Brewha
2 years ago

For someone so smart you can’t seem to be able to solve 1+1+1. You want everyone to follow your lead. Unfortunately, so do policy makers.

There are problems with that. First and foremost only a small handful of people want government dictating every aspect of our lives. Most of us say 98.2% of Americans want some freedom of choice about EVERY aspect of our life.

Abrignac wrote:



Again, the vaunted and feared government mandates are only plans for what might be done a decade or two down the road. No one gets "freedom of choice about EVERY aspect" of their life. No leaded gas for you - because it's the right thing for us all.

Besides - it is the car manufactures that are leading the change.



That includes how long we drive between stops. For me, I take breaks based on the colon corollary. I’d rather wait until I have to 💩 to stop than to stop based on some technology limiting time that is far shorter than I’m currently capable of driving with existing technology. Then an hour later have to stop again because I ate a chili cheese coney 4 hours before the first stop and that coney didn’t have the common courtesy to morph into Drano while I was recharging.

As far as not ready for prime time a path has been charted that would require a massive infrastructure upgrade that has not even entered the planning stage yet the train is barreling full speed ahead.

Here’s on example. One can file a Petro car fast enough to spend no more than 5 minutes utilizing the space by the pump. If an EV takes 20 minutes to recharge simple math dictates we to increase capacity from say 10 fueling stations to 40. Since EV’s can’t run nearly as far as a piston pounder a further increase would be required to accommodate the additional fueling these distance inferior cars will need. Minimum availability would need to be compatible with peak usage which would seem to indicate expected cold weather demand which would be quadruple or more depending on how far apart these charging stations are located. That’s based on a piston pounder getting 400 mpt regardless of temps. On the other hand the best EV gets 200 or so. But that will drop to 100 in cold weather.

The standard parking slot is 18 x 9. Let’s do the math. 400 x 9 x 18 = 64,800 sq ft

So back to the simple math let’s figure about how much space we need for charging. We know that to provide additional space for charger port for each slot. They can’t occupy the same space a car is occupying while it’s charging. The parking can be laid out in one of two ways. Either way the space requirement is the same. One way would to be to have one long row wide enough for 400 cars. Let’s assume width either way is 3 feet. So 400 x9 x 3 = 10,800 square feet. Or we could have parallel rows where 2 cars share a charging island. In that example 200 x 9 x 3 = 10,800 as well.

Finally we need to provide travel lanes. The standard is 350 sqft per slot.

More math.

400 x 350 = 140,000

So
64,800 + 10,800 + 140,000 = 216,600 or divided by 43,560 = 4.95 acres. To provide Petro fueling to provide the same combined mileage would be about 1/2 an acre.

Since we’re gonna have 40 times more at interchanges near fueling station we’ll need to upgrade the roadways. Yada, yada, yada.

Abrignac wrote:



As an engineer that works in the Logistics field designing the automation for warehouses I really appreciate your study of the situation - I really do.

The reasons I disagree with your assessment are numerous. But to keep it short:
It ignores people charging at home.
Gas station are not built for peak usage.
The number of cars on the road is not linked to the type of car - ICE vs BEV vs EV.
A meaningful projection would have to include the Pareto of usage at peak



Every single post you’ve made In this thread is based on a narcissistic view that what’s good for you is and should be good for everyone else. That’s either incredibly stupid or by design to be an azzhole. I’m betting on the latter.

Unlike others here I have no problem seeking alternatives to fossil fuels. It’s nuts to think that man has no effect on climate. Obviously that degree of effect will always be debated not on the merits but on political objectives.

For me to support any outcome that outcome would need to provide substantially the same capability as the technology it replaces. It must truly reduce harmful emissions not just at point of use but along the entire supply change. It must not be so high that it significantly increases the everyday financial burden we now experience.

At this point not only is there no alternatives but even those biggest EV stakeholders issue disclaimers stating such.

Abrignac wrote:



In this thread I have listed people who should not own and EV today. Leading that list is people that cannot charge at home. 10 years down the road things will be different.

