Mercedes-Benz will electrify its entire car lineup by 2022
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
In my opinion, calling your whole line up of cars "electrified" is a bit misleading. But I guess that's just how PR/marketing works.
[1] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/247889-cars-moving-48-vo...
[1] http://www.urbanemissions.info/wp-content/uploads/docs/SIM-1...
The current model Audi SQ7 uses such a turbo-charger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Daimler
It's pretty clear (once you drive an EV) that a sea change is coming - they have reached the point where they are a superior driving experience most of the time.
As other evidence, Tesla announced today that they are planning a major expansion of their supercharging network.
https://www.tesla.com/supercharger
I wonder if we'll be talking about Tesla in a hundred years the same way we talk about Mercedes today?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Daimler
Correct company, wrong guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Benz
Daimler invented the motorcycle, Benz the car.
Daimler and Benz merged to form Daimler-Benz.
In particular, however, there is one notable source that emphasizes Panasonic's role: Tesla's SEC filings. Quoting TSLA's 2015 10-K[1]:
We believe that the Gigafactory will allow us to achieve a significant reduction in the cost of our battery packs once we are in volume production with Model 3. The total capital expenditures associated with the Gigafactory through 2020 are expected to be $4 to $5 billion, of which approximately $2 billion is expected to come from Tesla. Panasonic has agreed to partner with us on the Gigafactory with investments in production equipment that it will use to manufacture and supply us with battery cells. We have a supply agreement with Panasonic that, among other things, allows us to purchase a minimum of 1.8 billion lithium-ion battery cells at preferential prices that we intend to purchase from 2014 through 2017. We have agreed to prepare and provide the land, buildings and utilities, invest in production equipment for battery module and pack production and be responsible for the overall management of the Gigafactory.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459016...
Gigafactory 1, in Reno, is a $5B capital investment that aims to produce 50GWh of batteries in 2018, and if they get $100/kWh in 2018, far lower than current prices, then yearly revenue is the same as the cost of Gigafactory 1.
So there's tons of room to grow lithium ion manufacturing capacity. That's only one part of the supply chain though... Looking just at lithium, there seems to be somewhat ample supply for the next few years from proven reserves, so I'm sure there are plenty of people scaling up for production from new sites.
To me it's been obvious that the other carmakers were dragged into the EV race, and they would've rather not see it happen at all. It's quite hilarious seeing around the time the Model S came out and soon after, how the other car makers were still "one-upping" each other with 65-mile range, 70, 75, 80 - by continuing to repackage gas-powered car platforms into EVs. And those were the "full EV" versions, not the hybrid ones or whatnot. Those still had like 20-30 mile ranges in their batteries.
I think it would've taken at least another 15 years until one of them would've decided to just rethink an EV from scratch. Their love was status quo was all too obvious.
There are some who say Apple is Messiah on Earth and they've invented all smartphone features and they deserve to ask $2,000 for an iPhone (see latest iPhone thread for such opinions). I completely disagree with those, even though I was one of the "fanbois" preaching an iPhone in the "Nokia is still king" days.
And then there are others who say Apple invented and innovated nothing. zero. nada. And the smartphone industry would've progressed in exactly the same way without them, too. I say that's also bullcrap. Not only did Apple completely change the mobile phone landscape, but it has pretty much changed it every year afterwards (see the wave of "retina displays", or fingerprint auth, or 2x optical zoom from last year - all being adopted at a rapid pace by everyone soon after Apple did it).
I see opinions about Tesla split the same way. In my mind, Tesla is the first successful car company in 100 years to not just exist and survive but to reshape the car industry. They haven't invented everything either, but I give them a lot of credit for the awareness EVs have now (and will have in the next few years).
I guess my point is you don't have to have extreme opinions about a company in order to give it the credit that it's due.
After driving an EV for a while, this Mercedes feels like the accelerator is hooked up to the engine through the postal service. You push the accelerator and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and finally the car starts to go.
