[DrVenture]

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

I beg to differ. I think people who are pro EV aren't real enthusiast. Most of the guys who drive electric cars don't even know anything about them but the spec sheet.
They are tech bros jumping on the next big thing.

by that logic, you could say pro ICE arent real enthusiast either. 99% of cars are bought by people who know nothing about them other than the spec sheet, if that.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

by that logic, you could say pro ICE arent real enthusiast either. 99% of cars are bought by people who know nothing about them other than the spec sheet, if that.

Ok, 99% of ICE drivers aren't enthusiasts.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.

But we've been hearing about ICEV parity via weight drop, battery density (range increase) and faster charge times for the better part of two decades. Have yet to see it.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Only a few years ago people were arguing that EVs were insignificant at 1-2% of vehicle sales. Now we are discussing that 50% may take a bit longer. As it should be. Circumstances change, situations adapt.

Even if the U.S. halted or retreated, the rest of the world would move forward. detractors must continually move the goalposts, when they should really reflecting on how wrong they have been so far about range, cost, adoption rates, etc. And when the charge times come down a lot and weight drops, they will need something new to complain about, to cover for all the whining.

EVs are like the two guys running from the bear, you don't need to be an olympian, just beat the other guy.

Anyone talking about 50% market share is crazy.

BEVs were 8.1% of US vehicle sales in 2024. Up from 7.8% in 2023. For reference, the F150 on its own was about 5% of all US vehicles sold in 2024. At that growth rate of 0.3% a year, EVs will hit 50% market share in about year 2162.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

by that logic, you could say pro ICE arent real enthusiast either. 99% of cars are bought by people who know nothing about them other than the spec sheet, if that.

Some people need to judge or criticize. It is in their blood. Their fathers probably did it too. And old grandpa was the worst of them all.

Judging and criticizing others keeps some folks from having to reflect on their own shortcomings. That might prove too painful.

Might as well join in, I blame Elon. It's his fault. He caused all of this. By proving that EVs could sell in large numbers and taking them mainstream! Can't put the shit back in the goose.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Ok, 99% of ICE drivers aren't enthusiasts.

and safe bet to say 1% of EV drivers are enthusiasts as well.

[FC4]

Fun fact - 100% of Koenigsegg owners also own a Tesla, at least back in 2023 when Christian said so. He dailys a Model S.

[lakefront]

Originally Posted by FC4

Fun fact - 100% of Koenigsegg owners also own a Tesla, at least back in 2023 when Christian said so. He dailys a Model S.

So could this possibly mean that 100% of Koenigsegg owners are extremely wealthy and have several cars in their fleet?

[dfox]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

Anyone talking about 50% market share is crazy.

BEVs were 8.1% of US vehicle sales in 2024. Up from 7.8% in 2023. For reference, the F150 on its own was about 5% of all US vehicles sold in 2024. At that growth rate of 0.3% a year, EVs will hit 50% market share in about year 2162.

The forecasts were for global implementation. Many places are much farther along than the stick-in-the-mud US consumer base.

California hitting 38% BEV's in the first half of 2024. Norway is up to 88.9% BEV's.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by lakefront

So could this possibly mean that 100% of Koenigsegg owners are extremely wealthy and have several cars in their fleet?

Well...yeah.

Pretty much everyone I know who has 8+ cars has a Telsa or an EV of some sort because they're just great to have.

The hate for EVs comes from the poors who are limited to 1-2 cars.

[NervoS]

Nice progress of BMW on batteries and EVs:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/20/b...LrLxMiLjwf9keA

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by NervoS

Nice progress of BMW on batteries and EVs:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/20/b...LrLxMiLjwf9keA

Those are some bold claims. 30% increase in range (360-540 miles total). 20% more energy density. 180 miles of range added in 10 minutes. 50% reduction in energy loss. 30% increase in charging speed.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by dfox

The forecasts were for global implementation. Many places are much farther along than the stick-in-the-mud US consumer base.

California hitting 38% BEV's in the first half of 2024. Norway is up to 88.9% BEV's.

