[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s because they don’t go “vroom vroom”

Originally Posted by 0stones0

Like how you through in the word “yet” in your statement. For alot of us, that’s pretty much the sourness to the whole ordeal. “Forcing” is a good word to describe the process.



Ummm…it’s a hotrod forum…yes, we like “vroom vroom”.

So then I’m not wrong, eh. Exactly why I said it. Hot rods go vroom vroom. EVs don’t.

[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s because they don’t go “vroom vroom”

That's being more than a bit dismissive, don't you think? I think the ICE crowd has provided some compelling arguments about marginal environment impacts, high prices, low consumer demand, impacts to power rates/grid/generation, limited range, comparatively slow charge times, battery degradation, insufficient charging access for long distance travel, near horizon tech leading to possible rapid depreciation looming, dependence on foreign interests for rare earth elements, poor performance in cold temperatures, etc etc.



and yeah... we *really* don't like having government mandates and subsidies overriding consumer demands to manipulate the marketplace. This *is* being forced upon us, albeit not all at once.



...but okay, "VROOM VROOM", whatever.

[Gen6cyl]

To my understanding uk gas prices have always been very high. Ev would be good for them. The U.S. has lots of Petro under us. We don't need our government making the choice for us. We can have both and be successful. For the next at least 10 years I can see U.S. Petro working better for us by keeping electricity cheaper.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

That's being more than a bit dismissive, don't you think? I think the ICE crowd has provided some compelling arguments about marginal environment impacts, high prices, low consumer demand, impacts to power rates/grid/generation, limited range, comparatively slow charge times, battery degradation, insufficient charging access for long distance travel, near horizon tech leading to possible rapid depreciation looming, dependence on foreign interests for rare earth elements, poor performance in cold temperatures, etc etc.



and yeah... we *really* don't like having government mandates and subsidies overriding consumer demands to manipulate the marketplace. This *is* being forced upon us, albeit not all at once.



...but okay, "VROOM VROOM", whatever.

Actually it was meant to be funny and not dismissive but I can see how it can come across that way. This thread could use a dose of humor.

As far as being forced upon us, to some degree, but by whom?

I would say that if it is being forced it’s being forced by the automakers.

So many say it’s Biden…most automakers committed to Carbon Neutral BEFORE the 2020 elections. Most in 2019, some in 2020.

Some would say by EPA and NHTSA. Nope. You can’t find an EPA or NHTSA rule that says “people have to buy EVs”. Arguably the rules that are coming for 2027 and beyond will make it tougher for automakers to manage a portfolio of ICE vehicles. But the automakers are the ones making the strategic choice to NOT invest in new ICE technology to meet the upcoming emissions regulations and to invest in EVs (zero emissions) instead.

CARB? Ok…that’s a good point. If you live in California, Oregon, Washington New York and a handful of other states. But that doesn’t kick in until 2035. And it only applies to NEW vehicles. It doesn’t say you can’t buy a used ICE or keep driving the one you have. It also doesn’t say you can’t buy the vehicle in a non-CARB following state and then bring it into your own state.

So, who else might be “blamed” for this if not the automakers?

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

So, who else might be “blamed” for this if not the automakers?

Instinctively, everyone knows it is governments and governmental agencies. But there is enough plausible deniability to allow arguments such as you make.

So lets just say that it is the automakers. Maybe they all looked at Tesla and said "WTF! Here is a company making a relatively few shitty (at the time they were) electric cars and they are already valued higher than us". So they all decided to mortgage their futures in pursuit of that market.

Or maybe not, who knows.

Regardless, even if, for the sake of argument, it is the automakers, forcing is forcing and lots of people don't like it.

[1JEWLDSSRS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s because they don’t go “vroom vroom”

AND they don't have that "LS shake" and big cam chop!! Not to mention the "permagrin" when you are driving a Camaro..

[mlee]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Instinctively, everyone knows it is governments and governmental agencies. But there is enough plausible deniability to allow arguments such as you make.

So lets just say that it is the automakers. Maybe they all looked at Tesla and said "WTF! Here is a company making a relatively few shitty (at the time they were) electric cars and they are already valued higher than us". So they all decided to mortgage their futures in pursuit of that market.

Or maybe not, who knows.

Regardless, even if, for the sake of argument, it is the automakers, forcing is forcing and lots of people don't like it.

