Now it's pretty obvious that conventional automakers are dropping ICE engine development all together
to prepare for the impending paradigm shift to electric cars.
There could be an initial confusion from new car buyers about weather to get an ICE car at all in the next 5 years or so.
Will this scenario make existing ICE cars cheaper? and what will happen to the petrol stations?
The internal combustion engine technologies are so mature and profitable it's hard for any automaker to drop them in the short term, it's almost like suicide, unless they can guarantee their EV sales.
EVs are more expensive to buy, maintain, more hassle to refuel/charge, not practical for long trips, and don't offer many environmental benefits unless you use good power source like solar.
ICE cars are not going anywhere any time soon.
Evs are substantially cheaper to maintain, and much cheaper to fuel.
Your other points are still very valid.
EVs are less hassle to charge, if you have off street parking available. You simply plug in at home at the end of each day. You never need to ask the effort and time to go to the petrol station and stand there for a few minutes filling up, pay and find your way back to your intended route.
AMA: I recently bought a Hyundai kona electric.
I get around 450km, it costs me $20 for a full charge, I'm moving to an electricity plan that will have better off peak costs and it'll be $5 for a full charge then. With the 10 amp included charger I get about 11km/h charging speed, 32 amp dedicated charger I get 40km/h.
I haven't tried supercharging yet, I haven't found the need.
It's amazing to drive, super quiet and has loads of power.
Maintenance schedule wise, it's tyres and breaks that need the usual replacement schedule (brakes less because of regenerative breaking). The first scheduled replacement is the battery coolant at 120000 km. All of the other maintenance is inspection only.
I paid 64k for it and I don't plan for it to break even based on reduced fuel and maintenance costs. I did it because I could and wanted to be environmentally responsible.
After owning an ev I can confidently say I will never own an ice again. They are more inconvenient and much worse to drive.
Thanks for sharing this. It’s nice to hear from someone who owns an EV and it isn’t a Tesla Kool-Aide sipping, card carrying cult member.
We tried out the Tesla model 3 for a weekend before settling in the kona.
It was definely a trade off for us. The Tesla has objectively better hardware and driving dynamics, but the kona suited our lifestyle better.
(I'm currently pondering the Outlander PHEV, but the Kona is still on my short list.)
As an SUV, how is it offroad?
What's the maximum water fording depth?
Can you trickle charge it from solar if you're in the sticks?
It's a very small suv.i don't really off-road, so I'd be a little reluctant to try it out given the cost. You'd have to replace the stock tyres.
It's also only front wheel drive, so I'm not sure how well that would go.
No idea what the Max fording sept would be. It'd depend on how well the cabling and internals are water sealed. You could probably seal them and the doors up and go pretty deep. It doesn't need air to function like an ice car.
Id expect that y ou could trickle charge it off solar, though it be pretty slow depending on how many panels you have.
You can’t off-road in any EV to date. The Cybertruck, Bollinger and the Rivian will all have off-road capability.
I agree, you probably could try, but it'd be best to wait for a car that is made for it.
Kona really surprised everyone
I'm amazed that Hyundai made this good of a car on their first try. I honestly have no idea why they're investing in hydrogen if they can build this quality bev at a competitive price.
I think the kona bev really surprised Hyundai too.
Yeah they had stupid old chairman
Who also spent 2 billion on land acquisition some time ago.
Now you will see them going for No. 2 spot in the world
that's the problem with EV at the moment, you paid a premium to get a taste, for the price of Kona EV you could get a decent brand new med-size SUV (e.g. new Rav4 hybrid)
I very specifically didn't want a bigger car. I would have rather bought a golf rather than a rav 4.
