Electric Vehicles

[FarmerFran]

Why are they not putting the magical car batteries in power tools?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

Maybe old news, but it has an angle on profitability, and how the poor-poor car makers are just scraping by...lol...Surely they foresaw all of this when deciding to go all-in on EVs, but nonetheless it sounds more and more like they are flying by the seat of their pants...Yes, the EV future is inevitable.

I recall the sales pitch for EVs was that they would be less expensive to manufacture due to their simplicity compared to ICE with fewer systems to design like cooling, exhaust, fuel delivery, etc...Yet here we go, they are costlier and less profitable.

Anyhoo, they do mention a consulting firm to bolster the claims of less profitability...

Here's the link...and some of the article...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...f5fe6803&ei=38

Subscriptions and additional offerings post-initial transactions are part of why automakers are especially interested in leasing their EVs. If they can get consumers locked into an EV lease at a reasonable monthly payment, they could capitalize on that to later upsell them on more functionalities — made possible through over-the-air software updates — throughout the contract of the lease.

While consumers might need to warm up to the idea, the industry might not have much of a choice, according to Deloitte's recent future of automotive mobility to 2035 report. The consultancy estimates 50 to 60% of future profits might be at stake if companies keep going on with business as usual.

So major changes are in store as automakers navigate shifting consumer behaviors, industry headwinds, and especially, increasingly attractive competition.

"To be blunt, the price for inaction by industry players could be fatal, especially in an industry on the move in so many directions," the report said. Changes, including vehicle feature subscriptions "are expected to unlock a variety of new revenue streams."

I would love to debate Deloitte on this one. The only reasons why EVs are more expensive today then ICE are

1. Economies of scale
2. Depreciation of assets

To be fair, they are correct on the overall premise, that automakers are banking on over the air (OTA) content delivery as a huge revenue source. It’s just that their rationale that this is because of electric vehicles that is very flawed. The two concepts reached the market at pretty much the same time (thanks Tesla) but one technology path does not require the other technology path.

The cost to manufacture EVs is coming down with each generation of EV. At the same time, the cost to manufacture some ICE vehicles is going up due to additional emissions content that has to be added to meet new CAFE and emissions targets. That same content does not need to be added to EVs because there’s no tailpipe emissions. When the cost reaches equilibrium with the cost to produce ICE, the cost difference will quickly swing in favor of EV because of fewer parts needed as well as fewer platform architectures required by each automaker.

I would also note that the idea that the subscription business model requires EV is misguided. It doesn’t. Several automakers are already using that business model for ICE vehicles sold in regions other than North America. Even in North America the same OTA delivery of upgraded functionality is already being used to manage recalls without the vehicle ever coming into the dealership. It can easily be used to deliver and/or restrict optional functionality.

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I would love to debate Deloitte on this one. The only reasons why EVs are more expensive today then ICE are

1. Economies of scale
2. Depreciation of assets

To be fair, they are correct on the overall premise, that automakers are banking on over the air (OTA) content delivery as a huge revenue source. It’s just that their rationale that this is because of electric vehicles that is very flawed. The two concepts reached the market at pretty much the same time (thanks Tesla) but one technology path does not require the other technology path.

The cost to manufacture EVs is coming down with each generation of EV. At the same time, the cost to manufacture some ICE vehicles is going up due to additional emissions content that has to be added to meet new CAFE and emissions targets. That same content does not need to be added to EVs because there’s no tailpipe emissions. When the cost reaches equilibrium with the cost to produce ICE, the cost difference will quickly swing in favor of EV because of fewer parts needed as well as fewer platform architectures required by each automaker.

I would also note that the idea that the subscription business model requires EV is misguided. It doesn’t. Several automakers are already using that business model for ICE vehicles sold in regions other than North America. Even in North America the same OTA delivery of upgraded functionality is already being used to manage recalls without the vehicle ever coming into the dealership. It can easily be used to deliver and/or restrict optional functionality.

You mention that OTA functionality is already in ICE models and is nothing new or unique to EVs. I would have to say that seems like a weak justification for what is coming or planned or already in EVs with subscriptions, upgrades, and "new revenue" streams.

Other than On-Star and Serius XM radio, I know of no other ICE OTA upgrades that charge a fee. What you mention is already in ICE seems benign and isn't even close to what can be done with EVs and subscriptions. ICE restrictions on features and conveniences that cost extra similar to what we have heard about EV fees? I think that is quite a stretch. The auto buying public would be up in arms. Look how the mandatory On-Star is already being challenged and unpopular. This type of thing growing into a monster is primarily being talked passed as just a normal expected part of EV ownership, or some abomination of ownership, that has no real roots or history in ICE vehicles.

It's a con-job on steroids for the EV future.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by 90503

You mention that OTA functionality is already in ICE models and is nothing new or unique to EVs. I would have to say that seems like a weak justification for what is coming or planned or already in EVs with subscriptions, upgrades, and "new revenue" streams.

