In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Exactly. Look at Ford, (actually any one of thousands) what college did he get his MBA from ?
Good ideas with ambition behind them is what made the country.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Exactly. Look at Ford, (actually any one of thousands) what college did he get his MBA from ?
Good ideas with ambition behind them is what made the country.
The last time gas was $4/gal average was 2008. An inflation calculator tells me that works out to $5.34 today.
Average fuel economy of US Light Duty Vehicles in 2008 was about 21mpg. It was 25.4 in 2020:
So we've got a ways to go still before prices rise enough to outpace inflation, and then they have to continue to rise to offset the fuel efficiency gains before consumers will feel the same as 2008.
alfadriver said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
So who is making these magical cheap cars these days? You really think this is just a US thing?
Does Honda still make a CRX? Last I checked, both the Tundra and the Camry way, way, way outsold their cheap car.
Yugo made the cheap car you ask for- in an economy that should have been perfect for it. Yet what happened to it? Do Kia or Hyundai still make the sub $10k car in the US?
Heck, even in the country that has a billion people- most under the poverty level, the Tata Nano failed. One of the ultimate cheap cars of all time....
You aren't looking Globally. Or figuring out what do poor people need to get out of poverty.
It's exactly the same thing Ford saw. Poor farmers trapped out at the farm going to town behind a horse and buggy once a month.
With a Model T they could drive into town sell their eggs and pies. See opportunities. And America dominated auto production for 50 years.
Africa, South and Central America. Poor people everywhere need cheap transportation. Not some broken down old car that costs more to fix than it's worth.
Yeh as soon as they get successful they will buy better. But first they need to get where the jobs are.
STM317 said:The last time gas was $4/gal average was 2008. An inflation calculator tells me that works out to $5.34 today.
Average fuel economy of US Light Duty Vehicles in 2008 was about 21mpg. It was 25.4 in 2020:
So we've got a ways to go still before prices rise enough to outpace inflation, and also offset the fuel efficiency gains.
Good bit of valuable information. But not really critical. Remember most people buy based on emotions not logic.
Gas going up? Time to get an EV. emotional response Yep but will it sell a lot of EV's. ? I suspect if they build it people will come
In reply to frenchyd :
I'd argue that people drive/buy what they want until it hurts. They're not going to give up the things they love unless they have to. And inertia basically dictates that small changes will occur before large changes like buying/selling vehicles for tens of thousands of dollars. Nobody actually wants super base economy cars (at least in North America) regardless of what's powering them. They might tolerate them if times are tough, but as soon as things get better, people will switch to something else they find more desirable. That's a big reason why most early EVs failed to make an impact, and it's what made Tesla so unique. EVs as status symbols can sell. EV's as penalty boxes don't (again talking about North America).
I can't see eBikes taking over for the same reason I think EV's struggle. Geography. Sure, an eBike in a densely populated city is great. Not so much in cities that are spread out. Or were designed to spread out as opposed to being constrained by land. Simple anaolgy, if most of the buildings in a city are over 20 stories, then it's a good place for an eBike. If the average building is under 10 (like most Texas cities), you gotta travel to get there and doing it on a bike would suck.
Regarding Silicon Valley upsetting the market, I sincerely hope not. I respect Tesla, Rivian, et. al. for what they've done. But, my fear is they're being run by people with software backgrounds. Where "good enough, ship it! We'll fix the problems later" scare the hell out of me when it comes to cars. My laptop freezes up? I can reboot. My washing machine goes on the fritz because the memory buffer that nobody thought would fill up ended up getting full with the latest patch from the junior developers working on it because all the original developers have left for the next startup? Fine, I wait a bit before I can wash clothes.
My car doing that, though? No thank you.
Not that Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc are perfect. Not that they haven't made dangerous cars before. Just that their cultural mentality is automobile based, not software based. I'd personally by an EV from a car company long before I'd buy one from an "independent".
Then again, I'm an old guy. Habits and baggage and biases are hard to break. I'll fully admit that.
EV's are coming. EV's are here and taking over. I'm totally cool with that. I welcome it with open arms. When an EV gives me the same specs as an ICE car, an EV will be on my shopping list. Right now, they're not "quite" there. But they're close.
