TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: EV dealers lose thousands of dollars on each and every EV sale, they are stuck with growing inventories on the lot. The buyers have lost confidence in EVs which is why they are experiencing plummeting second hand values. Disaster everywhere for EVs. That is just not true. The reported "loss on each vehicle" stories are when they include R&D in the cost, but that is on the manufacturer not the dealer. You reported "plummeting second hand values" but the damn thing you mentioned is still selling for $100,000. So when will the manufactures stop trying to sell EV's if they are such a disaster? Tell me when that is going to happen. Any day now? Edited July 10 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 39 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: near equivalent performance to ICE. Funny thing is the best performing vehicles are EVs. Lots of horsepower. A bit more weight adds traction to the tires. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 (edited) 13 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Funny thing is the best performing vehicles are EVs. Lots of horsepower. A bit more weight adds traction to the tires. No, the highest performers are the race cars, which are fossil fuel. Thanks for the laugh, you made my day. Edited July 10 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 (edited) 21 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: That is just not true. The reported "loss on each vehicle" stories are when they include R&D in the cost, but that is on the manufacturer not the dealer. You reported "plummeting second hand values" but the damn thing you mentioned is still selling for $100,000. So when will the manufactures stop trying to sell EV's if they are such a disaster? Tell me when that is going to happen. Any day now? The dealers are having their lots backed up with unsold EVs, that cannot continue without government bailouts. "Prices for used electric trucks like the GMC Hummer EV, Ford F-150 Lightning, and Rivian R1T have fallen sharply since their initial peak. Early adopters who purchased these trucks on secondary markets at inflated prices have experienced significant financial losses." "Let's start with the GMC Hummer EV, which was heavily hyped and initially sold for a staggering $275k on the auction website in April 2022. Fast forward to today, and used Hummer EVs are now selling on the same site for around $100k, aligning near GMC's listed MSRP. Edited July 10 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187 July 10 13 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Funny thing is the best performing vehicles are EVs. Lots of horsepower. A bit more weight adds traction to the tires. You are delusional<<not shocked>>. Their performance is abysmal. No one gives a shit about Horsepower. If all you have is "HP" to blather about 🤡 because they SUCK otherwise.. Cost of ownership is what matters(EV's should be cheaper with fewer parts, but are not at all due to piss poor lifetime maintenance engineering). A cell dies, you are FUBAR'd. A rock/etc hitting bottom of battery, totals a car🤡 Can't even be repaired Cold weather drops range in half... 🤡 Because they were too damned CHEAP to add insulation and a heater: Why? Because the batteries energy density sucks and they are worried about weight/range. Convenience is what matters. Here EV's absolutely SUCK as they are ONLY convenient if you go nowhere, charge at home, and haul nothing. Taking an hour to charge or worse is beyond pathetic. Heaven help you if it is a HOliday and everyone is traveling long distances requiring heavy charging. Double Heaven Help You if you are so DUMB to try doing so in cold weather(snow etc) as now you Triply are screwed over. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 11 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: You are delusional<<not shocked>>. Their performance is abysmal. No one gives a shit about Horsepower. If all you have is "HP" to blather about 🤡 because they SUCK otherwise.. Cost of ownership is what matters(EV's should be cheaper with fewer parts, but are not at all due to piss poor lifetime maintenance engineering). A cell dies, you are FUBAR'd. A rock/etc hitting bottom of battery, totals a car🤡 Can't even be repaired Cold weather drops range in half... 🤡 Because they were too damned CHEAP to add insulation and a heater: Why? Because the batteries energy density sucks and they are worried about weight/range. Convenience is what matters. Here EV's absolutely SUCK as they are ONLY convenient if you go nowhere, charge at home, and haul nothing. Taking an hour to charge or worse is beyond pathetic. Heaven help you if it is a HOliday and everyone is traveling long distances requiring heavy charging. Double Heaven Help You if you are so DUMB to try doing so in cold weather(snow etc) as now you Triply are screwed over. LOL "no one cares about horsepower." People love sport cars. Joe Rogan is conservative as heck and says his Tesla is by far his favourite car to drive. You don't know the long-term cost of ownership of a modern EV as they haven't been around long enough to have much history. You are pushing your bias on to the them. 1) A fuel pump dies, you are FURBAR. 2) That rock write off story is BS, and there are warranties. 3) Cold weather drops ICE efficiency as well. If it is really cold it will not start at all. Lead acid batteries suck in the cold. Belts, coolant, and everything else stiffens up. Extra funny is if you want it to start in really cold weather you have to plug in a block heater. So you waste electricity without even charging your car. Lots of Teslas running fine out here in the deep cold. Meanwhile ICE vehicles are getting boosted all the time, everyone carries booster cables. