Hacker News Reader

>> People like to put EV adoption solely on range anxiety...

This is a term that irritates me every time I see it. EVs have a range problem. You can't drive them long distances without running into charging issues and doing careful planning around it. Telsa has longer range and their network of charging stations, but it still requires planning to deal with. This is an issue with the cars, and to call it "range anxiety" feels like making it some kind of perceptual issue with the driver. Like hey dude, get over it. In my mind this is a subtle way to blame shift from the technology to the would-be customers. Tesla being the one company taking it the most seriously and providing good range and a network of fairly quick chargers. But still, cars don't have anxiety - people do and the problem here is the cars don't meet peoples expectations.

Collectively, we do need to get over it. There are all kinds of tradeoffs in life and society, and we can't keep using ICEs. It's the same reason we no longer use uranium oxide in ceramic glazing[0], even though it makes for very lovely, bright colours.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiesta_(dinnerware)#Radioactiv...

Range anxiety absolutely exists. It's the fear that you'll run out of power on your trip. It's the same anxiety you get when you're low on gas an unsure if you can make it to a gas station.

You do get over it. It takes a while to realize that you generally will have a full charge every day and you stop looking at the gauge.

>> Range anxiety absolutely exists.

But it's still a problem with the vehicle. Go ahead, take your EV on a cross country trip.

I worked on the Focus Electric and realized I couldn't even use it as a daily commuter without paying extra attention. Most days it would be more than adequate, but if for some reason I wanted to make a detour from my daily drive - like up to our motor manufacturing plant - it would not make it on the overnight charge. Granted, that car has fairly short range. A Tesla (or Rivian) should go all day in local driving, so they punt the range problem down the road to mostly long trips. But it's still a problem compared to ICE vehicles.

My problem with the wording is this: The shortcomings of EVs rightly cause anxiety in people. But lets stop focusing on the anxiety in the humans and start talking about the issues with EVs. Until companies change that attitude, they'll make things like the Focus, Leaf, Volt. Yeah, I think the Volt was a mistake but some people love it and feel that it addressed the range issue nicely. It did address the issues head on, just not in a way that I like.

Why was the Volt a mistake? I was genuinely looking forward to purchasing one until they decided to discontinue it. It seems to me like series hybrids could be the fastest way to drastic reduction of emissions short of massive government intervention. Judging by the way things have gone with the EPA under Trump, I'm doubting that's going to be happening soon.

I think there is a difference between gas and batteries in the uncertainty that you are equating.

If my car always gets 25 mpg or more, and it's got a gallon left, I could have some uncertainty about how far it is to the gas station, or exactly how much fuel I have, but I'm confident that my remaining range is going to be very close to 25 mpg x gallons left. Summer or winter, it's not going to be that different.

On the other hand, if I had an electric car that says I have 25 miles left, based on all my experience with batteries, I presume that is based on a complicated model that may be way off in accuracy with no warning. It also may decline in a very nonlinear and unexpected way. Particularly in extreme weather.

Yeah, you just summed it up pretty well. In reality, my gas car varies from ~34 mpg to ~26 MPG depending upon its driving profile. That is ~30% variance. Everything that I have seen of the Model 3 indicates similar variance on your "25 miles left" scenario. The causes are different (eg, the Model 3 will not be affected by city driving to the same degree as a typical gas car), but the quantity of variation is very similar.

Of course, in reality my gas car stops reporting a miles remaining # when it gets to ~20 miles, for these reasons as well. It turns out that my experience with gas cars is that its based on a non-complicated model that may be way off in accuracy with some warning. :) Interestingly, it also declines in nonlinear and unexpected ways sometimes, though I haven't correlated it to weather.

You start by endorsing my comment, but my point was how different batteries are from gas.

Upside variation is not equivalent to downside variation. It seems to me like sophistry to say, well, it's tolerable for a battery to have 30% unexpected downside because a gas car has 30% upside when you go on the interstate (which would never be a surprise anyway).

If I have a car that gets 26 mpg in "city" driving, then I feel secure that it will not get significantly less at the worst possible moment, unless there is a major engine problem.

I don't understand this "upside" variation vs "downside" variation. It seems like the same thing to me. My gas car gets stuck in traffic sometimes and will vary regardless of the roads. In fact, that variance described was on the exact same commute, due to differences in time of day, traffic, and weather. Often it gets over 30, sometimes well under it. It really isn't so different from electrics in practical terms.

That is because you are rational and thinking about the problem rationally.

Have you met the types that compare EVs with 250+ mile range to the batteries in their electric weed eater? And act like an electric car will never work, because it could just konk out on you without warning? These aren't real things that happen.