You can’t supercharge because that’s Tesla propriety. But you can (somewhat) fast charge. You’re just limited to a low speed. For the money I would have stumped up the extra $7k and got a Tesla Model 3. The SR+ has the same interior room, slightly more range, much better performance and handling, a much nicer interior, much better features such as 3 built in dash cams and sentry cam, and a big super charging network with speeds upto 170kw (on the base model, higher on better models), well 150kw in Australia until they roll out some V3. I just can’t see why you’d spend almost the same money on a Kona which is essentially a $25k car with a battery pack, not a ground up EV.
Supercharging and DC fast charging are fairly interchangeable. The Kona fast charges much slower (tops out at 77Kw DC Fast charge) than the model 3 (170KW for sr+, 270 for LR / performance), but this is not something I care about because I'm likely to never do it. I charge plenty fast enough at home and am unlikely to make long trips (I have a 7mo, and she can't last being in a car for that long).
The price difference would have been closer to 9k for the white, 10.5 for any other colour, and 12 for the red, which is a fair bit of money. The cabin I would say is fairly comparable.
The model 3 sr+ actually has less range, both advertised and real world. Kona advertised is 550km and real workd is 450km. Model 3 sr+ advertised is 460km and real world is closer to 350k.
The performance and handling is definitely better on the model 3. I rented one out for the weekend well before buying the kona, there were things I liked and things that were no gos for us. That being said, performance on the Kona is more than good enough for our family car, I wasn't buying a sports car.
Kona trim for trim would be closer to 30-35k for the petrol equivalent, so it's like paying 30k for a 64Kwh battery (compared to the model 3's 50/55 Kwh battery). Given the price for that capacity, 30k seems more than reasonable.
The Kona isn't perfect, but neither was the model 3, it was very much the best compromise for us.
I'll type up my take on the model 3 today sometime. The biggest things that made it a no for us were:
* Size - it's a really big car, much wider and longer than the Kona
* Boot - the model 3 has a very weird boot and it struggled getting a pram in (and our pram is pretty compact).
* turning circle - it turns like a boat, much bigger than our previous golf, and mich bigger than the kona.
* servicing / repairs - Tesla is notoriously bad about letting 3rd parties repair or deal with its cars. It also only has 1 or 2 service centres, right in the heart of Sydney, which is very inconvenient for me.
Things I will miss from the model 3
* Efficiency of the tesla drive train.
* OTA updates
Yes, you’re right the Kona has ever so slightly more range, but you’re using the WLTP standard which is useless. The EPA range test is much more accurate (258 vs 250 miles). The interior isn’t comparable, you’re talking Scandinavian minimalism with high quality materials vs Korean shove everything in with cheap hard plastics, rubbish screens and buttons everywhere. You’re also completely ignoring autopilot which is amazing in its current iteration. To me it’s definitely worth the small premium rather than get a converted ICE car (even though on paper the Kona is the best converted ICE car, apart from the woefully slow DC charging. I didn’t realise it was only 70kw, I thought it was at least 100kw).
@[Deactivated]: Both range tests are relatively useless. They're done in laboratory conditions.
My range numbers are based on my own experience, my coworkers that have Tesla model 3s, and data provided by owners of both cars in forums. I also rented out a model 3, and 350km per charge is what I got with it as well.
Interior is always subjective, I find the buttons and dials easier to use while driving than the giant touch screen in the model 3. I have other co workers that love the giant screen.
Autopilot is fine, more of a gimmick right now, esp given the restrictions on it through software limitations and legal limits. Full self driving is also another 9k on top of the car's cost. Yet again, it's not something I care about so it's not a selling point for me. In 10 years time (or sooner if self driving does take off) I'll consider getting a car with self driving built in.
Do you own a model 3? It definitely has some quirks that make it a less than ideal car. If you can see past them and it suits you great, otherwise other cars need to be on the markret.
Also yet again, I don't care about dc charging rate being slow if I never have to use it.
@flametornado: Autopilot isn’t legally restricted at all here anymore. It’s far from a gimmick. Enhanced autopilot or FSD allows for full on-ramp to offramp navigation including lane changes and freeway changes without driver intervention. It’s latest version is truly excellent. But if you’re not doing freeway time it’s probably not useful to you.
