Quote:
Originally Posted by jamala00
Actually yes... MartinJim has said that a few different times. The last time was in the EV thread in the 6th Gen Camaro Forum that was last removed, so I can't go back and quote it... but he said... "EV's are far superior in almost every way except for towing."
|
I seriously doubt that I said “far superior”. I don’t typically toss around superlatives carelessly like that. I more than likely said as good as or better than…except for towing and hauling.
The funny thing is that within my company I get criticized by some for pushing back on the high growth rate of EVs and the timing of an inflection point.
So, once again, for the record here is my unfiltered view on 1) Capability of EVs, 2) What is driving the growth of EVs, 3) the long term position of EVs / ICE, and 4) The reasoning behind EV incentives. Feel free to quote this when describing what martinjlm may or may not have said about EVs.
Capability of EVs
Today’s vintage of EVs can cover more than 95% of the typical use cases of drivers in the US. The most glaring weaknesses are in towing and hauling heavy loads for long distances. So…what does that mean? I live in Detroit. A lot of people in Detroit have boats and play with them on the weekend. We have a lot of lakes. If I had a Silverado EV with 400 mile range and I wanted to use it to tow my boat to the Detroit River or Lake St. Clair, no worries. It can handle that. Heavy load, short distance. Now, if I wanted to tow that same boat to Traverse City? Nope. Not trying that. Heavy load, long distance. Too many issues with publicly charging an EV truck with trailer attached so this is something I would personally go to great lengths to avoid. EVs are still in early phases of technology maturity. They are only going to get better, more capable, more efficient, and lower in cost.
What is driving growth
The answer to that question varies depending on which regions we are talking about. In China it started with regulation combined with incentives and a bit of strategic view where it was recognized that the path to leadership in the auto industry is more direct when introducing the next technology rather than playing catchup on the older technology. Example…China skipped widespread wiring of fiber optics for land-based based telephone and went straight to cellular on a mass population basis. China now leads the world in telecom. China is skipping ICE based autos in favor of EV. Regulations and incentives are put in place to promote that. Add to that the fact that China is the world’s largest auto market and now you have everyone’s attention. Everyone being automakers.
In Europe the primary driver is climate change. The European Union is keenly focused on reducing the carbon impact of manufacturing and transportation. Both of those impact the auto industry. Regulations on ICE emissions are put in place to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the use of automobiles. Incentives are put in place to promote a shift by manufacturers and consumers towards more zero emissions vehicles. The fact that OEMs have shown that they can produce EVs with considerable range and the fact that manufacturing costs of EVs at decent scale is an achievable goal has shaped OEM strategies.
In North America the drivers are more complicated. China and Europe have already set EV development on a path to develop more efficient, cleaner vehicles. North American OEMs are taking that as a given and looking at other angles. That’s why Chinese and European OEMs are focused on making reasonably cost everyday use EVs and US automakers started out making super quick EVs with four-wheel steering and WTF and Ludicrous modes. In the US more so than anywhere else on the planet power sells. But at the same time pretty much every vehicle manufacturer that sells vehicles in the US has voiced support for the Paris Accord and has set goals for the company to meet Carbon Neutrality. There is no way they can reach Carbon Neutrality without a vehicle portfolio that has a strong penetration of EV. Carbon Neutrality goes beyond the emissions of the vehicles they produce. It also includes the manufacturing processes and facilities operations of all of their plants and offices.
Additionally, and I’ve said this before, when the automakers get to scale manufacture of EVs, their manufacturing and product development processes can be streamlined to the tune of billions of dollars. GM, for example, can replace Alpha, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Chi, and VSS-F with one skateboard architecture plus one premium derivative. They can replace T2XX and 31XX with one skateboard on frame architecture. They can replace CSS, HFV6, Small BlockV, and L850 engines with 3 or 4 scalable electric motor designs. They can replace 8Lxx,10Lxx, 8Txx, 9Txx with 2 or 3 drive units. And they can avoid the costs of continued development of new technologies to improve emissions and fuel economy of ICE products, especially given that none of these new technologies will be priceable.
This post is already too damn long so I’ll address the other two points later.