[DB_Cooper]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

We can walk and chew gum at the same time…

The shift to EVs, including US sourcing rules in the latest tax incentives, are aimed at blunting our dependency on Chinese manufacturing. The US still has a sizable automotive manufacturing sector.

If we ignore the EV shift, as I said earlier, then we'll lose that sector to China. Guaranteed. As China is the largest auto market now both in size and growth. Car manufacturers no longer focus on the US. That's business 101.

See above.

The "we have more important issues" logical fallacy.

What about the environmental and societal damage inflicted on impoverished nations as we exploit their mineral wealth for our first world benefit?

Is there any moral culpability or accountability or does that go by the wayside bc we have to keep up with China while ignoring the major domestic problems mentioned in my previous post and touched on by @10"?

And I disagree, we don't historically walk and chew gum at the same time. If in fact we were walking and chewing gum, there would be a more nuanced use of EVs as mentioned in the video with EVs being one of the potential transportation options. R&D into Hydrogen or synthetic gasoline would create new jobs without exploiting poor countries and the environment, remove our dependence on oil, and work with existing gas infrastructure.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

No it isn’t the same.

Pessimism is what prevents you from taking action — action that leads to improvements.

People overly concerned about the drawbacks of EVs based on the state of things today are focused on not moving things forward out of fear that the problems are so large as to be unsolvable. We know very well from our technological history that large problems can be solved and the current reality isn’t guaranteed to be the same reality tomorrow.

The government putting laws in place to force business to move forward and start solving problems is a step on the optimistic path. If the goals prove to actually be too high they can be adjusted down or removed altogether. In the meantime, business and industry has motivation to solve the problems.

We should seriously be pushing for the path of optimism for all the reasons I noted earlier. Us burying our collective heads in the sand and pretending the world isn’t moving away from ICE is only going to hurt us in the long run.

Another analogy I can give you that is very similar to the shift to EVs here. TVs. The LCD was invented before the CRT in the 1800s. But was too technically challenging and expensive to manufacture so CRTs dominated TVs for over 60 years. When LCD TVs first came to market people detested them as a bad deal that wouldn’t take off. They draw less colors than CRTs, have backlights that wear out, don’t downscale well, are expensive, etc etc etc. Now you never see CRTs around unless you’re watching vintage content on Netflix… The first cars were EVs and cars look to be following a similar path to TVs… Where the better tech does win in the end. Just took a long time for that to happen.

EVs have challenges that are actively needing to be sorted out, but pretending ICE has a future is Luddite thinking.

So everyone that was pessimistic about LCD's in the late 1800's were vindicated because they were right for multiple generations, right? Other supporting technology wasn't available to make them truly viable.

The first cars were EV's. Other supporting technology wasn't available to make them truly viable.

We are now having the same discussion about switching to exclusive EV's, Counting on yet-to-be-invented technology. Yet there is optimism despite other supporting technology that is not available to make them truly viable. Counting on yet-to-be-invented technology is historically foolish.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by DB_Cooper

What about the environmental and societal damage inflicted on impoverished nations as we exploit their mineral wealth for our first world benefit?

Is there any moral culpability or accountability or does that go by the wayside bc we have to keep up with China while ignoring the major domestic problems mentioned in my previous post and touched on by @10"?

And I disagree, we don't historically walk and chew gum at the same time. If in fact we were walking and chewing gum, there would be a more nuanced use of EVs as mentioned in the video with EVs being one of the potential transportation options. R&D into Hydrogen or synthetic gasoline would create new jobs without exploiting poor countries and the environment, remove our dependence on oil, and work with existing gas infrastructure.

It's like if we listed all big and real problems in the world in order of importance/urgency/life&death... in the top 10 we might see the environment at #8.

Now imagine disrupting the social structures and financial realities by straining our power infrastructure, limiting access to resources, and creating dependency for those that can't "evolve" to this new world order, all for the purpose of solving #8 on the list.

There is competition for our actions and resources, and we are diverting them to a lower priority. We we are doing this based on hopes and dreams. It seems there are better things to sacrifice society for. And the strange thing is, this sacrifice is addressing just one small piece of #8.

There have been numerous people in these discussion here that are pro :do-it-now that have admitted and acknowledged there will be a cost to this decision to do-it-now, and they are fine with it. Do they not care about 1-7 on that list? It's about priorities.

