4 ms·

The U.S. is so freaking behind on EVs. China went from making cars with 3 gears and lawn mower engines (practically speaking) to mass EVs in like 15 years. Me

The U.S. is so freaking behind on EVs. China went from making cars with 3 gears and lawn mower engines (practically speaking) to mass EVs in like 15 years. Meanwhile here the big automakers are crying about unfair competition and Chinese subsidizes. Free market sucks when it's not in your favor anymore, ain't it?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
US automakers have already lost, their market will shrink to whatever the US domestic market demands. Global light vehicle TAM is ~90M units/year, and BYD is going to ramp as quickly as they can to meet that.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
  Couldn't agree more. Meanwhile the US is doubling down on fossil fuel energy sources which will be decreasing in demand globally over the next several decades as EVs grow in market share along with growth in alternative energy generation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
constantcrying 2y ago
>China went from making cars with 3 gears and lawn mower engines (practically speaking) to mass EVs in like 15 years. The history is a bit different. China is still making three gear lawn mowers compared to their ICE competition. The EV market opened an enormous opportunity, where suddenly every single manufacturer had to start propulsion from zero, the advantage of decades of ICE research instantly vanished. This combined with Chinas long push in manufacturing and somewhat recent push in high tech manufacturing made for a very good environment. >Meanwhile here the big automakers are crying about unfair competition and Chinese subsidizes. Not in Europe. The car makers are opposing the tarifs, the EU leadership wants them.
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
  > The EV market opened an enormous opportunity, where suddenly every single manufacturer had to start propulsion from zero, the advantage of decades of ICE research instantly vanished. That's not true though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 U.S. automakers refused to invest and plan for the future while they could continue to profit off their cash cow. Now they are behind because of their negligence.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >That's not true though. It is. Or do you think that any of the engineers at GM knew how to make EVs, because 25 years ago they designed one once? The advantage of that was completely negligible and easily outweighed by Chinese companies being in direct contact with e.g. battery manufacturers. >U.S. automakers refused to invest and plan for the future while they could continue to profit off their cash cow. Which contradicts what I said how?
    - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
      My point was that U.S. automakers did not have to start from scratch with regards to propulsion as you claimed.
      - constantcrying 2y ago
        But they had to start from scratch. How many engineers who know how to build EV motors do you think where sitting around at GM between 1996 and 2020 doing nothing? Exactly zero. Do you think GM has been developing EV motors and batteries since 1996 and just never used them for anything? That is ridiculous. All of the people there had to start from zero when designing EVs. There is no advantage of having had an idea but abandoning it 25 years ago. If anything Chinese EV companies had an advantage as getting specialist in producing batteries and motors is surely easier if your country is one of the biggest manufacturers. What of course is true is that GM could have had 25 years of development advantage, but chose to abandon that idea. This does not conflict at all with my point that they did not have that advantage, as they did not continue to make EVs.
PeterStuer 2y ago
'Free Market' was never a bi-directional concept. Did the Newspeak fool you?
Aloisius 2y ago
> unfair competition and Chinese subsidizes > Free market Pick one.
- johnea 2y ago
  Because, of course, the major US automakers never ever received any governemtn subsidies, ever. They just used them to be able to continue to make gas guzlers, instead of electrifying, like in China. Just search for: US auto industry bailouts And choose your reference...
  - Freedom2 2y ago
    As someone who typically only buys American-made goods, the amount of government money that US automakers receive is miniscule compared to what China automakers get. Unfortunately due to the lack of transparency, I doubt we can get actual numbers from Chinese EV companies, but in the land of the free we're able to at least paint an accurate picture.
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      Please paint it.
    - johnea 2y ago
      If the Chinese govt gives money to EV makers doesn't that mean you can buy an EV cheaper? Given 100% tariffs on Chinese vehicles, we're not free to buy a $25K EV... If the concern is security, instead of tariffs, why aren't we outlawing surveillance of users and private data telemetry by _any_ automaker, or any product maker?
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Ok? My point stands. It's still not a free market with subsidies limited to domestic manufacturers. A country dumping money into an industry in order to undercut foreign competition should be punished. I don't care if it is the US, China or whoever. One can not let it stand or the market distortion will drive domestic competitors out of business at which point they'll be able to hike up prices. For something like the auto industry with high capital costs to get into, one might never recover.
xgstation 2y ago
if U.S. could have opened its market to Chinese EVs (yes yes I know Chinese Gov subsidizes those vendors a lot, but U.S. can still do punitive tariffs, instead of just ban[1], and of course, making excuses out of national security, meanwhile Tesla is doing okay in China) these U.S. vendors have no competitions is the reason why they are far behind. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/biden-administration-finalizes-us-crackdown-chinese-vehicles-2025-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/biden-...
- manfre 2y ago
  Do the Chinese EVs meet US safety standards? Those requirements add a non trivial amount of weight to the vehicle.
  - flopsamjetsam 2y ago
    There are a few Chinese EVs available widely in Australia (BYD, MG, and recently Zeekr) that all conform to Australian Design Rules (ADR), which have been "harmonised" with the European ones for a while. So, most likely this would get the vehicles pretty close to passing the US safety rules, though they'd still have to go through testing and certification.
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    Pretty sure EU safety standards are higher and many Chinese EVs meet those.
  - ulfw 2y ago
    Considering a Cyberbeast out of all vehicles meets "US safety standards", I have to admit I don't have a lot of faith in those. Btw it doesn't meet European Union standards and hence isn't sold there.
pornel 2y ago
I find it amusing that Chinese subsidies are painted as something terrible for the rest of the world and not China. You can a get high-tech cars for cheap, at China's expense! Chinese taxpayers are paying to upgrade your car! (yeah, it's really about protecting local manufacturing that has fallen behind and can't compete, despite having its own domestic subsidies)
- johnea 2y ago
  I agree. I've said this repeatedly: Why shouldn't US consumers benefit from Chinese govt subsidies? Your post is the first time I've seen anyone else note this...
- yen223 2y ago
  It has been noted that if your competitor is paying out of pocket to flood the market with cheap goods, the optimal strategy is to buy up as much of the cheap goods as you can.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Exactly. Why shouldn't people take advantage of a tech startup's ridiculous prices backed by VC money? Why shouldn't people buy cheap EVs backed by Chinese tax payers?
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
  Maybe. Outsourcing semiconductors was considered good for the consumer too. Not so much for national security.
johnea 2y ago
It's not just EVs, the US is behind in many many ways. In all forms of electrification, and in any mitigation of equity stake market threat avoidance. Monopoly is a good thing, for the monopolists... Chongqing is the latest poster child, there is not one city in the US like it, but it's just one example. The modernization that eventually arose from WWII reconstruction bypassed the US. This is now starting to show its consequences...
cco 2y ago
Unfortunately, the US customer doesn't want EVs so we're kinda capped. You could imagine a forcing function beyond the tax credit but clearly politically that is off the table for awhile. The US (people) doesn't want to lead the world in EVs, and thus we won't.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  >Unfortunately, the US customer doesn't want EVs so we're kinda capped. You could imagine a forcing function beyond the tax credit but clearly politically that is off the table for awhile. Because American EVs are astronomical in price due to no competition.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

