Lamenting the decline of the car

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

While I think Tesla's forward-thinking and advanced technology is admirable, and I appreciate your posting about it, my question was more based upon their philosophy - i.e. ease of manufacture at the expense of repair/maintenance. It's a real thing, and may affect how the customer views the vehicles/the company when they are told that their vehicle can't be repaired after a simple rear-end collision.

I agree that it's a new model. And it will probably make repairs more expensive. You can judge for yourself with the graphics from the videos below:

• Video Link

Personally, I don't think it will impact sales all that much. It's probably a single digit percentage of car buyers who genuinely care about this. And any brand catering to them probably isn't going to survive the competition.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Worse is the negative feedback loop of some of their decisions. Good example of is the F150 vs. the Cybertruck. The Cybertruck is more aerodynamic and lighter thanks to its simple design.

I'm questioning whether the Cybertruck's design should be considered a 'plus' in the traditional pickup market. My impression is that most traditional pickup buyers are turned off by it, and that its styling is making it more of a niche vehicle. Tesla can indeed change the styling if they are reading the market, though.

On the other hand, Rivian's offerings are a little offbeat, but not in a bad way. Much more attractive to the mainstream buyer, IMHO.

I still think the vast majority of vehicle purchase decisions are heavily weighted on emotion, and styling is a good part of that. Not many people will be happy spending good money on a vehicle that they think is ugly, not to mention having to stare at it in the driveway every day.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

GM is investing heavily in electric so no, I don't see them going anywhere. Their early EV products are coming out now and look to be big successes. The Silverado EV is coming as well.

Which ones? The Bolt has a massive battery issue and they just shuttered production for who knows how long.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...ll/8434346002/

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Also, remember that even Ford with it's F-150 Lightning, is only expecting them to be a very small part of their truck sales for the next 5 years, with sales focused primarily on fleet sales.

They'll lose market share then, to Tesla, Rivian, and anybody else that can produce a viable alternative.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I get it, you think EVs will be the market dominant product in 4-5 years, but they won't. They really won't be selling in truly mass numbers until later in the decade.

Market dominant by 2026? Depends on your definition. I think we'll hit the tipping point right around 50% by then though. It's all about trends. We still burn coal for electricity, but coal mining companies are already going bankrupt in large numbers.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Personally, I don't think it will impact sales all that much. It's probably a single digit percentage of car buyers who genuinely care about this. And any brand catering to them probably isn't going to survive the competition.

Nobody buys a car thinking about this, but if it has been a regular occurrence once they have been on the market for about 4 or 5 years, frustrated owners will take their concerns to social media and it could sway Tesla's reputation towards being a "throw away" car.

I'm talking long-term thinking here, not something people will be concerned about today. If you're familiar with how cars are constructed, just seeing the way the technology is being implemented raises some red flags, and you can look into your crystal ball to see what future implications it might have. Tesla is betting that your take is the correct one, and maybe it is.

However, public perception has a lot to do with it as well. Perhaps people will be totally comfortable with throwing away their cars if it means they can get the latest version with all the best technology (i.e. phones, etc.). I don't think most people truly see the implications of manufacturing and recycling in regards to the climate crisis on a wide scale. As long as they personally can be viewed as being 'climate friendly' by driving an EV, thoughts about the effects of product longevity (which often clashes with economic growth) on the environment are probably far from their minds.

[Truenorth00]

The Cybertruck certainly is very polarizing. It's not my cup of tea. Though it has grown on me since launch.

My point here though, is that the design decisions offer Tesla a decisive advantage on cost and performance. And for all those pickup trucks that are bought solely based on numbers (for example fleets), aesthetics mean squat.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, public perception has a lot to do with it as well. Perhaps people will be totally comfortable with throwing away their cars if it means they can get the latest version with all the best technology (i.e. phones, etc.). I don't think most people truly see the implications of manufacturing and recycling in regards to the climate crisis on a wide scale. As long as they personally can be viewed as being 'climate friendly' by driving an EV, thoughts about the effects of product longevity (which often clashes with economic growth) on the environment are probably far from their minds.

There's far more recyclable materials in an EV, namely the battery. Most components in both vehicle types are not re-usable, but there are so many less in an EV.