All I'm doing is sharing my opinions and trying to debunk some of the bad info about EVs - as an owner....
Brewha
2 years ago

So I cut and paste info directly from the Lexus web site, the vehicle that you used to try to support your argument, yet you claim that they are my opinions. This is what is published on their website. It's not my opinion. Look it up (I posted the source). In case you didn't read it, likely you didn't read it, here it is again. It doesn't hurt to read stuff.
https://pressroom.lexus.com/the-next-chapter-of-electrified-the-all-new-2023-lexus-rz-450e/

Do you have sources that dispute these? Probably not and I won't hold my breath waiting for you to do so.

It's not wrong to admit that you have been misled.

BuckyB93 wrote:



Sorry Bucky - to be clear I was speaking of this:



This doesn't sound very favorable for 98.2% of people that drive cars but you want to use it to support your assessment? Using your Lexus example doesn't help your argument, it actually weakens it.

EVs are not ready for prime time for most of the population. These are facts, not opinion.

BuckyB93 wrote:



While an EV is favorable for me, I don't agree that I am 1.8% of the population.
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

So that’s what it would take to make you an EV owner?

Brewha wrote:



Only clowns like you drink that crap. Clowns and girls in their 20's. Is that you? A female clown in their 20's? Gonna show us all your tits now to make up for the emotions you pour out about the EV ownership VS fact debate? Lil Brewiw and his sorority mates? Keep your top on, Dylan. Now, if you were to say...cut off your head and mount it as a hood ornament...it still wouldn't support my needs but it would be tempting. Very tempting. I'd be more worried about the open cavity drag and the MPH loss with it but it would be...satisfying. So, get on that now.

[whip]
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

While an EV is favorable for me, I don't agree that I am 1.8% of the population.

Brewha wrote:



You're not. That number isn't for you. While it's dangerously close to your IQ, there aren't that many stupid people that line up for Covid shots so they can get their paper stamped like a passport or idiots carrying on about how great EV's are. Seriously.

You're in the Starbucks/Kardashian clown car club. You're the Fart Car ambassador! You displace facts with your emotions. So laughable.
ZRX1200
2 years ago
My booster shots made fart noises when the plunger depressed.

I was so relieved.

#blessed
Brewha
2 years ago

Only clowns like you drink that crap. Clowns and girls in their 20's. Is that you? A female clown in their 20's? Gonna show us all your tits now to make up for the emotions you pour out about the EV ownership VS fact debate? Lil Brewiw and his sorority mates? Keep your top on, Dylan. Now, if you were to say...cut off your head and mount it as a hood ornament...it still wouldn't support my needs but it would be tempting. Very tempting. I'd be more worried about the open cavity drag and the MPH loss with it but it would be...satisfying. So, get on that now.


DrMaddVibe wrote:



Was it something I said?






Looks like someone isn't getting enough fiber....
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago

Was it something I said?






Looks like someone isn't getting enough fiber....

Brewha wrote:




So, there's still a chance?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Brewha
2 years ago
From USA Today:

A possible solution to a common problem with EVs: Just rewire your brain

DENVER ‒ Aaron Schlechter loves driving his electric pickup past the lines of cars and SUVs waiting to fuel up at Costco.

With a range of about 300 miles, his Ford F-150 Lightning recharges overnight or at his office during the day. Unless he's making a long drive with his family, he never needs to fill up.

"What I tell people is that it takes a little a bit of a shift," he said of driving a fully electric vehicle. "And the greatest thing is that you basically never have to charge when you're out ‒ your gas station is essentially at your house."

An EV fan since he got a Tesla in 2016, Schlechter is among the most experienced chargers of electric vehicles nationally. He enjoys the freedom of waking up to a fully charged vehicle at his home every day, one with the range to take him almost anywhere he needs to go.

But as a growing number of Americans are driving all-electric vehicles, some drivers' brains think differently about how they fill up: They're accustomed to the gas car experience of always being close to a pump that can fill their tank.

