Not the person you asked the question but i can answer this partially.
I see from the EV my parents bought, they got for 22k euro, a car that does 240km on paper. Now a few years later, you can buy a BYD for 26k, that does 450km (ext version) on paper. That same BYD is WAY more fancy, tech gadgets etc...
But that is comparing a lower market segment where this effect is stronger.
On the higher end market, where the Tesla's used to dominate, we see less movement as those cars already came with tons of tech, and large batteries.
Thing is, i am still not buying a EV despite them being better. The same arguments we had with EV disadvantages is still present today. I rather buy a second hand gasoline engine simply because of the convenience of the default 600 a 700km range on most vehicles, the 5 minute tank job, the lack of charging in the city, the prices despite the heavier depreciation in the second hand market are still worse.
Ironically the gasoline car we bought 10 years ago, for 7.5k, still sells today for 8k in todays market (added 50k kms on the car). So even if we take a cut, the actual gasoline engine depreciation is strangely less strong. I track several gasoline cars where i had a interest in from years ago, same phenomenon.
For some reason you expect gasoline cars to drop more in pricing because now in EU 17% of new cars sales are EVs and 36% are hybrid. So more gasoline cars on second hand market? No ... because people are also buying less cars because of the economy, more work from home etc. Resulting in actually less second hand cars as people hold on to their vehicles longer, waiting out this transition periode.
> Now a few years later, you can buy a BYD for 26k, that does 450km (ext version) on paper. That same BYD is WAY more fancy, tech gadgets etc...
Right, because the other $26k is being subsidized by the party. And much like the US found out with rare earths: once China has the market cornered, the price will rise and/or they’ll use access to their goods as a tool of war.
They’re playing the long game and western nations seem unable or unwilling to do the same.
Most individual buyers are unable or not willing to take global perspectives into account, otherwise Japanese cars would never make impact on the American market for example. You need people in power to make informed decisions, and even then you risk the only result will be people getting very angry that politician mess up with the market.
For E-Bikes at least communication between the engine and the battery pack is encrypted and you can't replace either without the manufacturer's consent.
This seems more like an added feature of some E-Bikes, rather then an essential design element of E-Bikes in general.
And even if true, it doesn't follow for me that "therefor, batteries must become more expensive in general, despite the current trend".
I think you're implying lock-in and extractive profits, rather than rising cost of manufacture. It's an argument for diversity of key industries, and that batteries might become such. I agree with that. But as an argument that (in parent the comment's words) "so, battery prices will skyrocket", it seems a bit thin to me.
I don’t think the argument is „batteries are getting more expensive“, the argument is that manufacturers will start maximizing profits once they have sufficiently handicapped the competition.
They might, at which point the argument for diversity of key industries kicks in. Batteries are key to the near future of hand-held gadgets, e-bikes, passenger cars, many other vehicles and to power grids, so the tolerance for extractive monopolies might be limited.
Yes, we should not let one manufacturer or one country be the sole supplier. The scale is large and will only grow, and if the profit margins are large, then there is opportunity.
The past and future evidence is firmly on the side of batteries getting steadily cheaper. I'm not saying that the opposite is impossible. Just that to make that claim, there is therefor a substantial burden of proof to be met, and I don't see it at all in this thread.
That's a hard argument to make as long as the relevant antitrust authorities are diligent about mergers & acquisitions.
Batteries are not a differentiated product. They're basically completely defined by 3 numbers: capacity (in watt-hours), power delivery (watts), and weight. Once those are optimized (which is the process going on now), the chemistry, construction, and manufacturing of batteries is basically a solved problem. Any barriers to entry are purely in the technology and manufacturing. About 200 years of industrial history shows that these are not durable barriers to entry: eventually, technology and know-how diffuses, and knowledge of how to make even very complex machines becomes a commodity. (See eg: power looms, memory chips, hard disks, agriculture, TVs, automobiles, drones.)
Durable competitive advantages usually take the form of either a.) complex consumer interface, eg. with software or CPUs b.) network effects, eg. telecommunications, payment networks, software again, utilities or c.) regulations, eg. payment again, airplane manufacturing, healthcare, and shortly software. These are industries where factors outside the company in question ensure that there will only be one or at most a small set of companies in the market.
