Touchscreens are how electric cars are simpler and cheaper. Buttons, knobs, their wirings and linkages are surprisingly expensive once you include fully load the cost (ie, wiring is often done by hand).

> Imagine the Chinese electric cars are similar to this but the article is lacking much detail.

No, Chinese cars are usually loaded with gimmicks. Even the $10,000 Dolphin has two screens.

> This would be much more effective than electric heating and likely generate less carbon emissions

Even more efficient is to utilize the waste heat from motors, as a proper heat pump system does.

What really kills the range of an EV in the winter is bringing the battery & cabin up to temperature at the beginning. Once the car is moving, the heat pump can scavenge heat from the motor to relatively efficiently heat things. So if you pre-warm your car while it's plugged in the range loss isn't too bad.

Diesel heat would prevent you from doing this because you can't run a diesel heater in the garage. So ironically, a diesel heater could reduce your battery's range even though it doesn't use battery power.

That's a good point but I can't understand how it would add up vs servos or other electric air controls vs a manual lever that physically opens the baffle. It really doesn't make sense to me how an lcd can be less expensive than a bit of metal and plastic in a switch but I suppose you're right due to economies of scale.

The touch aspect itself is really cheap. The big benefit of screens over "simpler" instruments is that regulations actually vary quite a bit across the world. Being able to use a screen that can display anything greatly reduces the sku count, simplifying supply chains and assembly lines.

It would be hard to justify not using a screen these days, IMO.

> It would be hard to justify not using a screen these days, IMO.

Unless you were concerned about the safety of someone having to look at a screen to operate vehicle controls. Otherwise you could just make it a smartphone app and ditch the screen entirely.

That would be atrocious (but not really much worse than the all-in-one infotainment screens we already have...) But my gut says automakers haven't gone there because it would make support and liability that much more complicated - "the operator was distracted at the time of the collision... but they weren't trying to turn on the defroster, they were watching Youtube!" On the plus side instead of being stuck with a never-upgraded head unit, with an orphaned 3G modem, you'd at least have connectivity that kept working.

I should have been more clear. I meant the gauge cluster. TBH, having physical controls for things like climate, wipers, and lights makes sense. I can't imagine the cost difference is meaningful.

I doubt if it's actually cheap. "The touchscreen" aka 2DIN radio/infotainment head unit slot, is required for Japanese market, as Japanese users require one of indigenous options installed for all cars. Google Maps supposedly had gotten better but aren't quite replacing it, so CP/AA doesn't work. I believe this is a unique country requirement, as many Chinese EVs as well as many European low-end cars seem to ignore it.

Not every cars are made for Japanese, far from it, but abolition of LCD based map-radio on a standardized slot is a weird hill to die on, so every cars has it anyway.

And, I think, this is where the actual "it's cheaper to..." argument begins: since every cars will have the standard issue map-radio, it _can be cheaper to move buttons into it_. Differences between the standard version and one with this context is whether the cost of the entire 2DIN screen is included in it or not - if the screen cannot be removed, to shut up whining Japanese or not, it becomes sunk cost and becomes a constant term of equation, which physical buttons have no chance of winning.

The cost of the vehicle components is a surprisingly small part of the overall cost of a vehicle. The cost of the line time and the additional tolerances to fit those cheaper components is vastly higher than the cost of stuff they're going to install anyway.

Being able to separate design decision timelines on how the UI works from manufacturing timelines is also very helpful organizationally.

I think these are the right answers. LCDs are already wired and don't need someone's hands to do it. And you can, in software, however late you want in the process, add a button for this or remove a button for that. In software development this is a given, but in real world manufacturing it's like a super power.

Try pricing out physical switches at your local electronics shop sometime. How much does say, 20 or 30 of them cost? How much a 7" touch-screen LCD cost?

Then consider how long it takes to wire up and install the LCD versus 20-30 switches (plus mounting brackets, plus functional testing etc.)

