[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I was with much of what you were saying until the last paragraph - what government EXACTLY is saying EVs only?
Certainly not the US one, and not the EU one. Not today now, and not at any point in the recent past. Not in any enforceable way.

There has been a long-term pressure on automakers to meet more stringent energy consumption benchmarks. I partially agree / disagree with some of that, but the net result has been an impressive ramp-up in drivetrain innovation that roughly doubled average HP over past 25 years, and lowered my cost of operating my cars (ICE) by ~50% over the same period.


Recall that EVs hit mainstream with Tesla not because they were economical or funky looking (unlike Nissan Leaf or BMW i3), but because they introduced a "wow" performance factor in normal sedan look.
A wolf in sheep's clothing - exactly what BMW ///M cars used to be!



I question that.
There is nothing wrong with incentivizing technological innovation and R&D investment. That's core part of our tax code's R&D credit utilized by everyone.
In the global scheme of things, the carbon-credit subsidies banked by EV manufactures are a pittance in terms of overall Automotive industry revenue. Tesla banked $2.76 billion from credits in 2024 vs. $1.53 Trillion in revenue from road vehicle and parts retail trade in the United States. That's 0.0018% of total!

US automakers (my work interfaces with them all) have a LONG tortured history of shifting blame for their own ineptitude onto external factors.
In the 80s it was the wily Japanese building smaller cars for women, undermining demand for their "mainly" products.
In the 90s it was all other foreigners seducing US consumers with their unnatural quality, thus failed "buy American" campaigns.
In the 00s it was about building trucks and killing sedans, and then back to blaming Japanese and Koreans for doing a better job selling those sedan back to unsuspecting US customers.
Now it's blaming EVs and pitching protectionist tariffs to subsidize the US automakers from evil job-poaching foreign EVs.

In the meantime, US auto industry has been building uninspired products and sub-standard quality, steadily losing market share decade after decade.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/anima...-1961-to-2016/




I see ZERO evidence that such a faction actually exists.
Exactly ZERO people in any of our EV-themed threads have advocated for eradicating ICE drivetrain. The intolerance always flows in the direction of EV owners, not the other way around.

Although in the modern day of mass dis-information via social media (which is where most folks get their "news"), the opportunity for Strawman Arguments is at the all time high!

a

California has a ban on selling new ICE cars starting in 2035, as would any states following the CARB rules potentially. CAFE fines effectively ban them economically too (look up the fleet average mpg and tell me that's not unofficially banning them). The EU bans the sale of new ICE cars in 2035 as well (unless they only run on e fuel... No idea how you enforce that but whatever).

You're right, we do live in an era of misinformation. Saying there's not regulations trying to actively ban the sale of new ICE vehicles is textbook misinformation.

[DrVenture]

Anyone who thinks some article or Youtube video that points out a short term hiccup is going to kill the future of EVs is living in a fantasy world. It was always going to be two steps forward and one step back, particularly with an aggressive rollout.

Subsidies have assisted the early-stage development and adoption, but even if eliminated they will never kill the momentum. Maybe slow it a little. Then, lighter, more energy dense batteries that charge quickly will be here before not too long, and the much lower cost of manufacturing an EV vs. a high performance ICE vehicle, will eventually cement EVs as the best choice for most people.

EVs already have the torque and quickness crown, without even that being the main thrust (pun intended). Weight loss and quicker charging will make them competitive/equal in handling soon enough.

Win/win - there will be plenty of used/new ICE vehicles for those who still want them, and less demand for gasoline. So, what's the problem?

[BlkGS]

I don't think anyone believes that EVs will go away. Long term, we need a variety of different vehicle types . Diesel, gasoline, EV, fuel cell, synthetic fuel... We need it all. Each has its own niche, where it excels over everything else.

We also can't be so naive as to think there is endless advancement down certain roads where things will get better in every way and cheaper. There are limitations for things, and physics is a CRUEL mistress. Charging rates are going to reach a point where they hit a limit, you can only feed so many volts and amps through a cable that any moron is allowed to use. More volts means more danger, more amps means way higher copper costs (and theft threat).

We are lucky to live in a country of near limitless energy potential, if we use it. If every vehicle we're running E85 now instead of it being a niche thing only for high boost builds, we would need dramatically less oil for gasoline. Biodiesel can be grown via algae that literally eats CO2 out of the air. We have options that are far easier to implement and far better than EV if our goal is to reduce foreign oil use. If we want to reduce emissions, we could put huge taxes on plane and large boats and force automakers to provide parts for 30 years and force right to repair to keep cars on the road longer.

