Intercontinental Exchange Inc
Putin: You fools! You activated my Trap Card! Sanction Reversal! With this card I negate your sanctions until you can pay my Gas in Rubles, this effect increases the value of my Rubles by +50pts and deal direct damage to your country's ability to counterattack!
Look who's on the launchpad again. 2 days of over 30% gains so far this week! Ortex showing 25% SI with 100% utilization. They monetize hotel points, air miles, gaming assets and more. Soon stock brokerage thru ICE who owns 67% and also the NYSE. This is not a pure CRYPT0 trade. Hear me out bro
That's definitely a risk, though I doubt it's a huge one. The large majority of people wouldn't be modding their software, kind of like most people aren't running custom ROMs on their phones. And the people who do mod it would use it for smaller mods outside of the actual critical operation of the vehicle. Flip a flag to use aftermarket key fobs and stuff like that. Not much different than modding an ICE vehicle which is currently legal.
> Oil and gas is risky I agree. Oil and gas will contract significantly through the 2030s due to various factors. * Gas has increasing competition from [wind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#/media/File:Wind_energy_generation_by_region,_OWID.svg), and [solar pv](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#/media/File:Solar_energy_generation_by_region,_OWID.svg) for electricity generation, and from [grid-connected batteries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_storage_power_station#Largest_grid_batteries). These have already undercut some gas generation prices and will [get cheaper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law) as they scale. * Oil is going to suffer with increasing EV adoption, the rate of which has been [consistently underestimated](https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/ev-adoption-us), and [new ICE vehicles will be phased out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles#Countries) in most major economies in the 2030s. * Development of ICE vehicles has stopped at major auto-makers to be replaced by massive investments in EVs. This makes the legal termination date for new ICE vehicle sales almost irrelevant. * Litigation exposure to climate change. "The lawsuits could accelerate a clean energy transition by scaring investment away from oil and gas. If fossil fuel companies are forced “to internalize even a fraction of the damage that they cause to society through global warming,” Franta said, “then that completely changes the commercial attractiveness of these companies as investments. Their litigation exposure could be enormous, ultimately.” " https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-lawsuits-oil-industry-research
Volkswagen PE is so low because so much of their production and sales are in Europe, and the current energy crisis in Europe is going to drive their costs through the roof. The interesting thing about Toyota is that on paper they barely make any EV's. But in reality, a hybrid IS an EV, just one with a smaller battery, and a ICE as well. So, they are developing the engineering and manufacturing expertise to do EV's at scale, while still making cars that there is a big market for.
Mostly because they're not that beautiful (they look like old-person wagons. Think Cadillac) and the price is far too high for the performance and comfort. Tesla outperforms because lucid starts at 75k, and that's more than a fully equipped model 3, and anything higher costs more than an S. Add in the lack of charging network of tesla, cost of other EVs and luxury ICE, it's a pretty small market they have. For something anecdotal - I live near the highest value zip code in the US (It's in the SF bay area) and I see Teslas everywhere - Lamborghinis, Audi R8s, and Ferraris regularly. The Lucid just isn't great on any front - I've only seen a handful in the wild.
>Right, they change the exterior and aesthetics to make it look like they've actually innovated to any meaningful extent. It is to entice people to buy a new model. Most don't care if the car has a new motor and now does 120 HP instead of 100. So looks are needed. ​ >Dumb phones is analogous to dumb (ICE) cars. As technology improves (including FSD) we're going to transition from a focus on hardware to a focus on software and the added value/ecosystem it provides. EVs are not the leaps and bounds ahead of ICE cars. There is no reason the Software can't work in an ICE car (and advanced cruise control is working very well in ICE cars). > I and many others care far less about aesthetics and far more safety and technology. Show me a new grille and I'll say meh. Show me safety data and I'll be ready to put my kids in it. Most are about price tho. > Just looking at their numbers — demand, vehicle (hardware) margins, FSD (software) being publicly available and understanding economies of scale tells me a story of increasing margins. If you look at the order numbers that are coming out of China and Europe, and the decline in used Tesla prices - then no it doesn't tell that story.
The original roadster if I remember correctly was handled by the original Tesla team with Elon stepping in midway, but it definitely put the name out for electric cars being able to step up to ICE. That was the foot in the door to creating the model S
Every rich person I know has already experienced the Model X or S first hand. Some love it but a lot more debate on it, because even though they are rich enough to buy the cars in cash they aren't "here's a rolex for a birthday gift rich" and didn't see the value of the higher end models compared to regular ICE luxury. Hell one bought the S plaid, waited till this year a few months ago got it, and went back to driving a Mercedes coupe something.