That means two things are happening simultaneously in America: Some new EV drivers who can charge at home are rewiring their brains, changing their expectations of their vehicle as Schlechter has done. And authorities are racing to make such a shift less necessary, building up an extensive network of chargers across the nation that also serve people who can't charge at home.

Experts have specifically identified the concept of "range anxiety" as a problem for many would-be EV drivers: The perceived fear of running out of battery power. However, federal statistics show that 92.5% of all trips Americans take - aside from commercial delivery trucks - are less than 25 miles, well within the range of every EV on the market today.
The major exception is holiday travel, and this year, AAA predicts about 104 million people will drive 50 miles or more to their holiday destinations.

Schlechter, who owns an electrical contracting company, said even a short period of driving an EV teaches people to adapt. He said EV critics talk more about range anxiety than he and his friends in Denver's Tesla club ever do. Critics also cite how cold weather can sap an EV's batteries, reducing its range.

He said drivers of gas-powered cars are quick to complain about how EVs work because they don't grasp the reality of how most people drive, which is short trips with plenty of time to recharge at home.

"The hypocrisy, the ignorance, is just amazing," Schlechter said. "I've been driving all-EV for more than seven years. I have a lot of miles and a lot of experience. And I've never once gotten stranded."

Experts echo Schlechter's perspective: "EV drivers get very good at figuring out range and charging strategy to the extent it’s not a huge deal to them except when weather hits," said Skyler McKinley, a spokesman for AAA Colorado. "Interestingly enough, and perhaps problematically from a policy perspective, most people don’t trifle with the public chargers."

The Biden administration argues the charging challenge is basically a chicken-and-egg situation: Without more chargers, people won't buy EVs. But private companies building EV chargers want to make sure there's enough demand to justify the investment, which can hit $20,000 for the fastest and most advanced chargers.

Schlechter said he's learned to adapt over the past few years when driving long distances. Sometimes he picks routes that aren't the most direct but take him past a fast charger, like when his family drove from Colorado to Yellowstone National Park during the pandemic. Other times, he said, he books hotels with chargers so the car is ready by morning, like on family mountain biking trips to Moab, Utah or Colorado's Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

Still, even he admits to a bit of range anxiety, especially in rural areas: His new Lightning pickup can't yet use the Tesla chargers he's grown accustomed to stopping at.

"It's gotten a lot better and a lot easier but there's still a lot of gaps," he said. "It just takes a little bit of planning, and once you develop those habits, it becomes second nature."

Frustration is growing with EV chargers
While most EV drivers today can charge at home - because EVs have been typically more expensive and therefore limited largely to homeowners who could afford to install their own charger - newer EV drivers increasingly depend on outside networks. For those drivers who need to charge while away from home, having fast, reliable chargers conveniently located around town and across the nation is becoming a greater priority.

Reflecting that shift is the reality that as the number of people driving EVs has grown, so has dissatisfaction with charging options. While Schlechter and other early adopters understood the limitations of EVs, newer purchasers appear frustrated by public-use charging systems that are sometimes incompatible, slow or broken.

An August study by consumer-insights company J.D. Power found that overall satisfaction with relatively slow public chargers known as Level 2 dropped 16 points to 617, on a 1,000-point scale, from 2022, and the lowest since the survey began in 2021. Satisfaction with a faster kind of chargers also dropped 20 points in a year, to 654. And drivers were also increasingly frustrated with how long it took to charge their EVs.

Even more worrying, the survey said, 20% of drivers who stopped to charge simply gave up either because it would have taken too long or the charger was broken.

"The results of this year's study should be very concerning to all those involved in the transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles," Brent Gruber, the executive director of the EV practice at J.D. Power, said in announcing the results. “Although the majority of EV charging occurs at home, public charging needs to provide a much better experience across the board—not just for the users of today, but also to alleviate the concerns of skeptical future customers."