Regulation forces the manufacturers to have the LCD in the car because rear view cameras are mandatory.

Right off the bat all radio controls are free if tossed into the software.

Then why don't all the 3rd world cars use touchscreens?

It’s happening. The mg3 is very common in the third world and has touch screens now in the latest model. They have a few buttons on the wheel but the majority of features are on the tiny touchscreen in the center. If you see cars in the 3rd world without touchscreens they are older models is all. Sometimes it just takes a while for the new cheaper way to do things to become widespread.

Firstly, they're often older cars shipped from richer countries if it's a better deal than scrapping.

And for new build cars, they often lack a lot of the entertainment and safety systems required in western countries, so they also don't have the onboard computers that would run the touch screen.

When your car already has a backup camera required, so it _has_ to have a screen, and add at least handsfree bluetooth phone connectivity, bluetooth audio and digital radio since I haven't seen a new car without them for years, you have an onboard general purpose computer already. Switching to a touch screen is a small marginal cost over that, and you can lower costs by removing physical controls which not only removes the part cost, but also labour cost of installing, wiring, and quality control.

Also all the features not found in cars for low-cost markets don't need controls, so even if physical controls cost more per-item than touchscreens the total number of controls is much lower.

Where do you live? Everything you said could be a mental exercise in this third world country: It makes sense, but it is not reality.

New cars in here (at least chevrolet, isuzu and toyotas) are being shipped with a touchscreen. As you say, it covers the camera display, the infotaiment and map navigation. Everything else still has manual controls, THANK GOD. For instance AC, lights, wipers.

I currently have a 2017 Mazda Bt50 it didnt have the touchscreen. It does have a rearview camera, and the image is displayed in a little square screen in the central rearview mirror. It also has a frontal camera and both of them can record video continuosly. You can have Features without a "general purpose computer"

The most common transmission is manual, automatic costs around $1000 more. Why? Market preference. We do have some poorly maintained roads, and some dirt roads, mind you.

The only reason to ship all controls in a touchscreen is because it is fancy, and since it is already there, they want to save some money by not including physical buttons.

Well I _live_ in New Zealand, but the area I'm most familiar with is the pacific islands. The cars there are mostly used exports from Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

That's also true in New Zealand, half of the vehicles registered here every year are used imports from Japan, normally 5-10 years old. We don't get the low-cost models though as our safety standards are higher, though you do see Kei cars and trucks. When they can't be sold here anymore they get re-exported to the islands, and generally they make it back here as scrap.

There _are_ brand new cars of course, with the full suite of touch screens, but they're out of reach for most people. Even here in NZ we get feature-cut models to keep the price down.

As for 2017, the cost of large touchscreens was much higher then, and the general purpose computer that was definitely running it behind the scenes was much slower.

And as I said in my post, it's certainly for cost saving. Manufacturers realised they could save a few cents on controls and dollars in labour per car by using the touchscreen they were going to add anyway and there was enough compute power to make it responsive enough to sell. Plus a touchscreen look shiny and most people won't realise the problems until it's sold...

Touchscreens are more expensive than buttons and knobs. But screens are required by law in the USA and EU as they require backup cameras. And a digitizer is a lot cheaper than some buttons and knobs.

I'm confused. Are they more or less expensive?

My presumption is you meant cheaper?

Screens are more expensive than buttons and knobs.

Making the screen into a touch screen with a digitizer is cheaper than buttons and knobs.

So if you already have a screen, making it a touchscreen is indeed cheaper.

They aren’t more expensive to start with though. A small touchscreen is <$10 in large orders. This is why you can buy entire android phones for <usd$30 with no vendor lock-in.

Wiring in a set of buttons and knobs costs more than a small screen. The buttons and knobs are more ergonomic. The real answer to the above question is that it’s happening already. All new cheap Chinese (or anywhere else that caters to the developing world) made cars have a touch screen and fewer hardwired controls.

