_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI A $20k American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, no screen
avalys wrote 15 hours 1 min ago:
The discourse around this thing is hilarious. For years people have
been saying âI just want a small, simple truck with no frills and a
reasonable price.â
Now, one is finally available, and all the commentary is âOh, Iâm
in the target market for this, but I just need them to add:â
- more room for passengers
- more payload
- an infotainment screen for nav
- more room in the bed
- more towing capacity
- screens in the seats for kids
- an app to âmanageâ it
Guess what! This is why the best-selling vehicles are large trucks,
because they give the most people what they want.
Everyone wants a small and cheap and simple car with all the comforts
of big and expensive cars. Reality doesnât work that way!
CamperBob2 wrote 14 hours 59 min ago:
It's the Microsoft Office paradigm in automotive form. Nobody uses
more than 20% of the features in Word or Excel, but nobody uses the
same 20%, so it's basically a useless observation. You can't just
chop 80% of the features out and still end up with a widely-used
product.
They can't sell a vehicle in the US market without a screen, in any
case, due to the need for a backup camera.
usrusr wrote 16 hours 34 min ago:
So basically they are doing the simple "BEV can be cheap if you don't
try to size the battery for long distance driving" but leave out lots
of other things that don't meaningfully contribute to the lower price,
as a distraction.
That might be just the thing that had been missing for bootstrapping
the market of short haul electric (think of all those trips that are
done in a car because they are almost but not quite
walkable/bikeable!). Reminds me of how the Tesla roadster and then S
bootstrapped the market of luxury electric.
finnjohnsen2 wrote 18 hours 13 min ago:
I love the idea. Simple and elegant. Hopefully someone will make
something similar in Europe
brianolson wrote 18 hours 42 min ago:
Great concept. Bring back real small trucks. My grandpa ran a farm with
a truck this size.
Disappointed in towing capacity of 1000 pounds ish. I can already do
1700lb on my hybrid rav4
casey2 wrote 18 hours 52 min ago:
Who is going to pay 20K for an oversized RC car? Youtubers?
karaterobot wrote 19 hours 34 min ago:
I couldn't be more excited about this vehicle (I put $50 down to
reserve one), but god damn, that customizer tool is bad. I'm someone
who goes to a lot of auto manufacturer websites and makes imaginary
builds, so I think I've spent time using the majority of builder apps
that are out there, and this is one of the worst. On a laptop, with a
shorter screen and a touchpad, it's really hard to use. Which is too
bad, since customization is their whole deal.
tgtweak wrote 20 hours 11 min ago:
It would be great if they published an SDK for canbus communication and
interfacing, that would really enable aftermarket and add-ons.
yellowapple wrote 21 hours 45 min ago:
If Slate can actually pull this off then this might be the first
automobile I buy new. It's almost exactly what I've been begging for.
Main question I have is whether the "blank slate" can be gradually
upgraded. Article mentions a battery upgrade, but for example if I did
eventually want to install a head unit or whatever, would I be able to
do that after driving the truck off the lot? How open will this thing
be to aftermarket upgrades?
rco8786 wrote 22 hours 39 min ago:
Feels kinda like an American kei truck, maybe it'll catch on.
chollida1 wrote 22 hours 41 min ago:
Aren't backup cameras mandated in the US now? How do you have a
background camera with no screen?
Edit I see the issue. The actual title say no touch screen. The OP
altered the title to just say screen for some unexplainable reason.
Maybe this title should be fixed?
VyseofArcadia wrote 22 hours 30 min ago:
Answer's in the article. There is a screen behind the wheel for the
speedometer, odometer, etc. The backup cam displays there.
chollida1 wrote 22 hours 21 min ago:
Right, I edited my comment. The OP just posted a pretty misleading
title saying there was no screen at all.
wiz21c wrote 1 day ago:
Please make a washing machine like that
almosthere wrote 1 day ago:
By the way, THIS is how we stop inflation. We make new things that cost
less and are innovative. People on here are so scared of "deflation"
but the reality is, if you don't have deflation your not innovating
enough!
torginus wrote 1 day ago:
I think this is going to cater very well to contractors who do a lot of
run-around in small area.
torginus wrote 1 day ago:
I have said this and will reiterate - building an 'afforable' EV is
impossible with the current level of technology - by which I mean a
vehicle that competes on price with affordable ICE vehicles, and
doesn't make compromises that would make it impractical to own as the
only car.
There are $20k cars with infotainment, bodypaint and probably a lot
more creature comforts than this thing. Also this thing has a 150 mile
range (less probably IRL), which is not practical.
Looking at the basic shape, the drag looks horrible, and probably the
efficiencys bad too, considering they only manage 150k with an 52kWh
battery.
Euros have already tried this, they put out abominable shitboxes where
they tried to save money everywhere but the battery and charger, and
the result were poverty cars which barely cost less than a Model 3.
Once you spend the money on a 400 mile battery and a fast enough
charger to be practical, you're most of the way in terms of BOM to a
300HP electric upmarket road monster. Tesla understood this, and are
dominating the market.
BYD also knows this, and there's a reason their C-segment EVs cost more
than their D-segment plug-ins, despite the latter having tons of
electric range.
Also doesn't cost $20k from the factory, it costs $20k with tax credit.
gniv wrote 17 hours 40 min ago:
Why is this? We've been told that the cost of batteries is in
freefall for years now. Why aren't they competitive yet with ICE,
even if they are heavier?
mixmastamyk wrote 11 hours 22 min ago:
Itâs a process happening over time. Why the grandparentâs
comment will age horribly in only five years.
I remember similar comments about digital cameras shortly after
Y2k. A dozen years later it was already hard to use anything else.
Read the innovatorâs dilemma for a full understanding of the
process.
theshrike79 wrote 1 day ago:
And the worst thing is that Elon could've been a living legend by
building/funding colleges and schools focused on the tech his companies
need, software development, robotics etc. Or even given out million
dollar scholarships for the very top students.
And he still would've been worth over 250 billion easily.
Instead he chose to buy the president and start "optimising" the
government with AI.
tomhow wrote 10 hours 10 min ago:
We detached this subthread from [1] and marked it offtopic (because
it turned into a generic thread that has nothing to do with the topic
that was being discussed in the parent comments).
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43801711
cryptoegorophy wrote 16 hours 37 min ago:
I think we wouldâve lived in a different world if Elon didnât use
twitter. We might have actually landed on Mars already.
more_corn wrote 13 hours 42 min ago:
Twitter board should have allowed him to back out of the deal when
he asked.
mapt wrote 18 hours 49 min ago:
There's a question about his actual goals in government.