For a few decades now, human safety has been paramount, not the reparability of the vehicle. Hence the sensors, crumple zones, and escalating repair costs. Maybe that will change? But I doubt it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Nobody buys a car thinking about this, but if it has been a regular occurrence once they have been on the market for about 4 or 5 years, frustrated owners will take their concerns to social media and it could sway Tesla's reputation towards being a "throw away" car.

I'm talking long-term thinking here, not something people will be concerned about today. If you're familiar with how cars are constructed, just seeing the way the technology is being implemented raises some red flags, and you can look into your crystal ball to see what future implications it might have. Tesla is betting that your take is the correct one, and maybe it is.

However, public perception has a lot to do with it as well. Perhaps people will be totally comfortable with throwing away their cars if it means they can get the latest version with all the best technology (i.e. phones, etc.). I don't think most people truly see the implications of manufacturing and recycling in regards to the climate crisis on a wide scale. As long as they personally can be viewed as being 'climate friendly' by driving an EV, thoughts about the effects of product longevity (which often clashes with economic growth) on the environment are probably far from their minds.

It's a trade-off like anything else. That design let's them reduce cost, reduce weight and increase range. They are betting that buyers would rather have all that than cheaper repair bills for their insurance companies. And if the insurers decide to jack up rates? Tesla will be waiting in the wings for them.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There's far more recyclable materials in an EV, namely the battery. Most components in both vehicle types are not re-usable, but there are so many less in an EV.

Yep. Recyclability is going up. Not down. Straubel actually left Tesla to start a battery recycling company because he thinks the incumbents are behind on that. He argues that recyclers should be seen as "virtual mines". The amount of valuable materials in there guarantees a high degree of recyclability.

This seems like just another version of the old, "EVs are not green because they run on coal power." Also, "People who drive EVs are just virtue signalling." . I genuinely wonder when discourse will move past such tropes.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Which ones? The Bolt has a massive battery issue and they just shuttered production for who knows how long.


They'll lose market share then, to Tesla, Rivian, and anybody else that can produce a viable alternative.




Market dominant by 2026? Depends on your definition. I think we'll hit the tipping point right around 50% by then though. It's all about trends. We still burn coal for electricity, but coal mining companies are already going bankrupt in large numbers.

I was thinking more about the Hummer EV and Cadillac EV which both sold out more or less immediately. The Bolt is their "last generation" EV at this point and is still a little environmental car like a Prius that is "uncool". GM is only now starting to shift EV production to actual demand products which are highly profitable, and those products are selling as fast as they can make them.

Once GM starts rolling out more Ultium platform products they will be doing fine.

Telsa is a niche product more akin to a Honda Ridgeline than a Silverado, albeit far more capable. It's simply too expensive and not designed to be economical for real "work". Real truck volume sales (and profit) are in cheaper, workhorse trucks, and neither Tesla or Rivian are that.

And that's not even addressing manufacturing abilities. The US sells 12 million trucks annually. Telsa delivered under 1/20th of that in 2020 across their entire product line. Rivian is a super-niche brand with very low production numbers for years to come.

They both may offer compelling products, but they aren't going to stealing most of the Big 3 marketshare any time soon.

Again, Ford is hoping to produce 80,000 F150 lightnings a year for the next few years until they can tool up capacity more and dependent on market demand. That's about 8% of their typical annual F-series sales volume. Even if they add 80,000 additional units every year for the next 5 years, electric isn't going to surpass gas sales until 2027 or 2028, and that's assuming that demand for electric shifts as rapidly as ford can produce them.

I wholeheartedly agree that electric sales will be taking off and approaching 50% marketshare by 2030 - but it won't be 100% and it won't be solely from Tesla, and it won't bankrupt the major automakers.

GM is planning to have an electric Silverado in 2-3 years as well, it's not like they aren't working on it. And like Ford, day 1 of production of that product type will likely surpass total sales of Tesla Cybertruck and Rivian combined.

[ssiguy]

The funny {and pathetic} thing about Chrysler is that it really exists in name only.

Chrysler no longer makes any vehicles of any kind as they have recently stopped production of it's once very popular minivan. Plymouth of course went away years ago leaving them only with Dodge and Jeep.

GM is now just a bit player on the car market and has a mediocre lineup and frankly I can see them being car-free by 2030 due to decades of producing inferior products which has led to the brand being one with a poor image. They are investing heavily into electric vehicles but their reputation has been shattered.