Today there's three kinds of charging systems: Level 1, Level 2 and "direct current fast charging," which is known as DCFS. Level 1, equivalent to a household outlet, can charge an EV in about 40 hours, while a Level 2 cuts that to about four hours. A DCFC charger like Tesla's can charge an EV in as little as 20 minutes. In contrast to filling up a gas tank, an EV battery charges very quickly when it's close to empty, but slower as it fills up.

Weeks after the J.D. Power survey was released, the Biden administration announced a special $100 million pool of funding to repair or replace broken chargers. And the first new chargers paid for by the Biden infrastructure law opened in Ohio earlier this month at a Pilot Travel Centers.

Earlier this year Tesla agreed to open portions of its charging network to other vehicles. Unlike gas station nozzles, which are standardized nationally, EV chargers aren't universal and sometimes require an adapter or approval from the vehicle itself. In addition to the competing standards, there's a growing concern among travel center operators and other businesses about why taxpayers and electric ratepayers are subsidizing charging stations that compete with privately installed ones.

Several legacy auto manufacturers, including Ford, have recently agreed to start making their vehicles compatible with the Tesla chargers in the coming years.

“Charging your electric vehicle should be as easy and convenient as filling up a gas tank – and this investment will make our EV charging network more reliable, full stop,” Federal Highway Administrator Shailen Bhatt said in September. “We’re building a bigger EV charging network to keep up with driver demand, and we’re also going to make sure the currently available network is working when you need a charge.”

Ongoing efforts to build a better network of EV chargers
National experts have identified the lack of comprehensive charging networks as one of the biggest obstacles to the purchase of EVs, in addition to concerns about cost. While it's hard in this country to drive more than a few miles without passing a gas station, there are still large regions, particularly in the sprawling West, where finding an EV charger requires advance planning.

President Joe Biden's signature infrastructure law aims to change that by providing $7.5 billion in tax dollars nationally to help strengthen the existing patchwork network, which today is dominated by Tesla's own-brand chargers.

Until recently, Tesla chargers could only charge Tesla vehicles, part of a vertically integrated system that made the vehicles the best-selling EVs in the United States. Most of the federal money for the new chargers is allocated to create a network along major roads and interstates, spaced 50 miles apart.

Nationally, EVs still represent only about 1% of all cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks, but the number of them on the roads is increasing rapidly, with about 2.3 million on the roads today, up from 1 million in 2020. Legacy U.S. automakers like GM, Ford and Stellantis are beginning to offer a wide variety of options, bringing their vast manufacturing scale into play to compete with Tesla and foreign manufacturers like Kia, Hyundai and Volkswagen.

In the third quarter of this year, almost 20% of new cars, SUVs and light trucks sold were EVs. Biden wants to raise that to 50% by 2030.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A possible solution to a common problem with EVs: Just rewire your brain
Abrignac
2 years ago
While we’re at it we find alternative vacation spots with the range of a single cold weather charge?

Ok Scott you’ve finally made on my azzhole list. See that’s what’s wrong people like you. You and your ilk you think I should be limited by what you deem appropriate. That’s the difference between you and me. I DGAF what you do. As long as it doesn’t intrude on my rights I don’t care. But you and like minded people want to decide what everyone else does. You want to make the rules without regard to what someone who disagrees with you wants. Rather your type would ram it down someone’s throat if they don’t comply.

This thread isn’t so much about what technology is better. It’s more about a mandate that if certain major technological advances aren’t made on a yet to be determined schedule to meet a most certainly mandated timeframe there will be major changes which many believe will limit one’s ability to pursue the very ideals set forth in the opening paragraph of the Constitution.

It’s easy to see the article you posted above is nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion piece that you used earlier to make the point that 98.2% of EV owners will charge at home. The reality is you don’t have a **** clue. You simply reached up the azz of the author of that article and posted that here.

This reminds me of the time when the topic de jour was use of deadly force by police officers and you solution was a wing shot. That was yet another example of you beating your gums about something with very serious ramifications that you knew nothing about, but were eager to weigh in on.