I drive a car with the VW EA888 2.0 (230BHP@4000RPM, 370lb-ft@1600RPM) and it is possible to have near immediate throttle response and pull provided you're familiar with the gear ratios and power curve of the car. However, it's also a manual, so I don't have the disadvantage of being caught out in the wrong gear.
Now, there's a tiny percentage of the population that enjoys paddle shifters, and even I do sometimes, but if we had usage tracking on them I would bet that fewer than 10% of drivers use paddle shifters for more than 5 times in the lifetime of the car, and that cars with paddle shifters are in automatic transmission mode 99.9% of miles driven.
So though some people will miss the gearbox, far far far more will rejoice in having a car that is always at maximum performance without messing with things.
'S' behaves more like a human driving a manual - I assume the MPG and emissions testing is done in 'D'
Edit: so, I went to try sport mode and... turns out I've been driving around in sport mode all weekend already. Tried out "comfort" mode just to compare and couldn't see any difference. I'm sure a better driver could, but both are far away from instant response.
The Mercedes S 350 is so much more sluggish than either my Model X or my Renault Zoe. Put foot down, wait half a second, and make a ridiculous noise in the process. I have to use the brakes way more often because of the lack of regen, too.
I am utterly convinced after 4 years of EV driving that 90% of drivers would switch to EVs for life, if they got to try one for a few weeks.
Driving the Merc feels like using an HTC Vario compared to an iPhone.
The CLA 45 had a great engine but suffered from a conservative transmission shifting algorithm. Sport mode was fine but comfort mode was designed for "A to B" driving at low fuel consumption. It also has responsiveness problems from full stop - this wasn't turbo lag per se, as if you don't notice it in launch mode. Once you got going, it was very fast.
The Tesla interior is nearly identical to a Mercedes-Benz interior (they use many of the same parts), with the exception of the large tablet screen on the Tesla. It feels more like the low-end CLA interior than the wood grain C-class which feels more like the S-class. The Model S backseat is cramped compared to the Mercedes, it is more like the BMW 3-Series in terms of leg room. Practically speaking I would go with a Model X.
That said, to me while the throttle response of the Tesla was truly amazing, the regenerative slowdown effect was.. weird. I really didn't like it. Given the price difference between the C-Series and Model S ($55k vs 95k in Canada, and $130k or More for a model X), I think the C-class will continue to win out except for those with significantly more income. Tesla sells a better car, but not 2x better. Mercedes has time to catch up with its own EV.
The parts similarity weirded me out a bit. It was strange having the exact same gear shifter and turn signal lever in a completely different car. But both companies seem to have good taste in that respect.
As far as the regen, I personally really like it, and you might too once you got used to it. It's really nice to only use one pedal for most driving. However, if it really is not to your taste, you can turn it down in the settings. The result is much like an automatic car, where you only get very mild braking when you release the accelerator. Of course, you sacrifice some efficiency and brake life when you do this.
I feel a similar difference between an automatic and a manual transmission car.
For example, I'd be exiting Breidscheid and the car would be in 4th instead of 3rd. Then there is then a good half second waiting for the DSG to downshift before power is available. In which time, I've just been overtaken by someone with a manual gearbox...
I've only driven a car with a DSG like that once, and I did find the timing of the shift a little disconcerting compared to that of releasing the clutch in time with the accelerator.
It was fast, and undoubtedly faster than I could double clutch with a manual clutch, but it still felt slow.
Would it trouble you to read the comment you're replying to, or at least drop the attitude if you won't?
Your claim that Model 3 will run like S have no grounds. All you can honesty do is to compare that Benz to your S85.
What most people want to compare (but don't know it) are torque curves and power bands. I.e. how does the engine make its power and where is it in the rev range. We know that EVs provide constant torque, hence max power is available at all times (provided there is sufficient traction). When it comes to ICEs the situation much more complex. NAs tend to make all their power at the top of the rev range and torque peaks at around 3,000/4,000RPM. Turbo engines tend to make their power around 1,000RPM below redline and provide peak torque between 1600/3000RPM (the min can be higher for lower-displacement engines or engines with big turbos). However, off-boost, there is a noticeable absence of power, but this diminishes as displacement increases.