I think we all know this is inevitable, but some of us feel we have better priorities, and forcing progress based on hopes and dreams is illogical. If progress is inevitable, and forcing it objectively costs more, all while we have other real problems to solve is just irrational, and even borders on immoral.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by DB_Cooper

What about the environmental and societal damage inflicted on impoverished nations as we exploit their mineral wealth for our first world benefit?

Is there any moral culpability or accountability or does that go by the wayside bc we have to keep up with China while ignoring the major domestic problems mentioned in my previous post and touched on by @10"?

And I disagree, we don't historically walk and chew gum at the same time. If in fact we were walking and chewing gum, there would be a more nuanced use of EVs as mentioned in the video with EVs being one of the potential transportation options. R&D into Hydrogen or synthetic gasoline would create new jobs without exploiting poor countries and the environment, remove our dependence on oil, and work with existing gas infrastructure.

Interesting how we're supposed to become morally concerned when it comes to EVs, but not when it comes to silicone or other raw materials we're exploiting from developing countries. But we're not really willing to give up computer chips. Obviously, we should eliminate exploitation.

We're already trying to source Lithium from countries like Canada. There are also attempts to commercialize recycling. Those efforts need to continue.

Originally Posted by chad86tsi

So everyone that was pessimistic about LCD's in the late 1800's were vindicated because they were right for multiple generations, right? Other supporting technology wasn't available to make them truly viable.

The first cars were EV's. Other supporting technology wasn't available to make them truly viable.

We are now having the same discussion about switching to exclusive EV's, Counting on yet-to-be-invented technology. Yet there is optimism despite other supporting technology that is not available to make them truly viable. Counting on yet-to-be-invented technology is historically foolish.

That's all technical change though...

When Windows Mobile smartphones were all the rage in 2005 among the geeky crowd there were a long list of technical challenges that made people certain that it wouldn't be mainstream anytime soon. Battery life was poor, CPU performance was poor, the complexity of full operating systems reduced stability, applications were far weaker than their desktop counterparts, and data was expensive. I could go on for a long time explaining why smartphones didn't look like a viable thing to replace cell phones. When Apple launched the iPhone MS famously laughed at them as the technical hurdles seemed too high for it to be successful. Fast forward to today and smartphones are more powerful than Desktop computers and the majority of the world has a computer in their hand now and far fewer have Desktop/Laptops. And Microsoft no longer makes smartphones and Apple is the market leader.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

That's all technical change though...

When Windows Mobile smartphones were all the rage in 2005 among the geeky crowd there were a long list of technical challenges that made people certain that it wouldn't be mainstream anytime soon. Battery life was poor, CPU performance was poor, the complexity of full operating systems reduced stability, applications were far weaker than their desktop counterparts, and data was expensive. I could go on for a long time explaining why smartphones didn't look like a viable thing to replace cell phones. When Apple launched the iPhone MS famously laughed at them as the technical hurdles seemed too high for it to be successful. Fast forward to today and smartphones are more powerful than Desktop computers and the majority of the world has a computer in their hand now and far fewer have Desktop/Laptops. And Microsoft no longer makes smartphones and Apple is the market leader.

Why force the process when doing so causes massive cost and sacrifice? We didn't force those technologies.

Getting the government involved in forcing the process is designing failure into the solution.

[chassis]

Re: comments above about technical challenges.

Who in this thread is objecting to EVs because of technical challenges?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by chassis

EV backing is from car companies, not governments.

EVs = higher profit per vehicle for car companies. The auto industry is investing tens of billions, today, to transition to majority EV production.

Debate over saving the earth, tax dollars or charging infrastructure are distractions. Watch where the auto industry is putting its capital investment.

Nah. 1990 CARB legislation for low emission vehicles led GM to develop the EV1. Carb LEV led to create a startup called Tesla (before Elon took it over). LEV-2 moved Honda to create the hydrogen-powered Clarity. Energy legislation in 2005 created the first round of plug-in hybrid and EV tax credits. The EPA allowed California to be able to enact its own emission standards and allows any other state to piggyback off of Cali. All EV development has basically gestated in and evolved out of California. Anything to do with EV and plug-in hybrid by the Automakers has been in reaction to Government legislation here in the USA and worldwide. With Governments worldwide enacting legislation to ban internal combustion within the next 15 years or less, auto makers have no choice to jump on the ban-wagon. Electric cars are not more profitable to make than ICE; if they were, ALL EV would have pricing the same OR lower than current ICE. The EV battery will remain cost prohibitive to produce EV on the price-level of ICE and gasoline/diesel will remain cost competitive with EV and be more convenient from range and recharging aspects. Switching to the mystical magical solid-state battery will not improve the production cost curve nor the recharge time anywhere in the next 2 decades.