Really appreciate the info, been trying to find more comparisons and can see why you like the Kona a lot. It definitely ticks a lot of boxes for me too.
Volvo have committed to 50% of sales to be fully electric by 2025 - that's only 5 years away.
https://group.volvocars.com/company/innovation/electrificati…
"Every new Volvo car launched from 2019 onwards will have an electric motor."
The XC40 won Car Of The Year last year and this will be their first fully electric model. Release date will be 2021.
I'm expecting it to be $80k+ and am already making preparations to be an owner (saving for the vehicle and considering home charging options).
But you could get a Model Y in 2021 which will undoubtedly be a superior car.
Knowing the delays with their other models, if the Model Y is available to buy, own and drive next year I’ll buy you a coke.
My bet is it won’t.
@VerticallyIntegrated: It's already in production. It was in production before last month's P/L call. Employees already have their cars, customers are getting them imminently. The question is will it be made in RHD config by next year, and I think because they are building it at two factories this time, it definitely will.
https://electrek.co/2020/01/31/tesla-model-y-production-pict…
@[Deactivated]: Aren't we lucky that Elon is a saffer? I think that's the only reason Tesla is making RHD cars at this stage.
@derrida derider: They don't sell Teslas in SA. They make them in RHD because it's dead easy with an EV chassis to change steering wheel sides. And RHD represents ~30% of the car markets.
Our neighbour has a petrol XC40 it's a very nice car, I'm sure you'll really enjoy it.
I bought https://evse.com.au/product/eo-mini-w-5m-type-2-ev-cable/. My kona is limited to a 7.2kw onboard charger (which is also max for single phase).
It looks like the XC40, like the model 3 will be able to handle 22KW (https://evse.com.au/product/22-kw-eo-universal-ev-charging-s…) as long as you have 3 phase electricity.
7.2 KW = ~ 40 km / h
22 Kw = ~120 km / h
So it really depends on how fast you want to charge it and if you have 3 phase.
I think you have your charging philosophy all wrong. The only charging speed that actually matters is DC fastcharging. Overnight AC is sufficient @ 7.2kw. You don't need 3 phase, even on a big 100kwh battery.
@[Deactivated]: It depends on your usage. Why would I care about dc fast charging if I never use it and just plug in at night?
Though you do have a point about that speed mattering less. 7.2 kW is enough to charge almost any available battery size overnight.
If you treat an electric car like a petrol car, then dc fast charging is the only speed that matters. If you treat it like an electric car, dc fast charging pretty much never matters.
To further this, dc fast charging is much worse for battery life than ac slower charging. The increase in charging speed increase the risk of dendrites growth in the battery which shorts out your battery cells and leads to worse battery life.
The ideal fuel would be ammonia (NH3).
You can generate unlimited amounts just from nitrogen (78% of air content), water and an energy source to split water (H2O) to get the 2 hydrogen out.
We'll never run out of it - just keep regenerating it.
As long as the input energy source is renewable, then it's completely green.
Best bit are the by-products. Because there is no C (carbon) in NH3 - the by-products are nitrogen and water. No CO or CO2 will ever be created.
So air, water, solar electricity in - air, water and car movement out.
You also get NOx.
Ammonia would be dumb. Ammonia is predominantly made from H2 and N2, H2 is not derived from water as it stands it's mostly derived from methane, which is not carbon neutral. We're also ignoring that if we're going to split water, you might as well just use hydrogen in fuel cells, not ammonia. Another problem is that ammonia takes a good bit of energy to react to begin with, you don't just put H2 and N2 in a chamber and let them react, N2 is notoriously unreactive so we need to put a good bit of energy into the reaction to get ammonia.
Ammonia would be dumb
It's actually a current area of research.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fu…
I'm at work at the moment, so don't have much time to track down a better article.