Range problems (extra time taken, lack of chargers in certain parts of the country, etc) is a very different and also perfectly rational concern.

It doesn't help that people often conflate the two.

I think the market will rise to meet the need for alternative to manufacturer parts. Look at the availability of iPhone spares, for example. Whole screen, touch digitiser, front camera : $20.

That said, I think the automotive parts industry is an incredible achievement and I’m constantly blown away by the availability of stuff.

Btw I run howacarworks.com and I’m working on a parts-based startup. I’d love to pick your brains. Drop me an email: alex@howacarworks.com.

> Whole screen, touch digitiser, front camera

Usually cheap after market replacement parts in phones really act according to their price. I haven't seen a quality replacement part for these prices. Nothing close to the original anyway. As anecdata, every case I know where an iPhone screen was replaced with a cheap AM part it ended up being replaced again later with an official one. I'm not talking about Apple induced issues but problems with colors, banding, viewing angles, glare, touch response, thickness, etc. These are random articles I found while looking for pictures that highlight these issues [0] [1]. I'm sure this can very well extend to batteries or cameras.

This may be acceptable for a phone (even in the $1000 range) but in a car it poses a genuine safety risk. Also it undermines the premise of the original expenditure with the car. If you invest $50.000 in a car you may have an incentive to not use a low quality battery pack for example.

[0] https://discdepotstandrews.co.uk/copy-iphone-screens-vs-orig...

[1] https://www.hotshot.repair/mo/columbia/office-banter/lets-ta...

> If you invest $50.000 in a car you may have an incentive to not use a low quality battery pack for example.

And if you have a phone which is worth the investment, you'll likely pay more for the better replacement part. Maybe take it to the Apple store rather than the shady kiosk on the corner.

Likewise, there are a range of quality/price options for replacement auto parts. If I'm working on a car that cost me $1800 and is on its last legs, the aftermarket part for half the price of OEM is fine, even if it's only expected to last half as long.

People are perfectly capable of making those judgements calls and weighing the tradeoffs, as proven by the market for both phone parts and auto parts.

The battery itself /may/ be something of an exception. I'd imagine as they become more commoditized that concern will become less applicable.

My point was that you may be more lax when talking about things order(s) of magnitude cheaper. But overall yes, cheaping out on parts savotges the entire expenditure.

Those prices certainly look suspiciously low. $20 will just barely cover a disposable screen protector, let alone an actual iPhone replacement screen and camera.

> If you invest $50.000 in a car

You spent $50K on a car, you don't invest in a car, outside of some of very specific cases (some classic cars and some exotics that are reasonably expected to increase in value).

That is an assumption since I didn’t go into the topic. And it’s semantics anyway. A car can very well be an investment, which doesn’t mean it should increase in value, simply that it produces value (carrying stuff for money can bring back more than the car is worth). Which is when taking care of it is more critical, to come back to my point.

Range and service are the two big reasons why I can only sit on the sidelines and watch what happens with EVs. There isn't a super charger within 3 hours of me and the nearest service center is over 500 miles away! (Ok, one might be a bit closer, but it is in another country and that has its own set of issues.)

Obviously, not everyone has that problem, but distance to a dealer is on my mind, even for my ICE vehicles and it is "only" an hour away. I wouldn't want to go any farther than that.

Anecdata: I had a friend have his Model 3 get sideswiped badly while parked outside his house 2 days after he took delivery back in early December and he just finally got it back this past weekend. Kinda puts a damper on that new car exuberance.

Personally, I think the economics will keep EVs in a growing niche category.

People in general are poorer than they were 20 years ago, and that trend isn’t going away. Outside of the cohorts if folks who buy cars every 3 years, I think the values of EVs will crater as the novelty fades and repairs are a big question mark.

I assume EU will mandate EV cars in a couple of decades. It wouldn't surprise me if california would do the same.

An alternative scenario is synthetic fuels or hydrogen. But so far EV seems to most established solution.

From a German point of view I don't see this.

Executives of automobile manufacturers are stuck so deep in the backs of our politicians that you can see them once they open their mouth.

After everything that happened around VW and "Dieselgate" nothing happened or changed. It's just depressing to see how this crisis is dealt with by doing nothing because manufacturers threaten with loss of workforce in Wolfsburg etc.

What changed is that diesel is now 'toxic'. For quite a number of years, car manufactures tries to sell diesel as cool. And now that's gone.

At the same time, the world outside Germany is not sitting still. If German manufactures do not make electric cars, companies in other countries will.