As a consumer I don't feel "forced" one way or the other. Automakers may feel that way trying to meet standards but there are plenty of options out there for the consumer to choose from and ultimately drive the industry one way or the other. There are simply way too many options on both sides and a balance will happen based on sales and sales alone.

I could care less about green or not or any other debates going on and will purchase what fits my lifestyle and desires. That Blazer SS EV is talking to me now .

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Capricio

That's being more than a bit dismissive, don't you think? I think the ICE crowd has provided some compelling arguments about marginal environment impacts, high prices, low consumer demand, impacts to power rates/grid/generation, limited range, comparatively slow charge times, battery degradation, insufficient charging access for long distance travel, near horizon tech leading to possible rapid depreciation looming, dependence on foreign interests for rare earth elements, poor performance in cold temperatures, etc etc.



and yeah... we *really* don't like having government mandates and subsidies overriding consumer demands to manipulate the marketplace. This *is* being forced upon us, albeit not all at once.



...but okay, "VROOM VROOM", whatever.

Just speaking on the stuff in bold:
Marginal environmental impacts: On one hand there’s the studies that talk about the environmental damage done by mining. Mostly factual, but some are a bit over-stated. There’s also studies that show that the environmental impact of producing EVs is marginally more than the environmental impact of producing ICE vehicles and that this margin is quickly offset when taking into account the lifetime emissions due to daily use of ICE vs EV.

High Prices: Definitely true at the beginning since automakers opted to produce large luxury vehicles and load them with options. Vehicles coming to market in ‘22 and onward are targeted towards the mainstream of the market. As the prices of batteries come down, so are the prices of vehicles. The EV I just bought costs LESS than the Camaro I bought more than 6 years ago. And it costs $3,000 more than the average new vehicle sold in the US in 2023.

Low Consumer Demand: Most surveys of interest in purchasing EVs and intent to purchase EVs (two very different questions) show that they have pretty much leveled out (around 80% for INTEREST, around mid 60s for INTENT) and showed some single digit decline in 2023. So it has declined from a high number to a slightly less high number.

Impacts to power rates/grid/generation: There are scenarios that could challenge the grid. Most involve practically everyone in an area owning an EV and trying to charge them all at the same time. Highly unlikely. Power companies that I have spoken with see generation as actually of less concern than transmission. And they’re working on that. Could still be an issue if EV population rises faster than currently projected. As far as rates, the percentage of power drawn by an EV is a fraction of the total energy drawn in the typical household. In my case it’s been right around 22% of my total electric bill. That’s looking at my bills from 2012 until February of this year when our Volt met an untimely demise. Less than $40 a month on an average bill of $182. It’s easy for me to split out because the car charger is on. Separate circuit with a separate meter.

Limited Range: Most EVs coming to market now have battery range of 300+ miles from a full charge.

Comparatively slow charge rates: This is something that continues to improve at a very fast rate. When I rented a Model Y in Atlanta a few weeks ago I charged it while I went shopping at a mall. Didn’t need to, but just wanted to get a feel for how long it would take. It went from 55% to 90% (Hertz limits to 90% charge) in less than half an hour. Cost me $11.24. It was done charging before I was done shopping. When I plugged in, the app told me it was charging at the rate of 207 miles of range added per hour.

Battery degradation: In the US, batteries have to be warranted to maintain 80% useful capacity over 8 years, 100,000 miles. Parallel to that, Tesla examined the batteries in Model S and Model X that had over 200,000 miles on them. The batteries showed 10 - 12% degradation. Since this was an older Model S, it didn’t even have benefit of the latest battery technology. https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesl...lth-over-time/

Insufficient access to charging for long trips: Probably the biggest single lingering issue at this time. The move by most major automakers to adopt the Tesla charging standard has immediately improved this, as the Tesla SuperCharger and Destination Charger networks provide immediate cross country access to charging. Still, more have to be added to support the expected growth of EVs between now and 2030. BP is investing $100M to add Tesla chargers at their gas stations.

Near horizon tech leading to rapid value depreciation: Could be an issue, but it will be manufacturer dependent. Tesla has been continuously changing their battery technology with absolutely no notice to current owners. Or really anybody, for that matter. I happened to be able to see disassembled 2020 and 2023 Model Ys side by side. The differences in the battery content is amazing. But the 2023 battery pack drops right into a 2020. GM has stated that their Ultium battery packs will support cells with different design generations and chemistries operating in the same pack. In other words, you can replace individual modules and even cells, and therefore not have to replace an entire battery pack. For other functionality, automakers are going to Over the Air (OTA) vehicle software and firmware updates for both ICE and EV. Tesla has been doing OTA since day one.