I find it's these figures that need to be compared as the are much more indicative about acceleration in gear, smoothness and where the engine and gearing needs to be to make power.
I'm quite confident that the Model 3 drives like my Model S. Acceleration is clearly similar, zero-lag is pretty much an inherent property of the EV drivetrain, and there's no reason to suspect otherwise.
The car is a lot of fun to drive and after having driven it for many months, driving an ICEV is unpleasant. EVs drive very smoothly without all of the acceleration or deceleration lurch of an ICE drive train. There's no power lag, when I drive an ICE now I have to remember about the power lag and it's frankly annoying.
EVs are quiet and it's a little unnerving at first. After you're use to it you notice how noisy ICEV are and it's unpleasant.
ICEV smell, there's no way around it. I had to buy gas for my lawnmower a week ago and I can still smell it in the Leaf. It also struck me as to how dirty fuel stations are, something I never really noticed before. With an EV you avoid all of that unpleasantness and just plug in at home or your destination. If you do have to stop, the charging stations aren't crusted with grime that I assume comes from fuel or fumes mixing with dirty and sticking to everything.
They are more convenient. Routine maintenance is just coolant, battery, and tire checks a few times a year instead of weekly stops for gas and going for oil changes every couple months, on top of other maintenance checkups.
EVs aren't perfect but after having owned one for a few months I definitely won't go back to an ICEV as my daily driver without a fight.
Those rental cars you drove were probably significantly cheaper than the Leaf as well. Again, I'm just reinforcing that having an electric drivetrain doesn't turn the car into some magical nice car. You're still paying for that premium experience.
(CLK was OK, the Audi and Lexus clearly inferior).
I think that objectively that is still some time off, however I am not disagreeing that modern EV's are a "good" experience at any stretch.
Once they work out how to lessen the weight behind the batteries, you'll get the driving experience comparable and beyond modern performance cars - but while the EV's have huge torque etc they still feel quite heavy in the corners, and don't deliver the same kind of driving experience for someone who values handling dynamics. I mean, a P100D can slaughter most factory cars off the line, but my mx5 (miata) track car still eats them on a technical circuit.
I think Telsa's greatest contribution will be moving the electric car and renewable markets. Whether or not the company itself will be successful is yet to be seen. To me they only make products that are affordable by the rich but they've certainly been successful in moving markets.
They made the first fully electric luxury car (Tesla S).
They created the first super-charger network. It's still the largest network of its kind.
They are the first car company to also be a large-scale battery manufacturer.
They are the first car company that pre-sold half a million cars.
They are on track to deliver fully electric mass market (as defined by volume) car. Tesla 3 is expected to reach production/sales of 0.5 - 1 million a year, easily surpassing any single competing, fully electric car.
Yes, Tesla is a car company but they already did plenty to deserve a little more than "just another".
In 1900 28% of the cars produced in the US were electric. Albeit only a little more than 4,000 were produced. In those days all cars were luxury items, a horse was non-luxury. They also held the land speed records vs ICE prior to 1900.
Didn't Telsa partner with Panasonic to build the battery factory? Panasonic has been making batteries for years.
They've only built 200k cars total! Probably more since March.
On track to deliver...let's see if they can meet their target.
You asked a question and they directly answered it for you.
You probably also have a similar opinion of Apple then because they were not the first company in the world selling an MP3 player?
I could afford the later 2 devices on a sub 20k a year college restaurant jobs salary. At the time I bought both of them.
Telsa is not affordable by the majority of people with their currently available models. While a Nissan Leaf is pretty affordable especially adding in the tax break the government and my state used to offer.
> Tesla is not affordable by the majority of people with their currently available models.
By that standard, the company who invented fidget spinners made a bigger contribution to society than Tesla because more people can afford their products.
