Trump is against everyone having an electric car

[crunchysteve]

Sure, thats a primary cause of why they dont have those skills.

But i suspect that it was not an EV ?
..and the “ poorest” people in the world wont have an arc welder or a ball peen hammer !

If the guy can build a car with a hammer and an arc welder, he may well be a "tip rat" and scrounged the hammer and welder then got the welder going again. Enginuity is seen in many under developed nations as the way out of poverty. If you can build your own things, it can be argued that you're richer than those who buy them and don't understand them.

 

[neptronix]

Not really, Australia is one of a few countries that have not put import tarrifs on chinese EVs, as we have NO auto industry of our own.….So , they are diverting all their excess production stocks to us.

Ahh now it all makes sense..

 

[AGS]

If the guy can build a car with a hammer and an arc welder, he may well be a "tip rat" and scrounged the hammer and welder then got the welder going again. Enginuity is seen in many under developed nations as the way out of poverty. If you can build your own things, it can be argued that you're richer than those who buy them and don't understand them.

Yep and these third world self taught mechanics are also getting quite good at building electric vehicles from stuff they find laying about in scrap yards.

 

[neptronix]

Yeah, very little rocket science involved in building an electric vehicle. Electric motors and electricity are everywhere. I built my first ebike in 2011 in a very small apartment's kitchen with nothing but this forum to help me.



Not much stopping anyone from accessing electric mobility if they wish..

 

[The Toecutter]

Yeah, very little rocket science involved in building an electric vehicle. Electric motors and electricity are everywhere. I built my first ebike in 2011 in a very small apartment's kitchen with nothing but this forum to help me.

The kitchen of an apartment is where I built my first velomobile back in 2017. Now I'm upgrading it in the living room of a step mother's house.

There's also very little rocket science involved in building a cheap(< $20k), simple, reliable, 200+ mile-range electric car that will last for decades without any issues. The fact that such a thing is not on the market in the USA in spite of unmet consumer demand for it speaks volumes.

 

[Chalo]

There's also very little rocket science involved in building a cheap(< $20k), simple, reliable, 200+ mile-range electric car that will last for decades without any issues. The fact that such a thing is not on the market in the USA in spite of unmet consumer demand for it speaks volumes.

People speak of the capitalist free market as something that meets every need, but left to its own, capitalism only goes for the greatest and easiest profit, ignoring the greatest and most important demand (even if there's plenty of profit available there).

 

[The Toecutter]

People speak of the capitalist free market as something that meets every need, but left to its own, capitalism only goes for the greatest and easiest profit, ignoring the greatest and most important demand (even if there's plenty of profit available there).

Just like the Chinese don't actually have communism, the Americans don't actually have capitalism. Both are under some form of corporatism where it is impossible to distinguish corporation and state from each other from a functional and policy standpoint, and both nations are much more similar than they are different.

In the USA, anyone who tries to get a car company established is shut down by the already established industry and the government that the industry has purchased, both of whom don't want disruptive new ideas interrupting "their" revenue streams. It is usually when an established player figures out ways to use an innovation to expand existing revenue streams that it is ever allowed into the market. And when the consumers stop buying, taxpayers are then forced to keep the established players afloat. What a damned racket.

 

[Chalo]

Just like the Chinese don't actually have communism, the Americans don't actually have capitalism. Both are under some form of corporatism where it is impossible to distinguish corporation and state from each other from a functional and policy standpoint, and both nations are much more similar than they are different.

We definitely have capitalism. Corruption, anticompetitive practices, destructive exploitation, and short-sighted abuses are baked into that system.

Capitalism ruining both its own markets and itself isn't a bug. It's a feature. Only firmly regulating and limiting its tendencies in the interest of the public can rein in its self-destructive (everything-destructive, actually) nature. It's powered solely by greed, which means it always ends up killing the golden goose. In this case, us.

 

[neptronix]

^-- that's basically it.

Then there's also this factor.. which has been going on since 2018.. most likely earlier.

That's not to say that Western vehicle makers haven't been doing the same..


Selling data on drivers presents a huge security risk.. holders of large sums of data are getting breached constantly by foreign state actors.. no assurance is provided that anyone on the internet, or government themselves won't eventually be able to abuse this information.

Not interested in this BS, i'm building my own.

 

[Superb_Raccoon]

As much as I don't want another product being politicized, now we need to care about how this would turn out ... Trump said a lot of negative things about Evs, with most of them just wrong and heavily opinion based.

