Maverick EV reportedly on hold until early next decade [⚠️ LOCKED DUE TO POLITICS]

[Decayed]

I don't control China. I'm not disrespecting the decision. I'm not even talking about the economic end of it. I'm talking about the long-term environmental impacts. We do have decisions made by people we elect for us. That's what a representative government is. We don't always like them. And again I'm not saying they should be forced on people but I'm not against incentives. The market is very smart at getting the best product at the best price but the market did not give us catalytic converters and emissions control. The market got us cheaper cars with a lot of smog and air pollution. Sometimes the market doesn't do what's best for us in every regard that's irrational. Without any government the market would give us chemicals dumped right into the river because why would a chemical company voluntarily spend millions of dollars to treat their waste when they're competitor would refuse to and they would go out of business because people would buy the cheaper product almost every time. Nobody would volunteer to spend money to put a catalytic converter on a car back in the day

You don't control china but that does not equate to a need to apply draconian controls to the US.
The market is not a 5 year old deciding to have candy for dinner every night. It's a collection of reasonably smart people making individual economic decisions based on their individual needs. Nobody knows their needs better than they do. Why should you be that confident you are making the right assumptions and decisions for them?

These large developing economies are driving the increase in emissions, not the US. Why should people in the US suffer draconian controls so china can build another few dozen coal fired power plants?

We are already heading in the right direction and radical changes can and will have radical unforeseen consequences. Forcing EVs to market and bans on ICE vehicles are radical but are already being publicly announced as government policy. The EV market crash is not the first sign that it might be bad policy. Actually shoving through the change with current technology would be a disaster of epic proportions and the indicators are already out there proving it, from poor cold weather performance to the problem of grid capacity and power outages.

Sure government control can have positive impact but it ALWAYS has other potentially negative effects; driving up cost is just one. The "authorities" are not as smart as you seem to think.

Sponsored

 

[Gonzo chris]

You don't control china but that does not equate to a need to apply draconian controls to the US.
The market is not a 5 year old deciding to have candy for dinner every night. It's a collection of reasonably smart people making individual economic decisions based on their individual needs. Nobody knows their needs better than they do. Why should you be that confident you are making the right assumptions and decisions for them?

These large developing economies are driving the increase in emissions, not the US. Why should people in the US suffer draconian controls so china can build another few dozen coal fired power plants?

We are already heading in the right direction and radical changes can and will have radical unforeseen consequences. Forcing EVs to market and bans on ICE vehicles are radical but are already being publicly announced as government policy. The EV market crash is not the first sign that it might be bad policy. Actually shoving through the change with current technology would be a disaster of epic proportions and the indicators are already out there proving it, from poor cold weather performance to the problem of grid capacity and power outages.

Sure government control can have positive impact but it ALWAYS has other potentially negative effects; driving up cost is just one. The "authorities" are not as smart as you seem to think.

First of all, it's not a market crash, how much are ice sales growing this year as a percentage of the overall US market. And we're just talking about the United States, not the rest of the world which is a different thing altogether. And how much are EV sales growing as a percentage of the market? Again for the $7,000th time? I'm not saying it's the perfect solution for everybody right now. I don't have one. Although I only drive 4 miles back and forth to work most days, so I don't need 900 mi of range like some people seem to think they need. But that is the irony of an EV. The major savings at this point offsetting the cost of the battery is gas savings, if you don't drive a lot like me, the savings isn't there. People do make the best economic decisions for themselves. Yes, so once again draining my oil into the driveway or down the curb of my street is probably cheaper for me than disposing of it properly. Is that the right decision though? Answer the question: if back in the 70s, people were given the option of spending hundreds. If not a thousand dollars or more on emissions controls, would they have voluntarily done it? Would the market have demanded a catalytic converter? Of course not. So sometimes we need rules.
I don't want the people in charge deciding what kind of sub we build next. I want to decide. I don't want them taking my money and building another aircraft carrier group if we have 13 and nobody else has more than one. But I don't get a choice. I think the point people are missing isn't that I or a lot of people like me think these new vehicles are the greatest thing ever. And I hate gas cars. I understand nostalgia. I'm saying Ford will be out of business in 20 years. If they don't invest in newer technologies like this.
As of right now there are tax credits and incentives. I don't see how that's draconian. I guess Kelley Blue book is now some sort of leftist rag? This is the crash you're talking about?
https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2024-01-16-Americans-Buy-Nearly-1-2-Million-Electric-Vehicles-to-Hit-Record-in-2023,-According-to-Latest-Kelley-Blue-Book-Data#:~:text=Electric vehicles (EVs) represent the,the fourth quarter of 2022.
So is that the crash? It's more like the rate of increases slowing. It was 5.9% of the US market in 2022 projected to be 10% of the US market in 2024 which would mean all other vehicles over those two years are going from 96.1% to 90%? Yet you describe the former as crashing?
https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q4-2023-ev-sales/