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: now selling on the same site for around $100k, So they sell for $100,000. Why do you care that the early adopters overpaid? The leading edge is the bleeding edge. People are willing to pay a big premium to have the fanciest thing before others. Remember when big screen TV's came out and they costed a small fortune (>$2000)? That same TV can be now be bought for less than $250. You are correct that the EV prices are going to tank, but that makes EVs MORE attractive, not less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: No, the highest performers are the race cars, which are fossil fuel. Thanks for the laugh, you made my day. Formula 1 racing is already restricting EVs because they outperform the ICE cars. They are making Formula E as a separate league. https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/formula-e-car-faster-than-f1-0-60mph-2024-04-25/ "Formula E said ahead of the weekend's Monaco ePrix that the net zero car would be capable of hitting 60 in 1.82 seconds (0-100kph in 1.86 seconds), 30% faster than a current F1 car, and reach a top speed of 200mph when introduced in season 11." "It will also be the most efficient formula car, with an electric motor providing more than 90% efficiency compared to the 40% typical of internal combustion engines." https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/explained-2026-power-unit-regulations-fia.68izKQ2tn1voQPWvgLVMXN They also have better breaking power due to regenerative electric braking on top of traditional rotors. Edited July 10 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,211 er July 10 54 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Funny thing is the best performing vehicles are EVs. Lots of horsepower. A bit more weight adds traction to the tires. My 2024 Hellcat Durango AWD has 725hp plenty of weight to get massive traction on soft 3 season tires. Very few EV's would be able to keep up in a mile run. 1/4 mile run, maybe the Tesla Plaid might outrun me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 2 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said: My 2024 Hellcat Durango AWD has 725hp plenty of weight to get massive traction on soft 3 season tires. Very few EV's would be able to keep up in a mile run. 1/4 mile run, maybe the Tesla Plaid might outrun me. That is a impressively powerful car. My current daily driver has 110 horsepower. 😆 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 15 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: So they sell for $100,000. Why do you care that the early adopters overpaid? The leading edge is the bleeding edge. People are willing to pay a big premium to have the fanciest thing before others. Remember when big screen TV's came out and they costed a small fortune (>$2000)? That same TV can be now be bought for less than $250. You are correct that the EV prices are going to tank, but that makes EVs MORE attractive, not less. You seem to be wearing horse blinkers...they paid $275,000 for that highly touted EV and just a short time later it is worth $100,000, so they lost $175,000 in a brief period. That is your idea of a bright investment? As I said above, thanks for the laugh, you made my day a second time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 13 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Formula 1 racing is already restricting EVs because they outperform the ICE cars. They are making Formula E as a separate league. https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/formula-e-car-faster-than-f1-0-60mph-2024-04-25/ "Formula E said ahead of the weekend's Monaco ePrix that the net zero car would be capable of hitting 60 in 1.82 seconds (0-100kph in 1.86 seconds), 30% faster than a current F1 car, and reach a top speed of 200mph when introduced in season 11." "It will also be the most efficient formula car, with an electric motor providing more than 90% efficiency compared to the 40% typical of internal combustion engines." https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/explained-2026-power-unit-regulations-fia.68izKQ2tn1voQPWvgLVMXN They also have better breaking power due to regenerative electric braking on top of traditional rotors. "Would be" "Could be" "Maybe" "Might" Sorry, all I care about is what actually is. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 10 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: That is a impressively powerful car. My current daily driver has 110 horsepower. 😆 You drive a fossil fuel car? Shame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 (edited) 19 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Formula 1 racing is already restricting EVs because they outperform the ICE cars. They are making Formula E as a separate league. https://www.reuters.com/sports/formula1/formula-e-car-faster-than-f1-0-60mph-2024-04-25/ "Formula E said ahead of the weekend's Monaco ePrix that the net zero car would be capable of hitting 60 in 1.82 seconds (0-100kph in 1.86 seconds), 30% faster than a current F1 car, and reach a top speed of 200mph when introduced in season 11." "It will also be the most efficient formula car, with an electric motor providing more than 90% efficiency compared to the 40% typical of internal combustion engines." https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/explained-2026-power-unit-regulations-fia.68izKQ2tn1voQPWvgLVMXN They also have better breaking power due to regenerative electric braking on top of traditional rotors. I doubt that EV sports cars outperform a fossil fuel racer. You can refuel a fossil fuel racer in 30 seconds, but the EV racer takes a long time to