We have solutions, we just don't have consistent and clearly defined problem statements.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

I don't think anyone believes that EVs will go away. Long term, we need a variety of different vehicle types . Diesel, gasoline, EV, fuel cell, synthetic fuel... We need it all. Each has its own niche, where it excels over everything else.

We also can't be so naive as to think there is endless advancement down certain roads where things will get better in every way and cheaper. There are limitations for things, and physics is a CRUEL mistress. Charging rates are going to reach a point where they hit a limit, you can only feed so many volts and amps through a cable that any moron is allowed to use. More volts means more danger, more amps means way higher copper costs (and theft threat).

We are lucky to live in a country of near limitless energy potential, if we use it. If every vehicle we're running E85 now instead of it being a niche thing only for high boost builds, we would need dramatically less oil for gasoline. Biodiesel can be grown via algae that literally eats CO2 out of the air. We have options that are far easier to implement and far better than EV if our goal is to reduce foreign oil use. If we want to reduce emissions, we could put huge taxes on plane and large boats and force automakers to provide parts for 30 years and force right to repair to keep cars on the road longer.

We have solutions, we just don't have consistent and clearly defined problem statements.

This is my point regarding hybrids, especially series hybrids, which the internet moniker is now EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle). I don't think EV are going to get 10 to 5 minute recharge rates for exactly the reason you state, cable handling limitations. On top of that, the existing charging infrastructure is set for 800V architecture, nowhere I've read that it's future proofed for higher charge rates via higher voltage/higher current architecture. So does that mean another trillion dollars to tech refresh the existing charging infrastructure, which implementation already in motion?

EV'ers like to brag the ICEV are limited and tied to their crude oil-based fuel source and BEV have multiple electricity fuel sources: wind, solar, hydro, nat. gas, coal ("dirty"). Yet ICE are not tied to just oil, as you stated there are biofuels, synthetic fuels, and reclaimant fuels. The combustion engine can be redesigned for increased combustion efficiency when not mechanically connected to the drive wheels. Hybrids still provide limitless cabin heating and refuel in 5 minutes for 400+ miles of range. The fuel delivery infrastructure for alternate liquid fuels is already in place and adequately sized to fit all use cases. Hybrid is where we should have been driving towards all along and where the market will end up. However, the climate fearers still rule the roost regarding the problem statement and fight remains on.

[chassis]

All global markets are forecasting delay of the point at which EV = 50% of new production.

[DrVenture]

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I beg to differ. I think people who are pro EV aren't real enthusiast. Most of the guys who drive electric cars don't even know anything about them but the spec sheet.
They are tech bros jumping on the next big thing.

by that logic, you could say pro ICE arent real enthusiast either. 99% of cars are bought by people who know nothing about them other than the spec sheet, if that.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

by that logic, you could say pro ICE arent real enthusiast either. 99% of cars are bought by people who know nothing about them other than the spec sheet, if that.

Ok, 99% of ICE drivers aren't enthusiasts.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.

But we've been hearing about ICEV parity via weight drop, battery density (range increase) and faster charge times for the better part of two decades. Have yet to see it.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.

Anyone talking about 50% market share is crazy.

BEVs were 8.1% of US vehicle sales in 2024. Up from 7.8% in 2023. For reference, the F150 on its own was about 5% of all US vehicles sold in 2024. At that growth rate of 0.3% a year, EVs will hit 50% market share in about year 2162.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

by that logic, you could say pro ICE arent real enthusiast either. 99% of cars are bought by people who know nothing about them other than the spec sheet, if that.

Some people need to judge or criticize. It is in their blood. Their fathers probably did it too. And old grandpa was the worst of them all.

Judging and criticizing others keeps some folks from having to reflect on their own shortcomings. That might prove too painful.

Might as well join in, I blame Elon. It's his fault. He caused all of this. By proving that EVs could sell in large numbers and taking them mainstream! Can't put the shit back in the goose.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Ok, 99% of ICE drivers aren't enthusiasts.

and safe bet to say 1% of EV drivers are enthusiasts as well.

[FC4]

Fun fact - 100% of Koenigsegg owners also own a Tesla, at least back in 2023 when Christian said so. He dailys a Model S.

[lakefront]

Originally Posted by FC4

Fun fact - 100% of Koenigsegg owners also own a Tesla, at least back in 2023 when Christian said so. He dailys a Model S.

So could this possibly mean that 100% of Koenigsegg owners are extremely wealthy and have several cars in their fleet?

[dfox]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Anyone talking about 50% market share is crazy.