He means that you already have a screen, and you might as well put a digitizer on it and save the cost of the buttons.

Because building software is hard. If you can do it though …

I think the importance of heatpumps is overblown. If you go for a highway trip, your car consumes 10kW+ and 1kW heating won't matter much. Additionally, on longer trips the cabin's already warm, no need to run the heater that much.

Kinda. Im leqd to believe heatpump is a $50 device that manufacturers charge $2k for (must be more to it honestly).

If that saves 10% of range that’s 10% less batteries which cost more than $50. Eventually all these savings add up so much that EV is lighter and cheaper than similar ICE vehicle…

> Im leqd to believe heatpump is a $50 device that manufacturers charge $2k for (must be more to it honestly).

Turning an AC unit into a heatpump is indeed pretty simple, but that type of heatpump doesn't work well when the temperature gradient is too high.

What you'd need to heat a car during winter is a "high temperature heat pump", which usually requires multiple stages, different thermal fluids, etc.

That's a much more complex and expensive system, not well suited to vehicles.

AFAIK in cold climates they use different refrigerant like methane, but that’s even more expensive.

Expensive why? Methane itself is dirt cheap.

Not sure. Maybe higher pressure or corrosion means beefier gear.

As an owner of a EV, who regularly sees over 20% of the energy used during the winter goes to heating the cabin, I can't agree.

It regularly gets cold enough here that the the temp gauge on my conventional ICE barely rises over an hour without covering the cooling vents manually. We're wasting enormous amount of energy on non-insulation/inefficient temperature control

I can real-time adjust my car's range by changing the temperature and fan speed. As I bump up the temperature, the range computer immediately goes down in significant increments. It's not been proper cold here since I got my EV, but at the moment I'm seeing about a 30km range decrease with cabin heating on.

Where on Earth is a Dolphin only 10,000$ ?

Probably mixed up with the BYD Seagull which is indeed USD$10,000 (before tariffs).

The ocean maybe

I'm under the impression that electric diesel pre-warmers are relatively common, in cold climates? (Or engine block heaters, basically a fancy electric blanket at cheapest) Every diesel person I knew growing up had one, partly because they needed it when it got truly cold.

For the mid-cold regions though, yeah - I can believe that.

In cold climates in Europe, diesel pre-heaters (such as Webasto) are pretty common. Compared to petrol, diesel cars have a harder time starting at low temperatures, and take a long time to warm up.

Where I live (-25c during winter) houses typically don't have garages where cars are kept. Modern apartments have underground parking, but the temperature often stays above freezing.

Coincidentally, Webasto supplies the home EV charging equipment for many of the major brands including VW, Ford, GM.

Nesr the arctic electric block heaters are common. Almost every parking lot in Fairbanks has power outlets at each spot for block heaters.

I have this thing called a “furnace” that heats my home using no. 2 home heating oil (more or less: diesel).

How is a diesel heater different than my furnace? Why can’t you run one in your garage?

Your furnace has a chimney going to the roof. If the diesel heater was part of the car that presumably wouldn't be possible, so you wouldn't be able to use it in a garage.

Got it. Thank you kindly. Wasn't thinking of it that way.

We are now in an era where physical things are expensive. Making a physical knob that actuates things requires machine tools, skilled labour and standardised parts. Compared to a digital widget which eventually can just be coded by an LLM, we are never going back to physical controls unless safety demands it.

>unless safety demands it

Interesting that the market is so held hostage that you didn't even think to mention that the market could demand it.

Do people actually prefer touch screens? I know I don't. I won't buy a car unless every function I need while driving is on a physical knob or button.

If I have to press on a touch screen every time I start the car, this test drive is over.

>>No touchscreens, no fancy door handles, no cameras, etc.

We own a Volkswagen e-Up, it's exactly like this. We love it too, it's just such a great little car, you can easily get 150 miles out of its 32kWh battery and it fits everything, has no touchscreen, good old buttons for the climate controls and even proper analogue gauges for speed and battery level. I will own it until it falls apart.