Dependence on foreign nations for rare earth minerals:EVs are more susceptible to this than ICE vehicles, but ICE vehicles are also susceptible to this. As are cell phones, music speakers, refrigerators, microwaves, et cetera et cetera. It’s a bigger problem than EVs, but EVs are the most visible presentation of the problem.

Poor performance in cold temperatures: Without a doubt. So are ICE vehicles. But there are differences in how this is addressed. With an ICE you can easily find a nearby gas station. With a BEV most owners will already be plugging the vehicle in every night. So arguably for my newest EV I go from having 318 miles of available range to having [guessing] 220 miles of available range. If I’m driving 45 miles total that day, does it really matter? Maybe I drive 80…150. It won’t matter in the long run UNLESS I’m driving more than the full range of the vehicle on any particular day. If that was something that happened often in my life, I’d probably not buy an EV. Or I’d do what I’ll probably be doing with this one. If we need to make long trips we’ll just take another car. Or rent something. That situation is likely to occur at most once a year.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

Instinctively, everyone knows it is governments and governmental agencies. But there is enough plausible deniability to allow arguments such as you make.

Or maybe, just maybe I’m actually right about this. Remember, US government has no say on the transition of auto markets in China or Europe. And yet, both of those regions are headed in the same direction, but even faster. So maybe the same responsible players are operating in each region? Who are the common players? The automakers.

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

So lets just say that it is the automakers. Maybe they all looked at Tesla and said "WTF! Here is a company making a relatively few shitty (at the time they were) electric cars and they are already valued higher than us". So they all decided to mortgage their futures in pursuit of that market.

Or maybe not, who knows.

Regardless, even if, for the sake of argument, it is the automakers, forcing is forcing and lots of people don't like it.

Every time an automaker makes a portfolio decision they are “forcing” something. US automakers turned everything front wheel drive for a while. They did away with station wagons. They did away with most minivans. They’ve done away with coupes (except Mustang). Every portfolio decision forces some buyer somewhere to do something different. This is the same thing on a much larger scale.

You’re on to something with the Tesla line of thinking. When I was at GM, this was the progression of thinking on Tesla:

• Pffft! What a joke. They’ll never make it.
• Wait until they realize how hard it is to actually assemble a car.
• How is it that they get away with things we would never be allowed to do? (No dealer network, direct sales, various shenanigans with the display screen)
• Ok, but it’s only fast in a straight line.
• We need to tear some of those down and see what the deal is.
• We need to develop a car that out Teslas Tesla
• How do we shift our business model to compete with Tesla?
• Maybe we need to take Tesla head on.

I’m sure similar conversations were had in Dearborn, Auburn Hills, Munich, and Stuttgart. And they all arrived at the same answer. Imagine that. Meanwhile, and I’ll say it again for those who haven’t heard me say this in this and other threads…

Best selling passenger vehicle in THE WORLD in 2023? Tesla Model Y.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Near horizon tech leading to rapid value depreciation:[/B] Could be an issue, but it will be manufacturer dependent. Tesla has been continuously changing their battery technology with absolutely no notice to current owners. Or really anybody, for that matter. I happened to be able to see disassembled 2020 and 2023 Model Ys side by side. The differences in the battery content is amazing. But the 2023 battery pack drops right into a 2020. GM has stated that their Ultium battery packs will support cells with different design generations and chemistries operating in the same pack. In other words, you can replace individual modules and even cells, and therefore not have to replace an entire battery pack. For other functionality, automakers are going to Over the Air (OTA) vehicle software and firmware updates for both ICE and EV. Tesla has been doing OTA since day one.

When it comes to battery and Tesla, it obviously needs to be contained to the same cell design. Your 2023 vs 2020 Y, as long as it is a model with the 2170 battery it is true. If it is a Model Y with the new 4680 battery, to my knowledge it's not as the 4680 is meant to be structural with the car.

They have adopted the 2170 battery to the new mega cast method of assembling the Y, but haven't heard of adopting the 4680 to the older method of building the Y.

Though my information is way out of date as I have stopped following the absolute latest with Tesla.