Ammonia—one nitrogen atom bonded to three hydrogen atoms—may not seem like an ideal fuel: The chemical, used in household cleaners, smells foul and is toxic. But its energy density by volume is nearly double that of liquid hydrogen—its primary competitor as a green alternative fuel—and it is easier to ship and distribute. "You can store it, ship it, burn it, and convert it back into hydrogen and nitrogen," says Tim Hughes, an energy storage researcher with manufacturing giant Siemens in Oxford, U.K. "In many ways, it's ideal."
Researchers around the globe are chasing the same vision of an "ammonia economy," and Australia is positioning itself to lead it. "It's just beginning," says Alan Finkel, Australia's chief scientist who is based in Canberra. Federal politicians have yet to offer any major legislation in support of renewable ammonia, Finkel says, perhaps understandable in a country long wedded to exporting coal and natural gas. But last year, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency declared that creating an export economy for renewables is one of its priorities. This year, the agency announced AU$20 million in initial funds to support renewable export technologies, including shipping ammonia.
Yes, I still think there are fatal flaws in the use of ammonia as a fuel here. There will always be a big demand for ammonia so long as we farm the way we do, which is another problem, so I believe the better method is simply generating hydrogen from solar water splitting or renewably powered electrolysis. Since we're going to assume renewable energy in driving the electrochemical reaction that creates NH3 anyway, save time and energy and just make H2 for fuel cells and keep NH3 for farming. H2 is difficult to transport and explosive but safer than ammonia, which can asphyxiate you very quickly while also being flammable in concentrations relevant to shipping.
H2 generation is the topic of my research and I work with ammonia as part of it.
Ammonia: "In many ways, it's ideal."
Ok. But in what ways is it not ideal? Toxicity is one. How much energy does it take to create vs hydrogen? I know one of the biggest problems with hydrogen is the amount of energy it takes to generate. Of course, using renewable energy makes it less of an issue, but if it wastes 80% (need to check this figure) of the energy you get out of it there are likely to be much better was of storing and transporting energy.
@Euphemistic: Hydrogen can be produced directly from water using solar driven water splitting, or more commonly with electrolysis which can be instead powered with renewable energy (although this too is less favourable next to solar drivne water splitting). Ammonia as it was being discussed above is generated with a similar electrochemical setup. So if we're going to electrochemically generate ammonia, you might as well skip the extra processing step and just make hydrogen. I know there's been discussion using ammonia as hydrogen transport because of how annoying hydrogen is to work with, but I think it also has issues as discussed above.
In the end, we have the technology and know how to make pretty much all of this a reality, including solar water splitting for hydrogen. The problem is methane is dirt cheap and CO2 generation from it is not included in the costs of producing it, it's treated as if we can spew as much CO2/lose as much methane as we want and who cares because no one pays for that… yet.
Hydrogen is where it's at in the future. Batteries are heavy to carry and horifically bad for the environment.
Batteries are not very bad for the environment. Battery packs can be recycled and repurppsed very easily.
A car battery pack could easily be repurposed as a home power pack.
Battery chemistry is also coming a long way and getting much easier to recycle.
Hydrogen has a lot of big challenges ahead of it if it's to become the primary fuel source.
- hydrogen embrittlement
- hydrogen leaking (it's the smallest element, containing it is very hard)
- explosiveness
- distribution chain (wildly expensive and needs to be in place before any cars, which makes it a huge risk)
It's also quite dirty in a fuel cell. Hydrogen is highly volatile and will bond with almost anything. In ideal circumstances where there's just oxygen in the air, it'll form water, but in actual air, filled with load of other things it can make some pretty nasty compounds.
I will buy an electric car when the price comes down to 10K. When will that happen?
2027
Australian govt is currently not in position to encourage EVs. They will loose all revenue coming from fuel taxes.
A lot of individuals and businesses buy cars for around $100k and can’t see any reason why they won’t choose an EV within next couple of years once quicker charging will be readily available. and off course more options will help to boost EV market.