"Elon Musk endorsed me and he is a friend of mine, ... but I am against everybody having an electric car,"
“The cars don’t go far enough. They’re very, very expensive. They’re also heavy,”

What does his re-election might imply for the EV landscape in general?

Nothing, really.

I mean "everybody" driving an EV is not a reasonable stance right now. Gas and hybrid have use cases and make more sense for some people, so why should "everybody" have an EV? I have one of each: a full electric Leaf for errands and commuting, a Q5 PHEV for general use, and the old truck for hauling things.

Improvements in battery technology and charging infrastructure may make all EV a viable future, but we arn't there yet. So "everybody" having one is unrealistic and a little totalitarian.

 

[The Toecutter]

I'm not convinced an all-EV future is the most ecologically sustainable path, either. ICE has its place, especially powered by hemp-based methanol and biodiesel carrying heavy loads in tractor trailers.

But for basic A to B transportation, EVs definitely make the most sense for most people. And I'm not talking about the unrepairable tech-bloat monstrosities we can actually buy on today's market, either, as those can in some use cases be far worse for the environment than gasoline ICE. Think less Silverado EV, and more BYD Seagull, or closer to the ideal maybe even a Solectria Sunrise or an Aptera 2E. And if you're just one person, it's hard to beat an electric velomobile.

 

[Chalo]

They had it right in the 1910s and 1920s. Comprehensive street grid public transit that attracted more than enough ridership to be profitable. Until automotive industry decided to get viciously anticompetitive, that was the clear sane choice.

 

[Hillhater]

They had it right in the 1910s and 1920s. Comprehensive street grid public transit that attracted more than enough ridership to be profitable. Until automotive industry decided to get viciously anticompetitive, that was the clear sane choice.

That is certainly the “ideal” solution for city/urban areas, but even in smaller densly populated countries ( UK, Europe, etc).. it is an impractical , unsustainable solution.
Many countries had widely developed rail networks during the ‘50s-‘60s, but have decomissioned huge amounts because even at its most extensive installations it still did not provide transport for more than 50% of the population
Buses are the current rural/urban solution for public transport, but even they cannot cope with the wide distribution of population who need transport regularly.
….which is where personal transportation becomes necessary.
Sydney has just invested $ billions in an extensive Metro light rail for commuters, but instantly there is a major problem of access to the stations from residential areas where buses and private cars are still needed to get to the stations.
Not enough buses, and not enough parking !

 

[gromike]

An integrated, and layered transportation system would be best.
The U.S. is choked by its reliance on the mostly single occupancy four-wheel-drive motor vehicle. Two tons of metal to move 80 kgs of meat 5 miles?
We can do better!

 

[JackFlorey]

Until the auto industry chooses to work the real advantages of EVs (opportunity for extreme simplicity, light weight, low purchase cost, low cost of ownership, long service life, low noise), they're doomed to stagnate or fail. 5000-9000 pound, $40,000-$100,000 EVs are a not-funny joke.

While I agree that such vehicles miss the mark, they are better than the monsters they replace. So at least there is some progress.

 

[rafalg]

"If you have an argument with another car, you will win" - said Elon when discussing Cybertruck crash safety.
So for sure the mass is as an advantage, at least for some people. Same with size, power, resistance to crash .. just make sure it's the other guy who is crushed, not me, in case of an accident. With such attitudes, why would you choose a small, lightweight, unarmored vehicle? Just to put yourself or your family in danger?
Unfortunately, Elon doesn't say what happens when two Cybertrucks collide head-on. Would they annihillate together with the occupants?

 

[Chalo]

That is certainly the “ideal” solution for city/urban areas, but even in smaller densly populated countries ( UK, Europe, etc).. it is an impractical , unsustainable solution.

The places where transit, cycling and foot travel won't work, were designed and built to serve only car drivers. It is those places that are impractical and unsustainable, and in most cases unable to fund their own infrastructure without continual growth. They must change. Fortunately that's an inevitability.

 

[LewTwo]

"If you have an argument with another car, you will win" - said Elon when discussing Cybertruck crash safety.
So for sure the mass is as an advantage, at least for some people. Same with size, power, resistance to crash .. just make sure it's the other guy who is crushed, not me, in case of an accident. With such attitudes, why would you choose a small, lightweight, unarmored vehicle? Just to put yourself or your family in danger?
Unfortunately, Elon doesn't say what happens when two Cybertrucks collide head-on. Would they annihillate together with the occupants?

