[Capricio]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

Absolutely laughable. But hey, anyone is welcome to run around scared of boogymen, EV's, and everything else.

Oh, I doubt the WEF can accomplish everything it sets out to do, their approach is more incremental, but as a general rule, if they're for something, I'm against it. As Buckeye stated, their intentions are right out in the open, if anyone cares to look and can find the crazy stuff filtered through google. EVs just are a small part of their overall agenda.

[bigd1276]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

If that's what keeps you up at night....

Not me, though.

I'm 58, semi-retired with a nice nest egg. I sleep like a baby. I do however feel sorry for the country/world that my children will live in. A far different world than the one I grew up in.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

What's changed is the rate of growth. There are lots of explanations and there are similar things going on in the gasoline car market as well.

A slowing rate of growth for something that has a small market share is bad.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Which part? You don't believe their own papers? You don't think they have the power to do what they propose? You just agree with their proposals?

He already loves Big Brother

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

A slowing rate of growth for something that has a small market share is bad.

Part of it is a function of basic math. If you are familiar with calculus, the second differential is negative but the first differential is positive. Ital (volume) is positive, so there is continued growth. The second differential being negative is an indication that the RATE of growth is slower. From 20 to 21 and again 21 to 22, the RATE of GROWTH was about 80%. Because the growth was basically a small number getting bigger. From ‘22 to ‘23th the RATE of GROWTH was something like 38%. A lot lower RATE of GROWTH than the two prior years. But because the number that is the basis from which growth is calculated is larger, the VOLUME GROWTH was greater than the two prior years. That is the point I think Evergreen6 is trying to make. A smaller percentage of a larger number is still a big number.

2021 Sales were 77% higher than 2020. Volume growth was 222k units
2022 Sales were 79% higher than 2021. Volume growth was 278k units
2023 Sales were 37.5% higher than 2022. Volume growth was 532k units. This was also the year that sales topped 1 million.

Expectation for growth in 2024 is lower than 30%. Volume growth is expected to be a little less than 500k. So, slower growth rate, but still a lot more volume. I’m actually as I type this putting together a presentation for a meeting I have coming up with the Board of a supplier company on this topic.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by Iron Lung Jimmy

He already loves Big Brother

When you can't argue facts any longer, attack your opponent personally and say bad things about them.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Which is literally what you did a few posts ago.

No, I pointed out some people seem to be very scared that the WEF is going to make them eat bugs and take away their cars. That seems far-fetched and totally illogical to me, but it doesn't make them a bad person or conspiracy theorist, like believing in Big Brother can be (whomever that is, these days).

Back to the topic we were discussing before such nonsense, China is going to eat our lunch with regards to EV's. And there's very compelling data that what we're seeing with EV sales right now is a temporary slowdown.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

You've side stepped everyone who has been earnest in discussing this topic with you. Just in the last 2 1/2 pages, I've asked you legitimate questions that you've just ignored. You've typed statements, much of which was just your opinion, but provided no links or papers or studies or videos.

China was also covered a bit earlier in the thread with links, videos, studies, and graphs from respected sources on "both sides" of the argument. I'm not sure what you are really looking for here. Maybe you are just late to this party? I don't know.

I don't really get into discussing fringe stuff like fear the WEF is going to make us eat bugs and has a plot to take away our cars. Nor do I thinking bombing a region is a legitimate trade strategy, or that EV's are being forced on America when only 13? states have adopted CARB standards and nobody has drafted a purchase mandate regarding EV's. Also, if you are curious about any of my other opinions or statements, you are welcome to do your own research, as I'm sure you are capable. I'm just a guy on the internet.

My apologies if I didn't read all 130+ pages (in my view) of this thread. I'm sure certain aspects of football are discussed ad nauseam over time in a bar setting as well, however, that discussion does not become verboten.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Part of it is a function of basic math. If you are familiar with calculus, the second differential is negative but the first differential is positive. Ital (volume) is positive, so there is continued growth. The second differential being negative is an indication that the RATE of growth is slower. From 20 to 21 and again 21 to 22, the RATE of GROWTH was about 80%. Because the growth was basically a small number getting bigger. From ‘22 to ‘23th the RATE of GROWTH was something like 38%. A lot lower RATE of GROWTH than the two prior years. But because the number that is the basis from which growth is calculated is larger, the VOLUME GROWTH was greater than the two prior years. That is the point I think Evergreen6 is trying to make. A smaller percentage of a larger number is still a big number.

