The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[Nouvellecosse]

The problem is that not addressing elephants in the room doesn't make the elephants less distracting. If people are spreading discredited talking points in a public setting like a forum, there are a few different ways to respond. You can spend time debunking them over and over but that hijacks the discussion and wastes time and effort that can be used for productive conversation. You can ignore them, but that can give them and onlookers the impression that they have valid points that no one has any answer for making them say stuff like, "Well they're all stuck in their own little fantasy world and when you try to talk sense to them they act like they don't hear you". Or you can call out the biases which may seem impolite but at least has a chance of helping them understand why their approach doesn't lead to valid conclusions. Just pointing out that a point is wrong and giving the correct info doesn't tend to help as much as clarifying why it's wrong and what flaws in reasoning led to the error (so that it can be avoided in the future).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

These conversations also go better when people actually converse and aren't here just to regurgitate there same shit over and over again like a mindless bot, without actually responding to the points others make. That's not a conversation. ssiguy in this thread has a habit of doing this.

You'll notice that I can have passionate and heated debates with you. I have never once accused you of being a troll. We may not agree. But you have actual arguments to present and you respond to mine. That's a conversation.

I understand your point of view, and we all tackle things in different ways.

However it is just a messageboard where we only talk but don't actually accomplish anything, so IMHO smacking somebody down who isn't presenting a solid argument (or even any argument, whatever be the case) doesn't really do much for the flow of the thread.

Not that it's my place to say what should or shouldn't happen here, so just take it as my 2¢ and nothing more. I'm definitely not a pillar of perfection when it comes to forum discussions...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The problem is that not addressing elephants in the room doesn't make the elephants less distracting. If people are spreading discredited talking points in a public setting like a forum, there are a few different ways to respond. You can spend time debunking them over and over but that hijacks the discussion and wastes time and effort that can be used for productive conversation. You can ignore them, but that can give them and onlookers the impression that they have valid points that no one has any answer for making them say stuff like, "Well they're all stuck in their own little fantasy world and when you try to talk sense to them they act like they don't hear you". Or you can call out the biases which may seem impolite but at least has a chance of helping them understand why their approach doesn't lead to valid conclusions. Just pointing out that a point is wrong and giving the correct info doesn't tend to help as much as clarifying why it's wrong and what flaws in reasoning led to the error (so that it can be avoided in the future).

I think it's case by case, though. IMHO the posts in question are not being presented in a particularly aggressive or confrontational manner, and I get the feeling that he is voicing his opinion rather than intentionally spreading misinformation, so I'm not even sure that they are elephants in the room.

Again, not my place... you make points worth considering for sure.

And, FWIW, it feels weird discussing another member's posts in a messageboard, kind of like talking about somebody while they are in the room. Not trying to be rude or anything... ssiguy can certainly speak for himself in this regard. I'll butt out now...

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

The truth is many people are brand loyal. So until Honda, Toyota etc come out with popular EVs, not everyone is buying a Tesla or Hyundai or Mustang etc....

Yes, this. I've no dislike for EVs (other than the loss of a manual transmission) but we do prefer Mazdas for their design and feel. When Mazda releases an EV version of the 3 hatchback or the Miata, I'll be all over it but until then our current ICE vehicles are working just fine.

[whatnext]

Ford reducing production of the electric F150 due to slower demand:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...s-affected.amp

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, this. I've no dislike for EVs (other than the loss of a manual transmission) but we do prefer Mazdas for their design and feel. When Mazda releases an EV version of the 3 hatchback or the Miata, I'll be all over it but until then our current ICE vehicles are working just fine.

Mazda fan? You sir are a rare breed.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Ford reducing production of the electric F150 due to slower demand:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...s-affected.amp

Not surprised. I'm guessing the sales of US$75k/CA$100k vehicles are down everywhere.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

And finally, if any of you watched that OoSR I linked to, the guy says if you can't charge at home, don't buy an EV. That's 50% of us Canadians. My landlord has repeatedly stated he's never installing chargers underground, and has banned EVs from the garage.

Then your landlord is going to have to offer lower rent compared to everybody else that offers EV charging. Good for you I suppose.

I think about it like in suite laundry. It used to be a luxury, now it's a requirement. A/C is moving the same way.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Then your landlord is going to have to offer lower rent compared to everybody else that offers EV charging. Good for you I suppose.

I think about it like in suite laundry. It used to be a luxury, now it's a requirement. A/C is moving the same way.

Exactly, and if you go far enough back in time, you can add "heating" and "electricity" and "running water" to the list of optional luxuries from landlords to tenants.

Technology has democratized those things, to the point that it would now be illegal to attempt to not offer them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Other than cost, some people are luddites. I was looking at the 2024 INEOS Grenadier 4x4 at the just opened Dixie & 401 dealership: which SUV would you rather buy 1) Tesla Model X ($110k+ CAD) or 2)INEOS ($92k CAD)? At that price point, I want something unique.

That's a weird comparison. If I was looking at the INEOS I'd be cross shopping against the Rivian R1S. I'd take the Rivian any day.

I can't imagine what maintenance will turn into with the INEOS. It's a wealthy person's adventure toy, not a daily driver. The Rivian sits in the middle IMO.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly, and if you go far enough back in time, you can add "heating" and "electricity" and "running water" to the list of optional luxuries from landlords to tenants.

Technology has democratized those things, to the point that it would now be illegal to attempt to not offer them.

I grew up in shitty basement suites where we never had in-suite laundry and AC was a pipe dream. It wasn't that long ago, and now I'm living with both. Granted in Vancouver, AC has only become more of a requirement in recent years.

[urbandreamer]

I don't have en suite laundry nor A/C.

