4 ms·

>there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car. The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability or cost in ea

by bumby 1y ago

>there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car. The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability or cost in each system.* (The original point is about cost of ownership). They don’t. So, while both have batteries, the reliability and cost of each is very different. Same with the ICE component etc. My issue is broad generalizations about reliability without speaking to the nuance. I’m not set against the idea of a hybrid being more reliable or cheaper, but more against the superficial generalization. * also the analogs miss some of the complexity. Yes, both have a battery, but a hybrid requires high voltage and auxiliary batteries, meaning the battery system is by definition more complex.

vel0city 1y ago
> The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability The majority of my comment points out how the equivalent analoge on the pure ICE is massively less reliable than the hybrid. Who is ignoring the reliability of the different components here again? Sure, there is a HV and a LV battery. They're both solid state devices and thus generally pretty reliable when it comes to cars. The LV battery faces far less wear. The overall system is considerably more reliable in the hybrid than the same in the ICE. It's near impossible to generally talk about the prices of something like the HV battery, it varies greatly based on what models you're talking about. One car might have a replacement used battery that's good for many years be $700, another might be extremely bespoke and rare and be $10k. If I were to judge prices of pure ICE transmissions based on extremely rare hyper cars I might say an ICE transmission replacement costs $20k or more. The details matter greatly when judging TCO on potentially low market cars.
- bumby 1y ago
  If your point is you can’t talk specifics about price of ownership, you’ve wasted both of our time during this entire discussion. That’s what it’s about. A better answer would have just been like the commenter below, who said the information is hard to come by. A hardliner stance where there’s a lot of uncertainty isn’t a great hill to die on.
  - Retric 1y ago
    That’s not quite what they said, in 98% of hybrids sold these components are significantly more reliable than in ICE cars. He can’t speak to the last 2%, but I doubt your in the market for a hyper car and really this concerned about TCO.
    - bumby 1y ago
      The hyper car argument is really just a digression and it cuts both ways (which I think was the posters point). If you want to compare hyper car prices, you need to compare hyper gas-only to hyper hybrid. But that’s not really germane to the generalizations being used here. Where is your 98% claim coming from? The other poster made no such claim. The irony is there is published info on TCO from companies like Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book. We can take umbrage with some of the factors or weighting, but it’s a better starting point in real data than anything bright up so far. A claim could easily be crafted using such information that addresses everything I’ve raised (maintenance, depreciation, different designs, etc). Yet the discussion seems almost wholly based on vibes and near-ideological bias. It reads to me as conclusions searching for data instead of the other way around. The best I can tell from that information, TCO is largely a wash. For comparable manufacturers/designs, TCO over the first 5-10 years seems to be about the same. You can pick some designs that favor one side or the other, but in general they are roughly within 10% (usually considerably less) of one another. Given the uncertainty due to the variables in question, it seems reasonable to conclude there aren’t strong conclusions on TCO differences between them.
      - Retric 1y ago
        98% just meant not rare, as the person referenced “rare cars” vs everything else. I’ve already looked at that those real work TCO numbers for a bunch of cars, that’s part of why I’m saying they’re reliable and lower TCO. But there’s a big difference between saying that on average these things break down less across all hybrids and saying every single hybrid model is more reliable.
        bumby 1y ago

by bumby 1y ago

vel0city 1y ago

> The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability The majority of my comment points out how the equivalent analoge on the pure ICE is massively less reliable than the hybrid. Who is ignoring the reliability of the different components here again? Sure, there is a HV and a LV battery. They're both solid state devices and thus generally pretty reliable when it comes to cars. The LV battery faces far less wear. The overall system is considerably more reliable in the hybrid than the same in the ICE. It's near impossible to generally talk about the prices of something like the HV battery, it varies greatly based on what models you're talking about. One car might have a replacement used battery that's good for many years be $700, another might be extremely bespoke and rare and be $10k. If I were to judge prices of pure ICE transmissions based on extremely rare hyper cars I might say an ICE transmission replacement costs $20k or more. The details matter greatly when judging TCO on potentially low market cars.

bumby 1y ago
If your point is you can’t talk specifics about price of ownership, you’ve wasted both of our time during this entire discussion. That’s what it’s about. A better answer would have just been like the commenter below, who said the information is hard to come by. A hardliner stance where there’s a lot of uncertainty isn’t a great hill to die on.
- Retric 1y ago
  That’s not quite what they said, in 98% of hybrids sold these components are significantly more reliable than in ICE cars. He can’t speak to the last 2%, but I doubt your in the market for a hyper car and really this concerned about TCO.
  - bumby 1y ago
    The hyper car argument is really just a digression and it cuts both ways (which I think was the posters point). If you want to compare hyper car prices, you need to compare hyper gas-only to hyper hybrid. But that’s not really germane to the generalizations being used here. Where is your 98% claim coming from? The other poster made no such claim. The irony is there is published info on TCO from companies like Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book. We can take umbrage with some of the factors or weighting, but it’s a better starting point in real data than anything bright up so far. A claim could easily be crafted using such information that addresses everything I’ve raised (maintenance, depreciation, different designs, etc). Yet the discussion seems almost wholly based on vibes and near-ideological bias. It reads to me as conclusions searching for data instead of the other way around. The best I can tell from that information, TCO is largely a wash. For comparable manufacturers/designs, TCO over the first 5-10 years seems to be about the same. You can pick some designs that favor one side or the other, but in general they are roughly within 10% (usually considerably less) of one another. Given the uncertainty due to the variables in question, it seems reasonable to conclude there aren’t strong conclusions on TCO differences between them.
    - Retric 1y ago
      98% just meant not rare, as the person referenced “rare cars” vs everything else. I’ve already looked at that those real work TCO numbers for a bunch of cars, that’s part of why I’m saying they’re reliable and lower TCO. But there’s a big difference between saying that on average these things break down less across all hybrids and saying every single hybrid model is more reliable.
      - bumby 1y ago