Amazon in Chicago is still using the regular Dodge vans and whatever company makes the UPS/Fedex trucks. There was one image of Rivians being used in the prime fleet but I have yet to see one, on my way to work at 6-7AM an entire road that connects the Northside Chicago (Skokie) distro center to mainland Chicago is literally packed with Amazon delivery vehicles taking up the entire street all of them being ICE not electric (maybe Hybrid no clue)
>Facelifts etc. There is a reason ctraditional car makers do a facelift. It is to avoid the demand cliffs that were common in the 60s and 70s. > Right, they change the exterior and aesthetics to make it look like they've actually innovated to any meaningful extent. > >A phone is mostly its Software a car is not. Use cases and size demand lots of models. > Definitely agree to disagree on this one. Dumb phones is analogous to dumb (ICE cars). As technology improves (including FSD) we're going to transition from a focus on hardware to a focus on software and the added value/ecosystem it provides. > >They don't, their models look the same as they did on release day. I think that margin compression will arrive in the next 2-3 quarters. > Tesla consistently wins awards as the safest vehicle in it's class. I and many others care far less about aesthetics and far more safety and technology. Show me a new grille and I'll say meh. Show me safety data and I'll be ready to put my kids in it. If there's any margin compression over the next 2-3 quarters it's going to be the result of significant macro headwinds such as a depression. Just looking at their numbers — demand, vehicle (hardware) margins, FSD (software) being publicly available and understanding economies of scale tells me a story of *increasing* margins. I'll set a reminder to check back in a year.
VW is probably the closest but still has a lot of capital tied up in ICE production.. For EV producers, tesla is years ahead in terms of scale and cost of goods sold.. 4 proven models that are all best in category, plus the best charger network. Strongest brand for EVs by far. Expect their lead to grow over the next 4 years, as soon as macro turns they will be among the first to break out again
The far left doesn't care about EVs because of actual global warming. The far left cares about virtue signaling by looking like a martyr. This is why normal hybrids failed back in the day and Toyota made weirder and weirder looking cars to signal to liberals that these were green vehicles, because clearly, why else would someone buy them? Elon made cars that don't require you to be a martyr to buy them. So the left was getting antsy, and the moment Elon was OK with the right wing buying them too, the extremist left decided to buy from more green, American companies with union labor. Like... Ford, which builds Mustangs in Mexico. If Ford and GM and Volkswagen knew how to build cars with high gross margins, they would have done it already. So you're telling me that these other car companies are going to lose sales in ICE cars while already being in debt, and also trying to spend billions of dollars in new factories in a high interest rate environment despite not having secured enough minerals for batteries for significant growth within the next 5 years? Sure. OK. I'm sure Tesla margins will plummet, just like Apple's.
> When am I getting my full self driving Cybertruck again? Wtf does this have to do with legacy OEMs? If anything, the fact that Tesla had to postpone the Cybertruck because demand for their Model 3/Y was so big they couldn't meet it even after ramping from 300K sales to 900K in 2 years is proof of how terribly slow the legacy OEMs are ramping. > The full transition to (new) EVs is being pitched as somewhere between 2030 and 2035 depending on which government or automaker you ask Yes, except that's totally irrelevant. Governments are just setting rules they know are irrelevant, so it seems like they're promoting EVs without actually impacting anything. And automakers being too slow to react is my entire point. > The actual date in each market could easily shift later, but it's not shifting sooner. You're a fool if you think more than 20% of EU/NA/CH/KR/JP markets is still going to be ICE vehicles when EVs are 20%+ cheaper to buy, 50%+ cheaper to operate, have 50% higher resale value even when ignoring the fact that EVs have a 3x longer lifetime. That's roughly where we'll be at by the end of the decade. > That's before we even talk about electric grid modernization Infrastructure always follows demand, not vice versa. > green energy ramp needed to make EVs genuinely sensible policy in the first place This is simply not factual. Even with 100% coal EVs are still worthwhile over their lifetime, much more so when you consider batteries are 98% recyclable and cheaper to recycle than produce from scratch. > And of course long haul trucks will stay diesel for longer, and get ever extending exemptions and exceptions. Existing passenger cars and light trucks will stay on the road in volume for 20 years+. Long haul trucks will transition even faster than personal transport because of economics. Tesla just proved they can make an electric truck with 500 miles of range even when fully loaded, which is virtually unlimited range when taking into account maximum allowed daily driving times. Semi trucks are operating by companies, so as soon as these are more economical than diesel trucks (which is today), every company is going to want to switch as soon as possible to cut costs. > Yeah, the future is almost always further away than we think. I will be amazed with humanity if I wake up in 2035 to learn that ICE vehicles are no longer on sale in any developed economy. It would be very unpopular for experts to stand up and drop truth bombs like "yes all of these things are possible but the public and governments and corporations cannot realistically gather the willpower to execute it on that timeline." Tesla is showing that it is possible. The question is just how many other companies will be a part of that future, and how many will be the next Nokia/Blockbuster/etc. > GM EV1 was an imperfect but absolutely functional car, and from there we made almost no progress in ramping the tech in volume for about the next 15 years. Focus comes and goes. Lol, because GM realised it was a viable car and killed it before people could realise EVs were the future.
