> I'm really grateful to Tesla/GM/Nissan and the people buying their cars.

I find it interesting that it's GM and not Ford.

In the pre-2008 years (when Ford didn't need a bailout but GM did), Ford was investing in and rolling out gas-electric hybrids while GM was very heavily invested in SUVs and opted to minimize hybrid development while maximizing the $500/unit upgrade to "FlexFuel" type ICE drivetrains. When the price of gas spiked in 2005-2007, Ford benefitted while GM was reeling.

I wonder if the restructure during the bailout changed GM's priorities...

Ford's electrification strategy was and still is hybridization (much like Toyota's).

Personally, I think Ford/Toyota's strategy is best. Any improvement in the pure EV space also impact hybrids. It's completely possible for battery tech to improve to the point that a hybrid option is basically no cost (or at a cost savings). As in, instead of offering a V6 or turbo 4, a Ford can offer a hybrid drive train at the same price as those engines, but with the better performance and fuel economy.

Also, keep in mind that Ford is a really a truck builder with a car division. The bulk of their profits come from F-series pickups and EV pickups are probably a long way off, but hybrid pickups are coming this generation.

I think Nissan and GM are capitalizing on the fact that Ford and Toyota are sitting back, watching how the market evolves. But so far, neither the Leaf, Volt, nor Bolt have earned any any real ROI.

Hybrids lose so many benefits of a pure EV vehicle. EV drivetrains are much simpler. No complicated transmission or ICE. Easier to produce, scale, and maintain. Hybrids require all the complexity of both systems, and the weight.

I've never quite understood this. Why not have the gas engine simply drive a generator which charges the batteries / drives the electric motors, like a diesel-electric locomotive? Then there's no dual drivetrain issue.

Even for an all-electric car, it'd be nice to have a small gas engine to drive a generator to charge the batteries if you're too far from a socket.

I work at a train museum. Locomotives are fundamentally different. They have to have electric traction motors to grab the rails. Weight is unimportant. 125 tons. That's a quarter million pounds, 113,400 kg. Automobiles need every weight-saving trick the engineers can pull off. Such as combination drives.

Also trains don't change speed super often so they can have their prime mover running in the power band all of the time. A car changes speed at lot so its more inefficient to have the prime mover running in its power band constantly to drive the generator.

This is one of the functions of the Chevy Volt - "...its internal combustion engine powers an electric generator to extend the vehicle's range as needed. When the engine is running it may be periodically mechanically linked (by a clutch) to a planetary gear set, and hence the output drive axle, to improve energy efficiency." -- from wikipedia page on the Volt

Yeah, I'd love to know why this hasn't been an option. Seems like the best of both worlds

It is worth pointing out that the Toyota Prius, despite being a hybrid, is regularly featured as one of the most reliable cars out there, including regular ICE cars.

Meh? I mean I've owned many cars over the last 15 years or so and it's never been the ice/transmission/drivetrain that's failed.

Meanwhile every car I've ever had has suffered from window motor failure.

FWIW, extra complexity and complicated transmissions can be largely avoid with the "range extended EV" approach, where the gas engine is a generator producing electricity and doesn't drive the wheels directly.

That said, the best vehicle in that style that I can think of, the Chevy Volt, does actually allow the engine to drive the wheels and has two planetary gear/clutch systems. On the plus side, the gas engine is expected to need much less maintenance than a regular engine that's used in a much wider power range.

You want the BMW i3 with range extender, the gasoline engine only attaches to a generator.

benefits to who? the best thing for the car buyer is a standard ICE car - every mechanic out there can fix it. the worst thing out there for the consumer is an electric car that can only be fixed by the dealer

That's a great argument against every new technology in a car. For example, only a subset of body shops can do aluminum.

How are you going to get gas, when the rest of us are driving EVs?

Car companies are by nature and market, passive. What it takes for them to move is disruptive innovation (battery tech) or government regulations (I'm thinking more China than the US).

I've owned a hybrid, however my current EV (Ford Focus EV amusingly) is just simply better in so many ways for how I actually use my car (commute/kids/groceries). We have a 2nd non-EV minivan for trips/hauling.