Though you are highly educated, you’’re way too fuggin stupid to understand something so simple.
ZRX1200
2 years ago
I think we need that list published and might I request alphabetical order I want to insure top billing.
Brewha
2 years ago

While we’re at it we find alternative vacation spots with the range of a single cold weather charge?

Ok Scott you’ve finally made on my azzhole list. See that’s what’s wrong people like you. You and your ilk you think I should be limited by what you deem appropriate. That’s the difference between you and me. I DGAF what you do. As long as it doesn’t intrude on my rights I don’t care. But you and like minded people want to decide what everyone else does. You want to make the rules without regard to what someone who disagrees with you wants. Rather your type would ram it down someone’s throat if they don’t comply.

This thread isn’t so much about what technology is better. It’s more about a mandate that if certain major technological advances aren’t made on a yet to be determined schedule to meet a most certainly mandated timeframe there will be major changes which many believe will limit one’s ability to pursue the very ideals set forth in the opening paragraph of the Constitution.

It’s easy to see the article you posted above is nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion piece that you used earlier to make the point that 98.2% of EV owners will charge at home. The reality is you don’t have a **** clue. You simply reached up the azz of the author of that article and posted that here.

This reminds me of the time when the topic de jour was use of deadly force by police officers and you solution was a wing shot. That was yet another example of you beating your gums about something with very serious ramifications that you knew nothing about, but were eager to weigh in on.

Though you are highly educated, you’’re way too fuggin stupid to understand something so simple.

Abrignac wrote:



I remember that thread about deadly force. And I credit YOU for showings me the point of view of the LEO. That their lives were at risk too and one bullet doesn't normally stop person. I looked at it differently after that, and still do.

This thread is about what the future holds for EVs and where we are now. I see that for you it is about the fear of mandates. Mandates that do not exist today, and "might" happen in some states in 2035 - assuming people vote for the politicians that would make it law - in 12 years.

I never wrote that you or anyone should buy an EV. I did not buy one to be "green". And also I DGAF what you drive.

But the fact that I would extol the virtues of the new tech, or dispel the myths makes me "one of those people". The Evil Liberal who hates Freedom, America, Choice, Apple Pie, Chevy (gas models), Fox News, God, the United States Military (yes, all branches), Dogs, White People - and Anyone Who Does Hard Work for and Honest Wage.

So - I think you're profiling.
HockeyDad
2 years ago
It’s not profiling if it’s correct.
DrafterX
2 years ago
I hate peas... ✋
Abrignac
2 years ago

I remember that thread about deadly force. And I credit YOU for showings me the point of view of the LEO. That their lives were at risk too and one bullet doesn't normally stop person. I looked at it differently after that, and still do.

This thread is about what the future holds for EVs and where we are now. I see that for you it is about the fear of mandates. Mandates that do not exist today, and "might" happen in some states in 2035 - assuming people vote for the politicians that would make it law - in 12 years.

I never wrote that you or anyone should buy an EV. I did not buy one to be "green". And also I DGAF what you drive.

But the fact that I would extol the virtues of the new tech, or dispel the myths makes me "one of those people". The Evil Liberal who hates Freedom, America, Choice, Apple Pie, Chevy (gas models), Fox News, God, the United States Military (yes, all branches), Dogs, White People - and Anyone Who Does Hard Work for and Honest Wage.

So - I think you're profiling.

Brewha wrote:



Let’s see
4/12/2023 President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday proposed historically tougher greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and trucks sold in the U.S. that it says could lead to electric vehicles accounting for as much as 67% of all new sales in less than a decade.

[Isn’t how mandates begin? Am I wrong but it seems every week his administration announces a new policy that restricts some “legacy” energy related technology]

12/30/2022
Massachusetts has adopted the California Advanced Clean Trucks requirements specified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, requiring manufacturers to meet California’s ZEV production and sales requirements. Beginning with model year 2025, manufacturers will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual sales for Class 2b through Class 8 vehicles in Massachusetts.