He's an ambitious person. And AI enables a degree of surveillance
state that we find it difficult to even begin to imagine. All the
logistical difficulties of something like Orwell's 1984, of the Stasi
having 1/3 of Berlin on the books as informants against the other
2/3, go away completely. We have more cameras than ever. Every person
gets to enjoy the kind of focus that went into tracking down Luigi.
DOGE has exfiltrated all our sensitive databases to servers that they
control; Every 'Chinese Wall' intended to ensure some kind of
separation of concerns has been broken down, almost certainly
including various formally classified intelligence-gathering
campaigns. You can't necessarily stuff that genie back in the bottle.
If somebody wanted to be... not president, but authoritarian leader
of a post-democracy, Musk would be well positioned technologically.
It wouldn't be inconceivable to set up an AI to do all the same sort
of fraud & identity theft attacks against an individual that
for-profit blackhats do, or that a Kiwifarms harassment campaign can
do, without much of any actual staffing. Only DOGE starts out with
your social security number, your tax records, your drivers' license,
license plate reader records, web history, everything. That
individual could be a Wall Street Journal editor who wrote something
Musk dislikes, or ten thousand Redditors who are making fun of
Teslas.
tessierashpool wrote 16 hours 56 min ago:
If somebody wanted to be... not president, but authoritarian leader
of a post-democracy, Musk would be well positioned technologically.
of course, that was his very explicit goal. Thiel backed Curtis
Yarvin, who came up for the plan for this and called it RAGE.
google it, it's all written down. they hoped to put in Bezos or
Zuckerberg and have a more efficiently-run dictatorship replacing
our democracy. because they didn't understand politics, they got
the ketamine addict instead, who renamed RAGE to DOGE so he could
also use it to power a crypto pump-and-dump.
*edit: and because it was never a realistic plan. because they
didn't understand politics
le-mark wrote 23 hours 20 min ago:
Elon has proven to truly be the dumbest smart guy ever. He alienated
Teslaâs core customers; tree hugging liberals, and anyone who cares
about sustainability. The GOP nor their voters care and never will. I
called this Tesla stock crash months ago; did not act on it though.
Animats wrote 15 hours 30 min ago:
He was smart. Then he started using drugs. Since then, he's made a
lot of mistakes. It's pretty simple.
gosub100 wrote 19 hours 5 min ago:
The fact that so many "climate activists" and environmentalists
turned on him confirms my suspicion that they didn't think so
highly about the earth or climate change in the first place. They
care about partisan politics and their tribe more than the planet.
zzzeek wrote 17 hours 22 min ago:
He spent hundreds of millions to get Trump elected, so that now
the EPA is gutted, the closing of coal plants has been halted,
and federal lands are set to be drilled and mined into oblivion.
This is what climate activists correctly opposed and continue to
oppose in opposing Musk.
gosub100 wrote 16 hours 11 min ago:
He made cars that people actually like, that don't emit any
CO2. But he doesn't signal from the right tribe, so everything
he's done is worthless.
josv wrote 18 hours 15 min ago:
Be wary of confirmation bias. I donât find it unlikely at all
that Tesla owners have sincere environmental goals that could be
overshadowed by other concerns. Letâs afford each other the
grace of being rational expected utility maximizers.
skellera wrote 20 hours 36 min ago:
I think less people care about it politically than you think. Most
people I know who have Teslas stand by the product even through
Elonâs dumb shit.
I think people care more about their own convenience. Thereâs
nothing else in our market thatâs even comparable. People talk a
lot of shit and it wasnât great to start but FSD is on a
different level now, especially on newer cars like the new Model Y.
Having a car that mostly drives itself is the best purchase Iâve
ever made.
It doesnât seem to be slowing down sales in Seattle. New Model Ys
are everywhere here.
tessierashpool wrote 16 hours 51 min ago:
Having a car that mostly drives itself is the best purchase
Iâve ever made.
ok, you can get that with a Hyundai though.
higher-quality, too, yet the Tesla costs more.
isoprophlex wrote 18 hours 7 min ago:
[flagged]
FirmwareBurner wrote 17 hours 7 min ago:
That's crazy. Where's that?
Good thing I live in a country where Europeans aren't mentally
deranged.
tessierashpool wrote 16 hours 50 min ago:
your question is crazy, dude.
a lot of Europeans remember the Nazis and didn't like the
Nazi salute.
WW2 was memorable for a lot of people.
voidspark wrote 16 hours 28 min ago:
I recently saw a compilation of Democrat politicians doing
the exact same "Nazi salute" over the years. Obama,
Hillary, Sanders, AOC, etc.
Even the ADL released a statement saying that it was
obviously not a Nazi salute. People are actually
delusional. Extremely childish and idiotic.
tzs wrote 10 hours 11 min ago:
> I recently saw a compilation of Democrat politicians
doing the exact same "Nazi salute" over the years. Obama,
Hillary, Sanders, AOC, etc.
No, you did not. You saw a collection of Democrat
politicians whose arms at one point were sticking out in
the same position that arms stick out at the end of a
Nazi salute. This happens all the time. I do it 3 days a
week when making breakfast.
What Musk did was start with his arm down, rapidly raise
it to his heart, and then forcefully thrust it out to the
position usually shows in photographs of Hitler doing the
salute. There are videos of Hitler doing that full hand
to heart and then thrust gesture that almost exactly
match Musk's gesture from start to finish.
When you track down the videos that the purported
Democrat examples are taken from you will see that none
of them did that. They were doing things like pointing,
or waving to a crowd, or gesticulating while they talked,
and in the midst of that their arms ended up in that
position.
lostlogin wrote 16 hours 8 min ago:
[flagged]
voidspark wrote 16 hours 1 min ago:
[flagged]
tomhow wrote 10 hours 9 min ago:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't
cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines....
toomuchtodo wrote 19 hours 47 min ago:
Tesla once again tells its own CEO Elon Musk to knock it off with
the politics - [1] - April 22nd, 2025
67% of Americans would not consider buying a Tesla, new poll says
- [2] - March 28th, 2025
Tesla sales fall by 49% in Europe even as the electric vehicle
market grows - [3] - March 25, 2025
Tesla is done in Germany: 94% say they wonât buy a Tesla car -
[4] - March 14th, 2025
Australian Tesla sales plummet as owners rush to distance
themselves from Elon Musk - [5] - March 6th, 2025
(own several Teslas, won't buy another)
URI [1]: https://electrek.co/2025/04/22/tesla-once-again-tells-ce...
URI [2]: https://electrek.co/2025/03/28/most-americans-would-not-...