Those two are hardly representative of the world. California has used taxes and regulations to push people to EVs. Norway even more extreme so, they exempted them from import and VAT, tolls, parking fees, etc. Add in that it's a tiny population (about as many as south Carolina) with IMMENSE natural resources they exploit... Pretty easy to see. The real.irony is the hypocrisy, Norway exports about 2% of the worlds oil supply and a huge amount of natural gas but has nearly banned ICE because "they pollute". You don't see them turning off the oil and gas exports making them rich though to prevent that pollution now do you?

Put another way though, even in CA, where virtue signaling is a way of life and EVe are so heavily pushed and it's the heart of the liberal econwarrior movement... They haven't yet cracked 40% BEV market share. Even with all the money and perks poured into them, they still can't get to a majority of BEVs sold.

The biggest driver is China of course, where if you don't buy the EV that their dictator Xi demands, you go missing one day for having too low of a social credit score and your corpse with a bullet in the head is never found.

[DrVenture]

What I love most about all of this is the competition. BMW trying to have the best and be the best. Tesla trying to retain their crown, that they hold from an early lead and limited competition. Everyone else looking to put their engineers to the task of getting better and doing more. This IS what makes shit happen! And it is happening. and it will continue. Better batteries, better charging infrastructure, better motors, better efficiencies from all systems.

One thing for certain, a few luddites, with limited imagination are not going to slow it down at all. It will just keep coming. Both Toyota and Honda are running pilot lines for solid state. We'll see how that plays out. Some may hope for failure. I hope for success.

[Tim_M56]

I think hybrids are a good middle ground until full EV tech can improve more so the daily commuter person can have an efficient and positive replacement for going to work.

I can't imagine how getting rid of regulations will help their adoption or improve their development in the future. Climate Change is staring as us in the face, and is only getting worse for many people. The world needs to reduce its emissions output, and EVs can do that, but in conjunction with efficient and clean nuclear or other options, not putting crap in the air from the start with natual gas, coal, or other dirty options.

I'm not scared of EVs, it's the natural progression of the automobile I think. They can coexist with gas-engine cars. I can see it being a money maker into the future for BMW and other manufacturers for enthusiast projects, like the Cayenne was when it saved Porsche for the 911.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

What I love most about all of this is the competition. BMW trying to have the best and be the best. Tesla trying to retain their crown, that they hold from an early lead and limited competition. Everyone else looking to put their engineers to the task of getting better and doing more. This IS what makes shit happen! And it is happening. and it will continue. Better batteries, better charging infrastructure, better motors, better efficiencies from all systems.

One thing for certain, a few luddites, with limited imagination are not going to slow it down at all. It will just keep coming. Both Toyota and Honda are running pilot lines for solid state. We'll see how that plays out. Some may hope for failure. I hope for success.

I don't think it is Luddism. I think it is economic realism. I think a majority of the market who do not have access to private L2 charging, are the road block. The current EV architecture is roughly 300 warm climate miles and 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes (in warm climate) for DCFC. The cost per kW is around $0.45, which is as expensive as fueling an ICEV. 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes for someone who lives in a dwelling without L2 overnight charging is just a non-starter because of the economics tied with the inconvenience. Without home L2 charging, EV just take too much planning and commitment to refuel. ICEV are just easier to refuel, people will pay for convenience.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by NervoS

Nice progress of BMW on batteries and EVs:
https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/20/b...LrLxMiLjwf9keA

Sounds like they are catching up to Tesla.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't think it is Luddism. I think it is economic realism. I think a majority of the market who do not have access to private L2 charging, are the road block. The current EV architecture is roughly 300 warm climate miles and 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes (in warm climate) for DCFC. The cost per kW is around $0.45, which is as expensive as fueling an ICEV. 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes for someone who lives in a dwelling without L2 overnight charging is just a non-starter because of the economics tied with the inconvenience. Without home L2 charging, EV just take too much planning and commitment to refuel. ICEV are just easier to refuel, people will pay for convenience.

100%. But I'm not surprised, people who are strongly pro-EV think they're smarter than everyone else, without any substaniating proof.

I've been blessed (and cursed) to work with some exceedingly smart people. None drive EVs. They largely buy cars you'd think of as "boring but safe" choices. F150s, Cars, Tacoma's, etc.

I will say, calling other people luddites is a great way to expose yourself as just not being as smart as you think you are.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by Tim_M56

I think hybrids are a good middle ground until full EV tech can improve more so the daily commuter person can have an efficient and positive replacement for going to work.