I feel you. Like I said, he's an ass, but he's useful. Currently, he has the best EVs on the market, but they don't outperform the standard ICE, so no go for me. Don't like him? I understand that. That matches with my feelings on Apple, and previously Steve Jobs. Guy practically created a cult focused on iPhone and himself.
Didn't know about the speed upgrade thing. But then, I don't want an electric car until they're more practical. From what I've heard, there are several more things that would need to change. I would have to be able to disable it's internet, I want to be able to drive around offline. I've heard it locks and stays locked in a wreck. I want to be able to get out, especially since the battery is below the cabin and lithium batteries have a tendency of catching fire when the envelope casing gets pierced. Getting caught inside a locked vehicle while the battery and motor beneath me start to burn? Fuck that noise. I'll stick with the gas-burning ICE in my car and truck for now.
I really don't get all the hype over Polestar. What advantages do they have in the EV space over most of their competitors? They aren't even a startup company, they're an ICE manufacturer who still has to cannibalize all of their current ICE sales just to break even from switching to EV's (though in reality the math is probably worse, given all the new R&D expenses involved in shifting to EV's). On top of that the stock is still down 72% in the last year.
When am I getting my full self driving Cybertruck again? The full transition to (new) EVs is being pitched as somewhere between 2030 and 2035 depending on which government or automaker you ask, and that is lightning fast in automotive terms. It's basically one product cycle. The actual date in each market could easily shift later, but it's not shifting sooner. That's like Kyoto Protocol talk. That's before we even talk about electric grid modernization and green energy ramp needed to make EVs genuinely sensible policy in the first place, and those investments are made on the timescales of many decades, not 5-10 years. And of course long haul trucks will stay diesel for longer, and get ever extending exemptions and exceptions. Existing passenger cars and light trucks will stay on the road in volume for 20 years+. Yeah, the future is almost always further away than we think. I will be amazed with humanity if I wake up in 2035 to learn that ICE vehicles are no longer on sale in any developed economy. It would be very unpopular for experts to stand up and drop truth bombs like "yes all of these things are possible but the public and governments and corporations cannot realistically gather the willpower to execute it on that timeline." GM EV1 was an imperfect but absolutely functional car, and from there we made almost no progress in ramping the tech in volume for about the next *15 years.* Focus comes and goes.
I don't invest on companies based on a shark tank pitches. They can demonstrate to me they have a workable business model and a team of employees capable of executing it. Then they get my money. 2022 was a wonderful teaching moment for what happens to companies missing one or both of those components. I'm as of yet thoroughly unconvinced that there is a lot of money to be made in EVs. Automotive has been an incredibly hard business to make money in for half a century, and the only difference I see with EVs is that the technical barrier to entry is much lower than inherently complex ICE vehicles, which has resulted in a lot of new entrants including some very capable Chinese competitors. That's great for consumers and bad for margins.