Does the tZero from AC Propulsion that inspired the Tesla Roadster not get the credit because it was just a kit car?
They've pushed battery technology further than any other manufacturer in the last decade. And furthermore, "they've been successful in moving markets" is a novel thing in itself.
>>To me they only make cars that are affordable by the rich but they've certainly been successful in moving markets.
What do you think the first people said about Daimler?
Not really. They've done a lot to bring down costs by simply increasing the scale, but at the end of the day Tesla battery packs are just a bunch of standard 18650 cells that have been used for years. Panasonic, LG, and AESC are responsible for most of the advances in the actual chemistry.
They use lithium batteries. You could even buy the same types of cells on amazon that Telsa uses, 18650.
This is a lot like saying you can buy the same food resources that go into world class restaurants. Technically true, yes. But does not diminish the accomplishments of Tesla in the least.
As for the impact of Tesla, wait a few more years, then it'll be clearer to see.
If Tesla folds in a few years everyone will just point at Leafs and whatever else is out saying look Tesla was the one who started this.
Tesla fans will say it either way.
Tesla fans will say it either way."
Why do you think that is?
It allowed them to use existing battery chemistry and cells to provide incredibly high power output (Ludicrous mode) while also preserving the lifetime and capacity of the battery, which is no simple feat.
Someone who works at Tesla/Solarcity told me recently that the same approach is behind the Solar Roof: existing PV cell technology but with very novel packaging.
Do you have any sources? Genieunely curious to learn about what makes them special.
What makes them different is how they have captured the public's imagination via creating incredible supercar-like performance purely using electricity.
What they've essentially done is solidified the public perception of Tesla being at the forefront of a revolution.
It's the same thing that makes something like Apple special. On a cost-performance ratio, if you build your PC from scratch, you will likely get better specs and performance for a much cheaper price. But it won't be an Apple device or enact within the apple ecosystem.
Someone will probably build a better 100% electric car (eventually) but nobody will have the same level of cultural cache. There will always be nitpickers who can say that the eventual BMW/Audi/Ferarri electric car is hotter than the Tesla, but it will never be as revolutionary as Tesla.
Tesla, Apple, Google, Facebook. These, and likely a few more companies, have transcended their mediums to make them truly special not only within their respective industries but societally as well.
While it's not that sexy, I think that distributing the batteries throughout the very bottom of the vehicle was a novel and very useful innovation.
The Tesla cars have a much, much lower center of gravity than any ICE car could have and that is a figure/measurement that seems to matter enough to people that car magazines discuss CoG when reviewing new cars. It helps a lot with handling and safety.
All wheel drive with multiple motors, while not a Tesla innovation, is also something they are doing that is a pretty big leap forward in that space. It's hard to get excited about Quattro when the Tesla gets AWD from two different motors.
https://icdn-4.motor1.com/images/mgl/WAg3r/s3/honda-ev-plus....
Well I did opt for an engine that didn't have an ELSD available in the 2016 model or lockers in any configuration. Should've bought a Wrangler.
Tesla is poised to have it's Apple moment soon, driving the industry forward while taking the cream off the top and profiting handsomely.
They are the old Ford of automobile manufacturers one could say.
EV that accelerates from 0-60 in under 2.5 - completely novel.
If you look at Wikipedia it says electric cars were faster than gas cars until about 1900.
nb4 Wut about Tesla? I ain't made of money, son.
Edit: i'm wrong. See below.
Edit 2: In quite a few places, you can get time of day metering, where you pay lower rates for electricity at night.
In Chicago, I pay $0.01/kwh between midnight and 5am; its essentially free to charge my Model S (it's slightly more at my place in Tampa, ~$0.06/kwh at all hours).
When I priced out and test drove an S it was over 100k.
Edit: Just repriced, 107k w/o the speedracer package (just the 100 kWh)
^ Sample size: 1
Get on the phone with your Volt Ambassador and yell. From what I've read the problem with GM & EVs is the huge gap between the excellent engineering quality of the product and the crappy quality of their dealerships. I'd say get your car out of that dealership and into one that has a better track record with EVs and make sure GM corporate hears about it.