When you have a commodity product, the only route to extractive profits is to form a cartel and lobby governments or consumers to believe the cartel is in their interests, eg. with oil or diamonds. But this is a hard sell because the cartel is not in their interests. You can generally only fool people for a decade or two before they decide they've had enough and legislate your monopoly out of existence.
People tend to overindex on the software industry when it comes to "maximizing profits" because that has been the big story of the 2010s, ignoring that Big Tech very carefully implemented every play in the "build a monopoly" playbook to get there, and that millions of indie software developers actually do not make a very good living because their products are commodities.
"The relevant antitrust authorities" aren't going to be able to touch anyone who manufactures in China, and that is currently the centre of battery manufacturing. I have nothing against batteries and EVs and solar panels made in China. They are a huge benefit to humanity as a whole. But it should not be a chokepoint.
But the rest stands. The barriers aren't that high. How soon it is diversified, depends on how much attention the other countries and companies are paying.
>Also chinese companies innovate better and have more efficient supply chains that western ones.
Yeah because they just steal and copy everything from Western companies and others worldwide. Why spend hundreds of millions and 10 years doing R&D when you can just hack in and steal it? It's the Chinese way.
Chinese hackers took trillions in intellectual property from about 30 multinational companies
The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion.
China is the world’s principal infringer of intellectual property, and it uses its laws and regulations to put foreign
companies at a disadvantage and its own companies at
an advantage.
Salt Typhoon is an advanced persistent threat actor believed to be operated by China's Ministry of State Security (MSS) which has conducted high-profile cyber espionage campaigns, particularly against the United States.
Yes GM is lagging behind BYD not because it's leadership and managerial culture but because "chinese copy".
And the solution is to punish consumers and enrich GM's totally failed leadership and irrational shareholders by throttling competition chinese.
Here in europe cars have become so expensive compared to just 10y ago.
Some of it is because of stupid green policies, but most if because EU carmakers have been successful in reducing the competitive pressure from China by the use of tariffs on chinese firms.
> Here in europe cars have become so expensive compared to just 10y ago.
Check the ownership of the different brands and you will discover from the dozens of brands in Europe, there are really only a few companies making cars. And the "mother company" then shares chassis between models, engines between models. So you can have a a Lada with a Renault engine, with a Dacia chassis. We see 3 brands, but in reality, its one brand.
* Groupe Renault's owned brands include Renault, Dacia, Alpine, and Lada.
But wait ...
* Stellantis was formed from the 2021 merger of two major auto groups: PSA Group (which included Citroën and Peugeot) and FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles). Therefore, the brands Stellantis owns are now a part of Citroën's parent company, which include brands like Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge, and Opel.
You see the issue very fast. If you own many brands, do you compete against each other, or do you "stabilize prices for max profit". Same issue with other brands...
Its like in the US, where if you trace back the brands, like 3 or 4 companies, own like 90% of the known US food brands. And when you have only a few companies, gentlemen's agreements about not competition too much are a thing.
Hey, why are HDD not dropping in prices for the last 10+ years. Well, there are only 3 brands left (with two that are huge). Hey, why did SSD/NVME prices suddenly skyrocket. Well, only a few brands make the stuff, and when one decided to increase prices, all of a sudden the rest also followed. Strange is it not...
We are in the age of monopolies again, and that is linked to a lot of the price issues.
At this point IP seems to be less of a moat to competition than manufacturing ability. And that is what America and other western countries gave up on. It is easier to focus on branding and profit margins than the fine points of high volume production.
Even if that was true in the past, it has been many years since companies in China can actually do a better job at design than their western counterparts. And engineering, and manufacturing.
They also hired a ton of european designers for their house brands. They have no need to copy anything.
Yes, the west let this happen, and it’s too late to cry about it, action needs to start happening (and I don’t mean import barriers or a trade war) if we don’t want to be dependent.
Maybe intellectual property is not something you should bet the company on then? The customers don't give a shit who made the original idea. We live in a global market, eventually you need to Realpolitik about things
Considering the documented history of the US government spying on and pressuring allied countries (just look up echolon) for their own economic gains, I always find it ironic how people are complaining about China. Shouldn't we base our trust on past behaviour? Has the US not proven to not be trustworthy.
Your also forgetting that Chinese cars have a large import tariff.