US automakers have already lost, their market will shrink to whatever the US domestic market demands. Global light vehicle TAM is ~90M units/year, and BYD is going to ramp as quickly as they can to meet that.

rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
Couldn't agree more. Meanwhile the US is doubling down on fossil fuel energy sources which will be decreasing in demand globally over the next several decades as EVs grow in market share along with growth in alternative energy generation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

constantcrying 2y ago

>China went from making cars with 3 gears and lawn mower engines (practically speaking) to mass EVs in like 15 years. The history is a bit different. China is still making three gear lawn mowers compared to their ICE competition. The EV market opened an enormous opportunity, where suddenly every single manufacturer had to start propulsion from zero, the advantage of decades of ICE research instantly vanished. This combined with Chinas long push in manufacturing and somewhat recent push in high tech manufacturing made for a very good environment. >Meanwhile here the big automakers are crying about unfair competition and Chinese subsidizes. Not in Europe. The car makers are opposing the tarifs, the EU leadership wants them.

rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
> The EV market opened an enormous opportunity, where suddenly every single manufacturer had to start propulsion from zero, the advantage of decades of ICE research instantly vanished. That's not true though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 U.S. automakers refused to invest and plan for the future while they could continue to profit off their cash cow. Now they are behind because of their negligence.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >That's not true though. It is. Or do you think that any of the engineers at GM knew how to make EVs, because 25 years ago they designed one once? The advantage of that was completely negligible and easily outweighed by Chinese companies being in direct contact with e.g. battery manufacturers. >U.S. automakers refused to invest and plan for the future while they could continue to profit off their cash cow. Which contradicts what I said how?
  - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
    My point was that U.S. automakers did not have to start from scratch with regards to propulsion as you claimed.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      But they had to start from scratch. How many engineers who know how to build EV motors do you think where sitting around at GM between 1996 and 2020 doing nothing? Exactly zero. Do you think GM has been developing EV motors and batteries since 1996 and just never used them for anything? That is ridiculous. All of the people there had to start from zero when designing EVs. There is no advantage of having had an idea but abandoning it 25 years ago. If anything Chinese EV companies had an advantage as getting specialist in producing batteries and motors is surely easier if your country is one of the biggest manufacturers. What of course is true is that GM could have had 25 years of development advantage, but chose to abandon that idea. This does not conflict at all with my point that they did not have that advantage, as they did not continue to make EVs.