The modern EV was explicitly created in the belief they would reduce GHG and help solve the theoretical climate crisis. The evidence is in the legislation enacted by California, the US Congress, and the EU.

Your statement is disingenuous. Sorry.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

Interesting how we're supposed to become morally concerned when it comes to EVs, but not when it comes to silicone or other raw materials we're exploiting from developing countries. But we're not really willing to give up computer chips. Obviously, we should eliminate exploitation.

We're already trying to source Lithium from countries like Canada. There are also attempts to commercialize recycling. Those efforts need to continue.



That's all technical change though...

When Windows Mobile smartphones were all the rage in 2005 among the geeky crowd there were a long list of technical challenges that made people certain that it wouldn't be mainstream anytime soon. Battery life was poor, CPU performance was poor, the complexity of full operating systems reduced stability, applications were far weaker than their desktop counterparts, and data was expensive. I could go on for a long time explaining why smartphones didn't look like a viable thing to replace cell phones. When Apple launched the iPhone MS famously laughed at them as the technical hurdles seemed too high for it to be successful. Fast forward to today and smartphones are more powerful than Desktop computers and the majority of the world has a computer in their hand now and far fewer have Desktop/Laptops. And Microsoft no longer makes smartphones and Apple is the market leader.

Okay, yup, smart phones and EVs use batteries and software. That's where the similarity ends. The technology curve is not the same. EV are competing against a 100+ year old technology that the implementation cost curve has long been flattened and is extremely convenient and low cost for the consumer. The Smartphone market was not forced by Governmental action/legislation (well maybe one could argue it was an indirect result of the breakup of Ma Bell); it grew completely from the innovation of the capitalist free market system. Smartphones were a new market technology competing against landline stationary telephones, which is a completely different situation than EV vs. ICE.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

No it isn’t the same.

Pessimism is what prevents you from taking action — action that leads to improvements.

People overly concerned about the drawbacks of EVs based on the state of things today are focused on not moving things forward out of fear that the problems are so large as to be unsolvable. We know very well from our technological history that large problems can be solved and the current reality isn’t guaranteed to be the same reality tomorrow.

The government putting laws in place to force business to move forward and start solving problems is a step on the optimistic path. If the goals prove to actually be too high they can be adjusted down or removed altogether. In the meantime, business and industry has motivation to solve the problems.

We should seriously be pushing for the path of optimism for all the reasons I noted earlier. Us burying our collective heads in the sand and pretending the world isn’t moving away from ICE is only going to hurt us in the long run.

Another analogy I can give you that is very similar to the shift to EVs here. TVs. The LCD was invented before the CRT in the 1800s. But was too technically challenging and expensive to manufacture so CRTs dominated TVs for over 60 years. When LCD TVs first came to market people detested them as a bad deal that wouldn’t take off. They draw less colors than CRTs, have backlights that wear out, don’t downscale well, are expensive, etc etc etc. Now you never see CRTs around unless you’re watching vintage content on Netflix… The first cars were EVs and cars look to be following a similar path to TVs… Where the better tech does win in the end. Just took a long time for that to happen.

EVs have challenges that are actively needing to be sorted out, but pretending ICE has a future is Luddite thinking.

Dude, the liquid crystal display was invented in the 1960s and put to commercial use in the 1970s. Liquid crystals as a state of matter were discovered in the late 1880s. Try to be accurate at least.

It's like saying the iron engine block was invented in 2500 BC.

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, yup, smart phones and EVs use batteries and software. That's where the similarity ends. The technology curve is not the same. EV are competing against a 100+ year old technology that the implementation cost curve has long been flattened and is extremely convenient and low cost for the consumer. The Smartphone market was not forced by Governmental action/legislation (well maybe one could argue it was an indirect result of the breakup of Ma Bell); it grew completely from the innovation of the capitalist free market system. Smartphones were a new market technology competing against landline stationary telephones, which is a completely different situation than EV vs. ICE.

The similarities are closer than you think.

The car industry is quickly moving to a software focus, irrespective of power plant, much like the cell phone industry shift from flip phones to smartphones today... It is why smartphone companies are all starting to make cars...

https://www.foxconn.com/en-us/produc...hicle-platform

Even without government incentives we'd be moving toward an EV future. Except that future would be owned by China as they'd be making the large scale capital investments as for China, as it should be for us, it is about energy independence. Risking us losing yet another major sector of our economy to them.