8/5/2022
SACRAMENTO – The California Air Resources Board today approved the trailblazing Advanced Clean Cars II rule that sets California on a path to rapidly growing the zero-emission car, pickup truck and SUV market and deliver cleaner air and massive reductions in climate-warming pollution.

The rule establishes a year-by-year roadmap so that by 2035 100% of new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The regulation realizes and codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20.

Should I continue? No mandates?

Are you really that **** stupid or just trolling?

You still don’t seem to get it. I don’t have a problem with R&D seeking alternatives. My premise has always been that EV’s aren’t yet ready for prime time. Like a **** parrot you come back with some example of what an EV can do.

Golf clap!

Then you concede that they won’t do certain things. I don’t have to prove anything. You do it every time you say an EV has this limitation or that one.

When an EV is finally able to perform substantially the same tasks, such as giving me the confidence that I can travel 250 miles from my house to New Orleans and back in a single day without needed a recharge and without having worry about the batteries dying so I can plug it in and recharge over night I might consider one. Much more convincing will be knowing that I can take off on a 600 mile one way road trip and not have to stop 2 or 3 times for a 20 minute recharge. But certainly not if I have to factory in $15,000 up front to pay for batteries since I don’t have to do that with current technology.

So yea until that happens EV’s aren’t ready for prime time because they still can’t perform anything near substantially the same tasks as a piston pounder which they are intended to replace at a comparable price.
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
Nothing wrong with their brains....[gonzo]


Morgan Stanley warns EV momentum is 'stalling' — and lists 7 reasons Tesla should be worried


Challenges Tesla dodged last year might catch up to them in 2024.

Morgan Stanley expects a conservative year-ahead outlook from Tesla when it reports earnings this week.

The EV market is facing slower growth and diminished optimism.

The year ahead for Tesla is shaping up to be a challenge.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk will face a litany of obstacles in 2024 as the global electric car market shows signs of softening, according to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas. He expects Musk to present a cautious outlook for the year ahead, even after Tesla managed to eke out an impressive year in 2023.

Tesla is scheduled to report fourth quarter and year-end earnings Wednesday evening when Musk and other leadership will face questions about their outlook for the year ahead.

In a note to clients on Monday previewing the challenges ahead, Jonas laid out seven reasons Musk should be worried heading into 2024:

1. Price cuts

Tesla kept an edge over its competitors in 2023 by driving down average EV prices with a slew of price cuts — made possible by Tesla's industry-leading profit margins. Heading into the fourth quarter of 2023, Tesla's margins still outpaced its competitors, though the gap was closing.

Jonas points to German Tesla price cuts as a warning sign for the year ahead. The reductions came days after Tesla announced production cuts in Berlin, a move that typically has a positive impact on pricing.

2. Waning EV incentives


Tesla is quickly running out of government incentive programs for potential shoppers, particularly in the US. Earlier this month, the list of vehicles eligible for up to $7,500 in tax credits dwindled to just 13 cars, of which only three are Tesla models.

Jonas and his team, who remain bullish on Tesla shares with a new price target of $345, are expecting more pullbacks like this in other countries as governments assess budgets in 2024.

3. Uncertain EV residual values

The mix of discounts and government incentives that helped Tesla keep its lead in the EV market this year is likely to have longer-term negative effects on pricing for the brand.

"Residual value volatility hurts the value proposition for consumers and creates uncertainty around leasing partners who don't want to hold the risk," Jonas wrote.

Electric cars already have some of the worst resale values in the automotive industry, though Tesla leads this pack with the Model 3's residual value.

4. EVs are losing favor among fleet buyers

Tesla was a recent high-profile victim of fleet buyers moving away from EV commitments. Car-rental company Hertz, which initially raised much fanfare over its partnership with Tesla, said earlier this month it would sell off a third of its global EV fleet and replace those vehicles with gas-powered cars.

That spells trouble for Tesla's volumes, as fleet sales are often used as a dumping ground for vehicles with more supply than demand.