>>I also think it would make a lot more sense to have an auxiliary diesel heating system.

I honestly doubt that anyone would like the "convenience" of having to fill up the tank for it with diesel every now and then.

>>and likely generate less carbon emissions

CO2 - yes. But these heaters(and devices like Webasto etc) are hugely polluting because unlike the exhaust from your engine their exhaust isn't filtered or treated in any way, all the bad stuff goes directly outside.

>>A gallon of diesel would last for months if it was just used for heating the cabin

No, it wouldn't - I own two cars with a webasto and they both use about 0.4L of fuel for hour of operation, it's not much but it's not insignificant.

Besides, this is a fixed problem - just use a heatpump instead of a resistive heater. A 500W heatpump will produce as much heat as a 2000W resistive heater.

I don't understand why your Webasto is using so much fuel. I use one to heat my sunroom in the winter and 2.4 gallons lasts me several days. A small, insulated cabin should require much less.

Because it also heats the engine as well maybe? Also I guess a car loses heat much faster than your stationary cabin because the flow of air around it as you drive is very good at taking the heat away. Also there is no insulation anywhere.

Anyway, from its spec sheet it says it can actually use up to 0.6L/h at full load:

https://www.webasto-comfort.com/fileadmin/webasto__media/web...

Full load is way too much unless you're arctic trucking. The lowest setting is plenty for my sun room until it gets below 20f or it's especially windy. This uses about a gallon in 6 hours.

But you're right, without any insulation, the moving vehicle will lose heat much faster. The room has terrible insulation but at least it has bare brick for the bottom 3 feet which probably retains a lot of the heat. I suspect with proper insulation your fuel usage would be drastically reduced.

OP's rate of usage equates to using 2.4 gallons in about 23 hours. Assuming you are only using yours during the few hours a day the sunroom is occupied, several days sounds about right.

Yes i run it 6-8 hours a day when I'm using the room. It really surprises me how effective and cheap it is vs a space heater. A solar powered heat pump would be even cheaper, I suppose but this solution was only about $200 to build. I doubt a heat pump would last long enough to pay for itself unless i could figure out away to cheaply acquire and install it.

The reason we went with 4y old leaf and not brand new e-up was that it looked like a coffin made out of matchbox. Compared to leaf which is still simple and conventional but has much more space to absorb impact and full of safety features.

Well....if you don't like the look you don't like the look. But it used to have full 5 stars on NCAP testing until the forward collision avoidance system was made mandatory and it's was never fitted with one by VW. For us the Leaf was a lot more expensive than the e-Up with less range so I wasn't interested.

> A 500W heatpump will produce as much heat as a 2000W resistive heater.

Isn’t this highly dependent on the outside temperature?

It is. Modern high-efficiency single stage air-source heat pumps will only have a COP of between 2-2.2 in -20°c/-4°F, so your 500W heat pump would output 1000W-1200W of heat.

However at 0°C/32°F this bumps to 3.5-3.8, so you'd be getting much closer to the quoted 2000W.

If you're operating in -20°C or below for much of the year a heat pump might not be the best option, but even in Yellowknife that's only three months of the year and it's still twice the heat per kW.

I guess it's a concern if you live in Norilsk?

> Volkswagen e-Up

I'm pretty these will never be sold in the US, unfortunately.

They have been discontinued now.

> This would be much more effective than electric heating and likely generate less carbon emissions

Perhaps in the case of an EV using resistive heating, however, most have moved on to using heatpumps.

Heatpumps have COPs that range anywhere from 2 to 10. Which means for every 1kWh in, you get 2 to 10kWh of heat out. A resistive heater has a COP of 1.

Fossil fuel power plants operate at ~40->60% efficiency, which means that past a COP of ~2 you are going to be more efficient for heating even if your power source is directly from fossil fuels. It's sort of neat.