Charger availability is a decently available now, and charging standard adoption (i.e., DC Fast) is a game changer.

totally agree hybrid is where the value is right now.

everyone on this site loves tesla and loves to think of their electric car as the solution to everyones car needs. but electric cars are still only viable as a 2nd car. a hybrid can be your only car

After taking a few 3000+ mile roadtrips, I'm done taking roadtrips. If I can't get there in a single day's drive, I'm flying, see you when you get there. Running the miles on the Model 3, it has more than enough to be my only car. If you don't do roadtrips, which are vacation-day intensive anyway, it's an interesting experiment to run the numbers if an electric works for you. Of course some hater will, till the end of time, find a scenario where it doesn't work. But I think if most people really think about it, they'll see how well the current range of a car like the Model 3 will fit their needs. It does for me and can't wait to get mine.

And don't forget, the battery tech keeps getting better. How long til the Model 3 hits 400 miles, or 500?

long drives are exactly the problem EV can’t do but hybrid can.

want to take a family trip sf to la? you will stop for gas once for 20 minutes and pay ~$60. want to take EV? plan for a long charging stop. want to fly? you’ll pay $100+/pp and rent a car when you get there. “most people” are going to see that EV has far less utility than a hybrid, usually at greater cost

That's a horrendous example. It's 5.7 hours between LA and SF. Perfectly fits what I described as a day's drive. You'd probably need to stop once to recharge for 30 minutes (super charge time with a Tesla), 10 more minutes than you described with the hybrid. Once you take a wiz, stretch the legs, change your kid's diaper, get them a quick snack and tend to everyone's needs you'll easily need 30 minutes in a 6 hour drive at some point. I'll take that.

Especially given the lack of complexity to electrics compared to hybrids, which are the worst vehicles on the road for complexity (inferior to a plain old lone ICE).

The only worse idea than a hybrid is hydrogen fuel cells. Some people like needlessly complex technology, I do not.

My Tesla is my only car. Its doing pretty good.

My Tesla is my only car. It's doing pretty good.

I can totally believe that it wouldn't work for you, but I'm not you.

This is a very Silicon Valley / US bubble mindset. Telsa/GM/Nissan have made much contribution but your are missing the major factor driving the EV industry forward which is government industrial policy.

The real reason is EU and China have announced their intention of banning ICE vehicles around 2030 with China having very aggressive EV marketshare goals starting next year. Companies that do not meet EV sale goals will have to buy credits from others that do just like a carbon emission market. This is causing all major automakers to not be complacent and invest heavily in EVs.

This is misleading. These (quite recent) changes in governmental policy have come about as a result of things that Tesla managed to achieve, firstly, on its own, and secondly, through its effects on the behavior of other automakers. No major automaker was meaningfully working on EVs before Tesla; now they all are.

Indeed, to a rare degree, the shift we're seeing in a major sector of the world economy is the result of the unilateral actions of just one person: Elon Musk.

This is typical Silicon Valley hype taking credit for everything. There were many EV manufacturers around the same time as Tesla (ex. Nissan, BYD). Even earlier, the supply chain for lithium batteries got momentum due to electric buses and hybrid vehicle manufactures but no one gives them credit, only Tesla for some reason. Currently, Tesla is only a small chunk of the entire EV and battery market but still gets all the credit.

You can see this in the Tesla Semi or the Tesla battery pack announcement. Companies have been mass producing them 4 years before and are already being used in production today. However, being B2B, these products were largely low key. But somehow Tesla gets all the credit these and "moving the industry forward". Chinese and Korean battery manufactures have also been expanding production like crazy and account for the vast majority of production but only the GigaFactory gets any mention which cause some people think Tesla alone is responsible for the decreasing price of batteries.

Major auto manufactures are working on EV mainly due to government policy. I agree private companies seeing traction selling EVs is a large impetus for the new government policies, but to only credit Tesla is over-exagerating it's contributions. How much does Tesla influence Chinese policy when 95% of Chinese EVs are made by domestic brands?

Can you give us a list of companies producing semi trucks with large range starting 4 years ago? All of the ones I've seen have small ranges.

Likewise, can you tell us what BYD should be praised for? They keep on announcing that they're going to compete with Tesla head-to-head with long-range high-performance cars, but the only thing they've managed to get volume on are low-performance, lower-range Chinese compliance cars. Tesla is praised for making electric cars sexy; is BYD doing that?

Third, I'm sure you've noticed that at the lower end of the US market, the Leaf gets a lot of credit, as does the Bolt.

