|
Post by chipbutty on Mar 3, 2021 18:17:29 GMT
With the recent proclamations from JLR, Volvo and Ford as regards to their future powertrain strategies, it’s clear that the automotive world and his dog are going balls deep on electrification with no obvious plan B.
If we park the well to wheel emissions debate for now (although his royal Harryness did a great video explaining how much co2 is generated per KW/H before it goes anywhere near your EV), I am struggling with some key elements that would give me nightmares if I were an automotive CEO.
- Even if you design your future platforms to be battery chemistry agnostic (thus avoiding the Betamax scenario), that new chemistry doesn’t exist yet and will likely take years to refine. So do we really expect manufacturers to be producing tens of millions of vehicles with huge lithium ion batteries in 2030 ? (assuming there is enough raw material) – because the commitment is that come hell or high water, they will only make EV and PHEV.
- The above proposition is conditional on the delivery of a global charging infrastructure that can serve both high mileage users and users who cannot access off road charging from their homes (about 50% of all car owners according to National Grid). This challenge is further compounded if the new battery chemistry hasn’t arrived and full charges still take at least 30 minutes even with 300 kw/h charging. I am now officially bored of watching videos and reading articles explaining how the UK charging network is a complete and total shambles – good luck fixing that in time for 2030.
- Current EV adoption rates are massively skewed by tax policy – the allowable write downs/write offs and low rate BIK are the main driver for the increase in sales. Take away all of these incentives and then consider the impact of new government policies to bridge the gap left by dwindling fuel duty take and you end up with a wheeled fart in a space suit. I appreciate there is need to support adoption until a critical mass is reached, but lets not pretend the current sales successes are motivated by anything other than gigantic fiscal incentives in most cases.
- All of the premium brands are going to struggle with EV and increasing autonomy as it dilutes many of the reasons as to why these brands have value in the first place. In the end you will just end up with a metal and composite box that’s furnished to a nicer standard than the bread and butter alternatives (technology, performance and refinement will be democratised) – will customers be prepared to pay the extra and what exactly are they paying extra for ? If technology is going to be the key differentiator, then why would I want a BMW or Mercedes instead of a Lucid, or a Rivan or something steeped in Appleness ?
The fact that Porsche are investing in synthetic fuels suggests they are more than aware of that last challenge – I really hope that if synthetic fuels are viable and the c02 impact is net zero, combustion engines can remain in use and/or on sale.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Mar 3, 2021 18:22:36 GMT
The fact that Porsche are investing in synthetic fuels suggests they are more than aware of that last challenge – I really hope that if synthetic fuels are viable and the c02 impact is net zero, combustion engines can remain in use and/or on sale. Amen to that.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 3, 2021 18:45:18 GMT
Nothing adds up, from the power generation to the charging infrastructure. It’s an act of utter madness.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Mar 3, 2021 20:40:39 GMT
Governments (of all colours) and the people paid good money to advise them in the civil service, never learn. I once read an article that they were surprised at how quickly people moved to £0 road tax cars once that incentive was brought in. Well. d'uh! And the loss of road tax led to the stupid Osbourne changes and the £40k "expensive car" crap. And no doubt in a few years the Treasury will be kicking off about the loss of petrol duty and BIK due to all the PHEVs and EVs on the road as company cars. Intelligence in no guide to common sense. For as said above, the big draw now for PHEV and EV is saving BIK and 100% tax allowances in year 1. The few early adopter private buyers are not yet changing the market. But there will be no reversal. The decision is made.
Plus governments can never seem to think through policies and see what the unexpected outcomes might be. I am sure the maths in the advisers' brains goes like this (using 2018 figures) - There are 32 million cars on the UK roads New registrations are 2.4 million cars a year. So the total population takes 13 years to cycle. Therefore starting in 2030, all cars will be EV by 2043/2044. That is 21 years away. That's a slow and measured change, so that will be easy and infrastructure can be built up in that time. Aren't we clever. Now where's my knighthood?
Whereas the reality is why would anyone spend their hard earned and overtaxed income on an ICE car that they perceive will be "illegal" from 2030 and therefore worthless in the 2nd hand market? That means that manufacturers are going to really struggle to shift ICE cars way before 2030, hence the Ford, JLR, Volvo decisions about 2025. Plus, reading between the lines, they all expect the market to be smaller too. That can only mean factory closures, job losses, big changes. And that is before the new entrants and other disruptors enter the market.