When talking about generation mixed grids (which most are now) the COP level needed to beat having a diesel burner for CO2 output plummets.

But one more point to consider, a modern EV needs an HVAC to ensure the proper operating temperature of a battery. The thing that killed the old Nissan Leafs was the fact that they didn't have any sort of cooling system for their batteries. Put those in hot climates and you are talking major and fast degradation.

So, it wouldn't even be (much) lighter to omit the heatpump. To convert the HVAC system for the battery into a climate system is pretty much just requires a single valve.

Cars should be Being Your Own Infotainment ready and support that.

Software is a cost center. Your car company probably isnt going to win on it. Enable everyone else to compete to be a good infotainment for your base car.

They already are. Android auto and Apple carplay use your smartphone's brains to display on the car's touchscreen.

Could we just like... have a standard for this already? Instead of two proprietary protocols that do the exact same thing... All it is, is a display and touch screen.

The point is the car shouldn't have a touchscreen. It should have a spot meant to let you bring a phone or tablet.

I'm curious how much control is offered on these Android Auto systems. Ideally in my mind, there would be protocols for controlling windows, sunroofs, seat controls, HVAC, interior lighting, windshield wipers, defog, maybe even running lights headlights cruise control & those closer to the driving experience aspects. The whole car experience should be BYOD.

EVs are full of gimmicks because battery cost never hit $100/kWh and they have to justify the premium over ICE, that's it.

I though we hit sub $100/kWh in 2024?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-lithium-ion-batteri...

That's a stupid number with inflation in the last 3 years.

Anyway, sodium ion will scale to less than that regardless of inflation.

A sodium ion battery should cost 40% of nmc.

> I think electric cars need to be simpler.

Look at the Dacia Spring. The entry level barely has a screen at all, and no camera, not even a backup camera, it doesn't even have a display for it. Also: no A/C, no thermostat, no rear power windows. You have to pay if you want these, and even if you take the "premium" model that has a touchscreen, it is pretty basic, essentially that's just a display for Android Auto / Apple Car Play, and you get a backup camera.

That's what you would expect for an economy car. It is less than €20k. Unfortunately, it also has a pretty bad range and overall performance because of its small battery. Of course, batteries are expensive, and it is a cheap car. It means you won't get far with it. That's unlike "A-segment" gas cars (ex: Fiat 500) that while not the most comfortable, have no problem driving cross-country.

you know indian tata tiago ev and new MG Comet EV?

The thing is....we have a Volkswagen e-Up as our second car. Gets around 120-150 miles range at most. And you know what? In the 3 years that I owned it, I never got even close to running out. Never had to fast charge it either, simply because we never took it on any journey longer than that range. And yet we use it literally every day. And I suspect for most people in situation similar to ours, the same would be true - you just don't drive more than ~120 miles in a regular day just going to work and back and dropping kids off at school and going shopping. So Dacia Spring is actually fantastic for that segment - it doesn't need to have that long distance capability, because most people don't need it.

Biggest problem with Dacia Spring might be its 1-star safety rating.

Ah yes, also pedals in case you run out of battery. And a tullock spike so you drive safely.

The only reason Tesla succeeded is by making sexy car.

Sure we are at the cost point where you can making boring EV. It would cost almost the same and only appeal to 1% of market.

> The only reason Tesla succeeded is by making sexy car.

I don't think so. They succeeded because the batteries made by Tesla seems incredibly good. A Model S owner I know swapped his batteries after... 280 000 km (175 000 miles). They seem to live long and have better mileage.

But neither the Model 3 nor the model Y nor the model X are "sexy": they just have a weird shape. Although I'll grant you the Model S is good looking.

To me the german, Porsche and Mercedes for example, make way better looking EV cars than Tesla and with much better interiors. But inferior batteries.

I don't know whether Tesla batteries are actually better than average. What Tesla absolutely does better than average is their battery management system. Tesla does an exquisite job of keeping their batteries at the optimal temperature and never overcharging them or charging them too fast.

