this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
116 points (88.7% liked)

Electric Vehicles

3179 readers
65 users here now

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a fundamental truth you have to understand about car companies:They do not exist to make cars. They exist to make money. That distinction, analyst Kevin Tynan tells me, is why they’re not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles.

Perhaps that’s an oversimplification. Tynan is the director of research at an auto-dealer-focused investment bank, the Presidio Group, with decades of experience as an analyst at firms like Bloomberg Intelligence. What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products. It’s that their interest begins and ends with winning customers who will eventually buy more expensive, higher-margin products.

One of the auto industry’s dirtiest secrets is that at scale, it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits. In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 71 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Getting rid of the gas tax and switching to a mileage tax that factors in vehicle weight would help with this. If it costs you more every year to drive a bigger, heavier car, you’re going to want something smaller.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I like the idea of a size tax.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 24 points 2 months ago

I also like the idea of extended driver's license requirements to drive some of these monsters vs a sedan.

[–] comador@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

California is basically doing tax trials based on total mileage travelled per year, but not size.

My understanding from people I know in the CA Govt. legislature is that they have to tax based on what is known and one could easily have modifications on vehicles that would go unnoticed (truck lift kits, rice burners, hack jobs, etc). Mileage otoh is submitted during tax season already.

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Very few, if any, modifications are going to dramatically change a vehicle's curb weight. Of course, electrics weigh more than similar ICEs, so a better reason to skip a weight based tax is so as to not disincentivize electrics.

Edit: Also, what do you mean "rice burners"? Afaik, rice burner refers to any vehicle of Asian origin whether tuned or not. And trust me, tuning a car is not going to increase the curb weight by more than a few pounds.

[–] comador@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Sorry, I got ahead of myself without clarifying. The idea of taxation based on the size of "stock" vehicles or even a stock vehicles estimated mpg was turned down because considerations such as: Vehicle Body Modifications, Vehicle Engine Modifications, 5th Wheels, Trailers, Poorly Tuned or Mal-Maintained Vehicles and many others listed means the end result would be a poor assessment for more than 2% of registered vehicles and thus resulting in not taxing appropriately.

So while they can do it (tax by size or empg) by pulling any data that the DMV or tax filings show, those considerations hamper the idea's effectiveness in taxation for the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

As a result, Road Charge (mileage) was adopted in CA as the future replacement for the existing 7.5% + gas tax. https://caroadcharge.com/

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 1 month ago

We have a gas guzzler tax but for some reason trucks and SUVs are exempted...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As long as they do it by checking the odometer once a year and not with some kind of ridiculous privacy-destroying GPS-based scheme, I'm all for it.

(There are some dipshits who try to justify the latter by claiming they need to know where you drive to send the revenue to the right jurisdiction. Bullshit! They can just measure traffic volumes on each road segment -- which they already do -- and allocate proportional to that instead.)

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed you don't need the mileage aspect just weight and VAT. However your insurance company app is likely already pulling GPS shenanigans and if your OnStar or whatever "roadside assistance" GPS box and cellular modem are enabled a lot more than just your location are being shared with anyone willing to pay for it.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Not on me, they aren't. My newest vehicle is from the mid-2000s and none of them have tracking built in.

On a related note, I can't own an ~~EV~~ electric car because nobody will sell me one that respects my privacy.

Edit: I do own several EVs: they're bicycles, not cars. (They are my and my wife's "daily drivers," though.)

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I disabled the OnStar box on mine and went over it with a flipper zero. Overkill I know but it was a fun afternoon seeing just how many radios and how much signal generation there is in a modern vehicle.

The only radio now is remote start and key auth.

Sidenote if you have an older car you might want to get an OBD2 lock, they're 30 bucks and are a pretty handy theft deterrent. Metal ones tend to be better.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

My manual transmissions are an even better theft deterrent at this point I think, LOL!

(Also, my two oldest cars predate OBD2.)

[–] domdanial@reddthat.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I never even considered using my flipper to check for outbound signals. I have been wanting to track down the installed LoJack for a while and make sure it's properly disabled, that might help.

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I'm sure you've seen it but this guide got me started

https://docs.flipper.net/sub-ghz/read

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The problem with that is that EVs are heavier, meaning that smaller EVs would be taxed at the same level as SUVs or trucks. But it might at least incentivise people to go for smaller ICEs, and switching to mileage tax might be necessary anyway.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The problem with that is that EVs are heavier

I wish this myth would die already. EVs are only heavier when they make them giant and obscenely inefficient, requiring larger and larger batteries.