To my way of thinking, Ford is the only one of the Big 3 has managed to maintain a good reputation amongst the public.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I was thinking more about the Hummer EV and Cadillac EV which both sold out more or less immediately. The Bolt is their "last generation" EV at this point and is still a little environmental car like a Prius that is "uncool". GM is only now starting to shift EV production to actual demand products which are highly profitable, and those products are selling as fast as they can make them.

Sold out of what? They aren't even being made yet. GM has had two good ideas that have been aborted, the Volt and the Bolt. Why? I'm not sure. Dealers certainly weren't helping in the early days. Hummer and Caddy demand will be pretty low overall.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Once GM starts rolling out more Ultium platform products they will be doing fine.

Maybe. They should be rolling them out today. I'll remain skeptical until I see actual cars on the road.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Telsa is a niche product more akin to a Honda Ridgeline than a Silverado, albeit far more capable. It's simply too expensive and not designed to be economical for real "work". Real truck volume sales (and profit) are in cheaper, workhorse trucks, and neither Tesla or Rivian are that.

The Cybertruck might be a niche market. There are 1M+ preorders, so we'll see what happens when it's actually available to buy.

The Model 3 is anything but niche.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

And that's not even addressing manufacturing abilities. The US sells 12 million trucks annually. Telsa delivered under 1/20th of that in 2020 across their entire product line. Rivian is a super-niche brand with very low production numbers for years to come.

They both may offer compelling products, but they aren't going to stealing most of the Big 3 marketshare any time soon.

As has been stated here numerous times, the ability to manufacture EVs is all about battery supply. Big 3 marketshare has been dropping for years and will accelerate with EVs unless they act fast.

[drew]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Chrysler no longer makes any vehicles of any kind as they have recently stopped production of it's once very popular minivan. Plymouth of course went away years ago leaving them only with Dodge and Jeep.

Chrysler dropped the Dodge Caravan/Chrysler Town and Country minivans in 2020, but they make a minivan - called the Chrysler Pacifica.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sold out of what? They aren't even being made yet. GM has had two good ideas that have been aborted, the Volt and the Bolt. Why? I'm not sure. Dealers certainly weren't helping in the early days. Hummer and Caddy demand will be pretty low overall.



Maybe. They should be rolling them out today. I'll remain skeptical until I see actual cars on the road.



The Cybertruck might be a niche market. There are 1M+ preorders, so we'll see what happens when it's actually available to buy.

The Model 3 is anything but niche.




As has been stated here numerous times, the ability to manufacture EVs is all about battery supply. Big 3 marketshare has been dropping for years and will accelerate with EVs unless they act fast.

Their production runs for the hummer and Cadillac basically sold out overnight in pre-orders, albeit at relatively low volumes.

Agreed the automakers need to act, but they aren't asleep at the wheel and they *are* acting. And they have more time than you are making it out to catch up any ground they hypothetically lost.

Telsa is indeed a real competitor to the big 3, and I genuinely believe the title will change to the Big 4 in a few years with Tesla added to the mix, but they aren't going to wipe out the big 3 either. Telsa will find it's product market and settle in selling a couple million annual sales a year.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As has been stated here numerous times, the ability to manufacture EVs is all about battery supply. Big 3 marketshare has been dropping for years and will accelerate with EVs unless they act fast.

Yep. I was in the mold of, "It'll work out and they'll be fine." Until I started looking at the numbers more recently.

Maybe the Cybertruck is niche. But all I know is Tesla is building that Austin factory to pump out a million trucks. The likelihood that a million extra trucks on the market is going to have zero impact on Big 3 truck sales (and margins... Which everybody is forgetting) is pretty damn low. If I was a CEO at one of the companies, I certainly wouldn't want to bet the company on that, as the likely outcome. But they seems to be exactly what they are doing. I don't think this will end well.

[drew]

^ to put 1 million cyber trucks on the road would mean that 1 million people need to purchase one.

I mean, it's possible...

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by drew

^ to put 1 million cyber trucks on the road would mean that 1 million people need to purchase one.

I mean, it's possible...

yup. No way the market for Cybertrucks is larger than F-150s. The trucks are expensive as hell and far from the most practical.

