In the ever-evolving automotive industry, listening to consumers has always been the cornerstone of sustainable success. Yet, in recent years, many automakers have turned a deaf ear to consumer preferences, betting big on electric vehicles (EVs) despite clear signals that the market wasn’t ready to fully embrace them. The result? A multibillion-dollar debacle, with these companies now clinging to hopes that government intervention will save them from their missteps.
The Money Quote That Says It All
A recent article in the New York Times highlights this perfectly:
“But they have already invested billions in a transition to electric vehicles, and fear that if Mr. Trump made an abrupt change as he has promised, they could be undercut by automakers who sell cheaper, gas-powered cars.”
This admission is staggering. Automakers have sunk vast sums into EV production, prioritizing a politically charged vision of the future over actual consumer demand. Now, they’re worried that a rollback of EV mandates could leave them vulnerable to competition from companies that stuck to producing affordable, gas-powered vehicles. The fear is justified because these companies chose to ignore basic market principles: satisfy your customers, or someone else will.
A Tale of Two Strategies
While some automakers threw caution to the wind and gambled on an electric future, others, like Toyota, took a more measured approach. Toyota has long been a leader in hybrid technology, balancing innovation with consumer accessibility. Instead of forcing a rapid transition to EVs, Toyota focused on building cars that people want and can afford. The result? A loyal customer base and financial stability, without reliance on government bailouts or regulations to prop up their strategy.
Contrast this with companies that rushed into EV production without adequately considering demand. They’ve saddled themselves with immense sunk costs—investments in EV production lines, supply chains, and infrastructure—that they now cannot recover. These companies are essentially betting on government policies to shape the market in their favor, a risky and unsustainable strategy.
Tesla: The Standout Exception
Amid this turmoil, Tesla stands apart as a shining example of how to succeed in the EV market without relying on government mandates or subsidies. Of course Tesla took advantage of subsidies in the past, because leaving money on the table is study, but unlike legacy automakers, Tesla has focused on making vehicles that people want to buy. Its designs, technology, and competitive performance captured consumers around the globe.
Elon Musk has been vocal about Tesla’s ability to thrive without government support, recently stating that subsidies or mandates are unnecessary for the company’s success. Tesla has achieved profitability and dominance by creating a desirable product, not by forcing consumers into a corner through regulation. This starkly contrasts with traditional automakers who seem more concerned with appeasing policymakers than satisfying their customers.
The Consumer Disconnect
Many consumers remain hesitant to adopt EVs due to high costs, range anxiety, and insufficient charging infrastructure. Instead of addressing these concerns, many automakers doubled down on EV production, banking on regulatory mandates to create an artificial demand for their products.
This approach ignores a simple truth: consumers vote with their wallets. Tesla understands this dynamic. Companies like Toyota, which continue to offer efficient and affordable options, also demonstrate the importance of aligning with consumer needs. On the other hand, those that gambled on EVs without a clear understanding of the market are now left hoping that government policies won’t expose their poor decisions.
The Role of Government
For the now EV-focused big automakers, government intervention has become a lifeline. Subsidies, tax incentives, and regulatory mandates are crucial to making EVs competitive. Without them, these companies risk being outpriced and outperformed by competitors offering cheaper, gas-powered alternatives. However, relying on government policies to dictate market dynamics is a dangerous game. Policies can change with each election cycle, leaving automakers vulnerable to sudden shifts, as the NYT article points out.
Lessons for the Future
Tesla’s success and Toyota’s steady approach highlight an important lesson: automakers must align their strategies with consumer demand, not political agendas. Innovation is essential, but it must be tempered by market realities. Companies like Tesla have shown that it’s possible to lead the charge in EV adoption by delivering products customers want. Similarly, Toyota demonstrates that slow and steady wins the race by focusing on what people want today while preparing for the future.
Meanwhile, legacy automakers stuck with massive sunk costs in EV production have exposed themselves to enormous risks. No amount of government intervention can shield them entirely from the consequences of ignoring their customers.
Ultimately, the market will decide the winners and losers. Automakers that prioritize consumer satisfaction over government market manipulation will thrive, while those that gambled on an uncertain future may find themselves scrambling to survive. Tesla’s trajectory proves that it’s possible to innovate without compromising, and the rest of the industry would be wise to take notes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ultimately, people have to decide for themselves whether they support fascism or not.