The land vehicle with the most mass and momentum is a freight train. The road vehicle with the most mass and momentum is a fully loaded concrete truck. All other things being equal, the 'dinky' little Cybertruck is unlikely to prevail in a chance physical encounter with either of these vehicles.

 

[JackFlorey]

Just like the Chinese don't actually have communism, the Americans don't actually have capitalism.

No one has pure ANYTHING. We're not a pure democracy or a pure republic or purely capitalistic. China is not purely communist, and France is not purely socialist.

Our system works fairly well (usually) because we have a mix of capitalism, socialism and communism, and a mix between a democracy and a republic. This is a good thing; pure capitalism gives us slavery, Standard Oil and the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

But from a high level perspective, our economy is, on average, capitalist.

 

[Superb_Raccoon]

The places where transit, cycling and foot travel won't work, were designed and built to serve only car drivers. It is those places that are impractical and unsustainable, and in most cases unable to fund their own infrastructure without continual growth. They must change. Fortunately that's an inevitability.

You mean like all the farms and farmland that grow the food you eat? Or the far flung areas where they dig stuff out of the ground so you can have your modern conveniences?

I mean... you do you... but it sure is a myopic view.

 

[Chalo]

You mean like all the farms and farmland that grow the food you eat? Or the far flung areas where they dig stuff out of the ground so you can have your modern conveniences?

I mean... you do you... but it sure is a myopic view.

It takes approximately zero percent of the population to do those things. (Less than 2% for farming and ranching combined, less than 0.2% for mining.) So having some large percentage live as if they do those things results in squandered resources and horrible land use.

When I was in France with my band last year, I noticed that even the tiny villages were built very dense and walkable. Even if there were only a couple dozen houses, they were spaced closely like what would be considered "townhomes" here in Texas, and farm fields came right up to the (tiny) back yards. That means everything in the cluster is walkable and a single relatively high frequency bus can serve everyone who lives or works there. It's almost as if things were already worked out before cars came along and screwed it all up.

 

[Superb_Raccoon]

2.2% of 8.1 billion is.. ah... 182 million people. And I just gave them as examples, there are other professions needed out in the broad low populated areas.

And then there are those that just don't want to live real close to others. They are probably psychopaths and should be dealt with for the good of the larger population.

It is probably 20% or so, we should just make them live the way the 80% do.

>The rural population — the population in any areas outside of those classified as urban — increased as a percentage of the national population from 19.3% in 2010 to 20.0% in 2020.

Got to do something about those people, reduce the excess rural population.

 

[Hillhater]

The places where transit, cycling and foot travel won't work, were designed and built to serve only car drivers.

Many of those suburban/rural settlements were started decades before the car was available.
Remember , horses/buggys were the primary form of transport before the 1920s, cars and trucks just replaced the horse.
Modern civilisation relies on transportation and the ability to move people and goods in a flrxible manner ..hence wy road transport of goods outweighs train good transport. There are only so many rail lines and stations that are viable in practice.
Society has organically developed a mixed transport infrastructure, a key part of which is the personal unit that can move individuals or families , goods, etc , at will in any number of directions and distances,..1 mile or 1000 miles…economically.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

at will in any number of directions and distances,..1 mile or 1000 miles…economically.

This is a falsehood. You can only describe this as 'economically' by ignoring the actual costs - of war, or destruction to the Eco-system (we don't have another one), of the economic misery inflicted by the psychopaths who take advantage of the pile of money to push others aside to get more for them.

This is transparently not true.

 

[sandshifter]

And then there are those that just don't want to live real close to others. They are probably psychopaths and should be dealt with for the good of the larger population.

This is a far more sociopathic thought than any desire for solitude could ever be, not to mention the strangeness of the rest of your post. Reminds me of the Nazi obsession with the "antisozial", i.e. anybody who had qualms about participating in the Holocaust. the city/rural contradiction can't be solved merely by "reduc[ing] the excess rural population", not to mention that the main reason there's been an exodus from North American cities is because housing markets have been flooded by speculative capital and the rapacious dregs of the declining petty bourgeoisie (landlords) making them unaffordable for anybody outside the top income quintile. accordingly the city/rural divide is an irreducible phenomenon of capitalism that can only be solved in its absence