URI [3]: https://apnews.com/article/tesla-sales-recall-trump-byd-...
URI [4]: https://electrek.co/2025/03/14/tesla-is-done-in-germany-...
URI [5]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/06/austr...
gdudeman wrote 20 hours 5 min ago:
This anecdote doesnât match the data.
It is definitely slowing demand. You can see it in the Q1 numbers
and the discounts on vehicles.
You can ask anyone who buys used EVs in Seattle. There is a glut
of Tesla sellers and not many buyers.
Like it or not, your car says a lot about you. People bought
Teslas because they liked what they said and now they are
avoiding them because they donât like it.
rco8786 wrote 22 hours 37 min ago:
One interesting thing is that he seems completely unaware that he
is the problem. Stepping back from DOGE to focus on Tesla again. He
thinks that him getting closer to Tesla will help save the brand,
when it's exactly his association with it that caused the damage in
the first place.
The best thing he could do for Tesla would be to step aside.
> I called this Tesla stock crash months ago
TSLA is currently up 5% MoM despite really, really horrible
earnings and outlook. The market can stay irrational longer than
you can stay solvent sometimes.
klntsky wrote 22 hours 26 min ago:
I don't think stock prices matter as much to him (everybody knows
there are lots of expectations baked in the price).
rco8786 wrote 21 hours 33 min ago:
Nor do I, I'm sure he's aware it's propped up on nothing but
fumes and vibes. I was just commenting on OP wishing they had
shorted TSLA months ago. Easy to say in hindsight, is all.
motorest wrote 1 day ago:
> And the worst thing is that Elon could've been a living legend by
building/funding colleges and schools focused on the tech his
companies need, software development, robotics etc.
Could he, though?
I mean, he might have the cash, but if you look at his history you
don't see that much interest or respect for basic academic
principles, or even any basic academic achievement whatsoever.
He conveys an image of someone who is mentally trapped in
prepubescence, and who repeatedly does things that a prepubescent kid
does to try to gather admiration. I meant who desperately tries to
pass themselves off as elite gamers? How long will it take until he
moves on to DJing? That's not someone who has any interest in
founding education institutions.
The man does have an army of terminally online sycophants, which I
now wonder whether they are astroturfed.
voidspark wrote 1 day ago:
He has two degrees. BA in Physics and BSc in Economics
motorest wrote 23 hours 52 min ago:
> He has two degrees. BA in Physics and BSc in Economics
You should verify your claims [1] From the article:
> Musk's past statements about his educational background,
however, have been, at best, imprecise. He has claimed on several
occasions to have received a physics degree in 1995 â a claim
that was never fully true but which may have aided Musk's early
business career.
URI [1]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-physics-degree/
weberer wrote 21 hours 31 min ago:
>Does Elon Musk Have an Undergraduate Degree in Physics?
>Rating: True
>Musk has on previous occasions claimed he received this degree
in 1995, but the University of Pennsylvania says it was awarded
in 1997.
What was the point of your comment?
rascul wrote 23 hours 19 min ago:
The Snopes article confirms the comment you're replying to. The
sentence you left out, before your quote:
> The University of Pennsylvania considers Musk to be a
graduate of both the economics department and the physics
department.
And right above that, from the University of Pennsylvania:
> Elon Musk earned a B.A. in physics and a B.S. in economics
(concentrations: finance and entrepreneurial management) from
the University of Pennsylvania. The degrees were awarded on May
19, 1997.
e40 wrote 1 day ago:
I think the point is he could if he was a different person.
motorest wrote 1 day ago:
> I think the point is he could if he was a different person.
That statement is pointless. The critical factor is not money,
it's willingness. You do not even need to be the world's richest
man to put together a school. There are pro athletes with a
fraction of the wealth that already do meaningful investments in
education.
constantcrying wrote 1 day ago:
It is an interesting idea, but there is obviously a lot which can go
wrong here.
Can you actually build an EV like that, conforming to all regulations,
with significant cost reduction? VW is currently trying to build a 20k
EV, which seem extremely difficult in Europe and US labor costs are
probably higher. The Dacia EVs (which seem closest in concept to a
pickup) suffer from many downsides, to make low prices happen.
Do people actually want less screens or do they just say that?
Is customization a road to profitability? VWs ID.1 concept has a
similar idea to lower entry price, by making several upgrades user
installable, so they can be bought over time.
This is obviously a US only car and the US is very lacking in EV
adoption. Will this sell in significant numbers?
Can you actually make it cheaply? Rivian is notoriously unprofitable
and making cheap cars is, far, far harder than making expensive cars.
paulajohnson wrote 1 day ago:
This has much the same design philosophy as the original Land Rover:
tough, reliable, simple and maintainable. It was originally developed
as the UK answer to the Jeep, but rapidly became the standard utility
vehicle for anyone with an outdoor off road job. Especially farmers.
Something like two thirds of all Land Rovers ever made are still in
use.
This might well go the same way.
constantcrying wrote 1 day ago:
>This has much the same design philosophy as the original Land Rover:
tough, reliable, simple and maintainable
Where do you get any of this from? Especially EVs are not something
you can easily tinker with as the risk of killing yourself is pretty
high. In general they are also more integrated and less maintainable
and it seems unlikely that this won't be the case here.
Maintainability costs money and to make a 20k car happen every cent
needs to be saved.
As for reliability it is obviously one of the first things to
sacrifice to make low costs happen. We have seen nothing of this car,
I doubt the engineering is even far along.
fluorinerocket wrote 1 day ago:
Make it a combustion engine and I'm sold
catchmeifyoucan wrote 1 day ago:
I wonder if I could write my own software for this car? Like
auto-sensing rain-wipers with an Arduino or something, and if the CAN
BUS protocol isn't super hard to use. This would be a car hacking
dream.
nkoren wrote 1 day ago:
Not a truck guy, but I like it. What I like the most is that it's not
batshit fucking insane.
I recently visited America after a couple of years away, and spent a
couple of weeks in California, driving from SF to LA. The thing which I
found the most striking was the sheer insanity of the pickup trucks
that were absolutely everywhere. These things were true Idiocracy-class
monster trucks, which are clearly lethal to operate in any environment
which includes pedestrians. In some cases, my five-year-old's head
barely reached the bumper, and my wife's head didn't clear the hood.
And these were highly-polished, un-dented behemoths that had clearly
never seen a dirt road in their lives. The whole thing is clearly all
about aesthetics and identity politics. Absolutely revolting.
(If you haven't visited the US recently, I think it's almost impossible
to appreciate how obscene the phenomena is. 10 years ago, trucks were
far more restrained, but could still do everything they needed to do.