As far as I can tell Austin is expected to produce only 500,000 vehicles annually at full capacity as well, many of which would be Modey Ys, not exclusively Cybertrucks.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by drew

^ to put 1 million cyber trucks on the road would mean that 1 million people need to purchase one.

I mean, it's possible...

Kind of. It's not exactly pickup trucks, but Hertz announced this week that they had put in an order for 100K Teslas (and Musk today said the deal hasn't been signed yet, so...). It's entirely possible that if it makes economic sense then either rental companies or other businesses will purchase cyber trucks for professional use. How many transit agencies, construction companies, and other businesses have fleets of pickups?

[drew]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

yup. No way the market for Cybertrucks is larger than F-150s. The trucks are expensive as hell and far from the most practical.

As far as I can tell Austin is expected to produce only 500,000 vehicles annually at full capacity as well, many of which would be Modey Ys, not exclusively Cybertrucks.

Your average pickup driver in the US is probably the very last person to consider buying electric, and even if they did, they tend to be brand loyal to a fault, so they would wait and buy a Ford or Chevy.

To sell than many cyber trucks would require people who don't normally buy pick-ups to try one and/or hope the current market for unibody trucks (a la Honda Ridgeline and Hyundai Santa Cruz) grows exponentially.

[someone123]

EVs and self-driving cars both seem to follow "tipping point" economics. If EVs cost 10% more than ICE vehicles they're niche but some people will still buy them. If they cost 10% less they become the no-brainer for lots of businesses and people. Self-driving vehicles are the same as long as you define "cost" widely enough (includes safety, EVs include hassle of charging, etc.).

Renewables and energy sources are the same and kind of misleading because we see so-so adoption ahead of time due to subsidies of various kinds. This isn't a good indicator of what adoption's going to be like in the future if costs fall below the alternatives. And if the cost gap really grows in favour of new technology then old stuff can be scrapped well before its useful life has ended.

For self-driving vehicles there's also the question of infrastructure. As a society, IMHO, we have really dropped the ball on updating cities and corridors so that they work well with new kinds of vehicles. But this could become a kind of gold rush one day and suddenly really expand the possibilities.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

There's far more recyclable materials in an EV, namely the battery. Most components in both vehicle types are not re-usable, but there are so many less in an EV.

For a few decades now, human safety has been paramount, not the reparability of the vehicle. Hence the sensors, crumple zones, and escalating repair costs. Maybe that will change? But I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. Recyclability is going up. Not down. Straubel actually left Tesla to start a battery recycling company because he thinks the incumbents are behind on that. He argues that recyclers should be seen as "virtual mines". The amount of valuable materials in there guarantees a high degree of recyclability.

This seems like just another version of the old, "EVs are not green because they run on coal power." Also, "People who drive EVs are just virtue signalling." . I genuinely wonder when discourse will move past such tropes.

I think you guys are misunderstanding my post. It was not an "EV vs IC" point (though strangely this perception seems to surface a lot in this thread), it was simply a note that as a society we have moved more towards products that are non-repairable, that has been a side effect of rapidly changing technology, i.e. by the time the device needs repair or service it is already outdated.

If the concept is to make the vehicle more efficiently, then there is payoff in that the process most likely uses less energy to produce and assemble one piece vs 70 pieces. The other side of that is that perhaps more entire vehicles will be scrapped prematurely due to the non-repairable aspect of it. I'm not sure that anybody has done the calculation, and my cynical side would probably tend to believe that the economic benefit to the company is what drives this, vs an elevated concern for the environment (but not saying that it isn't).

The main point that I wanted to make, and that you guys decided was yet another attack on the EV, was that in general, longevity of a product's service life seems to be sacrificed for cost savings/sales bolstering more now than it ever has in history. Given that recycling itself has environmental/climate costs, it's not all light and airy.

Anyhow, it seems like we're going down a familiar path. Y'know... if you can't look at new technology or the industry as a whole in an objective manner, it's hard to consider this as a reasonable discussion. As you've pointed out, the massive wave of EVs will overtake ICs - I think it's a given now - yet you still seem defensive when anybody questions some aspect of anything related to EVs, or in this case all vehicles and manufactured products in general.

It feels like a weird situation where I have to go read and re-read everything I'm about to post to make sure I don't trigger some sort of reaction to something that wasn't intended in the first place. I dunno... it seems a little bizarre sometimes.