5. Political risks in the 2024 Presidential election

EVs have enjoyed four years of government support and incentives under the Biden Administration, which initially bolstered the industry's commitment to battery-powered cars. However, a looming rematch between Biden and former President Donald Trump has investors worried about future support for Biden's clean energy incentives.

"Any potential rollback of EV incentives would be an impediment for the pace of EV adoption," Jonas wrote.

6. Production capacity in China

A supply and demand imbalance for electric vehicles appears poised to hit China this year after a sprint to the finish in 2023 and the expiration of some key local stimulus measures, Jonas wrote.

This imbalance is already playing out on a smaller scale in the US, with several executives pulling back on future EV ambitions recently.

7. Slowing EV exports out of China

Related to China's looming overcapacity issue, the country's government said this month it would rein in EV exports and crack down on "blind" production of electric cars.

Anecdotally, Jonas also pointed to rumblings that customers are returning to gas-powered cars and shifting away from EVs while interested EV buyers become more intrigued by used electric cars.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-should-be-worried-this-year-morgan-stanley-adam-jonas-2024-1 
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
Ford is cutting back F-150 Lightning electric truck production



Ford will shut down one of two production shifts in April at the Dearborn, Michigan, factory that builds the F-150 Lightning electric pickup. The move is part of “matching F-150 Lightning production to customer demand,” the company said Friday.

General Motors recently made a similar announcement about its Chevrolet Silverado EV, announcing it would postpone adding production facilities for the truck, which went into production last spring for corporate customers.

While sales of electric vehicles increased in 2023, the growth was slower than many industry experts had expected. Ford still projects an increase in Lightning sales this year after a 55% jump to 24,000 trucks last year. The company did not say how many F-150 Lightnings it expects to sell this year.

The 24,000 in Lightning sales is still a small fraction of overall Ford F-series pickup sales. The F-series is Ford’s best-selling product line and has been the best selling vehicle of any kind in the United States for almost 50 years. Last year, Ford sold more than 750,000 F-series truck.

The price of a Lightning starts at about $50,000 and is eligible for $7,500 in federal EV tax credits. Even with the tax credits, the price remains higher than the $34,000 base price of the gas-powered truck.

Ford has raised and lowered the price of the Lightning several times since it hit the market in 2022, starting at about $40,000 for its least expensive model, the Lightning Pro. In July, Ford slashed the price of a Lightning Pro, following earlier increases, to about $50,000.

About 1,400 workers will be cut from the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center, where the Lightning is built. About half of those employees will move to the nearby Michigan Assembly Plant, where production will increase for the gasoline-powered Ford Bronco and Ranger models.

Others workers will be shifted to different jobs within the Rouge complex, which includes a factory where gas-powered F-150 trucks are built. Some of the employees could take advantage of retirement packages agreed to as part of new United Auto Workers contracts signed in October

While Ford has said it is building factories in Tennessee and Kentucky where a next-generation EV truck will be built, the company recently announced it would scale back plans for an EV battery plant in Michigan.

“We see a bright future for electric vehicles for specific consumers, especially with our upcoming digitally advanced EVs and access to Tesla’s charging network beginning this quarter,” Ford chief executive Jim Farley said in the announcement.

Meanwhile, Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares told reporters Friday that the automaker has no plans to slow down its upcoming EV production, although the pace of adoption could change as a result of the US presidential and European parliament elections this year.

“I’ve prepared two scenarios, based on what what would be the results of those major elections in Europe and the United States. I’m ready for both scenarios. It’s an acceleration scenario and a slowdown scenario,” Tavares said. “I have no scenario where it would stop because we need to fix the global warming issue.”

Stellantis’ own electric pickup, the Ram 1500 Rev, will go on sale later this year, along with a plug-in hybrid version, the Ram 1500 Ramcharger.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/19/business/ford-trimming-ev-pickup-production/index.html 



Letting the market decide, instead of ramming down your throat and picking "winners and losers" with government assistance...what a novel concept!
DrMaddVibe
2 years ago
New Poll Reveals Staggering Number Of Americans Unlikely To Buy Electric Cars


A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports revealed that 65 percent of American adults are unlikely to consider purchasing an electric vehicle (EV) for their next car.