Are you trying to mislead me or yourself? Your comment reads like an article that’s deliberately cherry picking statistics to mislead people. If it’s for me, it ain’t working, if it’s for yourself, you should seriously worry about the fact that you’re emotional in your investment decisions… Tesla having 1% is incredible. You know how little cars turn over every year? We have average 1.2 million new cars sold every year, with 270 million new cars. Half of a percent of the market share turns over. That’s all cars ever. Carving up 1% total market share out of a fraction of 0.5% every year is huge. ICE car market is irrelevant. No one is thinking about EV vs ICE competition. The competition is within EV itself, which Tesla dominates. Also, ICE is literally going to be illegal to sell in the coming years, further making your analysis nonsense > They were first to market for sure, but now they’re losing market share. It will be 3 years or more before most automakers have a full lineup of EVs, and then maybe we’ll see who has the best products. Tesla is never going to be 70% of all sales, as the EV market gets bigger, so will variety. What matters is that they’ll be selling a lot more than they are now. They are literally not making enough cars to sells. > I wonder if any company could ever gain 20%+ market share. Cars have a component of style as well, and part of that is being different. Even if there were one best car, I’m not sure everyone would buy it. Tesla is obviously priced like they will get 50% share of the entire market. Would be interesting to see a parking lot if that comes true 😜 Tesla is not gonna be at 20% market share. That’s a number you pulled out your ass, as no one is projecting it. Tesla is not priced to get 50% of the entire EV market, that’s also a number you pulled out your ass. Tesla is priced to grow its sales 50%. That’s not market share, that’s just Tesla’s sales, that grow with the EV market growing as a whole, despite them losing market share. I’m not a Tesla stock holder, but the amount of nonsense anti Tesla people say is just annoying and a joke. Let’s be honest, you only want Tesla to fail because you don’t like Elon, and you seek out facts that support it. You’re not looking at all the data as a whole
>There are definitely ways to trade oil without holding any physical inventory, though it can be a bit more complicated than other types of trading. One option would be to trade oil futures on an exchange like the NYMEX or ICE. Alternatively, you could use a broker that offers CFDs (contracts for difference) on crude oil. This type of instrument allows you to speculate on the price movements of oil without actually owning any barrels yourself.
> In the long term, once charge times are shorter and range is not an issue fleets will be electrified. So we're making the same point is different words. > Energy prices will not increase over the longterm if the world is running on renewables, once up front costs are paid down you’re only paying for maintenance and upkeep. Solar, wind, hydro, etc are all virtually free once the system is paid and operating. Well that's not true. The system will have to constantly expand iand is already facing space issues. There's even competition for land used by farming and ranching behind some of the pushes against those industries. The up front costs are continuous, and those systems will facing waves of replacement as panels reach their expected life. That adds to delivered cost. "Virtually free" is another idealistic view. Solar is not free, it's largely prepaid. You get a free period on the back end, because you choose to ignore the up front cost that got you there. The reality is the up front expense provides an average rate reduction over the life of the system. The equivalent would be buying enough gas to run an ICE vehicle, storing it, and then claiming your gas cost nothing. The solar industry largely runs on this form of denial. Electrical production continues to rely on hydro and so-called fossil fuels. Dragging solar and wind into this conversation is not a direction you want to go. The future of EVs simply cannot be tied to these technologies without complete disrupton of the economy. They will be an anchor holding back the industry. EV proliferation depends on abundant electricity, and solar and wind simply can't deliver the necessary supply in the expected time frame. > You’re talking in time frames at ~a decade or less, EV prices have been dropping if you exclude supply shortages and inflation. Competent EV makers have been lowering manufacturing costs. Sure, but we're on the front end of the development curve, so cost decreases are accelerated. That's development and manufacturing improvements, and capital assets being paid off, etc. But the Li-ion market is going to face a real shortage down the road. Precious and strategic metals are a real issue, and EVs aren't the only thing depending on them. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilty that LFP will be mandated at some point to maintain the metals supply for other uses. EVs are optional. We can run our vehicles on the abundant supply of oil and gas if need be. And nothing ever increases in price if you ignore supply and inflation.
I've made the same points already. And you are acknowledging in your answer that downtime still exists, which was my point. As for charge speeds already existing, that's in ideal situations. Battery age, the reality of the charging stations (lower charge rates), and the battery degradation you mentioned all end up with a lower customer experience. The majority of deployed EVs are still running relatively new batteries. > There are already battery packs capable of charging in only a few minutes, but it degrades them too much for commercial use. Yes, there is no shortage of magic battery claims that never become viable in the market. As I said earlier, if a viable battery technology (or other power technology) becomes available, all the concerns about EVs go away. > Even if it doesn’t, the cost of these will go down to below ICE and will have fuel costs next to nothing as energy prices naturally fall over the coming decades. So regardless eventually ICE will die, just a matter of time. That's completely wishful thinking. California is the bellweather for where electric prices are going under this type of thinking. Prices are more likely to increase over time if the country follows the CA route. Oil prices are dropping again.