Back to the original thread, though, the average prices of a new car is something like $45k now. The cheapest EV is $27k. It's easy to say, "They're cheaper, buy and EV!" However, that $45k is a single number of a broad range. Everything from $15k Chevy Sparks to $100k Cadillac's. EV's have a much more narrow price range, with fewer options. I don't think an EV needs to be cheaper than ICE, just that EV's need to be equivalent for people to change. You need $15k, $20K, $40k, $60K, etc EV's to compete. Not many shopping for a car under $30k will look at an EV right now. Because the depth of different models and options on those don't match up. Yet. But if there were various models that fell under that number that provided equal specs, I think you'd see more adoption.
-Rob
STM317 said:The last time gas was $4/gal average was 2008. An inflation calculator tells me that works out to $5.34 today.
Average fuel economy of US Light Duty Vehicles in 2008 was about 21mpg. It was 25.4 in 2020:
So we've got a ways to go still before prices rise enough to outpace inflation, and then they have to continue to rise to offset the fuel efficiency gains before consumers will feel the same as 2008.
What is interesting is the downward trend starting in 1985. Cars did not suddenly start to get less fuel efficient. That is roughly when people started really buying pickups as daily drivers and SUVs started to get popular.
A new F-150 was really cheap, S10 Blazers projected a fun outdoorsy image...
EV's that fit the bill are being made already. In some parts of my county they are everywhere.
They are called...
Golf Carts
or Personal Transportation Vehicles.
Not sure on the range but you can't swing a dead cat on the beaches without hitting one.
https://www.clubcar.com/en-us/personal/golf-new
STM317 said:In reply to frenchyd :
I'd argue that people drive/buy what they want until it hurts. They're not going to give up the things they love unless they have to. And inertia basically dictates that small changes will occur before large changes like buying/selling vehicles for tens of thousands of dollars. Nobody actually wants super base economy cars (at least in North America) regardless of what's powering them. They might tolerate them if times are tough, but as soon as things get better, people will switch to something else they find more desirable. That's a big reason why most early EVs failed to make an impact, and it's what made Tesla so unique. EVs as status symbols can sell. EV's as penalty boxes don't (again talking about North America).
Marketing would be important. People loved their Volkswagen Beetles. That was a part of their marketing plan. You don't sell it as a "cheap car". You sell it as "The Simple Machine". You would market it to College Professors and young people who have a social conscious. You would sell it to people who want to be cool and have a smaller carbon footprint, not the guy who wants have a big truck and roll coal. Eventually people who just want cheap transportation will pick up on it, but not if they think it is just cheap transportation. Eventually guys who post on this board will buy them and race them, just like VW Bugs and Mini Coopers got raced. Not because they were fast, but because they were cool.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:STM317 said:In reply to frenchyd :
I'd argue that people drive/buy what they want until it hurts. They're not going to give up the things they love unless they have to. And inertia basically dictates that small changes will occur before large changes like buying/selling vehicles for tens of thousands of dollars. Nobody actually wants super base economy cars (at least in North America) regardless of what's powering them. They might tolerate them if times are tough, but as soon as things get better, people will switch to something else they find more desirable. That's a big reason why most early EVs failed to make an impact, and it's what made Tesla so unique. EVs as status symbols can sell. EV's as penalty boxes don't (again talking about North America).
Marketing would be important. People loved their Volkswagen Beetles. That was a part of their marketing plan. You don't sell it as a "cheap car". You sell it as "The Simple Machine". You would market it to College Professors and young people who have a social conscious. You would sell it to people who want to be cool and have a smaller carbon footprint, not the guy who wants have a big truck and roll coal. Eventually people who just want cheap transportation will pick up on it, but not if they think it is just cheap transportation. Eventually guys who post on this board will buy them and race them, just like VW Bugs and Mini Coopers got raced. Not because they were fast, but because they were cool.
If other, more luxurious EVs didn't exist, that might work. But as long as the premium EVs are out there, a super entry level EV would be seen as a penalty box for 'the poors'. It's the opposite of appealing to most people. The young, socially conscious buyer of the super cheap EV probably doesn't have a place to charge it. The people who want to be cool would want to own the fast EVs, or the sexy EVs, or the luxurious EVs, not the super cheap EVs.
