What causes a pro-EV person to publish an article like this?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Recoil45, May 2, 2021.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. Recoil45

    Recoil45 Active Member

  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Different strokes for different folks. But obviously this guy likes his RAM better than his M3. Why else would he do this comparison run? Don't think it was meant to win over any truck drivers.
     
  4. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    The thing that keeps truck buyers from the EV world is the fact that there are no decent EV trucks on the market. The same goes for SUVs, mini-vans, and convertibles.
    Until recently, the reason there have not been such vehicles is that their inefficiency requires that they take so many batteries, batteries are expensive, and some of those body styles (mini-vans) tend to have fairly low margins. Sedans have been easiest to make aerodynamically, thus increasing energy efficiency and reducing the amount of battery capacity necessary to still get enough range to be competitive against ICE.
    Now that battery prices have dropped, they are starting to look viable but, today, there aren't enough batteries available to meet demand. After battery production volumes increase, we can start seeing those other popular body styles being made. Unfortunately, (unless you're a TSLA shareholder :) ) only Tesla is seriously gearing up to make enough batteries to even begin to address those markets.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2021
  5. I agree there not any decent truck or off-road capable EVs,...yet. Which is why I need to keep one ICE vehicle at this point.

    But question your point about battery prices coming down. I haven't seen it,... in reality. I have been into e-bikes (have 4 of them) for over 5 years now, and that was the common theme back then (with lots of back up graphs). But just checked the current price of some batteries (same energy) I bought back then, and the prices at best are the same, and many have gone up. Yes, battery energy density has improved, but the cost per kWh on these batteries have not. What has come down in price is the other e-bike components (more mass production), but not the batteries.
     
  6. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    It hasn't been apparent at the retail level because demand is higher than supply due to EVs and portable devices (power tools, e-bikes, and computers) buying up all that can be procured.
    Perhaps, I would have been more correct if I had said that: Battery costs have dropped, not prices.
    The good part is that much of the profit (profit = price - cost) is being plowed back into increasing production capacity so that we may eventually see retail battery prices drop as well.
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. Reminds me of how they used to tell us how the cost of computers and phones have come down. Maybe in cost per computing power, but not in reality. I pay at the least the same for a new laptop that I did 10 years ago, and phones just keep going up.

    And I expect cars to be the same. Maybe more features and range, but I bet my next EV will cost more, probably a lot more than my current Kona.
     
  9. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    I think you're confusing cost and price.
    Price is based on what enough people are willing to pay for something (or at least someone perceives they are). Cost is how much money goes in to make and distribute the product. It is primarily for the price and costs of labor, materials (which are also driven heavily by labor costs), storage, transportation, etc.
    My first computer price was US$5K. It had 64K of RAM, one 0.5 MB floppy drive, monochrome display, and filled much of my desk. I would definitely say they are cheaper today by nearly every metric.
    My EV1 lease price was based on about a US$40K car even though its cost was supposedly well above US$100K. My Tesla Roadster price was $100K (its cost may have been a bit more too). My Model 3 price was US$50K.
    1990's Charger e-bikes by GT price was about US$3K. Today, one can buy a better one for US$1500
    Clearly, costs and prices are dropping. However, since there is a market for the higher end stuff, wise business folks will always offer a bit more to entice folks who can pay those prices - rear suspension anyone?
     
  10. Are you trying to educate me on finance,...lol. You are being pretty presumptuous about me and my background if you are. I try to keep it simple and plain English when I am on a forum.

    And if you paid $5K for your first home computer, you are either not too smart (back then) or have money to burn. And based on your initial EV purchases, the latter is probably true. One will always pay more (too much) for an initial new product. In any case, you are missing my point, about how inflation seems to outpace or at best keep up with technology innovations that drive down price (and costs).

    And with what we are seeing now, inflation is accelerating and just a matter of time (a few months at most) before Powell changes his tune about transitory inflation. And if you don't believe that, be sure you stay fully invested in growth stocks...
     