Other than On-Star and Serius XM radio, I know of no other ICE OTA upgrades that charge a fee. What you mention is already in ICE seems benign and isn't even close to what can be done with EVs and subscriptions. ICE restrictions on features and conveniences that cost extra similar to what we have heard about EV fees? I think that is quite a stretch. The auto buying public would be up in arms. Look how the mandatory On-Star is already being challenged and unpopular. This type of thing growing into a monster is primarily being talked passed as just a normal expected part of EV ownership, or some abomination of ownership, that has no real roots or history in ICE vehicles.

It's a con-job on steroids for the EV future.

Yep. Throw in the fact that the government has its thumb on the scale and is deliberately making ICE cars more expensive through regulations and you get a huge con job. Even worse, it's a con job based on another con job - the whole anthropogenic global warming/climate change farce.

[mickss]

There was a time in the history of transportation there was the great debate of the Horseless Carriage Vs The Horse much like today`s EV`s Vs ICE debate. In the end the horse lost because human ingenuity found ways to improve and re-invent the internal combustion engine. And I`m sure in the future there will be human ingenuity making improvements in battery tech. electric generation and electric motors. Most of today`s modern tech started out as crude and primitive by todays standards but in the end we have modern TV`s, radios, aviation and telephones that were nothing like their predecessors.

This is what the Horseless Carriage Vs The Horse argument looked like; https://www.google.com/search?q=anti...t=gws-wiz-serp

[Wyzz Kydd]

The horseless carriage proponents didn’t need government to regulate horses out of business . EV proponents depend upon government increasing the costs of ICE vehicles to make EVs price competitive.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 90503

You mention that OTA functionality is already in ICE models and is nothing new or unique to EVs. I would have to say that seems like a weak justification for what is coming or planned or already in EVs with subscriptions, upgrades, and "new revenue" streams.

Other than On-Star and Serius XM radio, I know of no other ICE OTA upgrades that charge a fee. What you mention is already in ICE seems benign and isn't even close to what can be done with EVs and subscriptions. ICE restrictions on features and conveniences that cost extra similar to what we have heard about EV fees? I think that is quite a stretch. The auto buying public would be up in arms. Look how the mandatory On-Star is already being challenged and unpopular. This type of thing growing into a monster is primarily being talked passed as just a normal expected part of EV ownership, or some abomination of ownership, that has no real roots or history in ICE vehicles.

It's a con-job on steroids for the EV future.

For the most part what you say in bold is spot on, especially the part in red. The traditional automakers have been trying to figure out how to go beyond OnStar and other telematics apps with fee for years and have been banging their heads against various state and federal legal issues regarding then. Then Tesla just walked in and did it and basically said “Don’t like it? Sue me”. Same thing with ordering vehicles direct online and going around dealerships. First the major automakers tried to get Tesla hung up in court on these things. That hasn’t worked, so they’ve lately been taking the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach and have started doing the same things with paid subscriptions.

[Mr_Draco]

Originally Posted by 90503

Other than On-Star and Serius XM radio, I know of no other ICE OTA upgrades that charge a fee.

BMW currently charges $18 a month just to have the ability to turn on the heated seats in your car.

Mercedes has the "Acceleration Increase" subscription for $1,200 a year. This allows you to use the engine to the full potential. If you don't pay, the vehicle comes with a very conservative tune that greatly restricts what the vehicle can do.

[Gunkk]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

BMW currently charges $18 a month just to have the ability to turn on the heated seats in your car.

Hey BMW:

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

BMW currently charges $18 a month just to have the ability to turn on the heated seats in your car.

Mercedes has the "Acceleration Increase" subscription for $1,200 a year. This allows you to use the engine to the full potential. If you don't pay, the vehicle comes with a very conservative tune that greatly restricts what the vehicle can do.

Just for the sake of accuracy, BMW has for the time being backed out of doing this in the US but they do already do this in a number of other markets. But, suppose you go out and get a BMW 3-Series and you want heated seats. You lease the car for 48 months. You can pay $1,900 to have heated seats all the time (also includes heated steering wheel and HUD) or you can pay $18/month for 48 months or less and have heated seats when you need them. That would be $810 for 48 months.

For me here in Michigan, I'd have heated eats about half the time, so $405 compared to $1,900. Unless it was heated and ventilated in which case I would have it all year round, so it would be $810 compared to $1,900. Now, where I think BMW would be making a huge mistake is if they didn't offer the consumer the choice to buy the option or pay for it monthly. For me, the issue would be HUD. I like HUD and would pay the $1,900 to have the package of HUD, heated seats and heated steering wheel.