Current rates are BYD (17%), Geely (18.8%), and SAIC (35.3%).
> And much like the US found out with rare earths:
Rare earths is not rare at all. China has a cornered the market on processing those minerals for cheap. The problem is that we in the West have no appetite to actually support companies to process those "rare" earths.
And the US is really the last country to even talk about batteries, when the arrested 300+ Koreans that worked to get a US battery plant going.
> They’re playing the long game and western nations seem unable or unwilling to do the same.
Its not just a government issue, its a companies issue. You think that car companies in Europe do not get subsidies? Have you ever looked at how much subsidies they get opening new plants or renovating plants?
Reality is that a lot of car companies enjoyed their little monopolie positions in Europe. Sure, we got a lot of brands, but in reality its a illusion of competition, as most brands are owned by a few big companies.
China had a different situation, where yes, there was subsidies from the government (and a lot of misuse of those subsidies), but you had 100's of car manufactures entering the markets. I mean, we talk about BYD often but BYD was not even a car manufacturer until 2005 ... The result is a strong competition between car makers, what resulted in a lot of technological development and a push to be better then the next guy(s). Constant copy and innovation work. Work to reduces prices to be able to compete better, as remember, their competitor also go those subsidies.
We have this issue with our car industry only to thank to our own car industry. Frankly, i am happy to see the Chinese enter the EU market, for the simply fact that it pushed the EU car makers to actually start innovating again and offering more to the clients.
The issue with competition to dead was a issue in new upcoming industries, like solar. Because their both sides started with the same level vs +subsidies. The car industry is a totally different beast with deep pockets and manufacturing capabilities. So lets not act like "poor EU car makers".
This would be the killer for me. I have a private garage with plugs, and even at 120V, I can out-charge my typical driving needs. I work from home and only occasionally take trips beyond a few miles, with a few longer road trips a year.
My IONIQ 5 (USA) does 300 miles (480 km) on paper, but in practice, I've seen a fair bit less. That said, it does charge up 20->80% in under 20 minutes at a fast charger.
Disclaimer: never owned a car, no driving licence. Also talking about Norway with generally good charger infrastructure.
Was on a road trip last summer, around Norway, in VW id.Buzz. Charging time of 5min vs 20min doesn't matter. When you're on that long trip, you need time to eat, go to bathroom, walk a little so your legs/back doesn't hurt. In the whole trip there was maybe one forced trip to a shop, because we had time to burn (the only charger was too slow and needed a whole hour to charge).
OTOH have a friend with first gen Leaf and his max charging speed is pretty slow. He additionally can't charge at home and this makes the slow charging time a little off a nuisance.
I hear Norway has good charging infrastructure. Here in France, on highways, there are usually chargers at gas stations, with spots available (don't know the specifics; I don't own an EV). However, it should be noted that I avoid driving during very busy days, so I can't comment on what happens in that situation, especially since traffic would reduce an EV's range.
However, where I live in Paris, there are three parking spots with chargers available around my apartment. Some apartment buildings have underground parking, for which I understand there's a push to set up charging infrastructure, but many buildings do not. Mine doesn't. If I had an EV I'd have to wait around for one of the three places to free up, wait for the battery to charge, then go move the car to a different spot.
Now, I don't particularly need a car, which is why I don't own one, but for my use case, an EV would be an all-around hassle to keep charged. I also mainly use vehicles to go on trips to remote places—I very rarely take highways. Hell, a few years ago I was in the mountains, and gas stations were so far apart that I was running on reserve when I got to one.
I'm not against EVs, and it's clear there are many situations where they're great. But I think we're still in a transition period with plenty of situations that aren't covered yet.
> especially since traffic would reduce an EV's range.
Very much a misconception; unlike in an ICE, you're not consuming energy idling in traffic, in fact your efficiency tends to go up with the lower speeds in traffic.
I was thinking more about stop-and-go traffic, as opposed to moving slowly but at a steady pace. I'd expect the repeated accelerations to consume more than just going at a constant speed. Is that not the case?
Not terrible unless you are lead footing both the accelerator and brake.
Also as far as Stop and go... its typically also lower speed; wind resistance is not linear based on speed, so 'crawling' is not that bad.
Im in the US and drive a hybrid rather than an EV, that said 'stop and go' is when I will often seem an MPG -increase-, so long as I gently accelerate (in severe stop and go, just letting my foot off brake and not touching gas).