  11. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    There was no insult intended. I just wanted to define my understanding of the words you use. I'm not smart enough to know or care what some Powell may or may not do (whoever he or she may be - Jerome?). I just have an uncanny history of having a good grasp of technology, a moderate grasp of markets, and a paltry but effective grasp of finance (buy-low, sell high; profit=price-cost -- see, you're right, I'm not too smart about some things). I'm happy to share my current reasoning on batteries, trucks, EVs, e-bikes, etc with you and you're free to ignore or rebuff me. That's one thing the internet is good for. Maybe someone will get some value from it though. If so, I'll be happy.

    All of those described purchases have paid for themselves. At the time, one could easily have questioned the judgement of those investments (especially the Tesla!), however, history has fully exonerated that judgement as having been visionary. Have you seen AAPL or TSLA prices recently? Imagine what would have happened if you started at the ground floor? I don't imagine, I just remember.
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. I can't count or remember half the stocks I have owned and traded over the years. Quite a few of them don't even exist anymore. I am not a holder, though, and yes, I sell when the markets are frothy and bottom fish when blood is on the floor. And I don't look back, always forward.

    And you consider your past EV purchases as investments? So despite your paying extra for an initial new product, you sold them for more?? All my cars and any I expect to buy in the future are just consumables.
     
  14. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    I don't trade in stocks. On very rare occasions, I invest in something I see a future in. The EVs have not been financial investments. They have been investments in the future although my $17 TSLA shares have done fairly well financially :)
    Understanding EVs, their technology, infrastructure, and ecosystem has enabled me to make very good choices very early on. Having early experience with them has enabled me to get very close to the industry and hone my models of the technology, infrastructure, ecosystem, etc over the past 30 years (I started tracking and following the EV1 in '91 after casually watching the lame stuff that appeared in the '70's gas crunch).
    I'm happy to share my findings with the public so we can all benefit. It just saddens me sometimes when naive people argue with me with their nonsense. I just hope others besides me can benefit from my shared observations,
    As far as cars go: ICE cars are consumable commodities, however, even with them, there are strategies one can use to save money overall.
    I buy my cars to minimize my transportation costs. A wise old friend once said that if you want to be rich, drive an old car. I expanded on that to drive the right old car that takes cheap fuel. I've driven over 300,000 miles on electricity, thus saving a whole lot of money. I have solar on my house so the local travel energy is paid-up for the next few decades. I won't mention how little I pay for charging on my many road trips.
    My old beat-up ICE truck for off-road play and local hauling is over a decade old so, clearly, it is fully paid off and costing little. It only costs money to register, insure (which are low because of the age and few annual miles), and when I have a little extra money to play with.
    Just FYI: I would be very unlikely to waste my money on an EV from a company that does not want to make EVs. Hyundai/Kia are among the less reluctant of the ICE OEMs however, they, like the rest aren't, doing things very well (C- at best). To be successful, a company must make every investment and expense a win-win, maximizing the benefit. Like the rest of the ICE OEMs, H/K would be happiest if they could kill EVs again. They probably aren't going to break their necks to make their EVs successful. Since they only recently copied the ICE technology of others, however, H/K aren't as vested in it as those who actually invested in developing ICE technology like many of the rest (GM, MBZ, Honda, Ford, Fiat, VW, etc). They probably figure they can copy EV technology just like they did ICE. I hope their dealers start actually supporting them. The Kia Soul was pretty much sold as a detested orphan by its dealers, offering very bad support. It will be interesting to see how well they developed and treat the Niro and Kona. I hope they are holding up after 8+ years or 100K+ miles or so, making the current owners happy. I certainly won't invest in their stock until I see a little corporate wisdom on the EV subject. Since their charging infrastructure and reliability are so poor, I don't consider them to be furthering my pro-EV cause so I won't waste my EV money buying one of them either, saving it for another win-win for myself and society.
    A Tesla Model 3 or Y may be more expensive to buy but it is superior to an ICE sedan in every regard sans none and, in the long run, will be much cheaper than most other EVs. That's a win.
    That it the company is doing what I believe should be done with EVs (investing to make batteries cheaper, cars safer, good infrastructure, etc), I see that as another win for my money.
    That my brother's life was likely saved because he was driving a Tesla Model Y when he got t-boned at 55 mph (~95 kph) by a red-light running mini-van: yet another huge win.
    Then there are the other benefits that any EV provides: cheap self-generated energy, clean air, no wars over fuel, sustainable, ...) adding another stack of wins.
    I saw these back in 2006 when I talked with most of the engineers and management of the fledgling Tesla. Personal experience with the EV1 as well as other gleaned and borrowed knowledge from others wiser than me helped too. It's 15 years later and clearly, I was 100% right. That's what I call an investment with a real payback. 20,117% return on my investment $ in 10 years isn't bad either. I don't know if the Roadster will be worth anything if we ever decide to sell, however, it certainly has and continues to convince a lot of people to go out and buy EVs. This provides ever expanding of the aforementioned energy, air, no-wars, and sustainability wins.
    Maybe if we're lucky, Tesla will truly have self-driving working by the time old age renders me no longer capable to drive myself. That would be a priceless, selfish win to top it all.
    And you think investment is just about when:
    I prefer to invest to plant a tiny seed that will grow into a tree that will grow into a forest.
    Sorry for the long rant folks.
     