2021 Sales were 77% higher than 2020. Volume growth was 222k units
2022 Sales were 79% higher than 2021. Volume growth was 278k units
2023 Sales were 37.5% higher than 2022. Volume growth was 532k units. This was also the year that sales topped 1 million.

Expectation for growth in 2024 is lower than 30%. Volume growth is expected to be a little less than 500k. So, slower growth rate, but still a lot more volume. I’m actually as I type this putting together a presentation for a meeting I have coming up with the Board of a supplier company on this topic.

I passed my required calculus courses, but only put that knowledge into RAM and deleted it shortly thereafter to make room for things I didn't hate But I understand what you are saying.

I think it boils down to a matter of perspective. Viewed in the context of just a product, EV's are doing OK. Viewed in the context of a product that most governments want to be at the very least dominant, if not exclusive, in ten years they aren't doing so well.

From your standpoint - they are just cars - I totally see where you are coming from and can't disagree.

From the standpoint of they are tools in an agenda - which you may or may not agree with but couldn't say if you did - they are so far failing.

[Evergreen6]

New vehicles sales are down in January 2024 as a whole. The proverbial "$10k off MSRP" on a Chevy pickup is back. Inflation is almost normal, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices (MSRP) have come down. Incentives are getting good, though. I believe there will be some slack water in this space between inflation and feds cutting rates.

The other momentum that EV's have lost as of recent are falling fuel prices. Domestic oil production is at record highs and oil prices have fallen. It's hard to juggle those two ideas- on one hand, the US has seen a great bump in EV adoption and sales in the last two years, but we've also removed the cohort of EV buyers who are red-hot and fed up with yo-yo fuel prices (mostly high). Two things at once. It will be interesting to see the road ahead.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by MSS1LE

Name one thing I said that's incorrect?

EV's cost more. That's a fact.

EV's on average have significantly less range than ICE vehicles. Fact.

EV's require more planning to ensure range and refueling. That's a fact.

EV's are less reliable. That's straight from Consumer Reports. https://www.consumerreports.org/cars...s-a1047214174/

Everything I said was factually accurate other than the hyperbole about them being a turd sandwich.

Consumer Reports puts out good data. They've also ragged on vehicles like the Camaro and Jeep Wrangler for years, and people still bought them for their own reasons anyway. CR doesn't seem to have the purchase-stopping power that some believe they do. CR's reviews also don't tell the whole story of an ownership experience. They've rated Kias highly in the past, and well, Kias also win awards for some of the most-recalled vehicles ever, with engine fires and insurance companies that have dropped certain models because they're too easy to steal. Keep in mind, I own an EV....it's been an overall very positive experience and nothing like people throwing negative data about them around on a message board wish you to believe.

But yes, I agree, EV's have some uphill challenges. But when price comes down, and when charging stations become ubiquitous (adding around the US at a rate of 46k per year, presently), and when battery tech innovates again and we see bigger range, shorter recharge, there's a good chance EV's will become both dominant and superior for many use cases. I can come up with data that says EV's are faster, safer, and are better in some cases, contribute to fewer overall emissions, and may have a cheaper cost of ownership. That doesn't matter to someone who hasn't/won't/will never own one.

There's a misconception that the state of EV is presently fully-baked, and this is what it will look like going forward, as good as it gets. It's not. It will either fail and be put back in the box for another day, or it's going to be come the next Thing. My bet is on the latter. There's over 100 years of ICV innovation and evolution, and the modern EV has been out for a little over 12 years if we consider that point in time to be roughly around dawn of the mass-produced Model S. The advancement that's been made in that amount of time is un-ignorable.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by Evergreen6

Consumer Reports puts out good data. They've also ragged on vehicles like the Camaro and Jeep Wrangler for years, and people still bought them for their own reasons anyway. CR doesn't seem to have the purchase-stopping power that some believe they do. CR's reviews also don't tell the whole story of an ownership experience. They've rated Kias highly in the past, and well, Kias also win awards for some of the most-recalled vehicles ever, with engine fires and insurance companies that have dropped certain models because they're too easy to steal. Keep in mind, I own an EV....it's been an overall very positive experience and nothing like people throwing negative data about them around on a message board wish you to believe.