(Also a Volt owner)
Volvo's announcement was that all cars would be electric or hybrid, but their definition of hybrid is very broad. It includes a "mild hybrid" system which can never run on pure battery. It's pretty cool, but more like a fuel efficiency improvement than it's like a Prius.
Mercedes (or other German manufacturers) aren't doing this lip service because of Tesla (not everything revolves around them) but because of the situation in Germany. It's a broader topic, but in short the big manufacturers are working together with the government, and making some concessions in exchange for no diesel bans of any kind.
It's more complicated than that. Diesel bans (when they come) will be declared by courts, not by politicians or officers in the executive branch. The purpose of said concessions is to calm German customers.
And that was a lot more clear-cut "this is terrible!" to the average person.
-------------------------------
Personally, I expect most countries will never fully ban or need to ban ICE-powered vehicles, just as we don't ban you from driving a Model T or horse & buggy around today.
New sales will be required to meet strict efficiency and safety standards and once electric becomes a cheaper option (perhaps with taxes/subsidies to hurry that), new ICE-powered vehicles will become a specialized niche rather than mainstream. They'll probably retain various niches for a long time, but that'll be a tiny fraction compared with current use.
Already on the road average ICE-powered vehicles will rapidly taper off in demand as they cycle into wearing out and winding up in the junkyard.
How soon before fast recharger stations are plentiful (and fast) enough to allow long distance trips via electric-only cars?
If multitudes of rechargers do not arise, does the inevitability of electric-only cars spell the end of using the automobile for interstate travel once the last gas station becomes unsustainable? If people already are using cars less for long trips, this trend away from road trips may be unstoppable in most of the world, and soon thereafter, everywhere.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable plan to me. If everyone went all-electric, the price of gas would fall through the floor making high demand for gas powered cars. Make them all available in various forms and let the market decide what it wants.
So long as the premiums are very steep it's still a hard sale so tax breaks are absolutely necessary. There is a one time credit of $9k here now for EV's and the yearly tax is almost zero (compared to upwards of $1k/yr for ICE) but I still can't get the math to quite add up. The game changer will be more mass produced modestly priced models. Right now it's often sold as a luxury with added performance. Look at Volvos T8 drivetrain - it's pure luxury. No one will buy it for economy.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8EnYIuvFos [2]: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/11/15952510/audi-a8-level-3-...
This must be farther along on the pipeline. Clearly Auto-Pilot is not at a stage they're comfortable promising.
Does that include their cargo line, too?
they are probably concerned too about tesla but at the moment bmw, mb and vw's audi are probably the three auto marques who can each crank out a couple million electric cars a year by 2020 if they wanted to. it's that volume that makes them competitive.
That's a significant percentage. If the oil demand drops, theres probably another 5-10% that could reduce.
So we're looking at probably a 30-35% drop in emissions.
As an owner of an electric (recently bought), I'm fascinated by how amazingly agile my relatively-inexpensive Ford Focus is. If everyone drove an electric for a day, many would likely decide to go electric purely for performance reasons.
Which is not to say it isn't an improvement, just that it oversimplifies things only to look at one side of the balance sheet.
This is highly dependent on where you live. At the extreme, North Dakota [1] gets 75% of its electricity from coal burning. But in California, the mix is 35% Natural Gas, 25% Renewable, 10% hydro, 10% nuclear [2], so nearly half of the electricity is carbon-neutral. If huge places like California go electric, they will take other places along with them.
But even in the unlikely scenario of a primarily coal-based grid in the future, the efficiency increase that comes from the centralization of combustion at the coal plant (as opposed to in the vehicle) still results in lower well-to-wheels CO2 emissions [3].
[1] http://www.ndenergyforum.com/expert-facts/
[2] http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_syst...
[3] http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/P...