    miatadan likes this.
  15. And for a while I thought I was talking to someone who knew what he was doing... But just another Tesla fanboi... In fact, you're starting to sound a lot like 101101.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2021
  16. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    Sigh, I'm disappointed with the resort to name calling in the face of contrary opinions.
    I owned a Leaf because Nissan, under Ghosn's leadership was attempting to launch good EVs as well. I was disappointed because they did such a poor job on the Leaf and have refused to get behind EVs. I could almost find myself pardoning their stupid battery design but the corporate antibodies formed, however, and threw Ghosn out and continued to creep along, with their 1 paltry EV option, always making sure it was at the bottom of the heap. It wasn't all bad and didn't hurt me at all. It gave me a cheap commute ride with all of the EV benefits. I put 100,000 miles on it before selling it to family for their teenagers to use where it is still providing EV benefits. The company will get no more support from me.
    I also bought a Volt in partial support of GM's lame efforts to get back into the EV movement - despite what they had done to my excellent EV. I even bought a few shares (less than $100 worth) of GM stock in support of their Volt that was lost in their bankruptcy - the negative posting on my EV balance sheet. I was happy about the SparkEV and the Bolt but not particularly excited when they were only willing to make an EV out of their bottom-of-their-line EV and then, only so they could claim to beat Tesla's Model 3 to market. GM only ordered enough parts for 30,000 cars that first year when Tesla had a half million deposits for their Model 3. They still haven't invested much in battery supply - the critical element of an EV.

    You see, I'm really a clean, oil-free technology fan-boi so I support those who support EVs (or any other clean, viable technology which I haven't seen yet). Tesla just happens to be the only one so far :-(
     
  17. I said fanboi, because their worship of Tesla goes beyond logic and the blinders are on to the world around them. My son has an M3, and I have a Kona EV. But both of us are realistic about our cars, though, as both have/had their faults/problems. And we are open to other brands, and will make our buying decisions when the time is right. But a true fanboi of either will not admit any faults.

    I am also keenly aware of the business side not only of car manufacturers, but the rest of the world around us. And that also determines my choices and decisions going forward. Technology is wonderful, but I also understand how some manufacturers try to lock you into their thinking, to gain marketshare and dominate their space. I prefer wide open competition without a single dominate player. I don't like monopolies or even oligopolies. This what I see happening with the big tech players, and that is Tesla's aim as well. And mindshare control is a big part of that.
     