I do love Honda cars, but they are behind the curve on EVs and will have to play catch up to at least Ford. And the Ford Lightning is arguably the best pickup ICE or EV out there and Honda has never really competed in the pickup market. I doubt Honda will do much damage to Ford at all, though maybe the Prologue is a competitor for the hummer.
This is going to look silly in a few years time. Why are there so many EV start-ups but previously very few ICE start ups? Because it's not that hard to do. I get that traditional automakers are not all accepting change, but when they do it's not thst hard to catch up. remindme! 2030
I disagree. BMW has been doing the absolute minimum and is still wasting time and energy on a scenario where ICE and Hybrids are still relevant by 2030. They're in the strongest financial position of probably all automakers except Tesla, but they're taking a huge gamble with no upside by not going all-in on EVs. VW was the only one of the big boys really on the right track under Diess, but they seem doomed now that they've kicked him out and cancelled the new platform that was already going to take almost a decade to develop. I expect they will continue to spin off brands until the VW Group goes under or becomes a niche player. Hyundai is the only legacy OEM that's actually doing a good job, but they have yet to prove they can scale up fast enough and make them profitably, both of which are the biggest hurdles of the EV transition.
There are dozen of companies making cars for a lot longer, and making them a lot better than tesla. These are big and powerful multinational corporations. If Tesla could do it they will also, is just a matter of time. Building an EV is a lot easier from an engineering point of view that building an ICE car. Toyota, VW, Volvo, Benz, Ford... these brands are going to leverage their expertise in the car market and crush Tesla. Tesla will continue selling cars and compete with them but their margins will be heavily affected.
Well, a lot of governments around the world have mandated new cars to all be made BEV only by as soon as 2030 in some places. This site is very US centric but the 2nd biggest EV leader after Tesla are the Chinese companies like Nio/Xpeng/byd and Li auto. Xpeng showrooms are appearing in Europe now. So it's going to be forced on us wether we like it or not. I mean USA might hold out longer but the end of the mass production ICE car is inevitable, as well as people driving them other than on special licences or race tracks. It will also be cheaper to run and upkeep, will be minimal compared to ICE cars (less moving parts to fail),they will also hold their value longer because they don't fall apart after a few years. Chanos is just wrong I'm afraid.
>Most of that 20% loss is from chemistry of battery not hvac. The batteries are heated or cooled depending on the ambient temperature versus battery temperature, that requires energy whether the vehicle is moving or not. >causes ton of extra wear No it doesn't. They use an oil pressure accumulator and an entirely different starter assembly designed for the task. >Everybody I know with ICE start stop disables it because it is so annoying Seriously? The thing starts in a split second as soon as you let off the brake, I hear them all the time on my commute. >And the system will disable itself if ac or heat is cranked. Not every system does that. https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/auto-start-stop-explained
Your weights are way, way off. Starting with the eCacadia: The eCascadia is only available in a day-cab variant, which are lighter than sleeper cab trucks. Secondly, only the long-range **single rear axle** 4x2 Cascadia is 18,750 pounds. The single rear axle truck is much less capable. The dual rear axle variant (6x4, required for 82,000 pound GCWR, which most Class 8 trucks are) weighs **21,800 pounds** Secondly, standard class 8 semi trucks are NOT 23,000-25,000 pounds. A Kenworth T680 Day-Cab with dual rear axles weighs in at **15,000 pounds** with a full tank of fuel. Standard Cascadias will be similar, but I can't find detailed specs. Fully loaded Class 8 ICE trucks with huge sleeper cabs and all the options checked might push 20k - but nowhere near 25k. So right off the bat the eCascadia has a nearly 7,000 pound weight penalty compared to an equivalent day-cab ICE truck. So add on another 6,000 pounds for a 1MWH battery and you have a truck that's going to be tipping the scales at 27,800 pounds before any cargo. Losing nearly 13,000 pounds of payload compared to a T680 ICE is going to be a tough pill to swallow.
I know, right, people acting like it hasn't been profitable even discounting energy credits for at at least 2 years. Last earnings those were like 5% of its gross income - yep negligible, but we still hear this same old bs day in day out. I also love to the side by side graphics of the debt charts. All these ICE companies sitting on 100's of billions of debt and Tesla with just a few million in debt. Then they cry but how can Tesla be worth more than the next 8 car companies behind them? That's how? Oh and the unheard of margins in the car industry that are close to hitting apple like margins. Feel sorry for the people who are gonna miss the boat on this one. You have a huge discount right now. Grab it with both hands before it's gone.