Poor performance in cold temperatures:[/B] Without a doubt. So are ICE vehicles. But there are differences in how this is addressed. With an ICE you can easily find a nearby gas station. With a BEV most owners will already be plugging the vehicle in every night. So arguably for my newest EV I go from having 318 miles of available range to having [guessing] 220 miles of available range. If I’m driving 45 miles total that day, does it really matter? Maybe I drive 80…150. It won’t matter in the long run UNLESS I’m driving more than the full range of the vehicle on any particular day. If that was something that happened often in my life, I’d probably not buy an EV. Or I’d do what I’ll probably be doing with this one. If we need to make long trips we’ll just take another car. Or rent something. That situation is likely to occur at most once a year.

Not to mention there methods to help mitigate the cold temps effect to EV's.

Before driving, pre-condition the car. If the battery is cold, the car will also heat up the battery. If you're plugged in, the car is using shore power to do it vs robbing power from the battery to heat itself. Or setup the car if possible to charge right before you depart. Act of charging the battery will heat up the battery.

Heat pump is also better than PTC as a way to heat the car.

When it comes to charging on the road.....Many have probably read about last christmas when a cold snap hit the country people reporting charging issues. The issue is two fold...... Non-Tesla EV's don't pre-condition the battery for fast charging. So battery is too cold to accept the fast rates. Non-Tesla chargers reliability is atrocious. All of those reports were based off non-Tesla experiences. It's an issue, but it's not one that should have people declare, " EV's suck, never going to buy one" unsurmountable.

All OEM's need to do is when you're navigating to a fast charger like Tesla is program a way to heat up the battery to accept faster rates. Tesla's did not experience as bad of a time over that cold snap as non-Tesla's because of the pre-conditioning( when setup properly by the driver) and superchargers are reliable.

I see about a 20% hit in efficiency in the winter over summer. Granted 20% is more than the 10-12% hit ICE vehicles see, but it isn't atrocious like the 40% hit PTC EV's see.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Or maybe, just maybe I’m actually right about this.

Could be... I'll give you that

Remember, US government has no say on the transition of auto markets in China or Europe. And yet, both of those regions are headed in the same direction, but even faster. So maybe the same responsible players are operating in each region? Who are the common players? The automakers.

The common player between the US and Europe are the climate alarmists (I said "climate alarmists" but have NO intention of debating that subject) but China has me puzzled because they don't give a rats ass about the environment. So maybe between the US and Europe it is the climate lobby and in China it is the fact that electric cars are the only ones they know how to build that are actually even marginally good?

Every time an automaker makes a portfolio decision they are “forcing” something. US automakers turned everything front wheel drive for a while. They did away with station wagons. They did away with most minivans. They’ve done away with coupes (except Mustang). Every portfolio decision forces some buyer somewhere to do something different.

All of those things were just a variation of the existing vehicle. They did not require any basic lifestyle change. They were still ICE vehicles which could be operated like any other ICE vehicle and were perfectly compatible with the existing infrastructure.

This is the same thing on a much larger scale.

Understatement of the year.

You’re on to something with the Tesla line of thinking. When I was at GM, this was the progression of thinking on Tesla:

• Pffft! What a joke. They’ll never make it.
• Wait until they realize how hard it is to actually assemble a car.
• How is it that they get away with things we would never be allowed to do? (No dealer network, direct sales, various shenanigans with the display screen)
• Ok, but it’s only fast in a straight line.
• We need to tear some of those down and see what the deal is.
• We need to develop a car that out Teslas Tesla
• How do we shift our business model to compete with Tesla?
• Maybe we need to take Tesla head on.

I’m sure similar conversations were had in Dearborn, Auburn Hills, Munich, and Stuttgart. And they all arrived at the same answer. Imagine that. Meanwhile, and I’ll say it again for those who haven’t heard me say this in this and other threads…

Best selling passenger vehicle in THE WORLD in 2023? Tesla Model Y.

When Miller Light was introduced and took off did all of the breweries vow to go all light beer by 1990?

No, because that would have been stupid.

Why are cars different?

[el ess A]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Best selling passenger vehicle in THE WORLD in 2023? Tesla Model Y.

And apparently, it's going to stay that way for the time being.

