this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
116 points (88.7% liked)

Electric Vehicles

3192 readers
251 users here now

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

There is a fundamental truth you have to understand about car companies:They do not exist to make cars. They exist to make money. That distinction, analyst Kevin Tynan tells me, is why they’re not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles.

Perhaps that’s an oversimplification. Tynan is the director of research at an auto-dealer-focused investment bank, the Presidio Group, with decades of experience as an analyst at firms like Bloomberg Intelligence. What he means isn’t that automakers have no interest in affordable products. It’s that their interest begins and ends with winning customers who will eventually buy more expensive, higher-margin products.

One of the auto industry’s dirtiest secrets is that at scale, it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits. In recent years especially, that’s a big part of why your new car choices have skewed so heavily toward bigger crossovers, SUVs and trucks.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 71 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Getting rid of the gas tax and switching to a mileage tax that factors in vehicle weight would help with this. If it costs you more every year to drive a bigger, heavier car, you’re going to want something smaller.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I like the idea of a size tax.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 24 points 2 months ago

I also like the idea of extended driver's license requirements to drive some of these monsters vs a sedan.

[–] comador@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

California is basically doing tax trials based on total mileage travelled per year, but not size.

My understanding from people I know in the CA Govt. legislature is that they have to tax based on what is known and one could easily have modifications on vehicles that would go unnoticed (truck lift kits, rice burners, hack jobs, etc). Mileage otoh is submitted during tax season already.

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Very few, if any, modifications are going to dramatically change a vehicle's curb weight. Of course, electrics weigh more than similar ICEs, so a better reason to skip a weight based tax is so as to not disincentivize electrics.

Edit: Also, what do you mean "rice burners"? Afaik, rice burner refers to any vehicle of Asian origin whether tuned or not. And trust me, tuning a car is not going to increase the curb weight by more than a few pounds.

[–] comador@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Sorry, I got ahead of myself without clarifying. The idea of taxation based on the size of "stock" vehicles or even a stock vehicles estimated mpg was turned down because considerations such as: Vehicle Body Modifications, Vehicle Engine Modifications, 5th Wheels, Trailers, Poorly Tuned or Mal-Maintained Vehicles and many others listed means the end result would be a poor assessment for more than 2% of registered vehicles and thus resulting in not taxing appropriately.

So while they can do it (tax by size or empg) by pulling any data that the DMV or tax filings show, those considerations hamper the idea's effectiveness in taxation for the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA).

As a result, Road Charge (mileage) was adopted in CA as the future replacement for the existing 7.5% + gas tax. https://caroadcharge.com/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (6 children)

As long as they do it by checking the odometer once a year and not with some kind of ridiculous privacy-destroying GPS-based scheme, I'm all for it.

(There are some dipshits who try to justify the latter by claiming they need to know where you drive to send the revenue to the right jurisdiction. Bullshit! They can just measure traffic volumes on each road segment -- which they already do -- and allocate proportional to that instead.)

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The problem with that is that EVs are heavier, meaning that smaller EVs would be taxed at the same level as SUVs or trucks. But it might at least incentivise people to go for smaller ICEs, and switching to mileage tax might be necessary anyway.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

But isn’t it the weight that does more damage to the roads that the taxes are intended to pay for?

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

the weight does damage yes, but the lionshare of road damage is caused by shipping trucks because they are magnitudes heavier than a civilian vehicle while loaded. It's the reason truck weigh stations exist

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

…and a weight based tax would put the lion’s share of the tax burden on shipping trucks.

I think we’re in agreement here?

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Do you think an electric car that weighs 1000lbs more than similar ICE cars is doing that much more damage to the road? And compare the damage cars, suvs, etc, would do versus box trucks, tractor-trailers, etc. There is no comparison to the damages between the two classes of vehicles. While true, an SUV will do more damage to the road than an econobox hatchback, even combined they don't equal the damage a fully loaded tractor-trailer will do.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

But that would disproportionately hit poor people. Generally they have to live farther out, where rents are cheaper, and in much of the US public transit is a pile of shit.

Hell, even in places where it isn’t it’s still painfully inconvenient. I live in a fairly transit-friendly city, and it takes my husband 45 minutes to an hour to get to work by transit, or 10-12 minutes by car.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it doesn’t cost that much more to make a bigger, more expensive than a smaller and cheaper one. But they can charge you a lot more for the former, which makes this a game of profit margins and not just profits.

This is also why cars are loaded with electronics now. They're high margin add-ons to inflate the value of the car with little cost.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Also they break and are almost impossible to fix, so basically throw the car out after the lease is done and get a new one.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

they're not really interested in making affordable electric vehicles

Huh, that's strange. I'm not really interested in a $25,000+ EV. Turns out that a $1,200 ebike is faster than my car (due to traffic) and costs orders of magnitude less to maintain and charge. I've basically just stopped driving.

Perhaps my interest will be piqued when they can develop a sub $25k EV, without half the "smart" features like subscriptions for Bluetooth audio and heated seats. Until then, I'll use my old car like...a dozen times a year.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I commute 1.5 hours each way. I wish I could ebike it.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it really fucking sucks when there's only one form of transportation and virtually no alternatives. I've lived in places like that, and it's always infuriating when your car won't start and you are already running late for work. And the nearest bus is really slow and on a half-hour basis. My old city didn't even have bus stops for awhile, you just had to flag the bus down and hope they saw you.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I wouldnt complain if they're was something like 1. A motorcycle highway, or 2. A functional high speed railway network.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah. I just want a basic electric pickup.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 7 points 2 months ago

Damn, I guess the nissan leaf needs a recall, it's top cheap. How unfortunate that car manufacturers ignore a sizable chunk of their market

[–] Tautvydaxx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Dacia Spring. Small, light, 300km city range. 19000€ from dealer. I bought mine used with 2000km driven and two doors needed painting for 6000€. Half year old. I drive about 100km every day in the city so far so good.

load more comments
view more: next ›