BEVs were 8.1% of US vehicle sales in 2024. Up from 7.8% in 2023. For reference, the F150 on its own was about 5% of all US vehicles sold in 2024. At that growth rate of 0.3% a year, EVs will hit 50% market share in about year 2162.

The forecasts were for global implementation. Many places are much farther along than the stick-in-the-mud US consumer base.

California hitting 38% BEV's in the first half of 2024. Norway is up to 88.9% BEV's.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by lakefront

So could this possibly mean that 100% of Koenigsegg owners are extremely wealthy and have several cars in their fleet?

Well...yeah.

Pretty much everyone I know who has 8+ cars has a Telsa or an EV of some sort because they're just great to have.

The hate for EVs comes from the poors who are limited to 1-2 cars.

[NervoS]

Nice progress of BMW on batteries and EVs:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/20/b...LrLxMiLjwf9keA

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by NervoS

Nice progress of BMW on batteries and EVs:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/20/b...LrLxMiLjwf9keA

Those are some bold claims. 30% increase in range (360-540 miles total). 20% more energy density. 180 miles of range added in 10 minutes. 50% reduction in energy loss. 30% increase in charging speed.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by dfox

The forecasts were for global implementation. Many places are much farther along than the stick-in-the-mud US consumer base.

California hitting 38% BEV's in the first half of 2024. Norway is up to 88.9% BEV's.

Those two are hardly representative of the world. California has used taxes and regulations to push people to EVs. Norway even more extreme so, they exempted them from import and VAT, tolls, parking fees, etc. Add in that it's a tiny population (about as many as south Carolina) with IMMENSE natural resources they exploit... Pretty easy to see. The real.irony is the hypocrisy, Norway exports about 2% of the worlds oil supply and a huge amount of natural gas but has nearly banned ICE because "they pollute". You don't see them turning off the oil and gas exports making them rich though to prevent that pollution now do you?

Put another way though, even in CA, where virtue signaling is a way of life and EVe are so heavily pushed and it's the heart of the liberal econwarrior movement... They haven't yet cracked 40% BEV market share. Even with all the money and perks poured into them, they still can't get to a majority of BEVs sold.

The biggest driver is China of course, where if you don't buy the EV that their dictator Xi demands, you go missing one day for having too low of a social credit score and your corpse with a bullet in the head is never found.

[DrVenture]

What I love most about all of this is the competition. BMW trying to have the best and be the best. Tesla trying to retain their crown, that they hold from an early lead and limited competition. Everyone else looking to put their engineers to the task of getting better and doing more. This IS what makes shit happen! And it is happening. and it will continue. Better batteries, better charging infrastructure, better motors, better efficiencies from all systems.

One thing for certain, a few luddites, with limited imagination are not going to slow it down at all. It will just keep coming. Both Toyota and Honda are running pilot lines for solid state. We'll see how that plays out. Some may hope for failure. I hope for success.

[Tim_M56]

I think hybrids are a good middle ground until full EV tech can improve more so the daily commuter person can have an efficient and positive replacement for going to work.

I can't imagine how getting rid of regulations will help their adoption or improve their development in the future. Climate Change is staring as us in the face, and is only getting worse for many people. The world needs to reduce its emissions output, and EVs can do that, but in conjunction with efficient and clean nuclear or other options, not putting crap in the air from the start with natual gas, coal, or other dirty options.

I'm not scared of EVs, it's the natural progression of the automobile I think. They can coexist with gas-engine cars. I can see it being a money maker into the future for BMW and other manufacturers for enthusiast projects, like the Cayenne was when it saved Porsche for the 911.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

What I love most about all of this is the competition. BMW trying to have the best and be the best. Tesla trying to retain their crown, that they hold from an early lead and limited competition. Everyone else looking to put their engineers to the task of getting better and doing more. This IS what makes shit happen! And it is happening. and it will continue. Better batteries, better charging infrastructure, better motors, better efficiencies from all systems.

One thing for certain, a few luddites, with limited imagination are not going to slow it down at all. It will just keep coming. Both Toyota and Honda are running pilot lines for solid state. We'll see how that plays out. Some may hope for failure. I hope for success.

I don't think it is Luddism. I think it is economic realism. I think a majority of the market who do not have access to private L2 charging, are the road block. The current EV architecture is roughly 300 warm climate miles and 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes (in warm climate) for DCFC. The cost per kW is around $0.45, which is as expensive as fueling an ICEV. 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes for someone who lives in a dwelling without L2 overnight charging is just a non-starter because of the economics tied with the inconvenience. Without home L2 charging, EV just take too much planning and commitment to refuel. ICEV are just easier to refuel, people will pay for convenience.