During the recent election the Dems were accusing Trump of being a nazi/fascist
which reminded me of Goebbles speech in Germany during the 1930’s about
accusing your enemy of what you yourself were actually doing.
A fascist regime may appear as moderate to many voters and once elected the damage that can be done is too great. Laws against government mandates are necessary and a lot could be added to that such as censorship, flooding the population with immigrants, … I understand these laws would be hard to implement but we are only taking rights away from government and adding freedoms for the people.
The government’s top priority is supposed to be protecting the citizens from the government (aka bureaucracy).
Our government’s only priority, and the remedy should it fail to achieve this priority, is succinctly set out in the second paragraph of the Declaration, a foundational document that precedes and is superior to all others and limits their effect to achieving the same priority.
‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.’
Do governments have rights? Or do governments have powers granted by the people?
Governments have powers. They are not much granted but achieved through brute force which often only needs to be perceived, only occasionally demonstrated, to be effective
It’s understandable that American vehicle makers want to have the Federal government mandate their production so that they can recover some kind of return on the investments they’ve already made. It’s not the right policy, but their desire is understandable.
There can be no transition in mandates or in subsidies to favored products – they simply must end ASAP. If there is some compensating short term aid the Feds can provide to ease the loss for car makers, who invested based upon what the Feds have been doing the last 4 years, that can be a reasonable response, but only on a short term limited basis. Consumers can still buy EVs if they desire, so demand won’t go away … though demand growth will likely flatten out.
Trump doesn’t have 8 years to do stuff. Congress can change control every 2 years. The voters who put Trump and the GOP in charge of Congress aren’t going to wait around for years to see tangible results. Trump and the GOP must produce immediate results this year. If they don’t we can anticipate another disastrous period of Dem control. We saw that movie already – in the results of the 2018 and 2020 elections that created the mess we’re in now.
If the People are satisfied that the GOP is doing what was promised, then they won’t turn back to the Dems again any time soon.
If there is Federal bailout for CEOs who went the wrong way down a one way street, those CEOs should have a mandatory 90% paycut with the cut moneys fed into the funding that ofsets the pain.
FYI, it is much longer than 4 years. The credible reports take it back to Obama and less credible to Clinton.
Realistically Trump has no more than 6 months to enact his changes before he loses the House. By losing the House I mean members will start working on their re-election efforts. In that 6 months the number of days they’ll actually be in session…Not enough.
Let’s remember that in 2009, the first year of President Obama’s first term, the auto industry was in crisis financially. Does anyone remember “TARP” (the Troubled Asset Relief Program)? His administration’s pressure on the auto industry to develop EV’s was part of his destructive “climate” agenda. By the end of 2009, the EPA’s Endangerment Finding on GHGs had been filed. The auto industry, especially GM, had made a very bad bargain, as I look back on it. No wonder their thinking has been clouded ever since.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41978/17
ObamaMotors: only Ford declined to sign up. And the really stupid Cash for Clunkers.
Cash for clunkers trashed the used car market for a long time. Absolute garbage.
And because of this I’ll never buy a G(overnment)M product. Obama protected the UAW and screwed all the other creditors.
While TARP did provide some funds to the automotive industry, its primary handouts were to the banking and finance sector.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program , of the approximately $430 billion of TARP fund disbursed, 68.9% went to banks and other financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 12.6% to auto companies, and 10.7% to AIG, with the remaining 7.8% to other programs.
Yes, understood.
Some date the start of the current 4th turning (Neil Howe) we are currently in to the crash of 08, and all of the governmental nonsense that followed.
Last monitored 6 years ago, I watched GM management enthusiastically communicate that EVs are the future, while many lower-level engineers (quietly, amongst themselves) shared the opposite technical opinion.
There are two important points that I think the author has missed. First, the automakers were likely told that regulations would make the ICE market go away. So while it’s fun to blame the manufacturers, I think the governments pushing EV mandates are the real culprits. What the industry is now responding to is a changing regulatory environment, and even those changes are muddled as states like California and others who have aligned themselves with CA have not changed their rules.
Second, at least some of the incentives are based on how many cars a manufacturer has produced. Are Teslas even eligible for the same incentives as others in the industry? I think this should have been addressed in the article.
