share they will come out ahead. That makes them part of an emerging virtuous cycle, where more people see an opportunity to save fuel and maintenance costs, so they get bikes, so there are more bikes on the street, so there's more demand for bike infrastructure. This pattern has emerged in every city that has a bikeshare or other micromobility scheme: Consumers can dip into the waters and try it out without being "cyclists" and worrying about theft or maintenance. They can put up with poor infrastructure in other respects as a result and use it for the subset of trips where they feel it's appropriate to do so. And the operators(who are in a profitable, growing market) can provide the financial muscle to sway City Hall's policy and make the infrastructure better - because the resulting network growth goes right back into their pockets. And with learning effects, it becomes increasingly easy to deploy at a larger and larger scale. The first few years when these companies emerged and spilled e-scooters all over the streets made for disastrous PR, but their execution has improved greatly since then, with sturdier vehicles, better battery lifetimes, and closer working relationships with cities to address safety.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > Solving for battery chemistry is cheaper and faster than rebuilding all of America (outside of a few metros where cars aren’t needed) around mass transit and walkability. I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think we can have long lasting and high quality electric cars and also build so that we don't have to rely on cars as much or at all. A lot of people think that reducing reliance on cars means building skyscrapers and density like Manhattan, but it actually means building medium density mixed-use development where biking and walking and perhaps a streetcar are how you accomplish 90%+ of your day-to-day mobility needs. Then you have a car for when you need a car. This means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away, you walk or bike. It means you don't take a car to a grocery store that's half a mile away because you have a small grocery store in your neighborhood that has everything you need for day-to-day living (you don't need to stock 16 different brands of cereal). It also has some nice benefits where you can better participate in your local government or other civic institutions. One of the other insidious problems created by automobile-only infrastructure is that it weakens society. You can't protest when you have to figure out where to park first. You can't meet your local representative when you have to pay to park and it's a 30 minute drive each way. Etc.
coding123 4y ago
Without a solid plan this is a dead end.

ksec 4y ago

I will not be surprised if Ford enter into partnership agreement with CATL sometimes later.

thisismyusrname 4y ago
They already did