From the looks of the GM dealerships, unless it's a pickup truck, I haven't seen ANY of them with any parking issues on the lot for ANYTHING around here. A few more SUVs trickling in here and there, but on one side of the Chevy dealership uptown for new cars/trucks, it's literally a bare lot. Pre-Covid they were jammed full.

First it was Covid, then chip issues, then supply chain issues (still, which dates back to Covid) and now the strikes. None of that helps.

This all has nothing to do with EVs specifically, but with UAW workers demanding (and probably getting) huge pay raises and concessions from the OEMs, pretty soon the government may have to subsidize the sales of many more vehicles than just EVs. And it will definitely raise the prices of vehicles even further. Inflation is sticking. Which sucks.

But now some of the OEMs are discussing doing a pause or cutbacks on several projects on their quest to go electric. Along with NOT building vehicles of nearly any kind, having the strike stuff to deal with along with supply chain issues that still persist, not as bad, but still, where is all this money needed going to materialize to keep things afloat? Oh, wait, while I get out my crystal ball...layoffs. Sure, I'll give you a fat raise, then lay you off. Problem solved. I know that's not the intent, but that's going to be the outcome. GM can't just print money and hand it out like other entities. So they have to tighten their belts. All the OEMs will being doing something like that. When? I don't know, but I'll bet it happens inside of 18 months if things stay the same. It may not, but I'm giving it a 60% chance it does.
*
Some people on the forum are lucky to have extra vehicles to drive and suck money out of your wallets while waiting to get driven. Ourselves included. But then you hear the talk about "Well, if my EV dies, or I need to take a trip from Georgia to Arizona, I'll just drive my other car" like everyone already owns more than one vehicle as spares. More power to you if you can afford a spare car or more. There's a lot of not well-off people I know of that if they're lucky they have two well-used cars, but that's so dad can go to his work, and mom can go to her work, and hope like hell one of them don't get laid off or one of the cars breaks on them. I can assure you that EVs aren't discussed around their kitchen tables except maybe as a pipe dream.

Until the economy can get back on its feet, I'm betting the word "slowdown" is going to be used a whole lot more than "robust growth" in the coming year. With mortgage rates already pushing 8% (if you were beamed here from 1982 you would take that deal in a heartbeat) people aren't ready or perhaps able, to risk taking the plunge. Keeping their jobs is job 1.

My major complaint isn't the vroom vroom of a hotrod. I do love it, but that's not a big deal. It's how everything is a camel nose under the tent right now. More of a trust issue.

More and more is coming out in the open when the alphabet organizations make up rules and regs that fly in the face of individual freedoms. There's different ways to force people to do things without actually looking like your forcing them to do it. Demonizing the oil companies is one way that the EV zealots try to sway people away from oil. Policies and regulations that reversed the U.S. oil/gas production processes is totally whacked in my opinion. Which helped fuel one of the greatest economic times we ever had.

Of course, they never thought that all that plastic on their EV comes from somewhere, whether natural gas or oil for the most part. Oil is all bad, green energy is all good. When it's enough, it will be enough and eventually people will end up doing what they need to do to stop the insanity. We can have it all. It doesn't have to be just one or the other.

[len125]

https://www.streetmusclemag.com/news...engine-option/

dodge is coming back with an ICE engine...The new Charger will have an EV and an ICE.....

Poor Camaro....Gone with the wind.....we should have a 7th generation camaro ICE....

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Capricio

That's being more than a bit dismissive, don't you think? I think the ICE crowd has provided some compelling arguments about marginal environment impacts, high prices, low consumer demand, impacts to power rates/grid/generation, limited range, comparatively slow charge times, battery degradation, insufficient charging access for long distance travel, near horizon tech leading to possible rapid depreciation looming, dependence on foreign interests for rare earth elements, poor performance in cold temperatures, etc etc.



and yeah... we *really* don't like having government mandates and subsidies overriding consumer demands to manipulate the marketplace. This *is* being forced upon us, albeit not all at once.



...but okay, "VROOM VROOM", whatever.

Yes, I 2nd the above.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Actually it was meant to be funny and not dismissive but I can see how it can come across that way. This thread could use a dose of humor.

As far as being forced upon us, to some degree, but by whom?

I would say that if it is being forced it’s being forced by the automakers.

So many say it’s Biden…most automakers committed to Carbon Neutral BEFORE the 2020 elections. Most in 2019, some in 2020.