This is a subset of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy, that those who master the internal politics of an organization will run it. With the early Obama era financial crash, those who were good at sucking up to the government prospered in the car companies, and took a great deal of power. Marketing and engineering went by the wayside.
There is an old cliche that when one sups with the devil, use a long spoon. Failure to keep their heads up for a change in government bit them, hard.
We saw what happened to Boeing when MBAs started running it.
There seems to be a rather standard cycle in the upper level management of many manufacturers. That cycle starts with the engineers/entrepreneurs that come up with the original product design/idea. They are usually followed by MBAs hired to take the company public and/or get it past the initial growth stage. These are then followed by the accountants, then the lawyers, and finally the specialists required to handle the Chapter 11 :<)
“I think the governments pushing EV mandates are the real culprits.”
______________________________________________________
No kidding Sherlock
That’s true that they have been strong-armed by the government (on “transitioning” to EVs and plenty of other things) but IMO it is their fault that they refused to fight back. Looking back at history it’s easy to see how big corporations have been able to influence government by financing political candidates who can make changes to laws that favor them. And if that doesn’t work, these huge companies have armies of lawyers they can deploy to file endless lawsuits. So why didn’t the “big three” take advantage of these tools and make the federal government back off? It isn’t like they didn’t have the ability to do so. They are now stuck in a situation that is partly of their own making.
Um, erm, use as a case in point all of the climate litigation against the oil companies. That has been ongoing for years and will continue to go on until the bureaucracy is put on a leash (with a choke collar).
Do you think the automotive corporations would fare better in that legal battlefield?
I am glad I was not in a position where I had to make the call.
General Motors got nicknamed Government Motors. Toadies were in charge, and would not challenge their sponsors.
I disagree. From the article
And at the end of the day people buy the products that the people want to own and Tesla has achieved producing the best product whereas the others haven’t. It’s that simple.
‘So while it’s fun to blame the manufacturers, I think the governments pushing EV mandates are the real culprits.’
Yes, the government promulgated the regulations, but the manufacturers are complicit in their failure to push back, either out of fear of reprisal or in the hope of achieving an unearned competitive advantage. It should also be noted that there are actually three parties involved; the government, the manufacturers and the consumers. The consumers did their part by rejecting an obviously inferior product, which obstensibly is what successful entrepreneurs in the so-called private sector are paid handsomely to do before committing their capital. The manufacturers failed to do this, which is why the economic onus should be on them. One other thing – I’m certain that had the manufacturers bothered to reach out to the UAW leadership re. the colossal stupidity of EV mandates, the latter’s Democrat friends would have gotten the message loud and clear.
This is pretty much a mantra here. If it were true then EVs wouldn’t have any great market share but it’s just not true.
From https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/percentage-of-electric-cars-in-us.html#:~:text=The%20electric%20vehicle%20market%20share,according%20to%20Edmunds%20sales%20data.
Subsidies
You want that to be true but won’t accept there are plenty of people out there who bought it because it was what they wanted.
That’s true Tim, but but the Tesla (and the Prius) were subsidized status/virtue symbols. Besides government subsidies, in California and probably elsewhere, single drivers could use the high capacity lanes. The problem wasn’t the subsidies (the carrot), the problem is the stick — a certain percentage of sales has to be BEV’s. This forced all of the car manufacturers to almost simultaneously jump on the EV bandwagon. Toyota decided not to play along. It’s still a risky bet as the 16-17 states that follow the California model still require BEV products — hybrids won’t meet all of the sales requirements. Even if the next administration eases up on EPA requirements and federal rebates, as long as CARB exists, the largest car markets are still going to force BEV adoption.
There’s another force I didn’t mention before and that’s big finance. The same financial organizations that were shoving DEI on corporate boards and CEO’s were also pushing a climate agenda with their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores. If you invested in 401k’s, then you were likely indirectly contributing to the problem. Companies like Blackrock wield a lot more power than people realize — on your behalf, of course.
The Tesla is phenomenal car. Have you driven one? And beyond that, full self driving is their future and pretty much reality even today in the US.
Even with the incentives, EVs are typically more expensive than ICE alternatives so cost isn’t the primary reason
Virtue signalling? Sure, maybe for some but not for those who recognise a great product, suitable for their needs and cheap to run.