This sentiment is particularly strong among working and lower-middle class individuals, with over 70 percent in the $30,000 to $50,000 income bracket expressing disinterest in buying an EV.

The survey also highlighted that EVs are more appealing to wealthier individuals, as 52 percent of those earning at least $200,000 are likely to consider purchasing an EV.

Additionally, the poll’s findings coincide with reports of EVs being stranded due to the winter freeze, raising concerns about their practicality in cold weather.

https://www.stateofunion.org/2024/01/22/new-poll-reveals-staggering-number-of-americans-unlikely-to-buy-electric-cars-2/ 
HockeyDad
2 years ago
I own stock in Tesla and am sweating out this earnings report. At this point owning Tesla stock is a contrarian play.

EV sales growth absolutely requires mandates. Can’t afford a EV or don’t own a house with a charging station…ride the bus. This is concerning.
Brewha
2 years ago

Let’s see
4/12/2023 President Joe Biden's administration on Wednesday proposed historically tougher greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and trucks sold in the U.S. that it says could lead to electric vehicles accounting for as much as 67% of all new sales in less than a decade.

[Isn’t how mandates begin? Am I wrong but it seems every week his administration announces a new policy that restricts some “legacy” energy related technology]

12/30/2022
Massachusetts has adopted the California Advanced Clean Trucks requirements specified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, requiring manufacturers to meet California’s ZEV production and sales requirements. Beginning with model year 2025, manufacturers will be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual sales for Class 2b through Class 8 vehicles in Massachusetts.

8/5/2022
SACRAMENTO – The California Air Resources Board today approved the trailblazing Advanced Clean Cars II rule that sets California on a path to rapidly growing the zero-emission car, pickup truck and SUV market and deliver cleaner air and massive reductions in climate-warming pollution.

The rule establishes a year-by-year roadmap so that by 2035 100% of new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The regulation realizes and codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20.

Should I continue? No mandates?

Are you really that **** stupid or just trolling?

You still don’t seem to get it. I don’t have a problem with R&D seeking alternatives. My premise has always been that EV’s aren’t yet ready for prime time. Like a **** parrot you come back with some example of what an EV can do.

Golf clap!

Then you concede that they won’t do certain things. I don’t have to prove anything. You do it every time you say an EV has this limitation or that one.

When an EV is finally able to perform substantially the same tasks, such as giving me the confidence that I can travel 250 miles from my house to New Orleans and back in a single day without needed a recharge and without having worry about the batteries dying so I can plug it in and recharge over night I might consider one. Much more convincing will be knowing that I can take off on a 600 mile one way road trip and not have to stop 2 or 3 times for a 20 minute recharge. But certainly not if I have to factory in $15,000 up front to pay for batteries since I don’t have to do that with current technology.

So yea until that happens EV’s aren’t ready for prime time because they still can’t perform anything near substantially the same tasks as a piston pounder which they are intended to replace at a comparable price.

Abrignac wrote:



Ok, your fear of mandates is noted. Outrage noted. Your crystal ball into the political future of regulations also noted. Just curious - do any of those mandates actually apply to you? It doesn't matter does it?

But I'll go right ahead talking about the cool new tech and where it goes in the future.

I will Anthony, in the spirit of friendship, point out one thing that will make you feel better about mandates now or in the future:
They will not apply to me.
Abrignac
2 years ago

I own stock in Tesla and am sweating out this earnings report. At this point owning Tesla stock is a contrarian play.

EV sales growth absolutely requires mandates. Can’t afford a EV or don’t own a house with a charging station…ride the bus. This is concerning.

HockeyDad wrote:



Not just mandates but assistance as well. Since EV’s tend to be significantly more expensive than a comparable piston engine it’s going to be hard to convince consumers on tighter budgets to purchase them.
Users browsing this topic