689
Automakers must build cheaper, smaller EVs to spur adoption, report says
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
689 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
57944 readers
3518 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Currently you can buy a Model 3 for ~$33k or less in the US. That's ~$10k less than the average new car price, for what could be considered a "luxury car".
Pricing is not the (only) problem.
I think the point is that they should be accessible to people without “luxury” budgets.
I refuse to pay 30k plus for a car that I only need to get me from point a to b. Not everyone is a car fanatic.
Pricing is very much the problem if they want wider adoption.
For real. If I'm getting an EV, I'm getting it for efficiency, not luxury. I wouldn't be traveling across the state or the country. I'd be using it to get to work and get the groceries. You can't tell me it's not possible to make something with an electric motor, spartan accessories, and a decent range for less than 12-15k. Seriously, I don't want a car that drives itself. I don't really even want automatic transmissions, although electric almost negates the need for any transmission. I just want a car that is cheap, does the job, and that I don't have to chop my left nut off for these days.
Honestly, I think most of the cost is safety stuff. Much of the weight is that too. To meet crash test standards (well, to get the 5 star) set by countries and some insurance companies, they need automatic breaking for instance. Rear back up cameras are mandated, so now you need a screen in the dash. 10+ airbags, sensors, controllers, and on and on.
We had 2 seater cars that got 50 MPG in the early 90s, passengers just wouldn't survive many crashes they will in modern cars.
That's a good point, and you're probably right. With how expensive it is to survive, not to mention American healthcare, I don't think I mind the tradeoff. I'd rather die immediately than have lifelong injuries I can't pay for nor work off.
I'm not sure you fully understand the improvements i safety though. Many many of the differences between dead (no air bags, abs, auto breaking, steering column through chest) and saved is extreme.
I. E. With the auto breaking you might just be shocked by a panic breaking but avoid the crash entirely. Or it might change from a 50mph difference to a 10mph, i. E. Fender bender.
I had a relative trying to pass a tractor broadside the tractor in his truck at 55 whe the tractor suddenly turned left in front of him. He scraped his leg a little.
I have been on icy roads with 90s cars and had them slide all over and only skill and a lot of luck let me recover and not head on another car.
My 2015 car with traction control straightened itself out on some unexpected ice before I could even react.
I haven't researched early 90s.cars that much, but the somewhat famous crash video online between a late 50s chevy and a 09 chevy is instructive - the 09 goes through the 50s car. It's not as pronounced with 90s cars but they often didn't have airbags (or just one), they didn't have the offest head on strengthening nor many of the side impact strengthening so I could imagine it being somewhere in the middle.
So if my choice is being paralized or dying, I might agree with you, but if my choice is a scraped leg or having a surprise and a higher heartbeat for a couple of minutes vs dying I'll take the living please.