Lastly, even if ICE was not being phased out we'd need to get more fuel efficiency out of ICE engines. Efficiency numbers that have looked to have peaked for what we can realistically improve out of the technology. In a world where oil is running out... We only have 60 years of oil currently known to exist based on current consumption patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_oil_reserves

Scarcity increases pricing and you see it as gas is much more expensive than it was when I was a kid in the 90s...

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Dude, the liquid crystal display was invented in the 1960s and put to commercial use in the 1970s. Liquid crystals as a state of matter were discovered in the late 1880s. Try to be accurate at least.

It's like saying the engine block was invented in 2500 BC.

https://display.phoenixdisplay.com/b...e-future-holds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid...lay#Background

[DB_Cooper]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

Interesting how we're supposed to become morally concerned when it comes to EVs, but not when it comes to silicone or other raw materials we're exploiting from developing countries. But we're not really willing to give up computer chips. Obviously, we should eliminate exploitation.

We're already trying to source Lithium from countries like Canada. There are also attempts to commercialize recycling. Those efforts need to continue.

That's all technical change though...

When Windows Mobile smartphones were all the rage in 2005 among the geeky crowd there were a long list of technical challenges that made people certain that it wouldn't be mainstream anytime soon. Battery life was poor, CPU performance was poor, the complexity of full operating systems reduced stability, applications were far weaker than their desktop counterparts, and data was expensive. I could go on for a long time explaining why smartphones didn't look like a viable thing to replace cell phones. When Apple launched the iPhone MS famously laughed at them as the technical hurdles seemed too high for it to be successful. Fast forward to today and smartphones are more powerful than Desktop computers and the majority of the world has a computer in their hand now and far fewer have Desktop/Laptops. And Microsoft no longer makes smartphones and Apple is the market leader.

Of course you should have a moral concern. What kind of response is that lol.

If you find there is a problem with the manufacturing practices of a company you can opt not to buy it, buy second hand, opt for a different manufacturer.

[tturedraider]

This is how the largest (or second largest) auto manufacturer in the world sees the push to go all in on EV production:

“EV regulations and materials

Toyoda reiterated that he does not believe all-electric vehicles will be adopted as quickly as policy regulators and competitors think, due to a variety of reasons. He cited lack of infrastructure, pricing and how customers’ choices vary region to region as examples of possible roadblocks.

He believes it will be “difficult” to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt.

“Just like the fully autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe,” Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. “In the meantime, you have many options for customers.”

Toyoda also believes there will be “tremendous shortages” of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems.”

Full article - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/02/toyo...box=1665087354

[TheMaxXHD]

EVs are new territory. A new type of car if you will. For the past few decades, cars have been all about refinement. Evolution rather than revolution. Making them safer, faster, more technologically advanced, sleeker, but without changing the fundamental design. A gas car, is a gas car.

Now, we are in new territory. EVs are the car reinvented. That is good, because ultimately gas is not renewable, and dirty, and, in theory, simpler. However, just like with the original car, there was new innovations, and quirks, and issues, that need to be resolved, or discovered.

Gas vehicles also have had issues of their own in the past. Everyone forgets decades of use of Tetraethyllead from invention in the 20s to the 70s when it was begun to be phased out, as the prime gasoline anti-knocking additive used literally everywhere. The problem, as it turns out, it was dangerous, lead, duh. Only took like 4-5 decades to decide that was a dumb idea.

Batteries need to advance and will continue to do so, faster charging, longer range, completely new types of batteries. Brings about an era of renewed thinking of what a car is and can do, and how we see a car, what we use it for, how we drive. But there will be pain points. The dirty aspect via mining. The amount of mining resources that are ironically also not unlimited.

This whole discussion is worthless if you do not consider the long road from invention of gas powered cars to widespread adoption, and pains that came with it. At least this time we have the car adoption part, and we know what a car is supposed to do. Eventually EVs will get there, in the current form or some other form. I personally think we are on the cusp of a lot of great things in the car world. I do think it is still early days, both for EVs themselves, and for the infrastructure to support them, but eventually, the gas car will be phased out.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by LogicalApex

The similarities are closer than you think.

