this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
117 points (89.3% liked)

[Dormant] Electric Vehicles

3201 readers
2 users here now

We have moved to:

!electricvehicles@slrpnk.net

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion.
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling.
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a fundamental truth you have to understand about car companies:They do not exist to make cars. They exist to make money. That distinction, analyst Kevin Tynan tells me, is why they’re not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles.

Perhaps that’s an oversimplification. Tynan is the director of research at an auto-dealer-focused investment bank, the Presidio Group, with decades of experience as an analyst at firms like Bloomberg Intelligence. What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products. It’s that their interest begins and ends with winning customers who will eventually buy more expensive, higher-margin products.

One of the auto industry’s dirtiest secrets is that at scale, it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits. In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The problem with that is that EVs are heavier, meaning that smaller EVs would be taxed at the same level as SUVs or trucks. But it might at least incentivise people to go for smaller ICEs, and switching to mileage tax might be necessary anyway.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The problem with that is that EVs are heavier

I wish this myth would die already. EVs are only heavier when they make them giant and obscenely inefficient, requiring larger and larger batteries.

Small EVs are comparable in weight to their comparable gas models.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I up voted you because the weights aren't that drastically different rn, but a Chevy Bolt is 3500lb while a larger civic with more cargo and passenger room is 3000.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Something like a Civic is also going to be one of the lightest cars on the road. I'd argue a more comparable vehicle to a Chevy Bolt would be another crossover SUV.

  • Mazda CX5 ~3700
  • Honda CR-V ~3500
  • Rav4 ~3500
  • VW Tiguan ~3800
  • Subaru Forester ~3500
  • Hyundai Tucson ~3500
[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But the bolt ev is a hatchback. The bolt EUV which is a small crossover is 3700lb, so comparing it to mid and large size crossovers is unfair to them, as they have more cargo and passenger room.

The CX3 weighs 3000lb, the Crosstrek is 3300lb, Honda HRV is 3200, the Taos is 3200lb, the Corolla cross is 3200lb, etc.

In the category of mid/large crossovers, a Model Y is 4200lb, an ID4 is 4500lb, and ioniq 5 is roughly 4200lb, an ev6 is 4200lb etc. and most of these go way higher too with long range options.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

But the bolt ev is a hatchback.

A GTI is a hatchback. The Bolt EV is a crossover.

The bolt EUV which is a small crossover is 3700lb

Okay but...we weren't talking about the EUV.

Not that it matters because a couple hundred pounds here or there ain't making any sort of significant difference.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Lol what? Then why'd you bring up the weight of a bunch of random SUVs? In that case, EVs are super heavy. My Miata weighs 2000lb and the hummer EV weighs 10,000lb. That's definitely more than a few hundred pounds difference.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 3 months ago
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Then why'd you bring up the weight of a bunch of random SUVs

I don't understand the question. They weren't random. They were comparable vehicles.

My Miata weighs 2000lb and the hummer EV weighs 10,000lb.

Again, I don't understand. These are not remotely comparable vehicles.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Even if you don't make them giant and obscenely inefficient, a 100kwh pack is gonna weigh over 300kg. Doesn't matter if that gives it 1000 miles of range or 400 miles.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And how much does an internal combustion engine, a transmission, a fuel tank, a driveshaft, a starter motor, and an oil sump weigh?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 17 points 3 months ago

Typically, less. EVs are consistently 10%-15% heavier than equivalent ICEs.

Weight is just not one of the advantages that EVs have over ICEs. This is not the hill you want to die on.

Fortunately, all the other advantages greatly exceed that weight penalty.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago

Probably about the same as such a battery, maybe a little less? The electric motor is still gonna push the EV weights above the equivalent ICE by a little. Either way, neither is gonna be comparable to the much larger vehicles on roads. Which includes buses (which I don't think we should be trying to disincentivize although it should be considered in the planning stages of deciding between BRT and alternatives like rail). But due to the 4th power law, if we scaled taxes based on damaged done to roads, the only consumer vehicles (excluding things like trailers) that would even notice the tax would be a the few at the highest end.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You don't need a 100kWh pack. Most of the smaller cars are closer to 60.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you’re comparing an ICE vehicle that can get 400 miles a tank to an EV then you are being completely disingenuous to compare it to an EV that only gets 100-150 miles of range. They’re not comparable. An EV that gets even close to the same range is going to way much much more than a comparable ICE vehicle.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you got 400 miles on a 100kWh pack you'll be getting 300 on a 60kWh pack.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It completely depends on your drive configuration and aerodynamic efficiency rating. Also I don’t know why you think I said anything about getting 400 miles on a 100kWh pack. This conversation is about weight. You don’t just get to say “get a smaller battery pack and then the cars weight the same” because it makes them completely different cars. The average ICE vehicle (of the top25 sold) gets 460 miles of range. https://insideevs.com/features/527446/electric-cars-range-equilibrium/ (funny enough this article is literally what we’re arguing about!)

In any case, I’m not even arguing for larger batteries! I’m just stating that you can’t compare weight if you aren’t going to compare range. They go hand in hand.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

2w old conversation, but what I was trying to say is that 100-150 miles (your example) isn't the alternative to 400 miles in an EV (which will absolutely require a 100kWh pack). As you reduce the range through a smaller battery you get some range back through reduced weight.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No it's not? 400 miles of range is completely unnecessary.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

400 miles of range is 5 hours of driving (plus enough reserve to comfortably skip a busy, broken, blocked, or skeevy recharging point), recharge over lunch, and another 5 hours of driving. 400 mile range is where road trips become feasible.