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Just for the sake of accuracy, BMW has for the time being backed out of doing this in the US but they do already do this in a number of other markets. But, suppose you go out and get a BMW 3-Series and you want heated seats. You lease the car for 48 months. You can pay $1,900 to have heated seats all the time (also includes heated steering wheel and HUD) or you can pay $18/month for 48 months or less and have heated seats when you need them. That would be $810 for 48 months.

For me here in Michigan, I'd have heated eats about half the time, so $405 compared to $1,900. Unless it was heated and ventilated in which case I would have it all year round, so it would be $810 compared to $1,900. Now, where I think BMW would be making a huge mistake is if they didn't offer the consumer the choice to buy the option or pay for it monthly. For me, the issue would be HUD. I like HUD and would pay the $1,900 to have the package of HUD, heated seats and heated steering wheel.

Correct me if I am wrong, are they going to put heated seats in for free and hope you pay for it? or do they charge you for the hardware then on top of it, charge you to use it?


The latter is what I see mfgs doing. Double dipping

[Martinjlm]

A lot going on to support battery recycling in the US. US Department of Energy is issuing loans (not grants) to support the buildup of recycling to reclaim lithium and other important minerals needed for battery manufacture. More jobs for 'mericans. From today's Automotive News...

EV battery recycler Li-Cycle to get $375M U.S. loan for N.Y. plant
Li-Cycle's Rochester, N.Y., processing facility is slated to open later this year at a cost of roughly $485 million.
February 27, 2023

The U.S. Department of Energy on Monday said it will lend Li-Cycle Holdings Corp $375 million as it builds a battery recycling facility in New York set to become one of the country's largest sources of lithium by next year.

The loan is the latest move by Washington to spur development of a domestic electric vehicle supply chain, with greater battery recycling capacity seen as crucial to meeting President Joe Biden's goal for half of new U.S. vehicles to be electric by 2030.

"One of the benefits of recycling is it can bring metals to market more confidently than some of the mining companies that take a bit longer to go from the identification of the resource to full production," Jigar Shah, head of the Energy Department's Loan Programs Office, told Reuters.

The loan, which was in review for more than a year, will have a 12-year term and an interest rate matching the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate when funds are issued, expected by July. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who serves as Senate majority leader, had long advocated for Li-Cycle to receive the funding.

Li-Cycle's Rochester, N.Y., processing facility is slated to open later this year at a cost of roughly $485 million. Li-Cycle, which counts mining giant Glencore as one of its largest shareholders, has the funds to pay for the Rochester facility, so the loan will help the company expand elsewhere.

"What this does for us, is further accelerate our work and open up optionality to do other things," said Li-Cycle CEO Ajay Kochhar.

The company has developed a network of facilities in Arizona, Alabama and Ontario that produce black mass, which is essentially shredded battery parts. The Rochester facility will break down that black mass into lithium and other metals.


Li-Cycle aims to produce 8,500 tons of lithium carbonate per year from the facility as it ramps up in 2024, in what would make it one of the largest U.S. sources of the battery metal.

The Energy Department in the past month has agreed to lend $2 billion to Li-Cycle competitor Redwood Materials and $700 million to Ioneer Ltd.'s Rhyolite Ridge lithium mining project in Nevada.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Just for the sake of accuracy, BMW has for the time being backed out of doing this in the US but they do already do this in a number of other markets. But, suppose you go out and get a BMW 3-Series and you want heated seats. You lease the car for 48 months. You can pay $1,900 to have heated seats all the time (also includes heated steering wheel and HUD) or you can pay $18/month for 48 months or less and have heated seats when you need them. That would be $810 for 48 months.

For me here in Michigan, I'd have heated eats about half the time, so $405 compared to $1,900. Unless it was heated and ventilated in which case I would have it all year round, so it would be $810 compared to $1,900. Now, where I think BMW would be making a huge mistake is if they didn't offer the consumer the choice to buy the option or pay for it monthly. For me, the issue would be HUD. I like HUD and would pay the $1,900 to have the package of HUD, heated seats and heated steering wheel.

Only issue is fully bet the cost of the hardware is included in the MSRP of the car. So how much money is saved with eating the added cost vs car is cheaper then buy heated seats?

[90503]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Just for the sake of accuracy, BMW has for the time being backed out of doing this in the US...

...and for good reason. It's a blatant rip-off. If US brands attempt this same thing I hope it receives similar negative response. GM making On-Star a mandatory subscription is an epic example of corporate huberous.

How stupid do they really believe the customer is? Apparently quite a bit. Do they really expect the customer to believe that if they don't subscribe they aren't buying something already factory installed just because it isn't turned on?...lol

It's worse than double-dipping. The expense for something you've already paid for once would have no end in sight.

The mfrs already openly refer to it as a "new revenue stream" with subscriptions. The old version of revenue, selling a product to the customer who would own it, just isn't good enough anymore...lol

I'm sure we'll see this new shell-game-double-talk-intentional-confusion over and over again to slip in these never before seen subscriptions as some sort of savings...lol