Any lithium battery -- even a bad one -- will last much longer with a great BMS.

They succeeded by making an electric car that looked like a normal car not a glorified golf cart or a cartoon car. Secondly they had decent/usable range for many use cases, and they had good performance.

The people buying Teslas must have a absolutely odd definition of sexy. I put them at a 4/10 at best. Shit I put my daily driver Civic at 6/10 because the driver cockpit is phenomenal and has a significant amount of attention to detail for a cheap car, but I have driven many high end 6-figure cars as well.

My Model Y accelerates from 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. That to me is sexy. Flooring the pedal in my car feels like being launched into orbit. And my car is among the slower models Tesla makes.

Can your Civic do that?

I'll answer for you: No it cannot.

https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/honda-0-60-mph-ti...

We all have different definitions of sexy.

Sexy tech and sexy performance. Buying car for it’s looks is super dumb.

Admittedly i’m talking about first generation cars - roadster and S. Cars that decided Tesla’s fate.

Buying a car for straight line performance is what's dumb.

Less dumb than caring about exterior. I am the one using car - it’s better be comfortable and fit for purpose rather than meet someone’s elses expectations.

I agree we should actually limit top speed and acceleration so people don’t use them as weapons so much.

In a way - nerf and desex the cars.

Agreed. Sexy cars are used for showing status and attracting women to have sex with you.

This is dumb because you can just have sex with your hand. Logically why even involve women? On this regard, you sir are a genius.

Arguably it’s the most common form of sex

So basically an electric bike?

>>The only reason Tesla succeeded is by making sexy car.

I literally don't know anyone who thinks Teslas look sexy - they are like bars of soap, nothing "sexy" about them. But I also know plenty of people who own them, because of their superior battery tech, crazy efficiency, and the supercharger network. I don't know anyone who bought a car because it's "sexy" maybe other than one friend of mine who bought an Alfa Romeo Gulia because it "looks cool" - the argument that it's just a rebranded Fiat Punto never really worked on her unfortunately.

Model S and Roadster are sexy enough - they are the cars that decided teslas fate.

Mind you the competition at the time was only a Prius, which only last year became reasonably good looking.

Model 3 and Y are worlds best selling cars. By definition they have to be boring.

You're missing the point.

EVs weren't really economically viable at the entry level. Tesla was the first company to figure out how to design, style and market an EV for higher end customers at price points where it could actually compete decently against ICEs both on paper and in actual ownership experience.

I don't think Gulia and Punto have much in common. Did you mean a different car?

Ah yes I meant the Alfa Romeo MiTo, sorry got this wrong.

My friend has a Mitsubishi kei van Electric and it’s exactly what you describe. It’s just like a regular kei van but electric. It is a wonderful, wonderful car. Because of the low center of gravity of the heavy battery. It has no roll around corners like a regular kei van. It’s like a sports car. It is as simple as a car could be.

Only thing that’s missing g for me is a 4x4 model.

It seems like all the cars like this are only available in Europe

Kei cars are a Japanese thing. Mostly unavailable in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

Japan has no particular restrictions on exporting used cars but US does for importing cars younger than 25 years old, famously lobbied by Mercedes to block parallel third party imports of their entry level products from cannibalizing American sales.

Europe do not have that particular import restriction, and if someone wanted to personally import and register a brand new wheeled fuel drum with appropriate paperwork, they can.

>No touchscreens, no fancy door handles, no cameras, etc.

Those things cost a few dollars now. This isn't the 00 where it was advanced tech. Physical buttons cost more.

> more sense to have an auxiliary diesel heating system. This would be much more effective than electric heating and likely generate less carbon emissions

Is this true? Honest question. My understanding is that for cars in general (implicitly driving range), electric cars are lower impact on the energy grid as a whole (ignoring last mile) because of how energy intensive oil is to refine.