30 years ago, trucks were fully half the size, but could still carry
the same-size loads and do honest work. There's honestly no possible
justification for their corpulent growth.)
Anyhow, this thing looks like it can do honest work without killing
everyone who crosses its path. I really appreciate that. I hope it
starts a trend.
allset_ wrote 1 day ago:
OK now do a small hatchback.
Animats wrote 1 day ago:
The US is falling way behind in electric vehicles. If BYD could sell in
the US, the US auto industry would be crushed.[1]
What went wrong is that 1) Tesla never made a low-end vehicle, despite
announcements, and 2) all the other US manufacturers treated electric
as a premium product, resulting in the overpowered electric Hummer 2
and F-150 pickups with high price tags. The only US electric vehicle
with comparable prices in electric and gasoline versions is the Ford
Transit.
BYD says that their strategy for now is to dominate in every country
that does not have its own auto industry. Worry about the left-behind
countries later.
BYD did it by 1) getting lithium-iron batteries to be cheaper, safer,
and faster-charging, although heavier than lithium-ion, 2) integrating
rear wheels, differential, axle, and motor into an "e-axle" unit that's
the entire mechanical part of the power train, and 3) building really
big auto plants in China.
Next step is to get solid state batteries into volume production, and
build a new factory bigger than San Francisco.
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BYD_Auto_vehicles
tw04 wrote 15 hours 41 min ago:
>2) all the other US manufacturers treated electric as a premium
product, resulting in the overpowered electric Hummer 2 and F-150
pickups with high price tags
They had to in order to build the manufacturing capacity without
literally bankrupting themselves. As GM has shown, once they had the
expertise and manufacturing capabilities, they could quickly move
downmarket. By all accounts GM's entry into the space has been a
raging success, moving downmarket with the Equinox being available
for as low as $27,500.
They obviously aren't to Tesla level sales numbers yet, but they're
growing rapidly and I would not count them out of the fight.
URI [1]: https://insideevs.com/news/746177/general-motors-record-2024...
cryptoegorophy wrote 16 hours 26 min ago:
You missed a big elephant in the room 4) China did a significant
subsidies for BYD factories. If USA did similar % wise thing to Tesla
then we wouldâve have $20k teslas driving.
Animats wrote 16 hours 11 min ago:
It's more like BYD winning the race in China's auto industry. China
has over a hundred automakers, most making low-end cars.[1] Some
are state-owned, some are province-owned, some are privately owned.
BYD is privately owned and doing well.
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufactu...
seanmcdirmid wrote 16 hours 23 min ago:
China subsidized EVs in the same way that America did (tax
credits), and less aggressively so. Unless you mean incentives from
Shenzhen and getting taxi companies to early adopt? They also added
incentives in getting a car at all in cities like Beijing (EVs
started out in a different lottery allocation for plates)?
lvl155 wrote 17 hours 29 min ago:
Do you own a BYD? Itâs not that great. Build quality is subpar.
Problem with investing in China is that once tech transfer ends,
thereâs no promise that these companies are capable of continued
innovations. Itâs basically an ecosystem dependent on outside
innovations that they can âtransferâ and tweak. Thatâs the
whole âcommunistâ economy in nutshell.
panick21_ wrote 18 hours 26 min ago:
> 2) all the other US manufacturers treated electric as a premium
product
This is because the LITERALLY CAN'T make money of a non premium
product.
And for Tesla is just because Musk is stupid and went ALL-IN on self
driving. They literally believe that the market will drop by 80%
because of self driving. That's why the only build robotaxi and no
model 2. Against the advice of basically everybody in Tesla
leadership.
EasyMark wrote 18 hours 30 min ago:
You're probably right about BYD, most people only see price and
whether it's reputation is at least "ok". I personally will never buy
that big of a purchase from a Chinese company until CCP is no longer
in charge.
casey2 wrote 18 hours 56 min ago:
Exactly how will BYD's 400k vehicals "crush" the US auto industry?
They could give them away for free and not even make a dent.
nxm wrote 22 hours 10 min ago:
By 4) stealing patents and technology off of American companies
throw3817374 wrote 20 hours 11 min ago:
I was curious about this statement and did a search and could not
find anything about it.
It appears that EV technology is new enough that it's Chinese
companies that are the ones innovating, especially in battery
technology.
testing22321 wrote 22 hours 23 min ago:
The US automakers lost the plot a long time ago, and have just been
sucking out money without innovation or improvement since.
When California and the EPA tried to legislate lower emissions 9
years into the future, the US automakers sued to block saying it was
impossible. Japanese automakers were already selling vehicles that
met those standards.
When they badly, badly screw up, they just get bailed out with public
funds and then go on to pay execs tens of millions of dollars a year
and fat bonuses. Guaranteed profits no matter what made them lazy and
uncompetitive.
Theyâre all dying
Animats wrote 16 hours 30 min ago:
GM and Chrysler went bankrupt and were partially bailed out, the
CEOs were replaced and the Government took a stake in the
companies, which eventually paid off.
ajmurmann wrote 19 hours 0 min ago:
There also is the chicken tax which has been protecting US
automakers in the pickup truck space which has lead to then leaning
much more into that. Together with absurd CAFE rules that benefit
huge cars and more beneficial tax write-off rules for vehicles over
3.5t regulation has lead to US automakers focusing on cars that are
absurd by international standards.
yellowapple wrote 21 hours 43 min ago:
> When they badly, badly screw up, they just get bailed out with
public funds
When this happens, I think it's only fair that the bailed-out
company becomes publicly owned. If I'm forced to invest in a
company with my tax dollars, then I damn well better be treated as
an investor. Where are my shares? Where are my dividends?
EasyMark wrote 18 hours 25 min ago:
If GMC had been âpublically ownedâ it would have been gutted
for profits (kickbacks) by its bureaucracy and politicians and
been long dead by at least a decade. Bureaucrats are not good at
running companies and private companies should not be providing
public services (prisons, toll roads). I don't know why Americans
have become so unpragmatic and either all in on âgovernment
doing everythingâ or âprivate corps doing everythingâ when
life is never ever that simple.
directevolve wrote 19 hours 43 min ago:
When the USG bailed out banks via TARP during the 2008 financial
crisis, it did so by buying shares in those companies. It later
sold those shares for a $30.5 billion profit.
fifilura wrote 22 hours 33 min ago:
> 3) integrating rear wheels, differential, axle, and motor into an
"e-axle" unit that's the entire mechanical part of the power train
Obviously an electric vehicle is so much simpler than one with a
gasoline engine. We have seen it already with lawn mowers who shrank
from huge tractors to nimble robots.