  18. Earl

    Earl Active Member

    Wow! You're sounding almost reasonable. However, you're getting suckered by the propaganda and missing the history.
    Your implied accusations is that Tesla is a monopoly. This is somewhat true but history shows it was not by choice but because they were kept out of the mainstream Oligarchy. Its kind of hard to believe that an industry that would destroy all evidence of EVs would push out a newcomer dedicated to EVs but ...
    The reality is that, when Tesla was in its infancy the ICE OEM industry, through the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers - the dominant automobile standards organization), were dedicated to keeping another competitor (Tesla) out. Being heavily invested in ICE technology, they were also dedicated to ensuring that, if they couldn't kill EV's again, at least they'd ensure an ICE was necessary for any viable automobile.
    Keeping Tesla out was attempted by delaying the ratification of the J-1772 standard.
    It was finally ratified in 2009, a year after Tesla had started delivering their Roadster. Tesla was had been an active but shunned participant in the standards process, attempting to be a team player but they were unwanted. The SAE J-1772 committee (your oligarchs), dominated by GM, stalled the ratification of the specification, knowing full well that it would hurt Tesla. It would force Tesla to delay release of the Roadster (which they couldn't afford) or go their own way. Not being available to Tesla for charging in 2008, they had to roll their own.
    A little more background history on J-1772 for you newcomers: Luckily, the signaling protocol of the car and the charger agreeing on what charging current to use didn't change much in the final J-1772 so Tesla could make a simple mechanical adapter to enable their cars to use J-1772. The only problem was the J-1772 70 amp charging protocol which required software differences to charge a Tesla. This hasn't been much of a problem since, with the rollout of Superchargers, nobody worries about J-1772 (Level-2) charging much above 40 amps. However, if you try to charge a Roadster or Model S on a 70 or 80 amp J-1772, you'll likely run into problems depending on which it is set for. This incompatibility was courtesy of the SAE.
    The other evil boat by the GM-dominated SAE J-1772 committee was to ensure any EVs had to have an ICE (remember who was developing the Volt at this time), the SAE attempted to emasculate the charging speed of J-1772 to only the 16 amp version. Tesla couldn't stand that. A 30-mile EV charging could fully charge during an 8 hour night at 12 mph charging speed provided by a 16 amp charger. However, a 200 mile EV would take over 16 hours. This was great for a PHEV but useless for a BEV. Another reason the EV industry (Tesla) had to go alone.
    Then we come to DC Fast charging:
    CCS was also set up to be obstructionist and avoid the possibility that EVs could be as viable as ICE. There were 3 particular core parts of CCS that were against EVs (or at least Tesla):
    1) the standard ratification was delayed until after 2012, thus ensuring it would not be available for Tesla's Model S.
    2) The push at that time was for the maximum charging speed to be 50 kW (~200 mph charging speed). This would mean you'd spend an hour to fully charge a 200 mile EV. This would limit the viability of EVs compared to ICE, effectively ensuring that only ICE were viable for road trips. Again, Tesla had to go it alone.
    3) A clause was added to the specification prohibiting the use of adapters. This was the mechanism that Tesla had used with J-1772 and CHAdeMO to enable harmonious usage of the public infrastructure. This hurt in 2 ways:
    1) it forced Tesla to provide all of the fast charging infrastructure for its customers
    2) it blocked the majority of the EVs on the road (and virtually all road-trip capable ones) from being able to support any fledgling DC Fast charging enterprises.
    Tesla openly invited any other EV manufacturer to utilize their Supercharging infrastructure with only 2 reasonable criteria:
    a) they would provide cars that charge fast enough to be reasonable (a pathetic 50 kW is still the norm by EV hating ICE companies).
    b) they would financially support the rollout of the infrastructure.
    There were no takers and, even worse, within the ICE industry, the rewrite that fit the party line and was propagated was "Tesla is desperately begging for someone to help bail them out with their Supercharger network".
    Above is a bit of the history as I saw it from my position close to the EV industry over the past 30 years.
    I agree about the mindshare. Who's mind is being controlled? mine or yours? Have you used the following kinds of charging stations: LPI, SPI, AVCON, NEMA 14-50, NEMA 14-30, NEMA 6-30, NEMA 6-20, TT-30, J-1772 2001, J-1772 2009, CHAdeMO, Roadster, Tesla AC, Tesla Supercharger? Have you investigated and verified anything yourself or do you just parrot propaganda others feed you?
     
  19. Your post again just supports my fanboi description. Tesla is all good and everybody else is bad... And anyone that doesn't believe that is brainwashed by propaganda and can't think for themselves.

    Let me ask you this. Do you like that your M3 does not support Carplay or Android Auto? How comfortable are your seats on a trip without perforated leather and ventilation? And yes, this is a test.
     