And it also assumes that the OEMs would actually want to sell these super inexpensive vehicles, which we all know isn't the case. They'd much rather sell things with higher profit margins. That's why you see advertisements for trucks and SUVs all day, every day. When's the last time you saw an ad for a Leaf, or Bolt? How many people even knew things like the Fiat 500e, Ford Focus Electric, Chevy Spark EV, VW Golf Electric, etc existed when they were being sold? They only market what they want to sell, and what they want to sell are the vehicles that are most profitable.
STM317 said:In reply to frenchyd :
I'd argue that people drive/buy what they want until it hurts. They're not going to give up the things they love unless they have to. And inertia basically dictates that small changes will occur before large changes like buying/selling vehicles for tens of thousands of dollars. Nobody actually wants super base economy cars (at least in North America) regardless of what's powering them. They might tolerate them if times are tough, but as soon as things get better, people will switch to something else they find more desirable. That's a big reason why most early EVs failed to make an impact, and it's what made Tesla so unique. EVs as status symbols can sell. EV's as penalty boxes don't (again talking about North America).
Well clearly I don't fit that mold. I love the Steam punk version of ICE's pistons and valves and camshafts, Oh my!!
But transportation? Too and from work? Heck the closer I can get to a magic carpet flying over the traffic the happier I'll be. If it's cheaper it's better.
I'll keep a Steam punk car in the shop for a toy to play with. Build a few more to satisfy that itch.
Wait for someone to invent a hand held teleporter.
STM317 said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:STM317 said:In reply to frenchyd :
I'd argue that people drive/buy what they want until it hurts. They're not going to give up the things they love unless they have to. And inertia basically dictates that small changes will occur before large changes like buying/selling vehicles for tens of thousands of dollars. Nobody actually wants super base economy cars (at least in North America) regardless of what's powering them. They might tolerate them if times are tough, but as soon as things get better, people will switch to something else they find more desirable. That's a big reason why most early EVs failed to make an impact, and it's what made Tesla so unique. EVs as status symbols can sell. EV's as penalty boxes don't (again talking about North America).
Marketing would be important. People loved their Volkswagen Beetles. That was a part of their marketing plan. You don't sell it as a "cheap car". You sell it as "The Simple Machine". You would market it to College Professors and young people who have a social conscious. You would sell it to people who want to be cool and have a smaller carbon footprint, not the guy who wants have a big truck and roll coal. Eventually people who just want cheap transportation will pick up on it, but not if they think it is just cheap transportation. Eventually guys who post on this board will buy them and race them, just like VW Bugs and Mini Coopers got raced. Not because they were fast, but because they were cool.
If other, more luxurious EVs didn't exist, that might work. But as long as the premium EVs are out there, a super entry level EV would be seen as a penalty box for 'the poors'. It's the opposite of appealing to most people. The young, socially conscious buyer of the super cheap EV probably doesn't have a place to charge it. The people who want to be cool would want to own the fast EVs, or the sexy EVs, or the luxurious EVs, not the super cheap EVs.
And it also assumes that the OEMs would actually want to sell these super inexpensive vehicles, which we all know isn't the case. They'd much rather sell things with higher profit margins. That's why you see advertisements for trucks and SUVs all day, every day. When's the last time you saw an ad for a Leaf, or Bolt? How many people even knew things like the Fiat 500e, Ford Focus Electric, Chevy Spark EV, VW Golf Electric, etc existed when they were being sold? They only market what they want to sell, and what they want to sell are the vehicles that are most profitable.
Both of you are thinking in your terms.
What about the retired, working poor, or welfare people. Buy a used ICE and from experience they know it will break down at the wrong time and cost more than they can afford to fix.
A new simple basic EV beats that. Plus now they have the option of solar or wind and even save on the electric bill. Win, Win, Win.
My late wife used to spend $125 a month to ride the bus. After she drove to the park and ride. ( and drive the few blocks home again) but she rode one bus in and one out. Yes it took twice as long as driving herself but she lacked the confidence to do that.
