5 ms·

If the focus is only the machine and its complexity (and perhaps reliability), then yes. However that's the wrong thing to assess and measure. Consumer concer

If the focus is only the machine and its complexity (and perhaps reliability), then yes. However that's the wrong thing to assess and measure. Consumer concerns are s cost; infrastructure pains; and battery concerns. Cost is self-evident: Manufacturers need to broadly address affordability and they've been slow to do so. Infrastructure pains: Chargers are not ubiquitous--charger hogs, who want to eek that last 10%--and not every home/owner can charge (apartment dwellers). Pro-electric owners are doing a disservice, by pretending that this problem doesn't exist or that this problem is solved. This is what Hybrids solve. Battery concerns: By stats, the % of battery fires and the % of ICE fires are on par. This is where pro-electric owners tend to stop their argument, but it's the details that matter here. When an ICE model has a tendency to start a fire at home--especially without warning--that's a major recall and considered a defect. When a battery is dangerously damaged? How does one even reliably assess whether battery damage is negible or a risk? It's still somewhat of the Wild West.

fnordpiglet 2y ago
All of these are point in time issues. Cost, I would note, is ICE manufacturers trying to preserve Tesla margins. BYD produces cars that are pretty good at a cost point unacceptable to an American car manufacturer, hence the protectionism and continued high prices that are demonstrably already unnecessary.
- nobodyandproud 2y ago
  I don't agree: It's not something that should be taken for granted. Battery safety issues may be resolved in a satisfactory manner but that's not a guarantee. If the batteries can be made safer, then great. If it requires civil engineering and planning, then that's a bigger battle. There's also a matter of sunk cost and market forces: ICEs are fantastically complex machines, but also well-known. Most if not all of the edgecases have been worked out over the decades; and the cost to support the old infrastructure and supply chains are all known quantities. With EVs, manufacturers will need to build batteries or have redundant suppliers; which is also an unknown quantity and cost. You mention BYD, but given how China is dumping EVs and batteries below cost; the cost isn't exactly a useful metric. One hopes EVs take off for the sake of climate change, but there are real roadblocks that may stall uptake of EVs.

fnordpiglet 2y ago

All of these are point in time issues. Cost, I would note, is ICE manufacturers trying to preserve Tesla margins. BYD produces cars that are pretty good at a cost point unacceptable to an American car manufacturer, hence the protectionism and continued high prices that are demonstrably already unnecessary.

nobodyandproud 2y ago
I don't agree: It's not something that should be taken for granted. Battery safety issues may be resolved in a satisfactory manner but that's not a guarantee. If the batteries can be made safer, then great. If it requires civil engineering and planning, then that's a bigger battle. There's also a matter of sunk cost and market forces: ICEs are fantastically complex machines, but also well-known. Most if not all of the edgecases have been worked out over the decades; and the cost to support the old infrastructure and supply chains are all known quantities. With EVs, manufacturers will need to build batteries or have redundant suppliers; which is also an unknown quantity and cost. You mention BYD, but given how China is dumping EVs and batteries below cost; the cost isn't exactly a useful metric. One hopes EVs take off for the sake of climate change, but there are real roadblocks that may stall uptake of EVs.