I believe the transition has already started. This year the Tesla Model 3 outsold the BMW 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 series combined in the USA. Same for the Audi and Mercedes lineups. Out here it’s outselling they BMW 3 series (I believe last quarter it was 30% up on the market leading 3 series) and C class by a big margin. The writing is on the wall.
The world is bigger than the US. By a big margin.
Tesla sold around 380,000 vehicles in 2019.
BMW sold 2.17 million.
VW sold 6.27m
Hyundai/Kia sold 7.2m
Hell, even Lexus and Daihatsu (remember them?) sold more than twice as many vehicles as Tesla.
Toyota sold 9.7 million. Profitably.
The transition may have started, and Tesla is a very noisy player in that transition, but in terms of sales world-wide they're a rounding error.
The US is a microcosm of the world market. Remember that the Model 3 only went on sale late last year in most of the rest of the world. And the Model Y goes on sale in a few weeks. You extrapolate Tesla’s growth rate and they won’t be a small player for long. They are constantly expanding and will have a German factory within a year.
No it isn't
@ajm: Obviously it is. The same pattern is repeating in the USA and Australia. TSLA is the second biggest car company in the world by market cap, and these aren’t stupid people investing. It’s obviously based off the growth potential, (and the technological advantage and the potential of autopilot).
@[Deactivated]: Not it isn’t. Obviously.
The biggest seller in the US is a truck. The second biggest in the US is a truck. The third is also a truck. These 3 sell more than the next 6 models combined.
The Ford f series truck is the biggest seller in the world, has been for decades. In 2019 it sold over a million vehicles. More than 90% of these in the US.
The US market is unlike any other. It is not a subset of the world’s car market and you’re wrong to think the US experience is universal.
@ajm: “Autopilot” needs a few … adjustments before it becomes anything but a novelty:
@ajm: You even been on a plane? How do you think that autopilot works? I'll give you a clue. It locks in heading and altitude. It doesn't avoid obstacles or fly you from airport to airport. Tesla autopilot is much more advanced than that. The only adjustment needed is to your understanding of what autopilot is.
@ajm: If the F150 is the biggest seller in the US and it’s hardly sold anywhere else how can their market be similar to everywhere else.
@[Deactivated]: You do know what a “$882m loss in 2019” means don’t you? It was a over a billion in 2018. Slightly less unprofitable from one year to the next is still unprofitable. Picking cherries 🍒
@ajm: That's exactly what you are doing. The last two quarters Tesla had were profitable, with guidance that they will be profitable going forwards from mid last year onwards.
And the profitability depends on your accounting method (yearly).
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/29/business/tesla-earnings/i…
Personally, I prefer more standardised accounting methods, so don't consider that a yearly profit, but there is no doubt that Tesla is a profitable company. Here is a detailed rundown of the financials by a third party.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/business/tesla-earnings.h…
But maybe you're just smarter than the people at Tesla and all those billionaire and institutional investors?
@[Deactivated]: I’m just repeating Tesla’s own figures, not just the recent one that paints an incomplete (but convenient to your story) picture.
Your accounting preference is a irrelevant as your ice cream preference. You don’t have to like what the company reported for it to be accurate.
From independent NYT article you linked to:
“Tesla, which has never had a profitable year, ended 2019 with a loss of $862 million, less than its two previous annual losses.“
Fanboys haven’t changed since the 70s. You’re as tedious and sad as ever.
@ajm: Ok just ignore the last two quarters. It’s to your detriment. To deny the company is profitable isn’t ignorant when the facts are given to you, it’s stupid.
@[Deactivated]: Actually I have money (indirectly) in Tesla, but that’s never been relevant to this conversation and, since you seem impervious to facts, there never seemed much point in discussing that.
I’m a fan of the vehicles and of the concept. But Tesla zealots (like all fanboys) do the company no favours. If you can’t (won’t) see the technical limitations, the long-term strategic weaknesses and the financial fragility of the organisation then you’re not likely to want see them fixed.