I know people acting like it hasn't been profitable even discounting energy credits for at at least 2 years. Last warning it was like 5% of its revenue - yep negligible, but we still hear this same old bs day i day out. I also love to the side by side graphics of the debt charts. All these ICE companies sitting on 100's of billions of debt and Tesla with just a few million in debt. Then they cry but how can Tesla be worth more than the next 8 car companies behind them? That's how? Oh and unheard of margins in the car industry close to hitting apple like margins. Feel sorry for the people who are gonna miss the boat on this one. You have a huge discount right now. Grab it with both hands before it's gone.
The point they're making is that the max weight of the truck is dictated by law, not the manufacture. 82,000lbs for a Class 8 EV truck vs 80,000lbs for a Class 8 ICE truck. It's estimated that the battery pack in the Tesla Semi weighs around 8,000lbs-10,000lbs (keep in mind, a 9,000lb Hummer EV has nearly 3,000lbs of batteries for a 350mi range without towing anything). Tesla has been saying that their design goal is to keep the tractor below the standard 25,000lb upper limit for ICE tractors. If we assume they've done that, the weight of the Tesla semi is lower to the road than in a traditional ICE tractor. The promise of advanced driving aids and stability control (much talk of their anti-jackknifing tech) suggests they intend to use electronically actuated disc brakes. The industry standard in trucking is (even in 2022) drum air-actuated brakes. Tesla would have to really try hard to do worse... like ..*torpedoing Twitter* hard. Fortunately, Musk has teams of real engineers working on Tesla Semi and he doesn't seem to be very personally interested in muscking it up.
While i expect battery trucks are limited in practicality I can 100% see how the TRAIN model could work for truck. WHY is the hybrid generator with much smaller battery suddenly so far out of scope/interest? You want an adoption rate? Do any truly want less pollution, higher mileage? If so why do so many ditch Hybrid with all the benefit(which are massive) of hydrocarbons as fuel to power constant speed high efficiency ICE generator. Distribution system already in place. Can charge to whatever max you carry once parked. Mileage only limited by access to fuel. Imagine a BATTERY ONLY world in a hurricane…or hurricane aftermath. Or floods or tornados or ice storms… each can take down power lines for weeks at a time. Hybrid doesn’t have those problems. One generator you can still run gas/diesel pumps at fuel stations. One can of fuel and you are never stranded. And if people don’t like diesel then switch to natural gas… we have 400yr supply of natural gas in the USA alone. Cheap abundant and clean burning. Ever been to a gas well? Grass grows right up to the well head/location. It’s also the lowest cost and lowest loss in transportation fuel with massive underground storage already in place. But people pushing this battery only agenda aren’t really after a better solution or we would already be there with hybrid. Instead they want to move to lithium which will become the NEW natural resource shortage of the future. Lithium will mean HUGE strip mining, run off, damage underground water supplies… same as coal strip mining.(I’ve lived near them and they are terrible even after “restoration”)
I'ma get some hate but Toyota has it right. The US electrical grid cannot handle a total change over to electric and wouldn't/won't be able to unless we started with trillions in infrastructure and even 5th gen nuclear now. Plugin electrics are your best bet. They do not need to have 300-500 mile ranges, 95% + of all driving in the US has a round trip distance of under 100 miles. An ICE with a 100 mile plug in battery is the way to go. The result is all the torque advantages of an BEV and all of the redundancy of ICE. Electric prices are going to spike up, gas will spike up as well and potentially even more. The best value proposition for the masses will be a plug in electric, as it will allow you to trickle charge at home and if you forget or electricity gets to expensive to offer a cost advantage use gas or use gas on longer trips. Long trips outside a few coastal corridors with a BEV are not possible. plug in electrical with ~ 100 mile electric only range, is what will drive the masses. Now if you want a premium vehicle a lucid sounds nice a 80k basic package f150, sure. But battery prices are volatile as hell. If you want to invest in car manufacturers wait forever for a lucid to become profitable, take the Toyota gamble that they pull off the mass consumption niche or ... Get directly into the resources and battery manufacturers, get smart and get in early Alla enphase
> I think you're really over-estimating the diesel drivetrain weight, and underestimating the battery and electric drivetrain weight. You're saying that like the electric drivetrain has no weight. > > A Cummins ISX12 is 2600 pounds, an Eaton 10 speed transmission. is 600 pounds. Figure in another 500 for ancillaries and exhaust after treatment, and then another 1000 for a full tank of fuel and you're still well under 5,000 pounds all-in. > > The EV truck still has have axles, still has a cooling system, still has electric motors, still has controls - and all of that has weight. My estimates are based on known BEV vehicles and ICE vehicles. They are realistic. A typical diesel class 8 semi is 23,000-25,000 lbs The long range eCascadia (438 kwh battery) weighs 18,750 lbs per their website: https://freightliner.com/trucks/ecascadia/#:~:text=The%20approximate%20curb%20weight%20for,%2C%20or%2021%2C800%20(6x4). Knowing that the Model S battery (~100 kwh) is about 1200 pounds, and giving it a bonus because you don't need 10x cooling systems and structural components, is how I arrived at ~10,000 - 12,000 lbs for the battery. So adding 6000 lbs to the eCascadia to get to a 1Mwh pack means you're at 24,750 lbs for the cab. That's with freightliner making an ICE chassis into a BEV, so you'd probably get weight reductions designing from the ground up for BEV like Tesla has.