Tesla is a POS.
handling of a truck thanks to the extra bloat of 3/4T. massive tyre and brake wear creating ernvironmental pollution.
No way of recycling batteries which after 5yrs cost more to replace than the value of the car.
Fire hazard, boring styling which can’t be changed or evolved, limited range, impossiblity of towing any other vehicle even a caravan!
loads of other crap downsides.
I drive a 30yr old which works perfectly and 220 000 on the clock.
Wanna see a Tesla get past 2nd owner and 60K.That will be the day, never mind when one catches fire in a transalpine tunnel or a car ferry!
Very well stated, and I’m glad someone brought up the issue re. the ‘progressive’ states that have tied their auto emissions to CA’s. I’m hoping the Trump administration and a Republican Congress have the stones to revoke CA’s (and the other states) special deal with the EPA to set more stringent vehicle emission standards.
I believe the initial carve-out was allowed in order to assist CA in dealing with then-serious smog issues, due to the large number of vehicles and CA’s smog-trapping topography. Obviously, with the implementation of effective emissions equipment many years ago, the smog problem has long since been solved, but CA continues to tighten the regulatory screws in order to effect a de-facto ban on IC vehicles.
If, for whatever reason, the regulatory issue can’t be resolved politically and/or the ‘manufacturers’ insist on inflicting CA’s effective IC vehicle ban on all US consumers, I think Trump ought to pay some highly publicized visits to India or any other country that has the capacity to export modern IC vehicles that can meet reasonable US specs. I know it’s out of character for Trump to promote imports, but if the industry, the UAW and the ‘blue wall’ politicians that depend on them can’t be reasonable, they all deserve to go the way of the horse and buggy.
Their first thought, but later… nearly half of these owners realised to have bought BS 😀
No doubt some people want electric. I might like an electric powered vehicle but not with those huge, but not highly effective, batteries.
The largest buyers so far seem to be corporations, who do go mainly for the subsidies. I did not take notes but I read about subsidies being terminated in two or three countries. Sales almost dried up completely. Subsidies were reinstated.
Many who jumped on the bandwagon have already gone back to, or indicated their intent to go back to, ICE cars.
46 Percent Of American EV Owners Want To Go Back To ICE: Study
I didn’t expect that,” McKinsey & Co. Center for Future Mobility Leader Philipp Kampshoff remarked. “I thought, ‘Once an EV buyer, always an EV buyer.’”
Any Idea why ? 😀
If you follow the link and follow the next link to its reference you’ll find the original story was amended from 46% down to 40%
And that story is pay walled. So the reason is likely to include biased reporting and a biased finding. So much of the media these days is about clicks that they’ll say anything. I’d only believe the 40% number after I’ve seen their methodology.
Looking a little deeper, globally its 29% who would go back and from this graph also by McKinsley, 38% want to get one.
Its inevitable EVs aren’t for everyone. Especially if their region doesn’t have good charging infrastructure.
But Detroit wants to keep them
And yet Ford is bellyaching about mandates in the UK telling us that the sales quotas can’t be achieved; whilst shedding 800 skilled jobs.
Once upon a time you couldn’t say afford without saying Ford. As an hat tip to that Ford should rename the company to UnafFordable to the Masses. That’s where they’re going.
So, let Detroit keep them.
They can build whatever their little peabrains can concoct and that is fine.
Just do not force the American people to buy stuff we do not want.
As an aside, the only one I remember is Fix Or Repair Daily / Found On Roadside Dead.
The car that transported me as a baby from New York to Ohio was our “Little Red Ford.” So I am not trying to untip your hat.
It makes me want to confiscate car maker assets as a punishment. Then call it a 14 days to stop the spread. If you can it a pandemic you can do whatever you want.
In Florida they put bug screens over the radiators.
Your comment made me envision COVID masks for automobiles.
The auto manufacturers don’t make the laws or the rules, but they are forced to respond to them. Frankly, this is the fault of voters who put Dems in power, and Trump and the GOP for not delivering results good enough to keep winning elections. The voters just changed their minds (again). It is now up to Trump and the GOP controlled Congress to do what they promised to do, and to deliver tangible results. They better get to it immediately – there is no time to waste.