1) New models will obviously have more range than ones 4 years ago... My point was the Tesla Semi should be treated as incremental rather than revolutionary, just like releasing a new smartphone model with more RAM than one 4 years ago. Also the Tesla Semi hasn't even launched yet so they can easily overpromise making comparisons with any existing offerings difficult.

2) As with Ford for ICE vehicles, affordable EVs selling higher volumes are much more important to than the premium EVs offered by Tesla in terms bringing the tech mainstream. In this way, BYD and Nissan should be credited much more than Tesla. In terms of contribution, I would put BYD much higher than Tesla: BYD manufacturers their own batteries, sell more vehicles, drive industry competition in the much more relevant CN market, and their success influnced the Chinese government to phase out ICE cars.

3) My post was specifically replying the the person above who was worshipping Musk on a pedestal and giving all the credit to Tesla.

1) The first electric cars were from the early 1900s, everything since should be treated as incremental, just like the iPhone wasn't that much of an advance over other smartphones.

2) Halo products are a concept, but apparently not in cars. BYD's failed attempts to introduce premium cars, followed by eventual success in me-too compliance cars for the Chinese market deserves a participation award. Not praise.

3) Uh, OK. Never mind the facts, let's focus on opposing Musk worship.

Don't think I can ever convince people like you. In terms of scale, driving down costs and adoption, Tesla is a shrimp.

Keep being arrogant and think the world revolves around Silicon Valley tech companies. When EVs completely replaces ICE, people like you will think Musk did by himself against dumb incumbents while completely ignoring the much much greater contributions of everyone else.

I'll just leave with this statistic [1]:

> China’s demand for electric bus batteries is almost equal to that of demand for all electric vehicle batteries

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-08/china-goe...

Huh, you just made up a bunch of stuff and said I believe it. I'm not the strawman you were attempting to beat.

Without hard proof, but having watched the last decade of environmental tech developments wit interest, I agree with you pretty much completely. None of those policies would exist if there was no hope of the success of the commercial technology within those timeframes. It would be like legislating nuclear fusion power generation. Nobody else did much of anything until Tesla began succeeding, and more importantly prepped the consumer market for EV demand.

Government policy would cave-in if the private companies lacked innovation and told them it was impossible. You need existence proofs like Tesla, who are highly leveraged to making EVs work and don't care a wit about preserving the old business.

As a concrete example, consider the government effort to shift ethanol-to-be-mixed-with-gasoline from food-based sources to non-food sources like switchgrass. No one figured out how to efficiently turn switchgrass into ethanol, so it failed. And that was despite a huge economic incentive.

In contrast, the government effort to promote electric cars, solar energy, and wind energy appear to be really paying off.

Yes, the US will be a rounding error for the next decade. China will have tens of millions of EV's within a decade.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/business/ford-china-elect...

They will soon have millions of charging stations:

"China's government is seeking to combat range anxiety for electric vehicle buyers with a pledge to build a charging station for every vehicle on the road by 2020. China plans a total of 4.8m charging outlets and stations by 2020"

https://www.ft.com/content/f9aece28-d65f-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d...

"wonder what it would look like without them" ... they are following a trend in tech they see, not inventing physics.

Its our phds and universities that prusue the underlying science. Companies make a cost analysis on the RandD and reep the profits ... if it wasnt GM it would be another company, and eventually it will be most companies if the tech proves itself to be as good as the propaganda says.

All in a days work of capitalism , making sure hard work it rewarded and that we keep striving for better

I dont praise GM for their work , I pay them , a fair market price. Thats what they deserve, but they are not gods they are just good engineers and business men doing their jobs and hopefully our schools keep creating them.

Enterprises tend to stay in their local optimum until they are pushed out, and are forced by a competitor to look for another cow to milk. And there’s a reason for that - finding another cow to milk is expensive and risky.

If Tesla had not been created, those other enterprises would have milked the gasoline cow for way longer.. perhaps another decade? I’m grateful that Elon is sticking out his neck on a daily basis, potentially slowing global warming as a result.

>Enterprises tend to stay in their local optimum until they are pushed out, and are forced by a competitor to look for another cow to milk. And there’s a reason for that - finding another cow to milk is expensive and risky.

That's a very nice statement of the innovator's dilemma.