The only USC source I could find[1] says that 20% of US emissions are tailpipe emissions, but the question was about global emissions. Globally transport makes up 14% of emissions according to the IPCC.[2]
[1] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-globa...
[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/car-emissions-and-globa...
[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas...
However, inner city air quality is pretty bad, with particulates and NOx killing thousands every year. Electric cars have the immediate benefit that they move pollution somewhere else.
Car engines have pretty bad efficiency. You're looking at something like 25-30% typically, and that's peak efficiency. Car engines usually run well off peak efficiency because they're not at optimal RPM or power output, and then you lose even more when braking. Add on another substantial portion for refining and transport.
A modern power plant can be 60% efficient or more. You lose about 6% in transmission, and then another 5-10% in the rectifier, battery, inverter, and motor.
Do you? I mean... we're still going to refine petroleum if we go to electric cars completely, if only for industrial purposes. Even then I think it's going to be a while before anybody proposes electric passenger jets or electric cargo freighters, so there's still going to be refining and oil exploration. I am not really sure it is correct to assign 100% of the cost of that to cars.
It's the same thing with electrics. You don't assign the entire energy lost in the power grid's wiring to EVs. You assign them the percentage loss on the energy they consume.
To obtain a gallon of gasoline costs a certain amount of energy which implies a certain amount of emissions attributable to that gallon. If you're looking at the entire efficiency of a gasoline car in terms of miles per unit of CO2 emitted, you need to account for that. The same goes for a kilowatt-hour of electricity and accounting for the miles-per-CO2 of an EV.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
It really blows my mind. We could replace every car on the planet with zero emissions, and still would put a tiny dent into the total percentage of pollution. We're winding up all these battery factories, spending millions on personal vehicle tech like it'll save the world, and the real majority of the problem doesn't seem to get any focus.
I just feel like it's sort of a distraction to keep us busy ignoring the real problem. It all feels sort of like a farce to me. But then again, I don't know what kind of new regulations and emissions controls are going into factories, ships, etc. I just feel like there probably isn't any regulation on the real polluters. They'll just keep getting tax breaks, while we'll undoubtedly get taxed for driving an old "polluter" car.
Furthermore, according to the EPA, 27% of greenhouse gas emissions are for transport[2], however there's no breakdown by things like airplanes vs trains vs cars.
IMO, if people really want to 'change the world', we need to shift away from automobiles, consumerism, plastics, and conspicuous consumption. Live close to work, ride a bicycle, stop buying McMansions.
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home
[2]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
The great thing about electric vehicles is that it makes it possible to greatly reduce emissions as the grid is transformed towards a larger share of reusable energy.
Another great trend is autonomous driving, which will enable a reduction in the number of cars by having cars as a service at a lower price. Fewer cars will mean that cars can be built better and last longer, as they can be more expensive. As long as these cars are electric and powered by renewable energy, the potential to reduce emissions compared with the current situation should be large.
[1] http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cle...
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-15-biggest-ships-i...
When you say they "left out the petrol", are you assuming that a better analysis would assume that the petrol is never made in the first place?
I mean, that might be the wish but we don't yet live in a world where the gas will stay in the ground if we don't use it to fuel one automobile at the margin.
If it's you as a consumer buying the next car to be produced, then it is entirely appropriate to compare it that way, because your single purchase will not change the entire life cycle.
Plus, even if a few dozen coal plant powered electric cars aren't superior to hundreds of millions of gasoline engines burning gas (a point I would still challenge), it's easier to regulate a few dozen coal plants than it is to replace hundreds of millions of cars.
It's funny, the "coal makes electric cars worse" has become a popular anti-EV line from conservatives, but the reality is that the US is only 30% coal (no longer #1 source overall either)[1], electric cars in the US with our electric mix release far less carbon on average [2], and heck even burning natural gas in a plant is cleaner with less ghg impact than millions of gasoline burning engines [3]
[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
[2] https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
[3] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/emiss...