What about those who need to ride several buses for hours to get home. Or don't have a bus near their work?
And the billions all over the world who lack any sort of transportation.
As far as big established companies? You mean like Honda pre war? Or Henry Ford of Dearborn They got rich selling basic transportation to a global market.
I do agree with your sentiment. Make it fun desirable instead of just cheap
In reply to frenchyd :
The working poor and those on welfare aren't buying $15k vehicles. They aren't buying EVs at all because they aren't likely to have a place to charge them. And they certainly aren't paying a bunch of money to install solar or wind electrical generation on the house that they don't own.
Corporate ideologies have changed since the days of Henry Ford, or post WWII Honda. Friedman and the Chicago school of Economics altered everything in the way that large companies did business. They're now primarily focused on shareholder returns. Selling low profit, high volume doesn't align very well with that. We really started to see this refocusing on profit in recent years when small, cheap cars were cut. The pandemic supply chain issues have only highlighted further that the OEMs can survive and do pretty well by focusing on their most profitable products. The F series franchise is worth more on it's own than Coca Cola or McDonalds. It generated more revenue than all of the US pro sports leagues combined in 2019. The cheaper, less profitable stuff was just a distraction with the potential for recalls and increased warranty claims. Put those resources into the most profitable programs.
frenchyd said:alfadriver said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
So who is making these magical cheap cars these days? You really think this is just a US thing?
Does Honda still make a CRX? Last I checked, both the Tundra and the Camry way, way, way outsold their cheap car.
Yugo made the cheap car you ask for- in an economy that should have been perfect for it. Yet what happened to it? Do Kia or Hyundai still make the sub $10k car in the US?
Heck, even in the country that has a billion people- most under the poverty level, the Tata Nano failed. One of the ultimate cheap cars of all time....
You aren't looking Globally. Or figuring out what do poor people need to get out of poverty.
It's exactly the same thing Ford saw. Poor farmers trapped out at the farm going to town behind a horse and buggy once a month.
With a Model T they could drive into town sell their eggs and pies. See opportunities. And America dominated auto production for 50 years.
Africa, South and Central America. Poor people everywhere need cheap transportation. Not some broken down old car that costs more to fix than it's worth.
Yeh as soon as they get successful they will buy better. But first they need to get where the jobs are.
Globally this is done, but not with EVs. In Mexico the 1992 Nissan Sentra B13 (Tsuru) was sold until ~2017 with only minor changes. At the end of its run a new one still cost around $7500. Lots of manufacturers make cheap, reliable cars like that in other markets.
I suspect EVs will get there, but I suspect a lot of the cheaper offerings will not be available in the US ever, or if they are, not until there is ample battery/chip supply to meet all the needs of the higher margin cars first.
STM317 said:In reply to frenchyd :
The working poor and those on welfare aren't buying $15k vehicles. They aren't buying EVs at all because they aren't likely to have a place to charge them. And they certainly aren't paying a bunch of money to install solar or wind electrical generation on the house that they don't own.
Corporate ideologies have changed since the days of Henry Ford, or post WWII Honda. Friedman and the Chicago school of Economics altered everything in the way that large companies did business. They're now primarily focused on shareholder returns. Selling low profit, high volume doesn't align very well with that. We really started to see this refocusing on profit in recent years when small, cheap cars were cut. The pandemic supply chain issues have only highlighted further that the OEMs can survive and do pretty well by focusing on their most profitable products. The F series franchise is worth more on it's own than Coca Cola or McDonalds. It generated more revenue than all of the US pro sports leagues combined in 2019. The cheaper, less profitable stuff was just a distraction with the potential for recalls and increased warranty claims. Put those resources into the most profitable programs.
They are buying $15k transportation. Just making payments every time they get on a bus or ride a cab. ( same can be said when they rent a home instead of buy it).
As far as solar panels and windgenerators go those prices are dropping like a rock. We're paying more because we have them assembled and installed. Usually by a marketing company who's prime goal is profit.
ProDarwin said:frenchyd said:alfadriver said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
So who is making these magical cheap cars these days? You really think this is just a US thing?