Is it that diesel specifically is less energy intensive because of how it differs in refinement to petrol? Or is it that because heating is effectively 100% efficient it doesn't matter that you're using the energy in refinement?

Mostly the latter.

Some of it comes down to the rocket equation because it takes a lot of energy to warm a battery up. If that energy has to come from a battery itself, then the vehicle needs even more battery. Carrying around that extra battery all the time will consume even more energy. And you lose about 8% total electrical energy by putting it through the lithium battery.

In comparison two litres of diesel fuel with a nearly 100% efficiency can absolutely be more efficient from a full-system standpoint.

Might as well do a phev then, if you're going to have a heater engine, get some electric recharge as well.

What in talking about here is a mostly EV with a 100 ish all electric range, and the diesel/Atkinson adds even more tange

Everything you just said can be applied to regular cars as well.

> They should be more like economy cars of today with the drivetrain simply swapped.

This is how most first generation EVS from legacy car makers were made, and they dramatically underperformed in range, performance, and comfort due to the assumptions, parts, and manufacturing methods inherited from ICE cars.

New wave of car makers too, Tesla's first was built on a Lotus platform.

Will purpose built EVs have better ride quality than an ICE platform with electric motor?

I'm not sure what the ride quality has to do with that - it's 100% down to the suspension setup and choices made by the manufacturer, regardless of the drive train. You can have a small city car with amazing plush suspension, and a big long distance cruiser saloon with break-my-back suspension because for some reason the manufacturer made it "sporty" and "nurburgring tuned" - different strokes for different folks.

> I'm not sure what the ride quality has to do with that - it's 100% down to the suspension setup and choices made by the manufacturer, regardless of the drive train

Suspension isn't infinitely adjustable without other tradeoffs, including cost. Batteries are already very heavy compared to ICE drivetrains.

That might be fine for an expensive car like an Audi or BMW that have a high end suspension anyways (probably even driver adjustable), but that probably won't fit into the budgetary constraints of a more affordable vehicle.

First gen EVs also didn't have lithium batteries.

My presumption is that batteries have been expensive enough up until now that it's been most sensible to target upmarket without sacrificing specs vs ICE. My expectation is as prices continue to fall cheaper and cheaper cars will become commercially viable.

Cheap EVs suffer the most from the drawbacks that make electric kind of suck (smaller batteries reduce range, more sensitive to heating costs, etc). Once you can shove a 60kwh pack in a cheap car, most of those drawbacks go away.

Sodium ion is a game changer. 40%the cost of nmc, 2/3 the cost of lfp.

Detroit has a "more car per car" kick they go into whenever sales are down. Electric cars were viewed as a premium product in Detroit, and they're still priced that way. This backfired. Batteries got cheaper, US-made but electric cars didn't.

Ford F-150, base price: $39,345, per Car and Driver.

Ford F-150, electric, base price: $49,875, per Car and Driver.

Ford did badly at this. Stellantis did even worse. (Stellantis is the company that ended up with Fiat, Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge.) Stellantis had a big push into crappy mild hybrids (22 mile electric range). Nobody likes them. A few years ago, the CEO was talking about achieving profit margins as large as as tech companies through higher prices and fees. Now, there are unsold vehicles piled up at dealerships, the market share of Stellantis brands is half what it was a few years ago, and Stellantis is getting a new CEO. SHere's what the dealers have to say about that.[1]

[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25136851/letter_to_ta...

There seemed to a bit of a weird thing that happened with covid. Pre covid things were normal, then when covid shut things there were a glut of hire cars etc which people didn't want when locked down so prices and production crashed. Then post covid people wanted cars again but not enough were being produced, there was a shortage, high prices and people were willing to pay $60k for a car with gizmos, base price $40k as there were none of the cheap ones available. Now we are returning to normal and the $60k ones don't sell.

I don't buy often but I occasionally fly to nice airport and have rented fiat pandas. Pre covid they were from £5/day rent, £7000 odd to buy. Post, rental rates went silly the other way like £100/day. Now about £15/day rent, £13k ? to buy. I miss the olden days of 5 years ago with £7k cars.