An in particular when you don't start from the Autobahn-eater type of
cars.
perihelions wrote 1 day ago:
- "BYD did it by"
Also the many systemic, industry-wide factors discussed last week in
[1] ("America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing
back (molsonhart.com)" â 1010 comments)
I agree with the gist of that piece; focusing on specific engineering
choices (important as they are) is missing the forest for a
particularly interesting tree. Any American EV maker is heavily
disadvantaged right now, no matter how clever they are.
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692677
refurb wrote 1 day ago:
In terms of BYD dominance, one needs to keep in mind the subsidy that
the Chinese government is providing, such that they can sell cars
below cost. [1] Just 2018 to 2022, BYD received $5.9B. And that
doesn't include all the indirect subsidies that went to suppliers
like the battery manufacturers.
It's a part of Chinese government strategy of "build it and they will
come". Massively subsidize select industries, dominate the market.
Which is why the EU has put high tariff's on the cars.
URI [1]: https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2024/27...
ksynwa wrote 1 day ago:
That is not that much in terms of subsidy for a critical industry.
I tried finding the awards for Tesla but the articles lump in
government contracts and report the figure to be in tens of
billions. I am sure they have received a comparable amount of
funding. BYD has just been able to make better use of it I suppose.
herbst wrote 1 day ago:
They are doing a lot of advertisment and promo in Germany which has a
active and kinda stable car Industrie.
Pretty sure they plan to disrupt any market
torginus wrote 1 day ago:
BYD's allowed to sell in Europe. They're not crushing the market
here. They're not substantially cheaper, or better for what they
offer for the price compared to other manufacturers.
goosejuice wrote 17 hours 44 min ago:
BYD could slash european prices by quite a bit. They price them
competitively to take advantage of the margin. The increase in
price compared to their domestic MSRP is pretty wild, 2x in some
cases. In a race to the bottom, they will win.
doctorpangloss wrote 20 hours 11 min ago:
You're right, but comparing Switzerland to America... You need a
car to live in 90% of the USA. That said, talking only about specs
or prices is pretty reductionist. If anyone on this forum could
forecast car sales based on pre-delivery marketing, you know,
become a billionaire investor.
atombender wrote 1 day ago:
The EU has imposed tariffs and levies on BYD, totaling 27% [1]
URI [1]: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companies-markets/chinese...
jiehong wrote 1 day ago:
EU import taxes designed to make them less cheap than local cars do
that.
kasey_junk wrote 23 hours 2 min ago:
China has one of the least free trade regimes in the world, their
currency controls alone amount to potentially more than Euro
tariffs on cars and thatâs just one part of their governmental
stacking of the deck for their manufacturers.
I think itâs easy to look at the outputs of their industries
and compare them extremely favorably to the outputs elsewhere,
especially in EV.
But once you start comparing tariff adjusted pricing it gets much
trickier much faster.
herbst wrote 1 day ago:
Within only a few months I see more Chinese Electric cars than
Tesla (or us cars generally) on swiss streets.
Depending on what you are looking for they are WAY cheaper than
comparable cars.
Sammi wrote 1 day ago:
VW is selling more EVs in Europe than BYD.
herbst wrote 1 day ago:
VW is not an American car maker. There are way more European
cars in Switzerland than either Chinese or US. Obviously. Also
more Japanese tho
mikrotikker wrote 1 day ago:
No way I'd trust them. When you crash them or they have a battery
fault, the doors lock you inside before the battery catches fire.
Many videos of this happening inside China with one recent event
in the West.
beAbU wrote 12 hours 49 min ago:
Can you share some of those videos here please?
yakz wrote 22 hours 31 min ago:
There's a mechanical latch release handle integrated into the
doors, but they are very much not meant to be used during
normal operation and are designed to be inconspicuous. This
seems to cause at least some people to fail to operate them
during a fast-paced emergency situation.
motorest wrote 23 hours 26 min ago:
> No way I'd trust them. When you crash them or they have a
battery fault, the doors lock you inside before the battery
catches fire.
This matches reports from Tesla users. The cybertruck is
specially prone to this sort of design problems.
DrammBA wrote 18 hours 5 min ago:
Why is that a common failure mode in a crash? I can't think
of a reason or bug that would lead to the doors locking after
a crash.
giantrobot wrote 16 hours 40 min ago:
Fail-safe designs are more expensive because they require
redundancies, fully manual linkages, or just
non-centralized control.
The Cybertruck went with daisy chained PoE automotive
Ethernet variant. The same cables delivering power to
subcomponents handle data. Damage/problems in a single
component can not only bring down the network but kill
power to all the car's subsystems. It means less wiring in
the Cybertruck (and lower production expense) at the cost
of durability and fail-safety. Someone looked at TokenRing
Ethernet and said "yes that is best".
IrishTechie wrote 16 hours 53 min ago:
Most cars lock as you start driving, I assume the issue is
theyâre not unlocking when crashed.
brewdad wrote 16 hours 56 min ago:
I think it's a well intentioned safety feature that was
never fully thought through. Locking the doors in a crash
can prevent a passenger from being ejected from a vehicle.
However, if there is no reliable way to unlock the door
once the acceleration forces have subsided, you've created
a death trap.
EasyMark wrote 18 hours 29 min ago:
Only cybertrucks I've heard about catching on fire where the
ones purposely set on fire. While I'm sure it happens I doubt
it's any higher than any other vehicle on the road
herbst wrote 1 day ago:
That sounds like some kind of tiktok scare lol
dubcanada wrote 1 day ago:
Are there not similar videos of Tesla, or other electric cars
doing the exact same thing?
londons_explore wrote 1 day ago:
> dominate in every country that does not have its own auto industry.
That's because they plan to have a small number of huge factories to
keep costs down.
But that means they need cheap ships, and can only sell to places
with no car tariffs - which tends to be the countries without an auto
industry.
IceHegel wrote 1 day ago:
I think one of the biggest problems in the United States is the
misallocation of ambitious people. The highly educated and ambitious
people see finance, government, tech, and corporate executive tracks,
as the way to convert their energies into social status.
Even startups these days seem to be a case of too many chiefs, not
enough Indians.
godelski wrote 15 hours 34 min ago:
I think the bigger problem is we filter for conmen. You can become
a billionaire for vaporware and are less likely to if you actually
ship something.
There are plenty of smart people who are highly passionate about
things other than money. The problem is a large portion aren't at
top name universities and doing don't have the connections. Problem
is, they spent all their time learning their craft and not how to
market their ideas.