I can't imagine how getting rid of regulations will help their adoption or improve their development in the future. Climate Change is staring as us in the face, and is only getting worse for many people. The world needs to reduce its emissions output, and EVs can do that, but in conjunction with efficient and clean nuclear or other options, not putting crap in the air from the start with natual gas, coal, or other dirty options.

I'm not scared of EVs, it's the natural progression of the automobile I think. They can coexist with gas-engine cars. I can see it being a money maker into the future for BMW and other manufacturers for enthusiast projects, like the Cayenne was when it saved Porsche for the 911.

My take on it is this.

Right now, EVs sell ok because they are heavily incentivized. For most manufacturers, their EVs are significantly more expensive than comparable other models from them. If they want to keep selling EVs after incentives go away, they are going to have to figure out how to make them for cheaper and make them more efficient, so that the average consumer chooses an EV over something else.

EVs arent going to solve climate change, and really dont have much of a net benefit to climate change, so that line of thinking needs to go away if EVs are going to succeed in the short term.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't think it is Luddism. I think it is economic realism. I think a majority of the market who do not have access to private L2 charging, are the road block. The current EV architecture is roughly 300 warm climate miles and 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes (in warm climate) for DCFC. The cost per kW is around $0.45, which is as expensive as fueling an ICEV. 200 miles recovery in 20 minutes for someone who lives in a dwelling without L2 overnight charging is just a non-starter because of the economics tied with the inconvenience. Without home L2 charging, EV just take too much planning and commitment to refuel. ICEV are just easier to refuel, people will pay for convenience.

These are a part of the EV convo that people tend to ignore. If you are relying on public charging options, you arent saving any money on fuel (electricity) vs ICE. In fact, you are probably losing money.

Using an average of 3 miles per kWh, a 45 cent charging rate and the average price of a gallon of gas at $3.16, it is the equivalent of 21mpg.

If you can charge for cheaper, it starts to make more sense. In my case, it costs me 7 cents a kWh for off peak L2 charging at home and I average ~2.5 miles per kWh. Thats the equivalent of 113mpg.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

These are a part of the EV convo that people tend to ignore. If you are relying on public charging options, you arent saving any money on fuel (electricity) vs ICE. In fact, you are probably losing money.

Using an average of 3 miles per kWh, a 45 cent charging rate and the average price of a gallon of gas at $3.16, it is the equivalent of 21mpg.

If you can charge for cheaper, it starts to make more sense. In my case, it costs me 7 cents a kWh for off peak L2 charging at home and I average ~2.5 miles per kWh. Thats the equivalent of 113mpg.

On my own I've tried to quantify what percentage of the US automotive market must rely on public DCFC as their primary fueling resource. It's a hard number to quantify. A few years ago I came up with about 40% of the market can charge at home. A recent study I found from NREL shows this:



The devil is in the details. Each residence is a unique case. But I think access to charging and charging rate are still the two big hurdles.

Conclusions and Limitations
Historically, residential charging has been considered the foundation of the PEV charging supply at low
levels of PEV adoption. In this analysis, we show that this is an accurate description of the current
status; however, vehicle owner access to residential charging is likely to decrease in the future as PEV adoption spreads to different segments of the population (e.g., to vehicle owners living in a wider variety of housing types and geographic locations). According to our analysis, which is based on a novel residential parking and electrical access survey, 33% of the current LDV (light-duty vehicle) stock in the United States is parked close to electrical access. Further infrastructure investment and parking behavior modification both show great potential for improving home charging access; both actions combined could increase charging access to 75% of PEVs, assuming a fully electrified LDV fleet. The national residential charging access projection, which is based on a PEV adoption likelihood model using unique survey data, shows that, all things equal, as the level of PEV stock increases, the percentage of PEVs with home charging access decreases dramatically. This finding reinforces the importance of non-home charging options (e.g., workplace, public DC fast charger) as the level of PEV stock increases. In addition, this projection procedure allows us to estimate residential charging availability given a PEV fleet size in one region, which is an essential input of charging infrastructure planning. Not having ample public charging prohibits the broad adoption of PEVs, especially among those living
in multi-family dwellings.

33% parked close to an electrical supply source is not a good metric.