Does Honda still make a CRX? Last I checked, both the Tundra and the Camry way, way, way outsold their cheap car.
Yugo made the cheap car you ask for- in an economy that should have been perfect for it. Yet what happened to it? Do Kia or Hyundai still make the sub $10k car in the US?
Heck, even in the country that has a billion people- most under the poverty level, the Tata Nano failed. One of the ultimate cheap cars of all time....
You aren't looking Globally. Or figuring out what do poor people need to get out of poverty.
It's exactly the same thing Ford saw. Poor farmers trapped out at the farm going to town behind a horse and buggy once a month.
With a Model T they could drive into town sell their eggs and pies. See opportunities. And America dominated auto production for 50 years.
Africa, South and Central America. Poor people everywhere need cheap transportation. Not some broken down old car that costs more to fix than it's worth.
Yeh as soon as they get successful they will buy better. But first they need to get where the jobs are.
Globally this is done, but not with EVs. In Mexico the 1992 Nissan Sentra B13 (Tsuru) was sold until ~2017 with only minor changes. At the end of its run a new one still cost around $7500. Lots of manufacturers make cheap, reliable cars like that in other markets.
I suspect EVs will get there, but I suspect a lot of the cheaper offerings will not be available in the US ever, or if they are, not until there is ample battery/chip supply to meet all the needs of the higher margin cars first.
Good point about chip and batteries shortage. However Musk figured out ways around those shortages which means there are other ways too.
What needs to happen is someone with the drive and vision to follow through.
frenchyd said:STM317 said:In reply to frenchyd :
The working poor and those on welfare aren't buying $15k vehicles. They aren't buying EVs at all because they aren't likely to have a place to charge them. And they certainly aren't paying a bunch of money to install solar or wind electrical generation on the house that they don't own.
Corporate ideologies have changed since the days of Henry Ford, or post WWII Honda. Friedman and the Chicago school of Economics altered everything in the way that large companies did business. They're now primarily focused on shareholder returns. Selling low profit, high volume doesn't align very well with that. We really started to see this refocusing on profit in recent years when small, cheap cars were cut. The pandemic supply chain issues have only highlighted further that the OEMs can survive and do pretty well by focusing on their most profitable products. The F series franchise is worth more on it's own than Coca Cola or McDonalds. It generated more revenue than all of the US pro sports leagues combined in 2019. The cheaper, less profitable stuff was just a distraction with the potential for recalls and increased warranty claims. Put those resources into the most profitable programs.
They are buying $15k transportation. Just making payments every time they get on a bus or ride a cab. ( same can be said when they rent a home instead of buy it).
As far as solar panels and windgenerators go those prices are dropping like a rock. We're paying more because we have them assembled and installed. Usually by a marketing company who's prime goal is profit.
They simply don't have the cash flow to do those things. And even if they did, it's pretty difficult at best to charge an EV in an apartment. Public charging is often comparable to just buying gas, so limited savings there. And many states add annual registration fees for EVs (to pay for the lack of fuel taxes paid by EV owners) that can easily wipe out any fuel savings. And you're not putting solar or wind on a place that you rent.
There's never been a time when the poorest segments of the population were buying brand new vehicles. Henry Ford didn't target the working poor, or those getting government assistance when he started making the Model T. Buyers were middle class to wealthy, and often property owners. Ford says the Model T sold for $260-850 when new in 1908. Google tells me that the average wage in 1908 was $0.22/hr, which translates to $440/yr at 40hrs per week. So the revolutionary Model T cost anywhere from 59%-193% of the annual income of the Average American.
Median household income in 2021 was basically $69k. That includes a whole bunch of two earner households. Using the same 59% target of the original Model T, that would mean the modern entry level Model T would cost $40,710 and go as high as $133,170 (not too far off from current Ford F series or Tesla prices). An entry level job earning $15/hr translates to $31,200 per year at 40hrs per week.
alfadriver said:In reply to frenchyd :
Go start your company, then. Trying to pretend that *someone should* when you think it's easy an obvious should mean a very simple opportunity for you. Go for it.