 

[colinl]

One thing a lot of people don't understand is that fast charging at high Amperage is worse for a battery than fast charging at high voltage. When we go to 800V charging infrastructure we can drop the amps, then we can charge faster.

I am not sure if you actually understand that. The implication of higher voltage does mean less current, but that has impact on the gauge of wiring required in infrastructure wiring, charging stations, and in the vehicle. If you keep the same gauge of cabling, then yes, you can charge twice as fast. If you drop the amps then no you are not charging faster. 400v * 30A is the same power going into the battery as 800v * 15A.

Any time the charger connected doesn't match the battery it is transformed which results in some losses.

 

[NextTruck]

Show it. All of those have their own internal payment schedules, totally separate from the Billions directly funded to Oil, gas and coal corporations.

Show what? Do you not think fossil fuels are crucial to these industries?

 

[NextTruck]

You are correct. We will be burning gasoline in the year. 2525.... No, I wouldn't want an oil refinery in my backyard either. Have you ever heard of an oil Spill? Again, I guess some people have comprehension issues. I am not saying EVs are the best solution for everybody. At this point I am saying they are good solution for a lot of people and that they are going to take over the market and the US manufacturers are going to go out of business and all you people whining about incentives that you're paying for will be paying taxes to bail out Ford and GM. After 100 and some years we're still using gasoline. Do you think battery technology will be the same in 100 years? California's power issues are nothing to do with EVs there to do with California's screwed up over regulation. You see I'm not a black and white issue guy

Do you think ICE technology and efficiency will be the same in 100 years?

 

[NextTruck]

If someone thinks that EV’s are good for the environment, you’re wrong. The environmental impact of mining the materials and building batteries has a huge impact on the environment. Then they take power to charge. With California unable to support power, they rely on other states to provide them with electricity. What will happen in a few years when the batteries fail? Or catch on fire? Those fires are so hot that it takes hundreds of thousands of water to put it out. Where does that polluted water go? Back into the environment. The Chinese are taking batteries and dumping them out into the ocean! What kind of impact will that have? Ask yourself this, would you want to have a battery MFG plant in your backyard? We will need to build hundreds of them to sustain the needed batteries if we continue to build EV cars.

Yes, China is one of the biggest polluters. Yet we coddle them, support them by buying raw materials and tech from them, and then put pressure on Americans to support China while they could care less about the environment. The US Environmental Czar admitted (by accident) that we would have little impact to the worlds environment if we achieved net zero because of economies like China. So what gives? And BTW, carbon credits are a feel good sham. Can I keep my ICE and plant 5 trees per year and then I am good with the movement?

 

[Gonzo chris]

Do you think ICE technology and efficiency will be the same in 100 years?

I think when it comes ICEVs they might not exist anymore. I just saw an interesting article , well, not that interesting, about EV school buses in Colorado where it regularly gets to be negative 30° Fahrenheit and how they work just fine in the winter. But whatever form of ice exists in 100 years. Of course it would be different but it's the whole low hanging fruit thing. The amount of improvement you got over the first 80 years was monumental. It's diminishing returns now. I hope they still exist. To the extent where, although I'll be going, you could still fire up an old lightweight ice sports car with a manual transmission.
Who knows what they will have in 100 years. That's kind of my point regarding batteries. The Wright brother is independent of the airplane in 1903. In less than 70 years we had a rocket ship on the moon......