I disagree that it's just because those jobs pay well. Look at what
people are investing in and how it works. We throw tons of money at
obviously bad ideas, obvious cons, and anyone that took a semester
at Stanford. There are plenty of Bitcoin billionaires! There's tons
who have made riches off the VR hype wave before that.
I agree that we put too much focus on finance and the like but I
think more importantly we have a system where you can get ultra
wealthy for producing vaporware. It's much easier to build hype
than build a product. You still get people who become millionaires
& billionaires by shipping things, but we created a system where we
reward conmen. Ultimately, the con is easier than the actual job.
There's a lot of that tech can do but let's be honest, our industry
has capitalized on the boom and bust cycle and accelerated it.
We're not the only ones, but we're a big player and it's easier to
hold our own community accountable than get others to change.
generalizations wrote 18 hours 33 min ago:
They go where it's feasible to go. As long as regulation hamstrings
industries, it'd be idiotic to build there. Ambitious people just
want everyone else to get out of their way so they (I) can build
stuff - and they'll go where there's less resistance.
Oh, there's a "tax credit" to make it easier? Sounds like more
paperwork & friction. No thanks!
That's one reason Tech is such an attactor. Low barrier to entry.
bushbaba wrote 18 hours 46 min ago:
Because compensation?
rco8786 wrote 22 hours 38 min ago:
Can you demonstrate that this misallocation is worse in the US than
it is in other countries?
Jorge1o1 wrote 1 day ago:
Andrew Yang launched a presidential campaign based on this idea, he
wrote a book:
âSmart People Should Build Thingsâ
almosthere wrote 1 day ago:
Well the problem is US wants to be the world's managers. And all we
cared about is writing messenger apps. Totally missed the boat on
building things, like houses, boats, and most of all new weird
things we don't even have a concept for.
hackernoops wrote 7 hours 30 min ago:
>we
IceHegel wrote 18 hours 37 min ago:
Agreed, and this is a somewhat recent phenomenon (see wtf
happened in 1971)
For example, we have 100+ drone startups in the United States.
But our overall drone production capacity (hammers in Civ) hasn't
actually increased. We just have 100 companies buying grey market
from Vietnam and Indonesia, many of which came from China
originally.
The way the system should work is if you want to do a drone
startup, you need to build a drone factory. That's what the money
is for.
If the startup fails, maybe the market leader buys the factory
for cheap. This is how the automobile industry was in the United
States - a bunch of those companies went bust, but the factories
were often kept online by the winners.
ajmurmann wrote 19 hours 3 min ago:
The problem is that things like houses and boats became political
tokens and/or don't have the same profit scaling as software.
Housing is mostly restricted by political opposition that made it
very hard or even illegal to build much. Building ships is labor
intensive which is expensive here, but AFAIK at least
construction of navy ships has become a bargaining ship that gets
moved around to support senators rather than being allocated to
the most efficient place. In general it also seems like unions in
the US are somehow more of a problem than in Europe or at least
Germany where I grew up. They seem less powerful here but somehow
less reasonable.
motorest wrote 23 hours 28 min ago:
> Well the problem is US wants to be the world's managers.
I think the problem is more nuanced than that. The US was
effectively "the world's managers", in the sense that their
economic might, entrepreneur culture, and push for globalization
resulted in a corporate structure where the ownership and
executive levels were US whereas non-critical business domains
reflected the local workforce, whether it was the US or not.
This setup worked great while the US dominated the world's
economy and influenced their allies and trading partners to
actively engage in globalization.
Now that Trump is pushing for isolationism, of course things
change.
IceHegel wrote 18 hours 32 min ago:
I would push on how well GDP measures "economic might".
If I were to tell you a country over five years grew its GDP 5%
in 1900, that would mean houses and roads and factories and
mines and a whole range of things were built.
In 2020, 5% real GDP growth could be an increase in the value
of various services. In fact, you might not need to change the
physical world at all to achieve that growth.
Marsymars wrote 16 hours 8 min ago:
Services are all basically a proxy for the physical world
though. Other than things like art and media that people
value for their own sake.
grues-dinner wrote 1 day ago:
Watching nearly the entire software-financial complex burn to the
ground when the vaunted "moats" dry up is going to be a hell of a
sight. All this AI hype is just going to end up commodifying the
very thing that the entire industry is built on: management of
processes.
Places that understand that physical production cannot be
abstracted forever will prevail.
jmpman wrote 1 day ago:
When Elon gets excited about displacing his engineers on a whim
with H1Bs, why would any highly educated ambitious person want to
work for Tesla?
zem wrote 1 day ago:
I mean, that's one way to get Indians!
motorest wrote 1 day ago:
> (...) why would any highly educated ambitious person want to
work for Tesla?
To that dimension I would add ethics as well. It's very hard to
justify working for the likes of Tesla when being mindful of the
attitude the company and company representatives have with
regards to basic issues ranging from workers rights to
totalitarianism.
Panzer04 wrote 1 day ago:
I don't really see how any car company can "fall behind" in EV.
Fundamentally, IMO, EVs are such a simple concept mechanically that
any company capable of building a conventional ICE vehicle can build
an EV.
It's glib to say that - obviously there's a lot of unsaid complexity
(battery back cooling, fitting into the frame, and so on), but the
actual drivetrain component is just so simple. That EVs are still
expensive is to me a sign that production hasn't ramped up yet. So
long as production is limited EVs will remain a luxury product - but
I can't imagine that's going to continue for all that much longer
with an increasing backlog of used EVs on the market and decreasing
battery prices.
constantcrying wrote 1 day ago:
Are you serious? EVs have been the biggest disruption in the auto
industry. It has created major corporations who made the attempts
of traditional manufacturers seem obsolete.
VW Group and Stellantis totally failed to compete with Chinese
manufacturers and were driven out of the Chinese EV market almost
entirely. Competition is extremely fierce.
>That EVs are still expensive
Look up what they cost in China.
>So long as production is limited EVs will remain a luxury product
Around 50% of new sales in China. Not "luxury" in any meaningful
way.
The issue is that EVs do not differentiate themselves by power
train. They differentiate themselves by battery and software.
derektank wrote 1 day ago:
Even if there were no improvements to be had in the vehicle itself,
improvements in manufacturing processes determine how expensive the
product is and thus how competitively priced the vehicle can be.
Falling behind on price means falling behind on market share which
means falling behind on efficiencies of scale which often means
going out of business or at best becoming a niche producer.
Honda and Toyota weren't able to outcompete US manufacturers in the
1980s by offering higher performance vehicles but by delivering
similar quality products at lower prices by making use of superior
production techniques like Lean and JIT inventory management.