But yes, I agree, EV's have some uphill challenges. But when price comes down, and when charging stations become ubiquitous (adding around the US at a rate of 46k per year, presently), and when battery tech innovates again and we see bigger range, shorter recharge, there's a good chance EV's will become both dominant and superior for many use cases. I can come up with data that says EV's are faster, safer, and are better in some cases, contribute to fewer overall emissions, and may have a cheaper cost of ownership. That doesn't matter to someone who hasn't/won't/will never own one.

There's a misconception that the state of EV is presently fully-baked, and this is what it will look like going forward, as good as it gets. It's not. It will either fail and be put back in the box for another day, or it's going to be come the next Thing. My bet is on the latter. There's over 100 years of ICV innovation and evolution, and the modern EV has been out for a little over 12 years if we consider that point in time to be roughly around dawn of the mass-produced Model S. The advancement that's been made in that amount of time is un-ignorable.

It is very important to avoid a Michael Moore, magical EV destiny viewpoint.

Electricity as a consumer power source is already more cost effective for people that turn EV down. The why's are not irrelevant and not whatever FUD stands for.

The recharge issue will run into occupational/safety limitations. Cells/Batteries will improve incrementally (even then it's stupid not to have a fuel heat auxiliary for deep freezes). It's impossible for there to be a breakthrough in motor efficiency.

I could argue the early Model S was better aimed at market adoption. And in the bigger picture, 3/Y and Cybertruck continue a mission creep; knowing that the trend early adopters are men with tech-forward egos, that will buy hyped specifications, on severely bean-counted vehicles.

I am slightly curious on comparable insurance rates, repair costs. I suspect GM's platforms put higher emphasis on it than Tesla's.

[Evergreen6]

Originally Posted by genxer

It is very important to avoid a Michael Moore, magical EV destiny viewpoint.

Electricity as a consumer power source is already more cost effective for people that turn EV down. The why's are not irrelevant and not whatever FUD stands for.

The recharge issue will run into occupational/safety limitations. Cells/Batteries will improve incrementally (even then it's stupid not to have a fuel heat auxiliary for deep freezes). It's impossible for there to be a breakthrough in motor efficiency.

I could argue the early Model S was better aimed at market adoption. And in the bigger picture, 3/Y and Cybertruck continue a mission creep; knowing that the trend early adopters are men with tech-forward egos, that will buy hyped specifications, on severely bean-counted vehicles.

I am slightly curious on comparable insurance rates, repair costs. I suspect GM's platforms put higher emphasis on it than Tesla's.

Agreed about Michael Moore. I don't think I'm there despite my enthusiasm in this thread.

Most of battery hype is vapor if we're being honest. And then they do things like put a 600-mile range battery pack in a BMW iX with tech that's available now. And the charger expansion of 46k units per year is no joke. Recharge times for existing lithium-based EV batteries with over 300 miles of range on a fast charger is right around 30 minutes.

Electric Motor efficiency may be increased with a transmission, which EV's currently lack. Most are currently direct drive.

As for insurance costs, our BMW iX is as expensive to insure as an X3 M Competition. There was no change in premium for us going from a 3 year-old M to the iX, which has a much higher MSRP.

Repair costs will vary and I don't know what a moderate hit to our iX would end up costing. If it gets in to the battery, that's still a problem for EV's. But let's be honest, if it gets into the engine on an ICV, the car's likely to also be a total loss and it varies by vehicle.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

Automakers question feasibility of California 2035 EV sales mandate plan
https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...an-2024-02-28/

I think that is pretty much spot on. Part of the reason I was surprised that the California bill became law is because it tries to legislate demand from the producer side. Makes no sense and will more than likely have to change by the time we get to 2035. Just like the original ZEV Mandate back in 1990 that told manufacturers 10% of their sales in California by 2003. It was adjusted many many times before 2003 to the point it didn’t even resemble the original law. I expect some similar treatment with the 2035 ban. I doubt manufacturers can build enough EVs to feed California and the other adopting states b that time.