recharge in the pit. You seriously need a rewind. Edited July 10 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 Just now, Ecocharger said: You seem to be wearing horse blinkers...they paid $275,000 for that highly touted EV and just a short time later it is worth $100,000, so they lost $175,000 in a brief period. That is your idea of a bright investment? As I said above, thanks for the laugh, you made my day a second time. They lost nothing, they bought something and the value depreciates. You also have to sell to eat the loss. They could just hold onto the car they wanted so bad they paid a quarter million for it. All things depreciate; fancy new things depreciate faster than other products. This shouldn't be hard to understand with all your economics education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: You drive a fossil fuel car? Shame. No, don't play the hypocrite card, very weak sauce. Do you own a helicopter, plane, or spaceship? Probably not, however, they still are really cool things. Does the fact you don't own any of those vehicles mean they suck? Likewise, I think chemotherapy saves lives, but I'm very happy that I don't need it. Does the fact I haven't bought any chemotherapeutic agents somehow make chemo less valuable? Try harder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,428 DL July 10 On 7/8/2024 at 2:44 AM, TailingsPond said: Rapid decline doesn't matter if the pollution is still there. PM2.5 is the best metric as it is the most toxic pollutant at this time. Ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, etc. are measured but PM2.5 appears to be the best metric to monitor detrimental health effects. Ground level PM 2.5 is not anti-global warming; it is poison. High altitude sulphur aerosols might help. Ecocharger thinks if you switch from two packs of cigs a day to a half pack a day everything will be okay. Your problem is that there has been a rapid decline in mortality attributable to indoor solid fuels, but no significant decline in mortality attributable to the major reduction in outdoor pollution. That seems to seal the argument right there, that PM2.5 in the atmosphere is apparently not the major driver of mortality or morbidity, but that indoor pollution is the main force. You can squawk all you want, but the numbers will remain the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: I doubt that EV sports cars outperform a fossil fuel racer. You can refuel a fossil fuel racer in a few minutes, but the EV racer takes a long time to recharge in the pit. You seriously need a rewind. Haha you think it takes them a few minutes? You clearly know nothing about racing. F1 racing can change all the tires and refill the gas in less than 2 seconds. hahaha So out of touch with reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_Fastest_Pit_Stop_Award Edited July 10 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 1 minute ago, Ecocharger said: You can squawk all you want, but the numbers will remain the same. Likewise. You can live in your fantasy world. You can't win the PM2.5 argument, attempting to do so just makes you look stupid. Stick to arguing about climate change where there is still some doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: You seem to be wearing horse blinkers...they paid $275,000 for that highly touted EV and just a short time later it is worth $100,000, so they lost $175,000 in a brief period. That is your idea of a bright investment? It is horse blinders not blinkers. Cars are not an investment, they are a liability. When you buy groceries do you call that an investment? Shockingly the value of food drops to zero fairly shortly after buying it. Edited July 10 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old-Ruffneck + 1,211 er July 10 9 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: Cars are not an investment, they are a liability. Unless you bought a 57 Chevy Convertible in the 60's and kept it in an envirement garage. But yes, 98% of Auto's depreciate. Fact of life. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 22 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: I doubt that EV sports cars outperform a fossil fuel racer. You can refuel a fossil fuel racer in 30 seconds, but the EV racer takes a long time to recharge in the pit. You seriously need a rewind. Haha you edited your post to show a less wrong number. Thankfully I had already quoted it. 30s is still off by 28s or 93%. 93% wrong sounds about right for your posts. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 10 Just now, Old-Ruffneck said: Unless you bought a 57 Chevy Convertible in the 60's and kept it in an environment garage. But yes, 98% of Auto's depreciate. Fact of life. If you got a first generation Tesla and stored it in a garage it too would gain value after a really long time. Almost anything has value as an antique. Still not a good investment strategy unless you just want the money to go to your children after your death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187 July 10 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: Cars are not an investment, << Shock >> You said something partially accurate? NO WAY! And yes, they are a short term investment. You buy transportation so you can access work that pays you back the investment of transportation. 🤡 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 646 GE July 11 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You can refuel a fossil fuel racer in 30 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsCriICZ-nA It's really cool how fast they can do stuff. Like no joke they can fill your gas and change 4 tires in 2 seconds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Trending Discussions