If I was a car company CEO, I think I'd stand well back from my business and ignore the tried and trusted costing methods of the industry. My plant for ICE manufacture is paid for, fixed and worthless in 5 years time. Therefore I will switch to marginal costing for ICE products - the more I can sell at greater than variable costs, the more cash I can generate to build new EV plant and EV platforms. I think we'll see some ICE bargains to be had in a few years time. I include PHEV in that - bang them out, it won't hurt my fleet CO2 average to do that. Even after 2030 I can still bang out cheap ICE cars for non-EV markets. Just don't expect any changes or model upgrades. To survive, car companies need to forget everything that they have learnt. They need to reinvent coach-building. I have a chassis. On that I can bolt anything propellant wise - EV ( lithium ion or new battery technology), fuel cell etc. Above that can go a range of bodies. Perhaps the days of the monocoque are truly numbered?
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 4, 2021 8:57:49 GMT
We only got the i-Pace because of the tax and other current cost advantages but I am sure that in years to come the savings will be taxed away.
EV's are not the future for all vehicles unless technology finds a way to get to a 400 mile range and a 15/20 minute recharge within the next 5 years.
Chips comments on manufacturer differentiation and reasons for large price differences are absolutely correct - if everyone is producing largely the same product there is no justification for a Porsche costing 5 or 6 times more than equivalents from other manufacturers. However the unknown in this is how much people will still be willing to pay for a badge. In logical terms there is no reason to pay £1,000 for a Louis Vitton handbag when you can get something stylish in TKMaxx for under £100 so perhaps badge snobbery will still play a part.
I am also concerned about the speed limiters/trackers etc which will be fitted to all new cars and the ultimate aim of automated driving. What is the point in paying lots more for one brand than another if all cars are going to go at the same speed and accelerate at the same rate whilst you sit in a lounger watching TV. Perhaps a market will spring up to re-trim the interiors of cars to make them bespoke.
I think Porsche's alternative fuels could be the saviour of the motor car for the masses because so many could otherwise neither afford an electric car nor have anywhere to charge it. I also think the current timetable is going to back the UK in to a corner and leave us at a financial disadvantage to all the other countries who continue to allow the sale of ICE vehicles way beyond 2030. Our only potential advantage might come from the development of new technology which we can then sell to others.
It's not a great scenario for any motoring fans. I intend to enjoy the next 9 years.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 4, 2021 9:36:27 GMT
I intend to enjoy the next 9 years, plus any beyond that that I cam manage. My biggest concern is the availability of fuel for something fun and petrol.
We bought the 430 6 weeks ago in the full knowledge that it could well be relatively worthless when we would normally consider a change but that's one of the reasons for getting a bigger engined one with slightly less complication (i.e. no xDrive) - so we can keep the car for 10 years, at which point it won't matter if it's worth the same as a used Christmas tree in January.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Mar 4, 2021 9:37:22 GMT
We only got the i-Pace because of the tax and other current cost advantages but I am sure that in years to come the savings will be taxed away. It's the eternal taxation paradox isn't it? Governments financially incent people to take up certain behaviours (for political reasons), then a few years later say "oh my god, everybody is taking up this incentive, it's way too expensive, we'll have to stop it or tax it now".
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Mar 4, 2021 9:59:50 GMT
Almost none of my client's have run company cars for many years because of the cost. However recently they have all been trying to get an electric car or a 40+ mile range hybrid (until recently that meant the only one, the X5 45e). If tax charges start to go through the roof again, they will just drop the company car and go back to something they can afford themselves.
As I have said many times, Politicians need to learn that they cannot legislate in a vacuum: this is the real world and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Politicians need to use their brains and they need to seek the thoughts of those who know, not the faceless civil servants who think they know.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 4, 2021 10:06:21 GMT
The most ridiculous bit of the legislation, to me, is that a lot of our beloved politicians have had a business career, just clearly not at the lower level where the realities of a company car exist.