@[Deactivated]: you probably invested in meat flavoured plants - good luck with that in the long term..
@petry: if Musk made it the fanboys would buy it, tell you it’s delicious and that the vomiting is a cleansing system.
The European manufacturers have been very slow in changing from ICE to alternate options. It's a bit like Kodak, years ago, refusing to accept that people won't have to reveal/process films anymore.
As the traditional companies have been too slow, new companies like Tesla were created to lead the segment. Now the traditional companies are like "yes, maybe we should do something about that and invest more in alternatives".
I drove a Prius for the first time in 2011, but they have been around since 1997 if I'm not wrong.
Brazilian Gurgel created an electric car in 1975.
Many other options were created but people and manufacturers didn't really believe that ICE cars were going to be replaced.
Now they have to catch up.
Here is an interesting list
https://www.hotcars.com/ranking-the-20-worst-electric-cars-e…
That list is a terrible story. Seems hey are all expected to meet the expectations of the average hatchback when they are small city runabouts at best. There is no allowance for battery tech being in its infancy. Then the number 1, the GM electric car was ‘recalled and crushed’ with no reference to the recall being a marketing/big oil conspiracy thing and that many owners wanted to keep their perfectly functioning cars.
All electric cars should have a universal battery pack. The various brands of cars should be engineered to have the universal battery slide in/out with a special lifter. Simply drive into a recharging station, replace battery and drive off. No more range anxiety
All electric cars should have a universal battery pack.
Only one issue, only one current major EV player in the market at the moment.
You're right, it should be universal, but not when there's so few players and the battery chemistry itself can be what differentiates one brand of EV manufacturer to another.
Also, even extremely advanced rechargeable batteries will degrade over time, so unless the batteries are made by the same manufacturer or to specification and with a battery health indicator, swap and go could potentially give you a slightly worse battery life than the one you are swapping in for, which could result in severely reduced range.
Sure, with a very well designed battery, this could be negligible, and degraded batteries can be taken back and reprocessed for raw materials to make new batteries again.
Just there is a risk of swap and go.
It's like saying "All rechargeable AA batteries should be swap and go"
But hey, I might not want to trade my Eneloop battery for some crappy non-LSD no-name "rechargeable" battery that's available.
"we have eneloop, good for your engine"
- servo banner
So should phones
Tesla did this early in the life of the Model S. They had a battery swap station which took a couple of minutes to swap packs. The cost was about the same as a tank of petrol. No one used it, and everyone used the free supercharging instead. They stopped doing it. Nio in China are currently offering the service, but I think that with super fast charge times now happening, it's not required or needed. The Model 3 can add 160km in 7 minutes on a V3 supercharger, enough to get to the next supercharger.
https://electrek.co/2019/07/02/tesla-supercharger-v3-range-m…
Internal combustion engines are not going to be completely phased out in Australia for a long while, we are a huge country with great distances between places and nothing in between. For a start, our power infrastructure needs a massive overhaul to support the amount of energy needed to recharge all these EVs. It would require the equivalent of one set of home solar panels and a storage battery per car on the road to make it viable otherwise you are just negating the environmental aspect of EVs, as a large portion of the energy needed would come from fossil fuel fired power plants.
Furthermore, travelling into remote areas of the outback and rural areas would definitely require a diesel car, carrying extra fuel is easy and the range is much larger than an equivalent EV. You wouldn't take a big stack of solar panels with you as the size and weight would be prohibitive, as would the charge time. Same goes for a diesel generator, you might as well just use a diesel car.
Internal combustion engines won't disappear completely, as they will still have their niche uses.
"travelling into remote areas of the outback and rural areas would definitely require a diesel car"
People keep saying this, but do you realise how microscopic a proportion of the kms driven by Australians is in remote areas? All those 4wd ads are pure marketing, not reality.