Small EVs are comparable in weight to their comparable gas models.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I up voted you because the weights aren't that drastically different rn, but a Chevy Bolt is 3500lb while a larger civic with more cargo and passenger room is 3000.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Even if you don't make them giant and obscenely inefficient, a 100kwh pack is gonna weigh over 300kg. Doesn't matter if that gives it 1000 miles of range or 400 miles.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

And how much does an internal combustion engine, a transmission, a fuel tank, a driveshaft, a starter motor, and an oil sump weigh?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 16 points 2 months ago

Typically, less. EVs are consistently 10%-15% heavier than equivalent ICEs.

Weight is just not one of the advantages that EVs have over ICEs. This is not the hill you want to die on.

Fortunately, all the other advantages greatly exceed that weight penalty.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Probably about the same as such a battery, maybe a little less? The electric motor is still gonna push the EV weights above the equivalent ICE by a little. Either way, neither is gonna be comparable to the much larger vehicles on roads. Which includes buses (which I don't think we should be trying to disincentivize although it should be considered in the planning stages of deciding between BRT and alternatives like rail). But due to the 4th power law, if we scaled taxes based on damaged done to roads, the only consumer vehicles (excluding things like trailers) that would even notice the tax would be a the few at the highest end.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You don't need a 100kWh pack. Most of the smaller cars are closer to 60.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago (13 children)

If you’re comparing an ICE vehicle that can get 400 miles a tank to an EV then you are being completely disingenuous to compare it to an EV that only gets 100-150 miles of range. They’re not comparable. An EV that gets even close to the same range is going to way much much more than a comparable ICE vehicle.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you got 400 miles on a 100kWh pack you'll be getting 300 on a 60kWh pack.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It completely depends on your drive configuration and aerodynamic efficiency rating. Also I don’t know why you think I said anything about getting 400 miles on a 100kWh pack. This conversation is about weight. You don’t just get to say “get a smaller battery pack and then the cars weight the same” because it makes them completely different cars. The average ICE vehicle (of the top25 sold) gets 460 miles of range. https://insideevs.com/features/527446/electric-cars-range-equilibrium/ (funny enough this article is literally what we’re arguing about!)

In any case, I’m not even arguing for larger batteries! I’m just stating that you can’t compare weight if you aren’t going to compare range. They go hand in hand.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

2w old conversation, but what I was trying to say is that 100-150 miles (your example) isn't the alternative to 400 miles in an EV (which will absolutely require a 100kWh pack). As you reduce the range through a smaller battery you get some range back through reduced weight.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I certainly don't and wouldn't consider it. But if someone wants 1000 miles of range, we probably aren't getting that without some major technological breakthroughs in material sciences any time soon without packs around 100kWh.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

We don't need 1000 miles of range...all we need is more charging stations.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Lack of a need for that won't stop people from getting them if that's an option...

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Economics of lugging all that extra battery weight around on daily commutes is why smart people wont go for the extra large pack.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Given what the top selling vehicles are in the US, I don't expect people to be smart, even if they're pay more upfront and long-term for their stupidity.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What people need and what people irrationally want can be two different things

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

But isn’t it the weight that does more damage to the roads that the taxes are intended to pay for?

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

the weight does damage yes, but the lionshare of road damage is caused by shipping trucks because they are magnitudes heavier than a civilian vehicle while loaded. It's the reason truck weigh stations exist

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

…and a weight based tax would put the lion’s share of the tax burden on shipping trucks.

I think we’re in agreement here?

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Do you think an electric car that weighs 1000lbs more than similar ICE cars is doing that much more damage to the road? And compare the damage cars, suvs, etc, would do versus box trucks, tractor-trailers, etc. There is no comparison to the damages between the two classes of vehicles. While true, an SUV will do more damage to the road than an econobox hatchback, even combined they don't equal the damage a fully loaded tractor-trailer will do.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah. Car registration pays for road maintenance. EVs are still paying for that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

But that would disproportionately hit poor people. Generally they have to live farther out, where rents are cheaper, and in much of the US public transit is a pile of shit.

Hell, even in places where it isn’t it’s still painfully inconvenient. I live in a fairly transit-friendly city, and it takes my husband 45 minutes to an hour to get to work by transit, or 10-12 minutes by car.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Busting all the out of state registrations would also net a boat load of money.

load more comments (1 replies)