I'm not sure manufacturing costs have really gone up 2x in that period? I guess they were probably losing money at £7k.

Touchscreens, door handles, cameras, etc. are what most of the new car buyers are wanting. "Most" but obviously not "all". If I was a salesperson trying to show off a new EV to a customer and it was like a car from circa 2000 that would be difficult. If they had a car that was low on modern tech they would wonder what is so great about a "new" car? If they have a recent model they would wonder why should I give up my current car for this "lesser" car? Thus EVs try to be as premium as possible to convience buyers the vehicle is better.

The people who would gain the most from EVs will probably get them when they start to be more common and cheap. Think how long it took for cheap Honda Civics to hit the road from when the first Fords rolled off the line. Of course, it'll probably be quicker this time around.

I don't know, I think most people just want a cheap car. Dacia sold an absolute metric tonne of the Sandero and Duster, and these cars didn't even have AC in the base spec for the longest time. A basic cheap EV would do the same(and in fact it does already - Dacia offers the Spring following the same philosophy, apparently it is selling really well).

EV economics are a little bit odd. The difference in cost between a base model and a luxury model is smaller than the difference between a short-range and long-range model, just because of how expensive batteries are. Manufacturers are, no doubt, keenly aware of this.

If a manufacturer released the stripped down, no-frills car you're describing, a competitor would release a competing car with all the bells and whistles and slightly less range at the same price-point.

Natural gas seems like a better fit for this.....

If you’re handy you could buy and install your own diesel or gas heater for under $1k. The same type they use for camper vans.

Agree on the simpler part. I don't see the point of these fancy door handles that require power to open. I'd much prefer a screenless dashboard with old fashioned analog display of parameters. And buttons and knobs. Cameras, though, are pretty cheap these days.

> I also think it would make a lot more sense to have an auxiliary diesel heating system

I think a heat pump (which some EVs have now) would be better especially if it could pump heat away from the engine and batteries.

The car you describe is illegal. Backup cameras (and thus a screen too, though needn't be a touchscreen) have been mandatory on all new vehicles since 2018.

* In (very) few countries

The new EV from car manufacturer Caterham has no entertainment just screen mirroring to reduce its weight [1],[2].

As for air conditioning (heat and cold) there's more efficient heat pump system that's being used by Tesla that's 3 times more efficient than the conventional system [3].

1) Caterham V: Lightweight EV sport car without infotainment (just phone mirroring)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41719818

2) Caterham Project V:

https://caterhamcars.com/en/models/projectv

3) Heat pumps make new Tesla more efficient:

https://heatpumpingtechnologies.org/heat-pumps-makes-new-tes...

> Imagine the Chinese electric cars are similar to this but the article is lacking much detail.

I've ridden in the dolphin and it has two screens and a bunch of tech attached to it (including gps directions). It's the cheapest BYD car. Two screens + CPU cost probably less than $300. Software doesn't incur extra cost per vehicle.

Look at what Dacia is doing with their cars. The cheaper models literally come with a phone mount and nothing else. I think there are some buttons for climate etc.

All of that would make them more expensive. The digital tech is actually more affordable than the analog tech, and even a backup camera has a huge savings on mirrors and allows for more compact pillars. Old cars are cheaper because they are old, not because they are somehow cheaper to make.

Absolutely. Simple, and modular - with wide availability of (perhaps 'universal') replacement parts.

We're observing in real time - mostly via skyrocketing insurance rates - the impact & unsustainability of expensive, all-proprietary parts. Vehicles are getting totaled out now more than ever for things that should be repairable.

Speaking of diesel - what I really want is a simple plug-in hybrid truck or SUV (e.g. a USA Toyota Hilux or 4runner) with ~50-80 miles of battery-only range, and a diesel generator for 'indefinite' range extension.