  20. My 2019 VW Jetta Execline had the BeatsAudio audio system which has Apple CarPlay , ( Android Auto - garbage ) , ventilated seats as well as safety available front assist, adaptive cruise control, lane assist but I sold this car.

    The 2021 Hydundai Kona EV has poor performance ( 0-60 times 9.2 secs mph/ 1/4 mile 16.8 ) compared to even the Jetta I sold which is 7.7 secs for 0-60 mph which was slow compared to the Mustangs and Miata's I owned earlier. Also the Kona electric is based on ICE design vehicle converted to EV.

    Almost every vehicle since 2019 has Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, ventilated seats ( both ICE and EV )

    The best EV's are those designed from the ground up as an EV , not taking ICE vehicle and modify it too EV. Now that Hydundai has released the Ioniq 5, that is designed as a EV from ground up is much better. Same for Mustang Mach-E, BMW i4, Audi 2021 e-tron Sportback, VW ID4 , etc

    But Tesla does have the best infrastructure for charging ( Superchargers )

    It is too bad that Tesla still has issues with build quality such as poor paint, body gaps etc.

    What is good about 2021-22 much more options in the future for EV's.

    Dan
     
  21. Oh, it's a lot better than 9.2, I think it is in the 7s. Certainly lots of power/torque for me, no complaints about that.
     
  22. From website zero60times.com

    2021 Hyundai Kona EV 0-60 times, all trims
    [​IMG]
    Trim 0-60 times, 1/4 mile
    SEL 4dr Front-wheel Drive
    201 Hp, 291 Lb-Ft., 3715 Weight, 132 City / 108 Hwy mpg, 4-wheel disc, front-wheel, 1-spd auto transmission 9.2 sec, 16.8 @ 0
    Limited 4dr Front-wheel Drive
    201 Hp, 291 Lb-Ft., 3770 Weight, 132 City / 108 Hwy mpg, 4-wheel disc, front-wheel, 1-spd auto transmission 9.2 sec, 16.8 @ 0
    Ultimate 4dr Front-wheel Drive
    201 Hp, 291 Lb-Ft., 3836 Weight, 132 City / 108 Hwy mpg, 4-wheel disc, front-wheel, 1-spd auto transmission 9.2 sec, 16.8 @ 0

    In other areas the Kona Electric EV is more efficient than most EV's and does well in the winter months.

    https://insideevs.com/news/342545/hyundai-kona-electric-range-test-in-winter-17c-video/

    and better than the gas version

    https://insideevs.com/reviews/427547/hyundai-kona-ev-electric-daily-driver/

    also in this article
    " Oftentimes, hardcore EV fans will tell you that a good electric car needs to be on its own independent platform. This is arguably true in many cases and for various reasons. However, there are certainly exceptions. Having the option for an all-electric powertrain on a vehicle that's originally gas-powered helps people see the clear advantages of electrification.

    The Hyundai Kona Electric is a perfect example of the above. The gas-powered Kona is an excellent crossover, so it works to grab people's attention. Now that Hyundai offers it as a compelling EV " , so I stand corrected

    So I can understand why it sold well especially since a few years ago there was not many choices for EV's

    Dan
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2021
  23. You're looking at the wrong spec Kona EV, with the small 39 kWh battery. That model/trim is not sold in North America. Here is our spec from your same InsideEVs link with our 64kWh battery. And it is in the 7s. I know with mine that the tires chirp right up to about 60 kph (40 mph), with only FWD. And unlike an ICE car, the torque and power is instant right from a standstill. I can beat pretty well any sports car from a red light. There have been many that have tried,... and failed.
    Long-range Battery / Motor spec:
    • 64 kWh battery – 470 km (292 miles) range (WLTP)
    • 150 kW, 395 Nm electric motor (front-wheel drive)
    • 0-62 mph (100 kmh) in 7.6 seconds
    • 104 mph (167 km/h) top speed
    • 7.2 kW on-board charger and 100 kW CCS Combo DC fast charging capability
    If you are going to interject yourself into a discussion, wish you would be more relevant and get your facts straight.
     

Share This Page