Similarly with legislation - and this applies in the off-topic discussion in the Scotland thread - so much of it is being driven by management consultants (so not just civil servants), many of whom are paid a silly amount of money and clearly don't live in the same world the majority of the rest of us do and are obviously out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Mar 4, 2021 11:02:16 GMT
This morning, wind accounted for 6% of the grid's energy production. For the last few days it has hovered around 1%. If you think COVID has been expensive wait until you see the cost of net zero.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Mar 4, 2021 11:41:58 GMT
Porsche I think are hedging their bets as they also own a large slice of Rimac. Probably wise not to put all your eggs in one basket.
I do think full electrification is the first step for manufacturers to put themselves out of business. The early days of PC's where everything was IBM compatible will everything need to be TESLA compatible?
If I put it into the world of watches, of which I have limited knowledge, ETA movement is very popular for sub 10K watches. You can get them serviced by anyone and the movement is super reliable. Of course go above 10k and nobodies going to pay for off the shelf movement and the same is true of cars. However if your bloody expensive Ferrari has its own battery tech but its unreliable, costs loads to service, takes longer to charge and has less range then who will want it. You really don't need more performance then a Taycan Turbo S so there's no point in providing 2000hp in your sportscar.
No doubt in the next 10 years battery tech will take a leap forward. I see 500 mile ranges, 20 minute charging as a possibility but the real struggle of course is infrastructure. As a broke country even though the government has legislated us into electric they aren't going to be the ones to pick up the tab.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 4, 2021 12:18:35 GMT
I half assume that the Government is relying on the large oil companies to solve the charging infrastructure, I know BP and Shell bought some small charging companies in the last few years and if they bring their engineering might to the issue it should be able to speed things up.
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on Mar 4, 2021 12:19:08 GMT
What I'm not sure about with this 2030 ruling is where it leaves small companies like us at BAC. Are we going to have be fully electric by then? We're still a year away from releasing an EU6 car...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 12:45:13 GMT
I think the underlying tone is for major manufacturers as with type approval etc.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 6, 2021 7:40:59 GMT
I think we’re at a point of disruption in the automotive market that’s way beyond electric cars. I think driverless technology and customer buying behaviour change the market beyond recognition. Your kids kids will see driving a car in the same way we’d see riding a horse - a bit of a hobby that harks back to a previous generation. They won’t own cars, they’ll use transport - think of a driverless Uber.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Mar 6, 2021 12:31:21 GMT
With the recent proclamations from JLR, Volvo and Ford as regards to their future powertrain strategies, it’s clear that the automotive world and his dog are going balls deep on electrification with no obvious plan B. If we park the well to wheel emissions debate for now (although his royal Harryness did a great video explaining how much co2 is generated per KW/H before it goes anywhere near your EV), I am struggling with some key elements that would give me nightmares if I were an automotive CEO. - Even if you design your future platforms to be battery chemistry agnostic (thus avoiding the Betamax scenario), that new chemistry doesn’t exist yet and will likely take years to refine. So do we really expect manufacturers to be producing tens of millions of vehicles with huge lithium ion batteries in 2030 ? (assuming there is enough raw material) – because the commitment is that come hell or high water, they will only make EV and PHEV. - The above proposition is conditional on the delivery of a global charging infrastructure that can serve both high mileage users and users who cannot access off road charging from their homes (about 50% of all car owners according to National Grid). This challenge is further compounded if the new battery chemistry hasn’t arrived and full charges still take at least 30 minutes even with 300 kw/h charging. I am now officially bored of watching videos and reading articles explaining how the UK charging network is a complete and total shambles – good luck fixing that in time for 2030. - Current EV adoption rates are massively skewed by tax policy – the allowable write downs/write offs and low rate BIK are the main driver for the increase in sales. Take away all of these incentives and then consider the impact of new government policies to bridge the gap left by dwindling fuel duty take and you end up with a wheeled fart in a space suit. I appreciate there is need to support adoption until a critical mass is reached, but lets not pretend the current sales successes are motivated by anything other than gigantic fiscal incentives in most cases. - All of the premium brands are going to struggle with EV and increasing autonomy as it dilutes many of the reasons as to why these brands have value in the first place. In the end you will just end up with a metal and composite box that’s furnished to a nicer standard than the bread and butter alternatives (technology, performance and refinement will be democratised) – will customers be prepared to pay the extra and what exactly are they paying extra for ? If technology is going to be the key differentiator, then why would I want a BMW or Mercedes instead of a Lucid, or a Rivan or something steeped in Appleness ? The fact that Porsche are investing in synthetic fuels suggests they are more than aware of that last challenge – I really hope that if synthetic fuels are viable and the c02 impact is net zero, combustion engines can remain in use and/or on sale. I can't disagree with any of that but, as you say, the entire industry, plus a load of influencer types are going hell for leather down this route. Me? I'm sticking with diesel and/or petrol. It's going to be around a lot longer than the government currently says it is because there's no way we will be where everyone proclaims we will be by 2030.