So diesels are likely to become, in time, at most a tiny niche product. And a niche is a hole in a cenetery wall in which you store the ashes of the dead.
I don't think you comprehend how big Australia is and how stuffed our power infrastructure really is. I can see EVs in major cities phasing out fossil fuel cars for sure, but not everywhere is Sydney or Melbourne.
Not everywhere is 2 places in the country but a significant portion of Australia's population lives in highly urbanised centers and travels less than 60km a day. EVs can perform the duties most people require, not all people but MOST people. Whether they're willing to stop being morons and buy the better option is a different issue
Cockys and miners will switch to EVs quicksmart as soon as a name manufacturer provides the right offering. A lot will just throw heaps more solar on the shed and get free on and near farm travel. Will probably keep the old LC or HiLux to go to town etc. Grey nomads will keep buying land yachts for a while here though. Some of those models are going to stay the same for a LONG time.
It'll be interesting to see streets filled with power leads from the home to cars parked on the street.
Should be lots of lawsuits coming from people tripping over at night, Considering not everyone has a garage.
Anyway it makes a lot of sense for companies to continue to improve ICE cars, with electric car sales still being low and inconvenient for many buyers, a small reduction in emission from a large fleet of ICE cars would be significantly greater than the reduction achieved from the few electric cars being sold.
Talking about convenience, one of the problems with electric cars at the moment is Tesla has taken a "leaf" out Apple's repair model; A lot of people really dislike Apples repair model, which is charging you outrageously for very simple repairs. In addition they refuse to sell parts or manuals to independent repair shops. This pretty much means you need to buy a new electric car every 6-10 years, because it would be just to expensive to repair it.
True enough how Apple-like Tesla's servicing policy is. But then EV's have drastically lower service requirements anyway so it is not the issue it would be with ICE. And competition plus availability of experienced indpendent mechanics will eventually force a reappraisal of this policy anyway.
battery pack failure beyond the warranty would be my biggest concern. an engine rebuild if I were to buy a lemon second hand ICE would be a few thousands. The super-over-engineered battery pack in the Tesla would cost a few more dollars I reckon
We should be stopping on street parking for residences.
Falling demand for ICE cars will probably lead to a slight crater in price but it won't last long because of economies of scale. It will cost more to make them as less of them are produced and you're more likely to see automakers bail out entirely when that starts to happen, save for niche models that are already only produced in limited volumes.
Good topic, have been thinking about this for a while now. I have a few points to make
1. Most people will charge their cars at home - it is much more convenient and cheaper let alone saves time as you can get 15-30amp Tesla charger in most private premises free or cheap. Even trickle charge is sufficient for most daily commute needs
2. Taxis and Uber electrics will require charging stations in town but those will be few and located peripherally for the benefits of scale. Quick charge, high volume and associated with cafe/car wash/fast food. Minimum 45min per visit
3. Petrol stations will close down but petrol will continue to get more expensive.
My thoughts only
Cheers
- Taxis and Uber electrics will require charging stations in town but those will be few and located peripherally for the benefits of scale. Quick charge, high volume and associated with cafe/car wash/fast food. Minimum 45min per visit
For vehicles such as this a "swap n go" system would probably be better - similar to your gas bottles at service stations.
They drive in, replace their battery with a fully charged one, and the flat battery will be charged at the servo for someone to grab an hour or two later.
Idea is not new but much harder to execute correctly than you think. Battery cooling system and cell monitoring are nowhere as compact as you’d like. Swapping a 300kg battery and having to connect cooling run diagnostics etc currently takes way longer than a quick charge. Plus labour is expensive. So not unless radically different battery technology is created.
Not sure how attractive a swap'n'go system would be given the relative fragility, weight and value of these parts.
This kind of system works for an LPG cylinder swap because of the low relative value of the cylinder. You basically buy a new cylinder and, in return for your old cylinder, they fill the new one with gas.