Some would say by EPA and NHTSA. Nope. You can’t find an EPA or NHTSA rule that says “people have to buy EVs”. Arguably the rules that are coming for 2027 and beyond will make it tougher for automakers to manage a portfolio of ICE vehicles. But the automakers are the ones making the strategic choice to NOT invest in new ICE technology to meet the upcoming emissions regulations and to invest in EVs (zero emissions) instead.

CARB? Ok…that’s a good point. If you live in California, Oregon, Washington New York and a handful of other states. But that doesn’t kick in until 2035. And it only applies to NEW vehicles. It doesn’t say you can’t buy a used ICE or keep driving the one you have. It also doesn’t say you can’t buy the vehicle in a non-CARB following state and then bring it into your own state.

So, who else might be “blamed” for this if not the automakers?

Strict tailpipe emissions regulations are forcing the manufacturers to abandon the ICE, that's forcing us as a consumer to eventually have less ICE options, potentially leaving us without high performance ICEs all together. That doesn't sit well with me. Not sure how that sits well with you.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Just speaking on the stuff in bold:
Marginal environmental impacts: On one hand there’s the studies that talk about the environmental damage done by mining. Mostly factual, but some are a bit over-stated. There’s also studies that show that the environmental impact of producing EVs is marginally more than the environmental impact of producing ICE vehicles and that this margin is quickly offset when taking into account the lifetime emissions due to daily use of ICE vs EV.

Don't have the time to read through all of this and make complete rebuttals, but here's a few thoughts:

Carbon footprint isn't the same as environmental impacts. The amount of rare earth materials needed for a BEV and the mining required causes so much more environmental issues than just carbon emissions. EV pushers tend to forget about that fact and only focus on tailpipe carbon emissions (not all of them, I know). I've never heard anyone talk about the pollution and environmental impacts of mining the materials.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Low Consumer Demand: Most surveys of interest in purchasing EVs and intent to purchase EVs (two very different questions) show that they have pretty much leveled out (around 80% for INTEREST, around mid 60s for INTENT) and showed some single digit decline in 2023. So it has declined from a high number to a slightly less high number.

I saw an article yesterday that said 51% of democrats and 17% of republicans will consider BEV for their next car purchase. That's around 33-35% of the total population. That's not as high as you are quoting.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Limited Range: Most EVs coming to market now have battery range of 300+ miles from a full charge.

Under ideal conditions, perhaps. BEVs use power just sitting there outside in the cold keeping the battery up to temp., significantly reducing their range.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Comparatively slow charge rates: This is something that continues to improve at a very fast rate. When I rented a Model Y in Atlanta a few weeks ago I charged it while I went shopping at a mall. Didn’t need to, but just wanted to get a feel for how long it would take. It went from 55% to 90% (Hertz limits to 90% charge) in less than half an hour. Cost me $11.24. It was done charging before I was done shopping. When I plugged in, the app told me it was charging at the rate of 207 miles of range added per hour.

Still lots of issues with consistent speeds at fast chargers.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Dependence on foreign nations for rare earth minerals:EVs are more susceptible to this than ICE vehicles, but ICE vehicles are also susceptible to this. As are cell phones, music speakers, refrigerators, microwaves, et cetera et cetera. It’s a bigger problem than EVs, but EVs are the most visible presentation of the problem.

BEVs are way more susceptible than ICEs. Cell phones use tiny amounts of rare earth materials compared to a BEV.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Poor performance in cold temperatures: Without a doubt. So are ICE vehicles. But there are differences in how this is addressed. With an ICE you can easily find a nearby gas station. With a BEV most owners will already be plugging the vehicle in every night. So arguably for my newest EV I go from having 318 miles of available range to having [guessing] 220 miles of available range. If I’m driving 45 miles total that day, does it really matter? Maybe I drive 80…150. It won’t matter in the long run UNLESS I’m driving more than the full range of the vehicle on any particular day. If that was something that happened often in my life, I’d probably not buy an EV. Or I’d do what I’ll probably be doing with this one. If we need to make long trips we’ll just take another car. Or rent something. That situation is likely to occur at most once a year.

My ZL1 has WAY more power in cold temps. compared to hot temps., and no reduction in fuel mileage. That's consistent with all ICEs. I'd call that a win. And yes, range does matter because many people regularly drive long distances. Traveling might be rare for some people, but I know a lot of people who go on significant car trips in state very regularly. It matters to people like that.