The CyberTruck sounds pretty useless, averaging between 160 & 220 miles range. And towing it only gets 90 miles. It's a suburban toy for the rich.

Rivian is nicer, but if I needed a 4x4, I'd buy a Lada Niva. The only new vehicles that I'd realistically consider buying today are Toyota Prius, Subaru BRZ, Mazda 3 hatchback, Ford Maverick and the latest Toyota Tacoma.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

I don't have en suite laundry nor A/C.

The CyberTruck sounds pretty useless, averaging between 160 & 220 miles range. And towing it only gets 90 miles. It's a suburban toy for the rich.

Rivian is nicer, but if I needed a 4x4, I'd buy a Lada Niva. The only new vehicles that I'd realistically consider buying today are Toyota Prius, Subaru BRZ, Mazda 3 hatchback, Ford Maverick and the latest Toyota Tacoma.

You're all over the place with your discussion and your choice of vehicles. No surprise I guess.

I'd worry about upgrading my living situation before a new car.

[urbandreamer]

Anyway, speaking as a poor person:

EVs, and generally this environmental carbon bs, are rich people tings.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Anyway, speaking as a poor person:

EVs, and generally this environmental carbon bs, are rich people tings.

Cars in general are rich people things. I don't know too many poor people buying brand new cars anyway. Let alone the expensive SUVs and pickup trucks that dominate our best seller lists in Canada.

But, if you're contemplating buying an $80k truck, you're definitely not poor anymore.

[urbandreamer]

I'd only buy an $80k truck if my income hit $100k. You guys love to mock my Micra, but I would buy another one! It's cheap, reliable and fun to drive. Have any of you driven your expensive EVs across Canada twice and all around the US?

Anyway, fun aside, the base Toyota Prius is the only rational choice for normal Canadians looking for a hybrid. However, a base Mazda 3 hatchback is under $27k and makes even more sense. No one, not even contractors, need F150s. Growing up, my cheap Scotch-Irish farmer neighbor drove a Subaru Justy as his farm "truck."

[Truenorth00]

If you have a $100k income, you're definitely not poor. And most poor people I know would not be able to afford a brand new $27k vehicle either.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Growing up, my cheap Scotch-Irish farmer neighbor drove a Subaru Justy as his farm "truck."

My diesel VW has 90%+ of the utility of my fullsize pickups. Real life example:

(those old PhotoBucket-hosted pics are still available, surprisingly!)

Originally Posted by lio45

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Anyway, speaking as a poor person:

EVs, and generally this environmental carbon bs, are rich people tings.

It's true that it's hard to care about large scale issues like climate change if you're poor because there are so many more pressing problems closer to home. But climate change actually affects the poor far more than the wealthy because poor people are more affected by its symptoms including natural disasters and price instability. The wealthy can easily pay to protect themselves and repair any damage. Yet it's the affluent who are disproportionately responsible for creating the emissions. So poor people really should care about climate mitigation measures as hard as it might be. It's the opposite of frivolity. The wealthy might care mostly to feel good about themselves but for the poor its a matter of survival.

One of the reasons why there are so many large scale problems like inequality and climate change is that poor people who are the most affected by most large scale problems, are the least politically active and aware. I'm not blaming poor people for this because the system is designed to encourage profits for the ownership class and discourage anyone from erecting obstacles against that goal. I'm just speaking from a purely cause and effect basis.

[urbandreamer]

I used to try to be politically active when I was a student, except I soon realized the people running the show were the types who bullied me in grade/high school. Some of the most leftwing socialist types are actually the meanest evil assholes imaginable.

I was the science/environment nerd in high school, writing for the student newspaper. I focused on recycling, sustainability and climate change topics long before they became trendy.

Now I see these same bullies using climate change as an excuse to show off their EV bling.

So yeah, I'm done with political correctness and environmental concerns; especially having been a development nerd for so long, and only recently being able to afford to see the results - disgusting dreck literally stripping the country of its natural beauty and now driving the poor people into extreme poverty/homelessness.

Lio, yep the MK4 Golf is practical. I re-learned how to drive with a 4 door gas one, bought late 2019 for $1500. Unfortunately it had all kinds of expensive problems, so as soon as I got my G2 I got the Micra, which aside from lack of towing capability is even more practical once you remove the rear seats.

[Nouvellecosse]

Personally while I agree that not having home charging is a downside, I'm not sure it's as big a downside as some think. First of all, places with the highest rate of apartment dwelling are also naturally the most urban. So those people tend to have the least need to own cars. Suburbs (outside of TOD nodes) are the best use case since you have frequent need for a car as part of daily life and travel distances will be further than in an urban setting but not so far that you'll ever be that far from a charging facility like you might be in a rural area. And suburbs outside of TOD nodes tend to be dominated by detached houses.

But for someone who does choose to own a car in an urban setting, a small amount of range goes a long way. A used Nissan leaf with a winter range of only ~100km could serve an urban dweller who drives 10km a day if they only charged once per week. a 10km round trip could be driving from Colege/Dufferin to Eglinton/Dufferin and back. If they needed to go farther like if they commuted to a suburban office, many suburban office parks are installing chargers. There are three public charge facilities within a 1km radius at my suburban office park last time I checked. So someone staying entirely in an urban setting is unlikely to be driving particularly far, and ones driving to or from a suburban setting are likely to have access to charging of some sort.

The only thing a low range EV wouldn't be good for with an urban dweller is if they used it to leave the city. Lets say they wanted to go out to the cabin a couple times a month. If the cabin was 100km away then that wouldn't work very well. So until higher range EVs are available at a low cost then they'd need to stick to ICE. And that's ok since lots of other people can switch until then. Not every single people can switch instantly anyway since supply and infrastructure would need time to catch up.