That's also some of the justification for 'mild hybrids' that have an auto stop and maybe at best a 11kW/120Nm electric motor to kick things off. If you don't drive with a lead foot they can improve efficiency (but overcomplicate things compared to Toyota HSD)
I suppose main counter condition would be in low temperature conditions; AC is fairly efficient, Heating less so, and then in severe cases the batteries need to activate their own self heaters.
> Was on a road trip last summer, around Norway, in VW id.Buzz. Charging time of 5min vs 20min doesn't matter. When you're on that long trip, you need time to eat, go to bathroom, walk a little so your legs/back doesn't hurt.
That is often the argument that i see but people forget a lot:
Fast charging if often 20 > 80% for 20min. If you want 80 to 100, its a lot less fast (think how your phone slows down).
While you can drive down to 5% of less, it can become a issue if you do not find a charger. When the summer vacation happened, a lot of north traffic goes south, over France ( and reverse).
What happened? People ended up waiting 15 a 25min at the chargers traffic jam in their cars. Then they charged up to 80% (because the stations had people to manage the flow), and needed to drive out (or pay more/fine).
This resulted that your range was already reduced by 20%. You ended up wasting 15 a 25 minutes stuck in your car. And with airco's on because its summer, so more battery drain. Aka, you did not really tank X km range, but X - waiting usage - 20% less limit.
Its always fun to compare a gasoline engine 5 min tank job, vs "not a issue, we need to stretch our legs", but when the reality of long trips that often coincide with vacation periodes... Yea, then the disadvantages of that statement come into play.
So the irony is that, a EV with a realistic 500km range, got hit with a 20% at chargers, then another hit from the waiting, o and you had no choice, it was fast charge or no charge.
I remember warning people to not see EVs based only on short trips or long "out of season" trips but also on those typical school vacation trips that many take. Ironic part, if you drove a hybrid, 5 min tank job for 100% fuel at the regular price.
In the european school holiday season, gas stations can also build up long queues, it's not exclusively an EV problem, though slow charging cars can compound the issue. Most people travel by plane or train anyway [1].
Every EV route planner already assumes you'll only charge to 80% (and won't discharge below 10%), because that's the range where you can charge at high speeds. In practice, when compared to a combustion engine, a 2x 15m stop trip becomes a 3x 15m stop, or 2x 20m stop trip
It's not a big deal especially if your average stop is much longer than that. Or if you have a car with battery swapping, which only takes 3 minutes from 0% to 90%.
Hit by A/C is negligible in most EVs. What you're saying is more that there is a current charger shortage, supply/demand will take care of that in the future.
I think that’s only true if chargers are sitting idle. Otherwise you’re waiting longer in a queue before you can begin charging, and this delay compounds.
It may take only 20 min to charge to 80% but in practice you might have to wait until a charger becomes available or drive around to find one that's available.
That was not my experience on the single road trip I've done since getting this new EV. I charged 7 times in total, and did not have to wait for a charging bay at all.
I'm honestly not that bothered by it. I'm very much a "type B" road tripper. I don't care if it takes me an extra hour or two to get there, as long as I'm having a good time. Heck, I might go down some random road named "Old Priest's Grade" and add an extra hour to the trip just because the descent has beautiful views.
A lot of new cars in western Europe are bought as company cars or leased by a company.
Companies never buy used, so I think a lot of those sales are from buyers who wouldn't consider used. So those buyers are only now starting to create supply in the second hand market
I have the 2024 Model 3, traded for a 2020 Model 3.
The Highland revisions made the car much quieter, less rattly and boxy. The windows are two-ply for sound reduction. The suspension feels better and less rattly. The panels fit. Water doesn’t come up inside the doors now.
I don’t know if there’s any significant new EV tech in there, but they significantly upgraded the rider experience by improving their car-building.
Of course, VW, Audi, etc have been making doors that fit for a long time, so this could be a Tesla-specific thing.
Both versions are super fun to drive. Just whizzy and responsive. Fun. The new one also doesn’t suck on noisy highway cruising like the old one did.
Tesla is a bad example here because it was the best by a large margin 5 years ago, and it more or less stagnated (especially in markets where FSD is not available). But - at least in Europe - the cheapest Tesla you could buy 5 years ago was over 50 grands, now you can have one for 35k with no subsides, depending on the market.