DidYaWipe wrote 1 day ago:
What went wrong is that the federal government didn't build or
legislate a national charging infrastructure to match the scale of
the interstate highway system.
They could have strong-armed the states into it with a combination of
funding the construction and the way they mandated the 21 drinking
age: by threatening to withhold highway funds.
voidfunc wrote 1 day ago:
> They could have strong-armed the states into it with a
combination of funding the construction and the way they mandated
the 21 drinking age: by threatening to withhold highway funds.
Yea let's give the federal government more power. That's going so
well right now.
DidYaWipe wrote 14 hours 55 min ago:
NATIONAL-scale projects are exactly what the federal government
should do. I specifically referred to the Eisenhower
interstate-highway system. Those are the kind of grand
undertakings that transformed our country, and which the current
administration can't even conceive... let alone articulate or
propose.
Read about it:
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
motorest wrote 1 day ago:
> Yea let's give the federal government more power. That's going
so well right now.
Investing on a nation-wide infrastructure grid that fundamentally
changes the nation's energy independence is hardly a reason to
mindlessly parrot state rights cliches.
watwut wrote 1 day ago:
The current issue is the president ignoring legal limits of his
power and breaking laws right and left. While his party cheers
on.
While useful parts of the federal goverment are destroyed,
because they dont serve ultra rich.
globnomulous wrote 1 day ago:
In a way, the current administration perfectly demonstrates the
value of a strong federal government: a kakistocratic,
kleptocratic regime wouldn't dismantle the "administrative
state" if it weren't an impediment to their criminality,
incompetence, and rapacity.
phonon wrote 1 day ago:
They definitely tried... $7.5 Billion worth. It's on pause now :-(
URI [1]: https://www.govtech.com/transportation/federal-funding-for...
DidYaWipe wrote 14 hours 58 min ago:
I don't think they actually tried. They created a fund... and
then did nothing to implement the intended result.
hed wrote 22 hours 6 min ago:
And how many stations did that yield?
atoav wrote 1 day ago:
Isn't this lack of forward thinking somewhat the general problem
now?
From an EU perspective the world as it has existed in the living
memory is a world shaped by decisive US-actions. The way EVs have
been approached were anything but that. Arguably neither did
Germany, because of the way their politicians are entangled with
the car manufacturers.
bgnn wrote 1 day ago:
Germany actively hampered it by promoting diesel as THE greeen
fuel.
atoav wrote 15 hours 6 min ago:
Yes, as I hinted at in the last sentence of my comment.
loufe wrote 1 day ago:
Did you mean to say sodium batteries instead of lithium in your "BYD
did it" sentence?
Animats wrote 1 day ago:
No. Five years ago BYD introduced their "blade battery", which is a
lithium iron phosphate battery built up of plate-like "blades" in
rectangular casings.[1] Wh/L is about the same as lithium ion,
Wh/Kg is not as good, and Wh/$ is better. It will survive the "nail
test" and does not not go into thermal runaway.
Today, most of BYD's products use this technology. It's been
improved to handle higher charging rates. Seems to work fine.
Lithium-ion has better Wh/Kg, and it's still used in some high-end
cars, mostly Teslas. BYD's approach has captured the low and medium
priced markets.
BYD has announced that they plan first shipments of cars with solid
state batteries (higher Wh/Kg) in 2027. Price will be high at
first, and they will first appear in BYD's high-end cars. Like
these.[3] BYD has the Yangwang U8, a big off-road SUV comparable to
the Rivian, and the Yangwang U9, a "hypercar". Just to show that
they can make them, probably. [1] [2]
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIt5z4wT9RE
URI [2]: https://electrek.co/2025/02/17/byd-confirms-evs-all-solid-...
URI [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHWXx1KsvVY
JimBlackwood wrote 1 day ago:
> Like these.[3] BYD has the Yangwang U8, a big off-road SUV
comparable to the Rivian, and the Yangwang U9, a "hypercar".
I really did not expect to open this and have it be presented by
Kryten! Fun surprise! :)
caseyf7 wrote 1 day ago:
BYD buses are operating in the US.
sebmellen wrote 1 day ago:
The Chevy Spark EV is an incredible vehicle and has been my around
town go kart for the past 7 years. Cost me $11k (!!) as an off lease
purchase.
joshjob42 wrote 1 day ago:
I adored my Spark EV til it sadly died (fairly scarily, on a
highway access road) one day. Chevy was never able to repair it and
ultimately gave me a nice payout after paying for a rental for me
for nearly a year.
But if you sold the Spark EV for 20k today with like 120mi of
range, it would be perfect and would satisfy all my needs 99% of
the time. Even mine (13k all in) was great here in LA with ~60mi of
range. I loved how small and easy to park it was without feeling
cramped to me at all. If it had CarPlay I'd've said it was the
perfect car haha.
It's a shame they haven't rebooted it yet as a pure EV. It's right
there in the name!
furrydoge wrote 1 day ago:
Looks good. If it never beeps or dings or makes interior noises, I'm
in.
slimmons wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know what laws need to change, or what needs to happen, but for
the people in the southern united states, nearly every one of us would
be a reasonably priced gas truck. There are no options. I had to buy
a grossly overpriced F150 for double what I think it's worth because
there's no other option. These fuel economy laws in the USA make no
sense. While this truck is neat I guess, there's 0 use case for it for
people who really need trucks in the USA.
jofzar wrote 1 day ago:
I hate this, I need a screen and stereo in my car.
Seriously, who wants to be in a modern car without music, and who wants
to travel without Google maps.
mixmastamyk wrote 1 day ago:
Use your mobile device.
ezekiel68 wrote 1 day ago:
They could get the price down to $18.5k by omitting the steering
assemblage.
LoganDark wrote 1 day ago:
> "Extremely affordable"
> $20,000
almosthere wrote 1 day ago:
Cybertruck was such a miss.
spaceguillotine wrote 1 day ago:
so, an actual cybertruck
zrobotics wrote 1 day ago:
Damn, this might finally get me to retire my 83 Mazda b2200. I've king
thought this size trick is about perfect, and the old Perkins engine in
my truck is getting really tired. Mostly commenting so I have this in
my history to refer to later
frainfreeze wrote 1 day ago:
Is there anything like this in EU?
ryanschaefer wrote 1 day ago:
So incredibly refreshing after the abomination that is the telos was
announced
0xbadcafebee wrote 1 day ago:
It's embarrassing when people buy a truck and don't use it for work,
towing or payload. So you bought a fuel-inefficient non-aerodynamic
vehicle whose storage area is open to the air and unusable for
passengers, and it's not big enough to carry or tow large items? What a
smart choice.