400 miles of range, in the mountains, is 150 miles of range.

[–] zeekaran@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

My ice has less range than 400 so this is a bit of an exaggeration.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

I mean it’s not, we have two ICE vehicles with 400 miles of range, and one EV with 265 miles of range.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago

ICEs can refuel during a bathroom break. EVs need a long lunch. Turning every bathroom break into a long lunch makes a 3-day trip into a 5-day trip.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Weird, because I just did a several thousand mile road trip through the mountains last month with half that range.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

And I can put in a leather gimp suit and have my partner spank me with a ping pong paddle. You don't shame me for my masochistic kinks, and I won't shame you for yours. Deal?

The overwhelming majority of us don't have a fetish for recharging stations, and don't want to spend 2 hours a day on our vacations to make short-range EVs seem feasible.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

LOL I don't have a kink. It's really not a problem to stop every 3 hours to take a break.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Recharge every three hours?

Masochist.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s not. I own a very nice EV. I can make arguments for and against both EVs and ICE vehicles. If you are comparing battery size (which you did) then you are talking about range. If you are talking about range then you are comparing against ICE vehicles which have ranges from 350 miles to over 600. I used 400 because I own two ICE vehicles with that amount of range and one EV with 265 miles of range. The 265 miles is plenty for everyday stuff, it’s even good for road trips! But you made a comparison of weight. EVs are much heavier if they have equivalent range.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago

If you are talking about range then you are comparing against ICE vehicles

I wasn't talking about range, I was talking about weight.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I certainly don't and wouldn't consider it. But if someone wants 1000 miles of range, we probably aren't getting that without some major technological breakthroughs in material sciences any time soon without packs around 100kWh.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We don't need 1000 miles of range...all we need is more charging stations.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What people need and what people irrationally want can be two different things

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

For the purposes of this conversation, only 1 of those matter. The point is EVs are not inherently heavier than ICE vehicles. They're only heavier if you insist on unnecessarily large vehicles with unnecessarily long range. That's why a Chevy Bolt weighs 3600 lb and a Hummer EV weighs a patently insane 9k lbs.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Lack of a need for that won't stop people from getting them if that's an option...

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Economics of lugging all that extra battery weight around on daily commutes is why smart people wont go for the extra large pack.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago

Given what the top selling vehicles are in the US, I don't expect people to be smart, even if they're pay more upfront and long-term for their stupidity.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What people choose to buy does not make "EVs are heavier than ICE vehicles" true.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you want an equivalent vehicle, you need that kind of capacity. If you want to match the range of a vehicle with a 24gallon tank (ie: if you want to convert a typical ICE truck into an EV), you probably need a 200kwh pack. If you want to match a ~12 gallon tank (ie: if you want to convert a typical ICE sedan into an EV), you probably need a 100kwh pack. If you had a car efficient enough to get 1000 miles on 100kwh, you'd be comparing it to a 3 gallon tank for an ICE equivalent. To match an 8 gallon tank (ie: a 2-seater car), you need about 60 kwh battery. Even if you want to compare a 80mile range fortwo EQ to a 300 mile range ICE fortwo, its already 300lbs heavier without even being close on the range and being quite limiting for even just normal commuting around here (assuming you don't have a guaranteed charger at work).

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you want to match the range of a vehicle with a 24gallon tank

Don't want to, don't need to.

Really the only thing that matters for the purposes of this comparison is physical dimensions.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

My very compact SparkEV is a retrofit, so the same body as the ICE version: the battery is tiny at 19kwh but it's still like having an extra passenger and then some. You can feel the weight and stiffened suspension when driving.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

But isn’t it the weight that does more damage to the roads that the taxes are intended to pay for?

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

the weight does damage yes, but the lionshare of road damage is caused by shipping trucks because they are magnitudes heavier than a civilian vehicle while loaded. It's the reason truck weigh stations exist

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

…and a weight based tax would put the lion’s share of the tax burden on shipping trucks.

I think we’re in agreement here?

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you think an electric car that weighs 1000lbs more than similar ICE cars is doing that much more damage to the road? And compare the damage cars, suvs, etc, would do versus box trucks, tractor-trailers, etc. There is no comparison to the damages between the two classes of vehicles. While true, an SUV will do more damage to the road than an econobox hatchback, even combined they don't equal the damage a fully loaded tractor-trailer will do.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure your point here. It sounds argumentative but in fact I think we agree?

I think the damage is proportional to the weight so taxing based on weight makes sense.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Their point is even if there's a 1000 lb. difference here or there, it's not gonna make any significant difference to road wear.

Only when you get to 40-80k lb. commercial vehicles does it make a significant difference.

It also does not compensate at all for the fact that some small EVs weigh 3500lbs. while a Chevy Suburban weighs 6k lbs.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No, EV taxes are intended to compensate for loss of road taxes that are imposed on gasoline. The problem is it's a flat fee. So if you're like me and live in Texas and drive a normal-sized 3600lb. Model 3, you pay the same (patently-insane) fee as a 9k Hummer EV.

I just didn't renew my registration. Cops around here don't do shit anyway.

[–] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah. Car registration pays for road maintenance. EVs are still paying for that.