This alone has a giant effect on the second-hand market (of Tesla, which again was the dominant brand years ago so it's also the dominant second-hand brand)
That drove down new cars sales in a few countries indeed. Also there are viable alternatives for new buyer's (although Tesla is still probably the best value for money). But the second-hand market is different and if you want a second-hand EV that you can actually use for long trips, Tesla is the only option.
Yes, there are people traveling with Kona or Leaf but personally I would not do it.
There are still lots of Teslas on the roads where I am, relative to to other EVs. Cars are big expensive assets, they don't vanish, usually. Even if you now regret the purchase, you may be stuck with it for a few years.
For any given brand, the number of vehicles on the road isn't a function of the brand's popularity this quarter. Its the sum of popularities over the last decade or more. So, loss of reputation takes a long time to feed through. And people wanting to unload them won't make them less prevalent on second-hand markets, quite the opposite.
But also, the % of EVs that I see that are Teslas is slowly declining, as other brands proliferate and the EV market gets larger.
OK, but that doesn't invalidate anything that I said.
I discussed what I see, that's inherently local not global. There could be places where Tesla sales are slowing down, even if they're net growing globally.
Local is London, UK for me, btw.
I discussed Tesla's as a % of EVs total. A brand such as Tesla could still be e.g. growing sales at 5% per year, but if the EV market is growing at 10% per year, they're still becoming a smaller % of the total number of EVs on the road.
The more interesting trend to me is the proliferation of many different EV brands. Time was when Tesla was the only EV. Then there were a few challengers. Now it's all-in from traditional German brands such as BMW and VW, The Korean Hyundai-Kia group have a lot of new models, through to BYD and the other Chinese newcomers. Even Toyota and Skoda are there now.
I think that something like this Tesla "relative decline even as sales grow" is happening, and this is a natural consequence of the EV market diversifying and maturing. If you really want an EV it doesn't have to be either Tesla or Nissan Leaf any more. There are lots of options and ruling out one specific brand for whatever reason is not going to prevent that.
If you want records, I'll note that 1) The largest EV maker by worldwide volume is now BYD and 2) BYD is pushing hard into the UK market, and others. It's early days for them in the UK, more so for the other Chinese newcomers.
I'm sure you can understand local growth vs. global growth when you look at BYD: They are number 1 globally, but have negligible EV sales in the USA.
And BYD being number one globally underscores that, in a growing market, Tesla can have a record quarter and still be losing % share of the total market.
People think that people generalize with political labels because they say things like “liberals are not buying Tesla’s because of Trump”. But when it comes to the EU they just say that everyone acts like the same kind of person.
Most EVs are basically high end luxury tech mobiles now. What ICE manus charge $5k in their tech package is basically standard across most EVs nowadays. It's insane the amount of bells/whistles cheap EVs come standard with now.
> Most EVs are basically high end luxury tech mobiles now.
I am fairly baffled when I come across positive vibes for modern cars. I'm not declaring those vibes wrong.
I'm saying I don't understand the lack of angst and resentment for
what vehicle owners have lost (full ownership - what they've
bought can no longer be assumed to be theirs. features and
operations can be [and are!] stolen by manufacturers.
whole vehicles have been effectively stolen when
a manufacturer declares a vehicle is no longer operational
[because something something violation].
other things owners have lost: safe tactile controls,
non-extortionate repair costs - which insurance companies
will pass on to every policy holder they can)
how drivers are mistreated by manufacturers (relentless surveillance,
driving data collected to exploit owners and empower other entities
[ex:insurance] to financially or otherwise mistreat them
- inc deeply personal data like mental health and other
personal trips. nothing is off the table.)
how drivers are forced to mistreat everyone around them (continually
blinding drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.
continually robbing other drivers of critical distance visibility.
leaving inches on both sides of their parked car for passengers in
adjacent cars to exit)
how they are forced to be less-safe drivers (forcing eyes away from the
road to make routine adjustments to climate, etc - adjustments that
for generations were trivially done by touch)
I can't be okay with this. Not because of some moral stand. It's because I feel awful when I'm mistreated. And I'm unhappy when I am forced to mistreat others. More so when it's hours a day, every day.