PeterStuer 2y ago

'Free Market' was never a bi-directional concept. Did the Newspeak fool you?

Aloisius 2y ago

> unfair competition and Chinese subsidizes > Free market Pick one.

johnea 2y ago
Because, of course, the major US automakers never ever received any governemtn subsidies, ever. They just used them to be able to continue to make gas guzlers, instead of electrifying, like in China. Just search for: US auto industry bailouts And choose your reference...
- Freedom2 2y ago
  As someone who typically only buys American-made goods, the amount of government money that US automakers receive is miniscule compared to what China automakers get. Unfortunately due to the lack of transparency, I doubt we can get actual numbers from Chinese EV companies, but in the land of the free we're able to at least paint an accurate picture.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    Please paint it.
  - johnea 2y ago
    If the Chinese govt gives money to EV makers doesn't that mean you can buy an EV cheaper? Given 100% tariffs on Chinese vehicles, we're not free to buy a $25K EV... If the concern is security, instead of tariffs, why aren't we outlawing surveillance of users and private data telemetry by _any_ automaker, or any product maker?
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Ok? My point stands. It's still not a free market with subsidies limited to domestic manufacturers. A country dumping money into an industry in order to undercut foreign competition should be punished. I don't care if it is the US, China or whoever. One can not let it stand or the market distortion will drive domestic competitors out of business at which point they'll be able to hike up prices. For something like the auto industry with high capital costs to get into, one might never recover.

xgstation 2y ago

if U.S. could have opened its market to Chinese EVs (yes yes I know Chinese Gov subsidizes those vendors a lot, but U.S. can still do punitive tariffs, instead of just ban[1], and of course, making excuses out of national security, meanwhile Tesla is doing okay in China) these U.S. vendors have no competitions is the reason why they are far behind. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/biden-administration-finalizes-us-crackdown-chinese-vehicles-2025-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/biden-...

manfre 2y ago
Do the Chinese EVs meet US safety standards? Those requirements add a non trivial amount of weight to the vehicle.
- flopsamjetsam 2y ago
  There are a few Chinese EVs available widely in Australia (BYD, MG, and recently Zeekr) that all conform to Australian Design Rules (ADR), which have been "harmonised" with the European ones for a while. So, most likely this would get the vehicles pretty close to passing the US safety rules, though they'd still have to go through testing and certification.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Pretty sure EU safety standards are higher and many Chinese EVs meet those.
- ulfw 2y ago
  Considering a Cyberbeast out of all vehicles meets "US safety standards", I have to admit I don't have a lot of faith in those. Btw it doesn't meet European Union standards and hence isn't sold there.

pornel 2y ago

I find it amusing that Chinese subsidies are painted as something terrible for the rest of the world and not China. You can a get high-tech cars for cheap, at China's expense! Chinese taxpayers are paying to upgrade your car! (yeah, it's really about protecting local manufacturing that has fallen behind and can't compete, despite having its own domestic subsidies)

johnea 2y ago
I agree. I've said this repeatedly: Why shouldn't US consumers benefit from Chinese govt subsidies? Your post is the first time I've seen anyone else note this...
yen223 2y ago
It has been noted that if your competitor is paying out of pocket to flood the market with cheap goods, the optimal strategy is to buy up as much of the cheap goods as you can.
aurareturn 2y ago
Exactly. Why shouldn't people take advantage of a tech startup's ridiculous prices backed by VC money? Why shouldn't people buy cheap EVs backed by Chinese tax payers?
rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
Maybe. Outsourcing semiconductors was considered good for the consumer too. Not so much for national security.

johnea 2y ago

It's not just EVs, the US is behind in many many ways. In all forms of electrification, and in any mitigation of equity stake market threat avoidance. Monopoly is a good thing, for the monopolists... Chongqing is the latest poster child, there is not one city in the US like it, but it's just one example. The modernization that eventually arose from WWII reconstruction bypassed the US. This is now starting to show its consequences...

cco 2y ago

Unfortunately, the US customer doesn't want EVs so we're kinda capped. You could imagine a forcing function beyond the tax credit but clearly politically that is off the table for awhile. The US (people) doesn't want to lead the world in EVs, and thus we won't.

aurareturn 2y ago
>Unfortunately, the US customer doesn't want EVs so we're kinda capped. You could imagine a forcing function beyond the tax credit but clearly politically that is off the table for awhile. Because American EVs are astronomical in price due to no competition.