There is no reason to expect German car companies to lead in EV cars. But once demand and infrastructure is there, they simply have to provide EV models in a large part of the world or risk becoming obsolete.

So my estimate is that within one decade, most car companies will have quite a few EV models. Then there may even be an incentive to kill off support for car IC engines. I.e. maintaining one platform (for EV cars) is cheaper than maintaining one for EV and one for IC.

I'm not really sure German manufacturers will still play the role they are playing now in a decade, once EVs really get going. All of their efforts feel rather half-serious which really wonders me because I think it shows that they do not really take this topic serious. Just like the Diesel scandal.

With the budgets companies like Mercedes, BMW or VW have, all they can deliver is the "I got money to burn"-i8, an electric smart at ridiculous prices or some concept studies like the GLC-based electric vehicle that Mercedes is planning to build. (Didn't have a closer look into the eGolf, maybe that one is solid, but as VW did what it did, I think it's dead, at least for me.)

So much money, so little innovation. I don't really get that. They all know how to build solid cars, but they fail, on purpose (?!?) so badly at EVs.

The next car I will buy, or will have provided by my company, will surely be an electric one. Maybe a KIA, Hyundai, or Renault, not sure yet. But I don't see any "German car" really up for comparison with things like the Zoe, Niro, Kona.

"all they can deliver is the "I got money to burn"-i8"

Well, I'm not saying it's a fantastic car, but given the existence of the i3, I think you are overstating your case.

I had a look at the i3 and it's just so off from the rest of their models. I'd loved if they had just taken their series 2 station wagon model and put batteries in that. Just like Mercedes did (still do? thought it was discontinued) with their B class.

No way.

Auto dealers will lose alot of revenue to EV. Every media outlet in every major and minor metro areas is dependent on auto dealers, and their message will get out. Every local politician knows the local auto dealers. Automotive is like 5% of private sector employment. The backlash will be huge for anything threatening to kill the golden goose. Nobody has an interest to care about carbon emissions.

EVs don't work for lots and lots of people as well. Half the people on my block don't have driveways. Millions of people live in apartments. Those folks are stuck as second class EV citizens. It will take a long time to build out charging infrastructure, and you'll have alot of resistance from citizens to EV mandates.

My guess is that you'll see EVs slowly climb up and stall out from a growth POV in the US until you see disruptive fuel cost increases.

I love EVs, in fact, I own one. But I think we will be using internal combustion engines 100 years from now. We keep finding more and more oil, and more ways to extract oil, that we will probably be OK for centuries. And the energy density of Gasoline and Diesel is fantastic, and will probably remain superior to batteries for a long time.

People aren’t poorer than they were 20 years ago, they just have an expectation of more things in their life. 20 years ago we barely had mobile phones let alone smartphones. Far fewer people had internet access. Many people didn’t even have a computer of any type.

We’re probably drinking more coffee, buying and consuming more passive entertainment, games, flat screen TVs, and disposable everything.

The real per capita income in my area is $60k, up 1.6% from 10 years earlier. Inflation is about 1.6% per year

Right, so people have more money than before just as sjwright said.

Real income is, by definition, after inflation.

How much has the cost of healthcare, rent, and college tuition gone up on the past 10 years?

It's great that I can get a decent laptop for $400, instead of $1,600, but that's barely a blip on my spending.

Housing and food seem to have inflated about the rate of overall inflation. Tuition and healthcare more, while most consumer goods, software, white goods, home furnishings, and cars significantly less.

It should be no surprise that some categories have increased more than the average and others less.

Reference: http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-c...

There's an inordinate amount of data at this point demonstrating that real average wages in America have been flat -- actually, falling slightly -- for decades.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-... https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomforta... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-t...

I'm honestly a little dumbfounded this is even a subject that people seem to be debating here. It's not a matter of "people in 2019 just have so much more darn stuff to buy than people in 1979 did."

There's debate because depending on how you slice the data, you get different views, many(most?) of which show very small gains in real wages. As an example, the first link you provided shows generally increasing real wages over the last two decades despite your claim of falling slightly.

Your second link shows cohorts other than the bottom 10th percentile showing real wage gains as well (see figure 3 both charted series and figure 4 2 out of 3 of the series).

Spooky23 introduced data to show a modest increase in real wages in the last 10 years.

And my apologies for forgetting to mention the single largest increase in expenditure—health care. We can cure more diseases and fix more injuries than ever before, which means that there's more health services worth paying for than ever before.

In summary, if you want to live like someone in the 1920s, with 1920s technology, 1920s mobility, 1920s education and 1920s health care, all while defending your country with a 1920s military, you'd probably struggle to know how to spend your inordinate wealth.