 

[Gonzo chris]

Yes, China is one of the biggest polluters. Yet we coddle them, support them by buying raw materials and tech from them, and then put pressure on Americans to support China while they could care less about the environment. The US Environmental Czar admitted (by accident) that we would have little impact to the worlds environment if we achieved net zero because of economies like China. So what gives? And BTW, carbon credits are a feel good sham. Can I keep my ICE and plant 5 trees per year and then I am good with the movement?

I agree that carbon credits are largely age him to make people with a lot of money and fly a lot to feel better about themselves. Actually, I think over the last 10 years we have coddled China, less and less. One thing I've seen that is a good development regarding EVs and domestic manufacturers is a lot of companies like Ford in GM are now working on making their battery plans here in the United States due to tax credits being only for North American contented vehicles. Even Hyundai is making a new battery plant in the US. The Chinese economy is not nearly as strong as some think it is.

 

[NextTruck]

Not sure if your know this, but we fund weird things all the time. Did you know that the price for a lot of agricultural products (think wheat, corn, soy, etc) is not set by the producers of said products, but by the buyers? Farmer Joe has to go to the government and request a subsidy because the grain that cost him $X to grow only fetched $Y on the market.

And that is not because other growers/countries can grow it cheaper. It's because we somehow let the buyers dictate the prices. We as consumers like to pay less for our bread and cereals (and we do pay less than in many other countries), but in the end we are all paying the full price anyway. The difference, though, is that the profit went to the buyer, not the farmer. That doesn't seem right to me.

I know grains and other agricultural products are more important than EVs to most people, but this is just one example of many where we subsidize a product not for the benefit of the user, but for the profit of a corporation. At least using incentives to get people to buy EVs provides tangible benefits to the consumer and the environment.

Also: if we (the people of the world) do not transition our energy production away from fossil fuels soon, the world is going to be unlivable in a few generations.

I don't care that it won't affect me, I feel a responsibility to my children and (possible) grandchildren, along with all the future children on this planet.

I think we were told we should be underwater by now not long ago, and at a minimum, we would be at the point of no return. At one point it was Global Warming. Then it became Climate Change. What changed the label? Who ever said the climate was stagnant? Fear mongering.

" the world is going to be unlivable in a few generations". That is silly. There are far greater threats right now.

 

[Gonzo chris]

I think we were told we should be underwater by now not long ago, and at a minimum, we would be at the point of no return. At one point it was Global Warming. Then it became Climate Change. What changed the label? Who ever said the climate was stagnant? Fear mongering.

" the world is going to be unlivable in a few generations". That is silly. There are far greater threats right now.

Yeah, nuclear war is a greater threat. The problem with humans is they can only see their own time frame and that perspective. I don't remember being told we would be under water by now, but if somebody did say that and they were wrong that doesn't mean that it's not a thing. I mean they have thermometers the temperature is going up. It's factual. We can argue as to why but it is going up and ice caps are melting and oceans are rising. I get it. I don't like change either usually

 

[NextTruck]

Yeah, nuclear war is a greater threat. The problem with humans is they can only see their own time frame and that perspective. I don't remember being told we would be under water by now, but if somebody did say that and they were wrong that doesn't mean that it's not a thing. I mean they have thermometers the temperature is going up. It's factual. We can argue as to why but it is going up and ice caps are melting and oceans are rising. I get it. I don't like change either usually

Or fentanyl deaths sourced from Wuhan.

 

[Gonzo chris]

Or fentanyl deaths sourced from Wuhan.

Yeah that's some bad stuff.

 

[NextTruck]

I am out on this thread. Cow farts don't keep me up at night so I will remain on the side of "Neanderthals'" here.

Mavericks are cool. Very happy with mine.

 

[Gonzo chris]

I am out on this thread. Cow farts don't keep me up at night so I will remain on the side of "Neanderthals'" here.

Mavericks are cool. Very happy with mine.

I like Mavericks as well.
They don't keep me up either but methane is a thing. Clearly worrying about the future, including my son's, makes me weak I guess .....

 

[son of a ..sven]

Show what? Do you not think fossil fuels are crucial to these industries?

Both Gov. funds need to exist.

Sponsored