First, we need laws discouraging unsound mandates, such as mandatory penalties paid by the people who implement them. Second, we need to lower income/SS tax on wages, offset by tariffs and taxes on copper, cobalt, aluminum, nickel, … It is important to realize that EV costs have a much smaller labor component and a much larger raw material component. Labor is the only infinitely sustainable item God created, and labor is something that should not sit idle.
“Detroit” wants to keep Federal rules encouraging the sales of EVs???
Who are you/they trying to kid? It is really Trump’s biggest fan boi Elon Musk who wants/needs to keep selling EVs with the advantage of the Federal EV purchase tax credits.
WUWT has featured numerous recent articles about how the major ICE automakers are losing their shirts over trying to sell EVs even with the purchase tax credits available in the US . . . some examples:
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/10/29/ford-lost-another-1-2-billion-in-3q-on-evs/
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/08/post-ridiculous-evs/
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/28/the-ev-market-hits-the-brakes-as-sales-hit-a-speed-bump/
— https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/23/is-consumer-rejection-of-evs-behind-the-lithium-crash/
If this article’s title was intended to be sarcasm, it forget to include the “/sarc” tag line at its end.
BTW, Tesla Motors Inc is headquartered in Austin, Texas, NOT in Detroit, Michigan, and it has its largest production facility in Fremont, California, NOT Detroit, Michigan.
An “also ran” in the production of EVs, Rivian Automotive, whose existence is also highly dependent on continuing Federal EV purchase tax credits is headquartered in Irvine, California, with its main manufacturing plant in Normal, Illinois, again neither in Detroit, Michigan. FWIW, following its peak in 2023 Q3, unit sales of Rivian vehicles declined by 36% by 2024 Q3.
I find it odd that you seem not to understand the use of “Detroit” as an umbrella term but use the phrase “losing their shirts” when you mean something other than clothing. What does Ford’s shirt look like? Is it blue? GM’s shirt, what color?
And I find it odd that you don’t understand the difference between “an umbrella term” and a “colloquial expression” . . . but there ya go.
Wrong in so many ways. I have not the time or desire to correct you.
Strange, then, that you found the time (and motivation) to make a reply post to me.
It’s so easy to assert someone else is wrong . . . far more difficult, of course, to offer objective evidence of such.
But thanks anyway.
Tesla has made more cars than the subsidy scheme allows for, and is no longer eligible.
Not so.
The so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022 extended and expanded purchase tax credits for all new and used EVs, included all Tesla vehicles. Unless repealed, the Act is in effect up to CY2032. The Act eliminated the per-manufacturer limit on EV tax credits, effective as of January 1, 2023.
Per the Car & Driver article of June 17, 2024 (https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g43675128/cars-eligible-for-ev-tax-credit/ ), the following new Tesla EVs are eligible for up-to-$7,500 tax credits:
— 2024 Tesla Model 3 Performance, Long Range
— 2024 Tesla Model Y
— 2024 Tesla Model X
Separately, according to CarsDirect (https://www.carsdirect.com/deals-articles/2024-tesla-cybertruck-qualifies-for-7-500-tax-credit ) a new 2024 Tesla Cybertruck also qualifies for the up-to-$7,500 federal tax credit.
Yes, yes . . . I know . . . the truth hurts some.
Tom:
What about selling indulgences [oops, sorry, carbon credits] to other car manufacturers?
Is Tesla still doing that?
Story tip – Oh, that pesky carbon dioxide! – American Thinker
A congressional hearing involving Akio Toyoda and other automaker CEOs took place on September 13, 2023. Rashida Tlaib asked “Do you support a transition to electric vehicles?” Akio Toyoda responded, “That would be hell for America.” I am glad to see Toyota focused on cars people need and can afford. I’ve been thinking about rewarding them with my next purchase.
It may be true that Tesla can survive without a federal tax credit. But Musk is a BS artist. Tesla with tax credits currently has a profit margin of only 8.6%, which is very low for a stock that sells for 93x earnings.
Toyota is thriving mainly because of PHEVs rather than the limited market for BEVs that Tesla aims for. 2024: Toyota is expected to remain the number one retail brand in the US. In the first half of 2024, Toyota sold over 454,000 electrified vehicles, which was 38.3% of total sales. Toyota also has the most electrified vehicle options available at dealerships, with 29 options
A chart of US new vehicle sales strongly suggests the industry is NOT giving potential customers what they want to buy: The US population is increasing but auto sales are not:
A huge part of Tesla’s value is its future advantages in providing transportation as a service. By having its autonomous software rely on optical sensors vs all competitors relying on expensive lidar, as the robotaxi market explodes in a few years, Tesla’s robotaxi’s will cost half to manufacture as its competitors.