That actually might not be a bad idea. Put together a proposal and take it to the venture capital guys. I could put the business plan together but I would need an engineer to design the car to spec and somebody experienced with building automated factories to make that part of the proposal. Maybe a couple of disgruntled Tesla employees? Emphasize safety, quality and ease of repair. Safe like a Volvo. No exploding Pintos. No Yugos or Vegas with exploding engines. That would take a lot of engineering expertise and some time to do it right. Actually bring in mechanics to work on the prototypes and get their take on how quickly and easily they could be repaired. I could get Mrs. Snowdoggie to do the marketing part of the proposal. She has worked on ad campaigns with Toyota and Gas Monkey Garage. The important part would be the marketing. College professors and young people, just like the Volkswagen, not necessarily poor people, but people with enough money to buy new, but who are too cool for trucks and SUVs.
If nothing else, it would make a good episode for Shark Tank.
I don't think EVs are the answer to today's problem. Yes they will be the final answer, but we have a solution that can make a real difference bit not a single manufacturer wants to attempt it, well Toyota and Hyundai are kind of but only on very limited use.
A hybrid vehicle with a hydrogen engine.
A vehicle that emits water for exhaust and has torque and acceleration of an ev?
rob_lewis said:I can't see eBikes taking over for the same reason I think EV's struggle. Geography. Sure, an eBike in a densely populated city is great. Not so much in cities that are spread out. Or were designed to spread out as opposed to being constrained by land. Simple anaolgy, if most of the buildings in a city are over 20 stories, then it's a good place for an eBike. If the average building is under 10 (like most Texas cities), you gotta travel to get there and doing it on a bike would suck.
They should be though but our cities are terribly designed and the biking infrastructure is a joke. Suburban sprawl is basically a big ponzi scheme.
In reply to STM317 :
Be careful what numbers you use. Yes when Ford started building the model T wages were .22 cents an hour. , but quickly as the popularity grew he needed more employees than the local labor pool could provide. So he doubled wages from an average of $2.50 a day ( 10 hour days) to $5 a day so he could pay for the car in as little as 11 weeks of wages. Ford also provide free homes to employees as a benefit. ( under his terms)
That abundance of workers not only allowed him all the workers needed but to select the best most eager to work.
In turn they suggested improvements in the process which sped up production and lowered costs.
That is similar the inducements used at Micro Soft. With similar results.
Sharing the wealth makes good employees and good employees are a major asset. Management that treats employees as a cost and tries to reduce those costs fail eventually.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:I don't think EVs are the answer to today's problem. Yes they will be the final answer, but we have a solution that can make a real difference bit not a single manufacturer wants to attempt it, well Toyota and Hyundai are kind of but only on very limited use.
A hybrid vehicle with a hydrogen engine.
A vehicle that emits water for exhaust and has torque and acceleration of an ev?
Why use an ICE at all? A piston that has one stroke out of 4 doing any good? One that has to go up, stop, come down, stop go up, stop, come down etc? Then there are valves and camshafts and other whirly gigs going on with oil pumps and water pumps. OH MY.
Want to use Hydrogen? Good! throw it into a turbine that generates electricity connected to the grid.
frenchyd said:In reply to STM317 :
Be careful what numbers you use. Yes when Ford started building the model T wages were .22 cents an hour. , but quickly as the popularity grew he needed more employees than the local labor pool could provide. So he doubled wages from an average of $2.50 a day ( 10 hour days) to $5 a day so he could pay for the car in as little as 11 weeks of wages. Ford also provide free homes to employees as a benefit. ( under his terms)
That abundance of workers not only allowed him all the workers needed but to select the best most eager to work.
In turn they suggested improvements in the process which sped up production and lowered costs.
That is similar the inducements used at Micro Soft. With similar results.
Sharing the wealth makes good employees and good employees are a major asset. Management that treats employees as a cost and tries to reduce those costs fail eventually.
I don't disagree, but Ford's assembly workers weren't the working poor. They were middle class, which was my original point. The working poor, and those getting government benefits have never realistically been able to buy new vehicles.