I don't think the same would apply to batteries that are worth many thousands of dollars.
"Quick charge, high volume and associated with cafe/car wash/fast food. Minimum 45min per visit
3. Petrol stations will close down …"
Much more likely petrol stations convert to those cafe/car wash/fastfood fast charging stations. They usually already make most of their profit from the shop rather than petrol anyway.
DSG killed the Manuals long time ago.
8 speed ZF was a nail in the coffin.
its like when EFI replaced the Carburetor. Minimal shift until it became the norm.
I would guess the phasing out of ICE cars will come suddenly. As in, the transition period will be very brief. Just like the transition period between dumb phones to iOS & Android back in 2009-2010.
The reason is because many electric cars have not only cheaper running costs, but also less maintenance, and also the ability to generate side income through self driving. Cars are one of the things that people use only 5% of the time. The other 90% are in your own garage, and 5% you have to pay for parking outside of your garage. On the other hand there are people who commutes and pay $5 each way from a suburb to the city centre and vice versa, who would love to be picked up and driven to door to door at only 25% more price (e.g. $7.50). This will happen very quickly when self driving become good enough.
Of course it is also possible for someone to open a car loan with 10% interest, then have the cars generate passive income to cover the interest from the bank. All they'll be doing is the "management" of the robot taxi fleet.
But "when" question is another thing entirely. I have always told my less nerdy friends that it will happen in the previous decade (up to the end of 2019), but it seems that we have at least 5 more years until this happens. One of the big problems is that the bigger car companies (the Nokias of the smartphones) are still treating these electric cars like it's a side project. Only Tesla is serious enough to make one that is affordable at $60,000 AUD. I think we need to see it go down to around $35,000 AUD before it will become mass market.
As in, the transition period will be very brief. Just like the transition period between dumb phones to iOS & Android back in 2009-2010
Agree, that was a quite quick transition. But the improvement between a dumb phone and a smart phone was massive and the cost was pretty small for the benefit (couple of weeks wages) and phones are often turned over every year or two. Cars on the other hand are pretty expensive and we hold onto them a lot longer. Then the reality of electric cars is that until autonomous driving is common they dont do a whole lot more than the ICE cars - just get you from A-B with air con.
I think 2022 will be a huge year for electric car
Every auto maker is gunning for 2022 release.
VW ID3, Model Y etc.
Yes. It’s getting closer. Still going take a long time for ICE to phase out unless we get some serious incentives/tax breaks.
I don't know
Once Aussie dollar picks up (if ever)
Model 3 SR+ at AU$60k is equivalent to buying a 50k car due to running cost savings
not to mention the free falling used ICE cars by that time.
Cars are dead, it will be drones from now ons.
I think that mskeggs is on the money here. The other thing that is happening is that there are heaps of Chinese/euro/us auto manufacturers now. Chinese already have lots of choice of cheaper EVs. So GM and others will put vehicles on the market here that are moderately priced In the next few years, provided that they also head to UK, Japan etc. So I think that the market here is going to have some real changes in the next 5 to 10 years.
We just need to keep on not buying the ICE boxes - and current vehicle sales numbers seem to show that we have got the idea….
So GM…will put vehicles on the market here that are moderately priced In the next few years
Yeah no they won't lol
Especially not in RHD markets.
I think so, provided that they are selling to other RHD countries. Can’t see them bothering just for OZ. If they offer an EV, I would be very surprised if it wasn’t a Chinese rebadge. Given their current creds with the Aussie public, they may do better sitting under a Chinese brand now.
Do they still own the Holden name? Maybe a Chinese Holden EV? 😂
A good video on this is by a well known futurist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y916mxoio0E
He talks about the 10 year changeover period from horses to cars and how many people miscalculated the time it would take to adopt, similar to mobile phones etc.
Basically what we're going to see is a reverse exponential pricing curve similar to solar panels, with technology effectively halving in price every 2 years.