Musk noticed the flatlining sales in the consumer market and moved all real development to the future of transportation as a service:
Advanced development of AI, FSD, and Wireless charging stations.
Transportation as a service will probably pay for Mars colonization.
Sounds like an awfully big gamble, with some very big ifs.
Robotaxies?
Colonization of Mars?
You forgot these other fantasies:
Net Zero
Green Hydrogen
Fusio Power
Perpetual Motion Machine
The surface of Mars can range from -225°F (-153°C) to 70°F (20°C), with a median temperature of -85°F (-65°C). The temperature on Mars varies because of its thin atmosphere, which allows heat from the sun to escape easily. In addition to temperature, other challenges for living on Mars include high levels of radiation, less gravity than Earth, and dust storms
Musk sometimes sounds like a crackpot.
Are you implying Musk had a fantasy of
Because the irony. It burns.
There were so many crackpots in the past, Wegener, Einstein, Galilei, Bruno, Tesla himself..t.b.c.
Note how cold Mars is “on average.” Despite an atmosphere that consists MORE THAN 95% (95.32%) of that dreaded “greenhouse gas,” CO2.
So where is CO2’s supposed “heat trapping” power on Mars which has, as a proportion, almost as much CO2 as Venus (96.5%)? And compare that with Earth’s paltry 0.04% that will supposedly cause “global warming” of the Earth’s climate vs. 0.03%.
You touched on it when you mentioned the “thin” atmosphere of Mars. The issue is atmospheric DENSITY. Which leads to the telling analysis that shows all you need to differentiate the temperature of Venus vs. Earth at the same atmospheric DENSITY…is the distance from the Sun. 96.5% CO2 vs. 0.04% CO2 makes no difference.
https://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html?m=1
Started out with an insult and I quit reading because of it.
I did quickly scan, to my own amusement, the graph.
Elon Musk first mentioned the idea of a $25,000 electric vehicle (EV) in 2018 during an interview with YouTuber Marques Brownlee. He later reiterated the promise at Tesla’s “Battery Day” event in 2020, saying that the company could produce millions of these vehicles per year.
Musk is a $25,000 BEV BS artist
The lowest price Tesla is now $39,000
$25,000 last promised in 2020 is $30,500 in 2024
In October 2022, Elon Musk predicted that Tesla would produce 50,000 of its Semi trucks in 2024.
Tesla has delivered fewer than 200 Semi trucks since the prototype was unveiled in 2017. The company’s production and supply chain issues have led to delays, and Tesla’s goal of producing 50,000 Semis in 2024 is unlikely to be met.
Musk is a BS artist
Musk has accomplished mountains.
RG has accomplish absolutely nothing.. ever…….. zero, nada.. zip !
BeNasty, head of the WUWT Peanut Gallery, and WUWT court jester, fires off another burst of verbal flatulence.
Poor RG, you just can’t face the facts , can you. 🙂
You poor little non-entity. !
Your petty bluster is quite hilarious, though. 😀
Hmmm…. That chart. Is there a correlation with the “Ozone Hole?” or perhaps the “Atlantic bloing phenomenon?” How does it correlate to MLO CO2 records or El Nino?
Maybe there is a connection with the election statistics year by year.
I believe Charles Rotter is correct on why Tesla is valued in the market. IIRC Tesla does benefit from credits other companies need to sell their products, even if they don’t directly benefit on cars they sell. Plus I believe their customers can qualify for credits.
As to Musk being a BS artist, I disagree strongly. He does what he says he’s going to do. And he pushes the technology beyond what others can even envision. Can you even imagine what any typical engineering company would have told you about designing a rocket and landing arrangement for a 10 story building?
Absolutely. Musk’s Spacex went from hopping a rocket from pad to pad to catching a 20 story building in the arms of a big machine, in the span of 5 years. Pretty freaking amazing.
I wouldn’t want to be a US government worker right now. I suspect Musk’s goal will be to reduce the size of bureaucracy by half over the next 4 years. And it’s probably what’s needed to get the US economy back on track.