|
|
|
Post by rodge on Mar 6, 2021 17:40:17 GMT
There’s 2 types of companies that are blowing up here in the US, companies working in the 5G arena- anything that builds infrastructure for them, and the other type is any company that builds infrastructure for EV’s.
It took 30 years to get some sort of a support structure for ice vehicles in the 1900’s and the EV industry is aiming to do the same in the next 5 years. (It’s a target they’ve set and those in the industry are aware of it).
One of the issues is places are putting in chargers but they don’t have a quick charge facility. The electrical grid currently doesn’t produce enough power to charge all these vehicles and those pointing to solar as a resource, don’t realise that you need a lot of square footage to charge one vehicle, never mind millions.
Even if solar runs at 100% efficiency, it’s not going to be good enough for one car, so I’m interested to see where it ends up.
A Tesla owner told me recently about a company in Australia that has designed a Diesel engine that fits inside the front of the car and generates enough power to charge the Tesla. I kid you not, he was excited at this development...
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Mar 6, 2021 18:25:07 GMT
I think we’re at a point of disruption in the automotive market that’s way beyond electric cars. I think driverless technology and customer buying behaviour change the market beyond recognition. Your kids kids will see driving a car in the same way we’d see riding a horse - a bit of a hobby that harks back to a previous generation. They won’t own cars, they’ll use transport - think of a driverless Uber. I think full autonomy (level 5) is much further away than some companies would have you believe. Many of the current experimental projects have not borne fruit and I believe the Uber project is being scaled back/wound down. Simply, it’s still too big a technical leap to make. Autonomy of sorts will be delivered via controlled road networks run by a master computer that controls each vehicle rather than a vehicle which is capable of completely independent operation (think KITT). This means that full autonomy would still be a long way off and there will still be driving involved at the start and end of most journeys for a good while yet. IMO of course
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Mar 7, 2021 8:09:03 GMT
They also still have the big legal hurdle to deal with regarding responsibility for accidents. If your car hurts you by going of into a ditch will you the 'driver' be to blame or can you sue the car company? And what about if you hit a pedestrian?
|
|
|
Post by rodge on Mar 8, 2021 1:52:28 GMT
They also still have the big legal hurdle to deal with regarding responsibility for accidents. If your car hurts you by going of into a ditch will you the 'driver' be to blame or can you sue the car company? And what about if you hit a pedestrian? That’s raised some questions here in California and the driver is still responsible for the car. If the vehicle has been summoned/programmed/started by the driver, then it’s the driver that is responsible. It’s a big thing here because there are so many autonomous vehicle companies that are all being backed by serious money because companies like Amazon see it as the future, not to mention taxis/ubers/lyfts/ local and long distance deliveries, and that’s just the vehicles that are on the road. There are more companies doing the same for personal flying vehicles that you rent and they fly you across the city.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Mar 8, 2021 13:05:19 GMT
They also still have the big legal hurdle to deal with regarding responsibility for accidents. If your car hurts you by going of into a ditch will you the 'driver' be to blame or can you sue the car company? And what about if you hit a pedestrian? That’s raised some questions here in California and the driver is still responsible for the car. If the vehicle has been summoned/programmed/started by the driver, then it’s the driver that is responsible. It’s a big thing here because there are so many autonomous vehicle companies that are all being backed by serious money because companies like Amazon see it as the future, not to mention taxis/ubers/lyfts/ local and long distance deliveries, and that’s just the vehicles that are on the road. There are more companies doing the same for personal flying vehicles that you rent and they fly you across the city. Whatever they claim will happen or who will be responsible still has to be tested in law courts, appeals, further appeals, etc. A long, long, way off, yet.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 8, 2021 13:26:53 GMT
I thought Uber and Google had pulled back from autonomous driving to the extent that one of them sold their division that was doing it?
|
|