The car industry is quickly moving to a software focus, irrespective of power plant, much like the cell phone industry shift from flip phones to smartphones today... It is why smartphone companies are all starting to make cars...

https://www.foxconn.com/en-us/produc...hicle-platform

Even without government incentives we'd be moving toward an EV future. Except that future would be owned by China as they'd be making the large scale capital investments as for China, as it should be for us, it is about energy independence. Risking us losing yet another major sector of our economy to them.

Lastly, even if ICE was not being phased out we'd need to get more fuel efficiency out of ICE engines. Efficiency numbers that have looked to have peaked for what we can realistically improve out of the technology. In a world where oil is running out... We only have 60 years of oil currently known to exist based on current consumption patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_oil_reserves

Scarcity increases pricing and you see it as gas is much more expensive than it was when I was a kid in the 90s...



https://display.phoenixdisplay.com/b...e-future-holds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid...lay#Background

In late 1880 electricity had not yet been figured out whether it was AC or DC and the first electrical grid was barely in operation; 1882 Pearl Street developed by Edison. The liquid crystal DISPLAY (the actual device that forms images using liquid crystals) was not invented until the mid 1960s and once the electronics were developed to drive the formation of the images in the late 1960s and put to practical, commercial use in the early 1970s, was the dawn of the replacement device for the CRT. Please.

Google tried to invent the autonomous transportation pod so people could... Google while they traveled on surface streets. It's called "distracted driving liability"...

Lastly Google... "ceramic engines" just not when you are driving.


Lol.

[CoreyWebster]

The answer is synthetic clean burning fuel. Technology being suppressed by big oil.

[TheMaxXHD]

Pretty bad takes, from both sides of the coin here. I’d write a whole new long comment on this but just refer to my previous post in this thread.

Ultimately with gas in general, there is a push away from oil/gas. Remove the car for the moment and just view it from a purely gas perspective. There is a drive towards different types of energies, alternatives to gas. Some alternatives better than others. Some better than gas, some worse than gas.

Now put the car back in the equation. Where does that leave the gas car? Well, we can’t predict the future. We can only guess based on trends and where technology looks like it’s going, but there may, and will be curveballs. Likely by the time we can reasonably answer this question, it will be irrelevant, because the answer by that point will be obvious.

Apple Carplay didn’t exist before 2014, we would have had no idea that built in navigation on vehicles would matter less now that we have phone apps that can project onto the dash, now just about every car has that. Built in nav accuracy and fluidness was a prime selling point and development for vehicles before the carplay/android auto era, it was a dramatic shift that happened so quickly in only a few short years.

Now try to guess what is gonna happen to EVs 10 years from now.

Unless y’all have some sort of time machine you aren’t telling people about, in which case, tell future me I said hi

[TheMaxXHD]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I swear I read your post twice.
I still can’t understand your point.

One thing was clear: you criticize everyone.
Another: you seem to have the answer, but no time to write a long comment. (Pro-tip: you really know your stuff when you can summarize it)

My point was, we don’t know the answer. I don’t, and neither do you. Is the EV dead on arrival? How are any of us supposed to know without extrapolating the future that hasn’t happened yet? This is an opinion thread. Perhaps using the facts of today to extrapolate the future, but that is no better than guessing without complex computer models, which is still guessing, just based on previous data.

Are EVs dead on arrival? Well, if taken literally, the answer is no, because they already exist an people drive them. If one means will it be the primary form of transportation someday? Maybe???? Will everyone be driving EVs someday? I don’t know.

To answer the question Is the EV dead on arrival. Nope, not yet. Will it be? Maybe. I doubt it, but I can’t prove it, only extrapolate based on what I know and see today.

And before one labels me as biased, I just bought a brand new m340i, over an i4, and plan on driving it for the next 10 years atleast before I consider an EV, because they aren’t good enough yet, and have lots of issues, and lots of near term questions to be answered, infrastructure congestion, power grid saturation, mining, etc… With that said, I do believe EVs will eventually become the new form of transport. I hope by the time its time to get rid of my 340i, I will be able to consider an EV.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

In Chicago?

Most major cities have mandated removing gas vehicles from their cores by certain dates.
https://www.businessinsider.com/citi...ee-ban-2018-12
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/cars-banned-cities/
https://www.fastcompany.com/90456075...ree-revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car-free_places

[LogicalApex]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I think we think similarly.
Not sure what “dead on arrival” is supposed to mean. I’m taking it as “the current cars will have their limited life span, and we will revert back to ICE”. That could be. But it could also be that both coexist for longer than touted. Or that they indeed replace ICE (perhaps in a different form, with other types of batteries, for example).