I provided several examples of Musk BS about Tesla. The Mars colonization is BS of epic proportions. A BS artist does not mean everything said is BS. It helps to have some accomplishments to make the BS believable. Trump is the biggest BS artist in America.
He exaggerates his accomplishments and when presenting data he is usually wrong or at least incomplete.
Trump1.0 in 2016 promised 4% ecoomic growth
Growth was actually 1.6%
Yet Trump today claims to have had the best economy ever. Even excluding 2020, the first three years were merely average. Trump is a real BS artist.
Trump claims “his” Covid shot saved 100 million lives globally. That false data free claim meets my definition of insanity
You think future predictions that aren’t very close in cost or timing mean it was BS.
Maybe the problem is your BS expectations?
If there is anyone that knows first hand, from your own comments, about BS..
It is you, dickie !
RGs horizon overview is often very limited…
You don’t become the world’s richest man on BS, you have to actually deliver.
Why?
What’s the economic case? What’s the business case?
It all feels very “dot-commey” to me.
The rockets are reused many times. It not rocket science. Oh wait.
Why is that an economic case?
Its blindingly obvious why its economical to reuse the rocket. Why, in your mind, is that not obvious?
It is far from blindingly obvious, and even if it was, that’s not an economic case.
Even if the rocket is reusable, it’s going to have a finite life, probably only a handful of launches, so if it costs 20x a traditional platform, for 10 uses, that’s not “economical”.
The bigger question is “what’s the demand”? Is there really a demand for that number of space missions, and will that demand ever repay the development costs?
Basic economic questions, that appear to have passed you by.
There is huge demand for putting up satellites. There are more than 10k of them up there.
What is a “traditional platform”? And why is it 20x the cost?
Reduced cost of putting things in orbit, or further out. But you knew that.
Is it?
If so, is the economic argument sufficient?
I have my doubts.
money to purchase seems harder to come by for more and more people.
According to recent data, the average price of a new light vehicle in the US is around $48,000, with sources like Kelley Blue Book reporting an average transaction price (ATP) slightly lower at around $48,397.
A cheap Toyota Corolla: The 2025 Toyota Corolla has a starting MSRP of $22,175 for the LE model. Plus sales tax and delivery fee.
This chart explains the price increases”
Ford putting their price on the F-150 up to cover some of their huge losses on EV. !
But Musk is a BS artist.
So X.com (the original online bank) was BS, PayPal is BS, SpaceX is BS, bringing the astronauts back from ISS is BS.
Thanks for the information.
I don’t fully agree, I think the concerns are slightly different.
high costs: yes true, if you can’t buy it, you can’t buy it. Also why you need luxury car if you drive 50 km each week?
range anxiety. this is a feeling, most don’t travel more than 100 km a day. Toyota explained it well, you carry 400 kg of batteries for no reason.
insufficient charging infrastructure: not lack, more I can’t charge at home. This is a major drawback. People don’t want to spend hours waiting, period.
In Belgium company cars are mandated to be EV. That’s one way to do it. But even if mandated it will not drive sales as ICE. People will drive older cars, more used cars. You need a car and when you can’t afford EV, you can’t afford. Same with mandating heatpumps and other stuff, if you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it, even with a gun pointed at your head.
Range anxiety is real every time you take a trip. If you do nothing but local errands AND you can charge conveniently ‘at home’ you can use an EV for that, but why spend MORE for a vehicle whose practical use cases are so narrow?
About half who bought an EV are planning to go back to ICE cars. I imagine the rest have both EVs and ICE vehicles and can use each for the use cases that fit (any for ICE and EV for local errands etc.). Most don’t have the luxury of “specialized” vehicles for different uses.
The only true democracy is the free market. People vote with their wallets. This point of view has been around since at least the early 1980s when I first learned it and probably goes back to some of first industrialists in the beginnings of the 20th century.
He how ignores, forgets, or tries to erase the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them.
Tesla’s cars all look kind of similar S3XY (SEXY as Musk intended but Jaguar already had the E Type) fairly aerodynamic. But the Cyber Truck looks terrible. The new proposed RoboTaxi looks good though but I don’t know about passenger capacity with only 2 doors and that sloped rear end.