The main issue: Power production fluctuates wildly throughout the year. But you need to have the capacity for the worst case (sometime in winter), which means an enormous surplus of energy in the summer. We cannot store this energy. And all these issues threaten the stability of the power grid.
Shutting down the nuclear power plants hurt us badly regarding the CO2 budget. All of the new renewable energy installations (solar and wind, mainly) have only achieved to offset the loss of the nuclear plants.
Other countries will have the same problems. Solutions are not in sight. It will be much, much more expensive that people now realize. Energy prices in Germany have gone up considerably since the early 2000s, precisely because of renewable energy.
Don't get me wrong, to save the planet this is what we must do. But currently, it is unclear how to do this in a short time, without lowering the standard of life for everyone.
Manufacturing that many electric motors and (presumably) lithium ion batteries would have an enormous impact on the world, though, in terms of mining and refining the rare metals and elements required for these components. But even putting that aside, and assuming that batteries and motors could be produced for the same impact as combustion engines, the impact would still be zero percent for there is no provable scientific evidence that man is causing global warming. None. There are lots of theories, yes, and loads of simulations, stacks of papers written with funding by government grants, lots of charts & graphs (some with well-documented NOAA 'doctored' numbers), plenty of groupthink in the popular press, etc. but science is not a popularity contest. At one point in time it was settled-science that the world was flat. Groupthink does not equal proof. And it should not be actionable. This lack of proof is the state of scientific knowledge at this time.
Front collision avoidance would be nice, but won't give up privacy for it.
The biggest reason most car manufacturers are laggards in this respect is because they mostly don't make the onboard systems themselves. As opposed to manufacturers like Tesla, which understand that making the onboard systems is important both from a practical and strategic point of view.
I don't think privacy will be respected unless there are strict regulations in place that are taken as seriously as, for instance, cheating on emissions tests. But in recent years there has been a keenness in government to harvest this data. So I wouldn't hold my breath.
Yes please! It seems obvious that this would be the most efficient mode of transit, effectively turning streets into point-to-point conveyor belts.
It would also reduce concentration because you wouldn't have people clustering homes and work around transit stations, it would be more spread out.
Automation also seems more economically feasible for more expensive vehicles.
Electrification should make motors and batteries commodities so that engineering goes away, but you still need to package them, evaluate components, integrate them with the vehicle, etc.
I think we'll need fewer powertrain engineers but to the extent that more components become standardized, competition might be along the axis of variety of cars. You'll need engineers to design door handles and route brake light cables, and decide what fasteners to use for the air filter.
I wouldn't be surprised if car companies spent more on R&D after electric cars become more common - they won't be so protected by barriers to entry.
If Tesla manages to make 500k Model 3s next year, they'll be a uniquely young major auto maker. The youngest company that makes >500k cars/yr is either Honda or Hyundai. Honda made its first car in 1963, and Hyundai made its first car in 1968. Hyundai is an older company but Honda has been making cars for longer.
There are a few Chinese automakers who started in the 1980s but they're bit players - they primarily make cars that wouldn't pass first world emissions / safety tests.
Overall, no big loss for the car community, and maybe a little more competition against Tesla directly will help.
Small experience to give up for the sake of the planet and future generations though. <3
Smoking ICE cars off the line is one of the most enjoyable things about driving my electric.
No oil changes. No transmission replacement. No smog checks. Likely never replace brake pads (due to regenerative braking). Only real maint left is tires/wipers.
Seriously, if I was an auto mechanic I'd be worried about my business/career if EV (or even hybrids - they get 50% of the reductions) went into full swing.
Any old gas powered car will do at least this on a 5 minute fill up.
This could be done with old manual cars without fancy security checks so, we have been there, done that.
/s
Plus most of the charging probably will be scheduled at the time when electricity usage is less and providers offer better pricing. For example in some areas in US you can get free nights rate, at night there is less strain on the grid and abundance of wind power makes it possible.
Mercedes is going to update its lineup, not replace every single car in the world overnight. Countries have time to build out their network of charging stations.