You think EVs won’t be able to compete on down-time ever?? That’s pretty absurd imo. It takes a lucid 20 minutes to put on 300 miles of range, a few years ago the fastest charge time was 45 minutes for about 200 miles of range. Technology gets better every single year, and it will continue to. There are already battery packs capable of charging in only a few minutes, but it degrades them too much for commercial use. the tech will get there eventually. Even if it doesn’t, the cost of these will go down to below ICE and will have fuel costs next to nothing as energy prices naturally fall over the coming decades. So regardless eventually ICE will die, just a matter of time.
If you’re willing to take on some risk (whole market outside of legacy is really) LCID battery tech is quite a bit far ahead of everyone else. Which to me is going to be the single most important thing for EV to overtake ICE
These are businesses that need to drive profits and be competitive against other ICE fleets. The only one companies buying into this are companies like Pepsi where they control the supply chain end to end. And the reason why Pepsi doesn’t care about weight restrictions is because they own Frito Lays, they’ll cube out before they every hit a FTL weight. I think we’re about to witness a even more expensive failure than Cybertrucks Armoured glass
Person above has a point - as it relates to Tesla’s other vehicles. Their brakes are crap. Regen is good, but a cold battery means no regen (or basically none), which means freewheeling like you’re somewhere between 6th gear (top gear) and neutral in a manual gearbox vehicle. Not great in a heavy vehicle. ICE equipped vehicles also utilise engine/exhaust/pneumatic brake systems, to augment standard foot brakes. Regen effect is also reduced for a battery that is nearly full - regen is dialed back and eventually goes to 0%, as you exceed 90% pack capacity, heading towards 100%. So the person above may not be having a blind dig at Tesla, but rather commenting on the limitations of EV drivetrains, as regards fighting gravity, AND/OR poking at Tesla’s history of placing brakes around 47th, in the hierarchy of vehicle systems to develop.
A typical fully loaded semi weighs about 80,000 pounds so this test had a loaded trailer. From the 60 seconds of research I did, the 500-mile variant of the semi weighs about the same as an ICE, excluding battery weight of 8k to 18k pounds and can tow about 42k pounds.
See my comment here. I’d rather a relatively very few amount of problematic fires than the expected shitload of fires from traditional ICE rigs https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/z5yrpi/elon_musk_elonmusk_tesla_team_just_completed_a/ixzk2yk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
But what does the truck weigh? A weight station cares about total mass of the vehicle plus cargo, and applies taxes and fines appropriately. If a tesla semi masses a third more then an ICE semi, companies are gonna have to decrease cargo by a third or eat a shit load of fines and taxes.
Yea that’s completely fair, team drivers would definitely not want ride EV. But as for short haul also wanting ICE over EV, you’re not accounting for possible cost savings to help incentivize. Electricity is far cheaper than running gas or diesel, and on paper EV will need to next to no maintenance. Just with fuel savings, an EV can save well over a million dollars in its life time. So I believe the Tesla semi will have its place, and hopefully as battery density gets better it will become a no brainer.