Same holds today: Average UAW worker at Ford makes $31.13/hr, plus overtime, bonuses, benefits, etc. They're making more than double what the person earning $15/hr at McDonalds is making. Their base pay (without overtime, bonuses, etc) is $62k which is nearly the median household income, and I'm confident that when all the extras are accounted for, many of them earn more than the median household income all by themselves. They might be able to reasonably afford a somewhat basic new Ford car or truck (probably not the highest trim levels). That's not true for the McDonalds worker.
93EXCivic said:rob_lewis said:I can't see eBikes taking over for the same reason I think EV's struggle. Geography. Sure, an eBike in a densely populated city is great. Not so much in cities that are spread out. Or were designed to spread out as opposed to being constrained by land. Simple anaolgy, if most of the buildings in a city are over 20 stories, then it's a good place for an eBike. If the average building is under 10 (like most Texas cities), you gotta travel to get there and doing it on a bike would suck.
They should be though but our cities are terribly designed and the biking infrastructure is a joke. Suburban sprawl is basically a big Ponzi scheme.
Not really! A Ponzi scheme is based on nothing. Housing is real and required. ( shelter)
Its like a savings account that can either be passed down to future generations like the family farm or sold to provide an income in retirement.
But just like either of those care and prudence is required. To manage and capitalize to the maximum.
As far as bicycles, some cities are doing better than others. But unlike parts of Europe. bicycles are not a major means of transportation. Weather plays a major factor in that. Bike riding in the Rain Or Snow is miserable and sometimes unsafe. As is cold or hot. Heat index can be 120 or more in places making riding to work in a suit a none starter. Same with extreme cold they tend to stop riding around Freezing and you'll never see them in the 20-30-40 below days. Then there is wind. Gusts can catch a rider totally unaware. On an icy path he's going down and hitting the cold frozen ground. 30-40-50 mph wind isn't that uncommon in the winter.
So it's difficult to dedicate money and space to a purpose not useable by the aged, infirm , handicapped, pregnant, obese, toddlers and children.
Their speed requires separation from pedestrians, as well as traffic. One too fast the other too slow. More and more abandoned railroad tracks are becoming the outlet for Urban bicycle riders.
STM317 said:frenchyd said:In reply to STM317 :
Be careful what numbers you use. Yes when Ford started building the model T wages were .22 cents an hour. , but quickly as the popularity grew he needed more employees than the local labor pool could provide. So he doubled wages from an average of $2.50 a day ( 10 hour days) to $5 a day so he could pay for the car in as little as 11 weeks of wages. Ford also provide free homes to employees as a benefit. ( under his terms)
That abundance of workers not only allowed him all the workers needed but to select the best most eager to work.
In turn they suggested improvements in the process which sped up production and lowered costs.
That is similar the inducements used at Micro Soft. With similar results.
Sharing the wealth makes good employees and good employees are a major asset. Management that treats employees as a cost and tries to reduce those costs fail eventually.I don't disagree, but Ford's assembly workers weren't the working poor. They were middle class, which was my original point. The working poor, and those getting government benefits have never realistically been able to buy new vehicles.
Same holds today: Average UAW worker at Ford makes $31.13/hr, plus overtime, bonuses, benefits, etc. They're making more than double what the person earning $15/hr at McDonalds is making. Their base pay (without overtime, bonuses, etc) is $62k which is nearly the median household income, and I'm confident that when all the extras are accounted for, many of them earn more than the median household income all by themselves. They might be able to reasonably afford a somewhat basic new Ford car or truck (probably not the highest trim levels). That's not true for the McDonalds worker.
That is exactly the market a low cost basic EV would be aimed at. Plastic bodies like Saturn, made from recycled plastic. Minimal options. Say a top speed of 60mph? Compact for easy parking. Progress is being made on tires as suspension. Maybe with replaceable tread? Wear yours down and glue new tread on.
Keep the price to the point where they can be leased for $150-200 a month. Maybe slightly more than a months worth of bus fair? Another $15-20 a month for electricity?
20% or more of the population is in that income group. That's 68 million here in the US alone.
The benefits to society are real and measurable. Greater labor pool. Eliminate older less properly maintained ICE with their attending pollution. Incidentally increasing the market value the fewer remaining old ICE cars.
You'll need to log in to post.