As you said, guesses. My guess is that, out of the many options, the true one is somewhere in the middle: increasing the amount of electric cars, some sort of hybrid form perhaps, but at a much longer implementation path than current lawmakers are setting this as.
Likely the laws serve as push for quicker development, but the smart ones (Toyota) know it’s impossible, and the dates will be pushed anyway, so they continue to plan as such, instead of desperately trying to fit in (I.e. Volvo).

Toyota is a lot like Microsoft. They can't see the path forward because they are deeply locked into their way of thinking. For Toyota that has been a path of very slow development that allows them to refine their processes very well. EVs don't fit that mold and will continue to go through rapid development of the next few decades at least. We'll likely see new automakers beyond Tesla and we'll see some old ones completely disappear.

Just like how Microsoft of the 2000s thought people would still be using Desktop and Laptop computers as their primary computing devices and cell phones would only ever be weak auxiliary devices. They predicted Windows would be the majority computing platform for the foreseeable future.

Fast forward to today. The primary computing device for the majority of the world is a smartphone either running Linux (Android) or MacOS (iOS), both forms of Unix which MS had considered largely conquered. MS has shifted from being the computing company at the center of the computing life for the majority of users to being a large scale hosting provider competing with Amazon to host content. The toppling took a decade. It was that quick once the momentum started.

The paradigm shift that will come from the shift to EVs is going to be immense. To the extent it is going to be hard to picture the world until we're a few more years down to road. There is already an initial shift to start adding two way power support to EVs. Allowing the EV to power devices outside of itself. We'll likely soon have a more stable grid as EVs can serve as power banks for houses to smooth out the grid. When traveling to remote locations you'll be able to camp with access to power. Contractors will be able to work at job sites where power isn't yet wired (like new home construction) from their work trucks instead of hauling propane and gas generators around.

Even the simple car like features will be getting deep shifts. Since an EV can be "powered on" all the time the car can become a lot "smarter". Knowing when your next appointment is in your calendar and can automatically precondition ahead of your departure, set the correct navigation point, and continue your podcast as soon as you step in.

The list goes on and on.

The car shifts away from being a device only capable of one thing (traveling from Point A to Point B) to being capable of a variety of things. Much like the transition from Cell Phones that could only handle calls to Smartphones where calls are an afterthought.

The future will be interesting...

For those who want to cling to ICE. ICE will be around in new car form until at least 2035. And will continue on in used cars until at least 2065 or later. The unknown will be how the gas station landscape will look by then. It may become harder to "fill up" ICE cars at some point.

There is risk we'll be unable to crack recycling and other technologies, but I think that's a poor bet to take.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Onesie

but the smart ones (Toyota) know it’s impossible

Do you really think Toyota is that smart? They, along with GM and others, allowed a startup to disrupt their entire industry and achieve a valuation currently 3x theirs. They invested in laughably bad alternatives, let the Prius languish, and seem content to sell lawnmowers with CVT to everyone.

Toyota looks more like old IBM or Intel of late. Dominant position but calcified management. Even if you ignore Tesla and EVs completely, I couldn't give Toyota high marks.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by 10"

Exactly—-what logical apex is recycling is the rhetoric thrown around by businesspeople who WANT us all to switch to electric so they can switch their bank accounts to $$$. He bought that rhetoric and lapped it up.

This is a common take, and it's nonsense. The story we are to believe is that a small nascent industry and its backers financially outmuscled and outlobbied an entrenched automotive industry and ICE vendor supply chain AND the likes of Exxon Mobil, Shell/BP, etc. combined?

Tesla can't even defeat the lobbying efforts of car dealerships in most states, but somehow this is all a conspiracy to ditch ICE? lol

This thread is just full of people who are upset about change. The writing is on the wall; denying reality and spending all this effort conjuring up excuses is not going to help.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Onesie

I really don’t understand much how valuation helps a company. All I know is that Toyota sells vehicles. Tesla does not, on the same scale (especially as you consider company valuation).

If I were to bet in the longevity of a company, all my money would go to Toyota. Tesla is like crypto coins.

I don’t like their cars, but I’m in the minority. They sell… Teslas sell as well and I don’t like them either.

Ignoring valuation, my point was that Toyota gives no reason to believe they are particularly smart or visionary. IBM still exists too, but they are a shell of their former self.

I see nothing from Toyota in the past 10 years that indicate they are anything but a fading power.