Semis don't run on gasoline already. Look, EV battery fires are blown way out of proportion. Your gas powered car is more likely to catch fire than an EV, but EV fires make headlines. AFAIK, there are no reputable studies that compare rate of EV vs ICE fires. There are articles claiming that the NTSB has crunched those numbers, but the writers of those articles didn't do any fact checking. A sketchy insurance company did some really bad math using NTSB fatality data. Twitter thread about it [here](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1487719216790835205.html). But.. (and I know I'm posting to WSB where 2+2=6.9420) big trucks run on diesel. Diesel has a much higher flash point than gasoline and is notoriously difficult to ignite. Diesel trucks still catch fire, but there's no evidence to suggest that an EV will do so any more or less.
Most of that 20% loss is from chemistry of battery not hvac. Hvac uses a kw or two at a time. Everybody I know with ICE start stop disables it because it is so annoying (and causes ton of extra wear). And the system will disable itself if ac or heat is cranked.
Bro it’s just common sense and the data supports it. “Pinfa (Phosphorous, Inorganic and Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association) suggested around 55 fires per billion miles traveled in ICEs compared to 5 fires per billion miles traveled for EVs.” “A recent study conducted by AutoInsuranceEZ using data from the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) showed that electric cars in the US caught fire at a rate of 25.1 per 100,000 sales compared to 1,530 for ICE vehicles and 3,475 for hybrids.” https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/ev-fires-less-common-but-more-problematic/25749
I feel like this is a really stupid for Tesla to not publish the trucks weight specs. That can drastically affect a fleets load capabilities. Especially if you’re hauling a liquid cargo like canola or corn syrup, if this semi weighs in significantly more than a diesel ICE truck than this won’t work for FTL or liquid carriers. Why would you reduce your cargo capacity and increase your trucks cost significantly more. Plus you can’t slip seat drivers which is a huge part of short haul fleets that go warehouse to warehouse for those 250-500mile fleets.
I'm pretty sure that the Lightning can fill like probably 80-90% of the duties of an ICE pickup. Just like a F150 could do like 80% of a F350's job. Yes it's probably not going to be making state crossing adventures, but tow your boat to the lake 20-30 miles away. Hit up the local hardware store and load up for remodel or the weekend honey do list.
Hydrogen is worse for the environment than petrol, at this time. Why? Well because you have to make it, and that take a lot more energy than you get back out of it. Unless we get mostly clean electric production, H2 is more CO2 intensive than modern ICE trucks.
> Truckers can only driver for a specific amount of time before needing to take a break. It’s illegal to drive continuously after this point, times vary from place to place. You're conflating driver rules with vehicle rules. These restrictions are on the individual driver, not the vehicle. Team drivers can operate longer. > For short haul under 250 miles it will be a beast, and out preform any ice comparable Again vehicle vs driver. Fleet use for ICE means 100% uptime or as close as possible. Drivers switch off in shifts and the trucks keep moving. Batteries introduce more downtime. Near 100% uptime is more common for cars (taxi, police). I should note that while I'm referring to ICE here, meaning mainly diesel/gasoline, the US Code for 82K weight also provides that exemption for natural gas vehicles, which fall under ICE.
I have heard said that to make CA's 2035 no new ICE cars they will need 50% more power and infrastructure than they have today. Remember that they cant keep the lights on without burning down whole towns. Lots of work to be done.
Well, electricity is fungible, so if the grid you're on generates, say, half of its electricity from fossil fuels, and the other half from renewables, then you can say that the CO2 per kWh of electricity from the grid is the same as half of the CO2 per kWh from 100% fossil fuel-generated electricity. So that's a factor that you have to take into account when comparing electric vehicles to ICE ones.
“Max gross of 82.000 lbs” vs the normal 80.000 lbs allowable. So the cab can weigh 2000 lbs more than an ICE cab and still carry the same amount of weight in trailer and cargo. 80000 - 17000 = 82000 - 19000 But yea with 500 miles or range it doesn’t match ICE range, but it’s not far off. Truckers can only driver for a specific amount of time before *needing* to take a break. It’s illegal to drive continuously after this point, times vary from place to place. I think Europe is only 9 hours, so driving at 60 m/h you’d be able to drive for almost 9 hours before needing a charge. To which your shift would basically be over, and you could hit a rest stop and charge overnight. But this creates another problem, the infrastructure around the larger super chargers will cut into this range as it’s not built up at all yet. Hopefully by the time semi is actually being pushed out they’ll have enough chargers for it to start making sense. For short haul under 250 miles it will be a beast, and out preform any ice comparable