Akio Toyoda, Toyota Motor’s chairman, has never been a huge fan of battery electric vehicles. Last October, as global sales of EVs started to slow down amid macroeconomic uncertainty, Toyoda crowed that people are “finally seeing reality” on EVs. Now, the auto executive is doubling down on his bearish forecast, boldly predicting that just three in 10 cars on the road will be powered by a battery.
…
“The enemy is CO2,” Toyoda said, proposing a “multi-pathway approach” that doesn’t rely on any one type of vehicle. “Customers, not regulations or politics” should make the decision on what path to rely on, he said.
The auto executive estimated that around a billion people still live in areas without electricity, which limits the appeal of a battery electric vehicle. Toyoda estimated that fully electric cars will only capture 30% of the market, with the remainder taken up by hybrids or vehicles that use hydrogen technology.
As another engineer, yes I do understand iteration. But when you look at automobile manufacturers design direction, there is little to no “iteration” happening with entry level cars. GM tried, and were so close. It remains to be seen if GMs new Ultium battery will restart an entry level push from them.
But no one else, (outside of China), is taking that tack. They are shooting directly for the upper end of the market. The markup is better and less effort is needed. This will stifle the total market and overall development of EVs. EVs are playthings for the rich.
Remember Henry Ford deliberately designed the Model T so the average consumer could afford it right from the start. Ain’t nobody in the west filling that role that I see.
That doesn’t seem to be an issue of EVs per se. I’m afraid I don’t understand the crux of your argument, I’m saying the people will figure out a solution for pack rehab/replacement at affordable prices, as is customary.
The rest of the car is usually just fine, and that’s after 15-20yrs of continuous use. Even if the EV was initially for the upper class, the car is durable enough to facilitate resale at least a few times, with corresponding drop in price.
It really remains to be seen just how durable the rest of the vehicle will be in 15 or 20 years. The daily bumps and vibrations of driving down the road day after day will take a toll on the secondary electric components, the the touch screen, doors will get out of alignment and not be easy to repair. Seatbelt fabrics degrade and airbags start becoming unreliable.
There needs to be choices for the masses in the middle class that are affordable and reliable. And arguably, if greenhouse gasses reduction is the goal, then it’s more important to have more inexpensive affordable cars now than waiting another 15 or 20 years for the “trickle down” effect of overused used cars getting affordable. If those choices don’t exist, then EVs won’t be more the than a niche market for those with money. The mass numbers of people will simply continue to drive ICE vehicles because they are cheaper to buy and more available.
And it appears car manufacturers have abandoned that market segment and don’t appear to be working on them.
🤷 I agree. There’s no evidence for any of this yet, but at least this Tesla (yes, gross) has made it past a million miles: https://www.motortrend.com/news/heres-a-million-mile-tesla-model-s-owners-advice-for-ev-reliability/
Albeit with several motor & pack replacements. So I dunno. I’m in the “let’s try something different for new, but recycle what already exists” camp. My 40yr+ motorcycle is already made, and while not the fastest or particularly efficient, is still fun to ride and repair. An EV by nature of having far fewer parts should be more reliable once we find out what parts to strengthen, and more vehicle design strategies are evaluated.
That is nice, but an ICE vehicle like your bike can go that far also IF you replace all the parts as they wear out. Diesel engines can go that far with proper maintenance and repair and at a lesser cost. The problem is, EV parts and replacements are prohibitively expensive. Which still makes them too expensive for us plebes to really own.
Such is the cost of progress. Considering how much of an established supply chain ICE cars have, it’s amazing that a zero CO2 output EV has higher efficiency, and reliability. Think about it: after more than 120 years of optimization, 40% thermal efficiency is the best we’ve got. Considering how energy dense gasoline is, that’s a crazy waste, global warming concerns aside.
The weakest point in the whole strategy is the battery pack, which it’s likely we’ll soon discover some alternative to with this much market pressure and scientific interest being focused on it.
For the record: you can ship of Theseus anything. But do people? Not unless it’s a critical problem, so you have a degraded vehicle with higher emissions than designed for at the factory. Secondly, who wants to invest that much downtime over and over? I don’t mean to sound rude, but that whole first part is an admission of Stockholm syndrome 😋
The point still stands - unless EVs become cheap enough for the average buyer, they will be a nearly useless novelty item for the wealthy. And they will never be enough of them to solve any issue with emissions you don’t like.
And that “better” and “cheaper” battery is still most likely decades away - despite all the pop media articles talking about all those incredible laboratory “breakthroughs” that are supposedly ready to be unleashed. The gulf between the lab and the production line is very large.
And you are correct that few people are willing to keep repairing anything forever unless forced to. And that is precisely why an inexpensive entry level EV is so important. And those high end cars far less so…