Tesla needs to do what Simone Giertz did with respect to recreating a truck…
Drats
U.S automakers are in a lose/lose situation. They lose a return on their investment if BEV’s are mandated which will limit personal transportation to the top 25% income earners, unless the vehicles are grossly subsidized which damages the other 75% of the population with higher taxes and or increased inflation. Between the destruction to our economy from wind, solar and batteries, not even the Donald can undo the damage in 4 years. Four years of Trump and 8 years of Vance, if the Republicans maintain both the Senate and House for 12 years, then maybe. Fat chance of that, get used to permanent inflation. We are screwed. Sorry about that.
Keep the governments out of it. Let car buyers be the decision makers! And NO subsidies.
Please force us to buy these vehicles nobody wants.
You just can’t make this up.
Government trying to control the free market system always ends poorly (i.e. socialism).
People here apparently forget the “subsidy” the government gave automakers for their ICE vehicles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States
You’re all still paying for that one too.
NorthVolt potential bankruptcy and the entanglement of the Canadian Pension plans in subsidized EV battery plants might make a great story. Especially the big names that have been promoting this. Much of it without public disclosure.
Chatgpt rated the investment risky due competition, rate of change, and Canada’s glacial regulatory process. Just the sort of investment Pension Plans are supposed to run away from.
I have no confidence in big government and I have no confidence in big corporations.
Nevertheless
It begins: Mercedes eActros 600 electric semi truck enters production
With up to 500 km (310 miles) of all-electric range, the new Mercedes eActros 600 electric semi truck was designed for long-haul trucking – and now, it’s officially in production at the company’s Wörth plant in Bavaria.
So, two very long recharge stops from Sydney to Melbourne.
With the amount of freight traffic on that route, gunna need some HUGE recharge stations !
And a new coal or gas power station part way.
——
“and the eEconic seeing duty in waste disposal and airport refueling. “
Lithium batteries and AvGas.. what could possibly go wrong !! 😉
Tarcutta could become very busy
According to the article, it has a 600 kWh battery bank. 1 litre of diesel apparently produces about 3 kWh in an engine, so the batteries are roughly equivalent to 200l of diesel.
Apparently 60-odd tonne B-doubles use around 2 km/l (50l / 100km) Brisbane-Sydney, which is flatter than Melbourne-Sydney (either direction)
At that rate, It wouldn’t quite make it to Tarcutta travelling in either direction (approx 450 km), so stops at Yass (300 km) and Wodonga (another 300 km).
It’s probably achievable, but the driving time rules might need to be relaxed a little to allow for recharging. It’s currently a maximum 5 hours per stretch, and 12 hours in any 24 hour period. Fuelling counts as driving time.
pretty sure it was the Governments mistake with their EV mandates … the automakers would happily have sold a handful each year to virtue signal …
And when the automakers themselves gave too much credence to the propaganda thrown at them by bureaucrats, politicians, academics and environmentalists about how EVs could help avert the mythological climate crisis, they let themselves in for the types of losses they’re experiencing.
It takes about four years from planning to full speed mass production of a new vehicle by an auto manufacturer. 2025 model spending is already sunk.
There are federal CAFE standards GM and Ford will not meet for 2025 models, and they will pay fines. Just like they did for 2024 models.
The federal EV credits and mandates could be ended by Trump.
But as of August 2024, 17 states and the District of Columbia have adopted some or all of California’s auto emissions standards:
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
These states are often called “CARB states” because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) defines the regulations. CARB is California’s lead agency for reducing air and climate pollutants
GM and Ford can’t afford to ignore those 17 states. States that follow California’s standards are expected to account for more than 40% of new-vehicle sales in the U.S.
In California, the fines for not meeting auto standards vary depending on the type of violation and the entity responsible:
New motor vehicle manufacturers
Manufacturers who sell new vehicles that don’t meet emission standards can face a civil penalty of up to $37,500 per vehicle.
Truck and bus owners
Owners of trucks and buses that don’t meet air emission standards can face a minimum penalty of $300 per violation. Roadside tests can be conducted at any time and anywhere in California.
Businesses that hire non-compliant trucks
Businesses that hire or dispatch trucks that don’t meet emission requirements can face fines of up to $10,000 per year for each non-compliant carrier
It’s California!
They are insane!