However, with the SUV package and lift kit, this is actually useful.
It's basically the same size (and payload and towing capacity) of the
2nd gen Scion xB. A boxy, roomy, small, cheap car. Absolutely useful
and great. (Unlike a tiny truck.)
WalterBright wrote 1 day ago:
It sounds just like the goals of Ford's Model T.
I'd be very interested in buying one of these as my first EV.
FloatArtifact wrote 1 day ago:
Hold on, isn't backup cameras mandated for vehicles sold after May
2018?
smeeger wrote 1 day ago:
it is extremely important that you read this comment: a company called
edison motors out of canada is making a conversion kit that can turn
any pickup into a hybrid using a drop-in motor and a really powerful
generator. imagine something that costs less than this truck, has a
range of many hundreds of miles, and can be used to tow more than ten
thousand pounds. and you never have to turn on the generator if you
dont need to. groceries on all electric. they are posting videos on
youtube about this, its real. i personally believe that these work
trucks will be the best in history. the most reliable, the most
utility, the best cost.
smeeger wrote 1 day ago:
people when a tesla doesnt have a knob: âoutrageous. there couldnt be
any benefit to that!â people when this car has no paint or speakers:
â⦠take my money.â
mberning wrote 1 day ago:
I wish them the absolute best. Make trucks trucks again.
robomartin wrote 1 day ago:
Interesting.
No mention of crash testing or crash-worthiness/safety. Airbags? ABS
braking? Collision avoidance (brakes engage based on distance and
speed to cars or objects ahead), etc.
Before the hounds say "it is refreshing..." remember that lots of
safety features are there because so many people died before they were
instituted.
How safe is this plastic body from lateral impact by an F150 or SUV?
One of the reasons for which I do not like or buy old vehicles is the
lack of safety features that are common today. All it takes is to land
a loved one in the hospital (or worse) to quickly regret the choice to
buy a cheap car or an old unsafe car. Years ago my father was t-boned
by a full size SUV at a neighborhood intersection, launching his car
diagonally across the intersection and onto the front yard of the
corner house...through a couple of trees. He walked away from that one
because the safety engineering of the vehicle he was driving save his
life.
Another note: To me, while this is interesting, it is also a sad
commentary on the state of manufacturing in the US. The ONLY WAY to
make a $20K car in the US is to strip it down to bare metal...err...not
even use metal...or paint...or electronics...or comfortable seats...and
have HALF the range of other EV's...and even take out the speakers,
etc. And then, you sell not having all those things as a FEATURE!
Yup. Brilliant. What's the least we can do to build a car and get
away with it?
My prediction is that this thing will die a pretty rapid death or they
will have to pivot into making real cars for this market. There's a
reason nearly three million conventional trucks were sold in the US
last year. Plastic bodies, 150 mile range and barren interiors did not
fit the description of a single one of them.
kevin_thibedeau wrote 1 day ago:
These are going to rust out fast in higher latitudes. You'd think
Michiganders would know better.
tomrod wrote 1 day ago:
I am, and I say this without hesitation, absolutely the target
demographic for this truck.
mrcwinn wrote 1 day ago:
I thought the Verge only covered âwhatâs in the box.â This
vehicle will not be $20k in the end.
gumboshoes wrote 1 day ago:
My prediction: this will cost $15K-$25K more before you ever have it in
your driveway. Even with tariff and market uncertainties.
chrisbrandow wrote 1 day ago:
I have dreamt of some entity trying to do this. A completely stripped
down vehicle sold for a (hopefully) sustainable profit. I wish them as
well as possible, and they will have my interest in purchasing one.
lukewrites wrote 1 day ago:
I put down a deposit for one.
An EV that's designed to be user-serviceable, has modular upgrades, and
isn't full of surveillance technology? This checks all the boxes for
me. Can't wait to play with it.
siscia wrote 1 day ago:
I wonder if it would make financial sense to offer the "skeleton" of
the car for sale and let design studios integrate all the pieces.
ThinkBeat wrote 1 day ago:
If I undersand the article right, it sounds like they make
it with no features but that you add yourself afterwards
"We moved all the complicated parts outside the factory"
What does that really mean?
You can paint it yourself, well ok, people may like that.
Making it easy to service is great.
If I want electric windows is that adaptable?
(It may come with electric windows)
When I want to put in a stereo
A navigation system?
AC? (Might come with it)
It would be cool if the car was a abit "framework" so it has
an open well thought out way to add and integrate features
a person may want.
THe compnay and 3rd parties could offer up all sorts of cool stuff.
ThinkBeat wrote 1 day ago:
Will this be street legal?
Will it have airbags?
If most of the car in injected molded plastics, what
happens when it gets int a crash with a regular car?
guynamedloren wrote 1 day ago:
Perfect. Instant buy for me if they can deliver on their promises. No
other car in recent memory has spoken to my minimalist frugal
engineering mind like this one. Hope my 2000 4runner lasts until the
Slate gets delivered to my door!
nelblu wrote 1 day ago:
This should really be mainstream car manufacturing. I can't wait for
the day when we have choice of cheap cars, with DiY upgrades and no
fucking tracking mechanisms built in and something that works without a
phone. I wish them all the success and for the first time in my adult
life, I'm excited about technology in cars again!
mystified5016 wrote 1 day ago:
No infotainment is great. We're all dying for a car with no
infotainment.
But no stereo at all is not something that anyone wants. A simple radio
is as much a basic expectation as "windows that go down".
Aside, why a pickup body? Aren't sedans wildly more popular?
burlesona wrote 1 day ago:
I LOVE this idea. Iâve specifically been looking to buy a tiny truck
or van, âcan hold sheets of plywoodâ being a major criteria. I love
the idea of that being a simple electric I can charge at home.
Beautiful!
Jach wrote 1 day ago:
What a gross looking vehicle, and at that price? I just want the old
ranger design. I've been using a 2006 ranger for quite a while and it's
served me well, I'd like to upgrade it to a ranger XL for that little
extra cab room for crap, along with 4WD and power windows and AC, but
people rightfully guard them and when they do show up at dealerships
they're typically pretty expensive too.
I've thought about importing a Kei, but I don't think it's for me. When
I think "American kei truck" I at least think something in the ballpark
range cost of a Kei, which is quite a bit less, at least half as
expensive for the best options like 4WD, even less if you can
compromise. It also has charm unlike this. The range is just
ridiculous, too. My little ranger isn't exactly great, I don't push it
much more than 300 miles on a tank, but having half that (new! let
alone after a few years) is such a deal breaker. Last time I took my
truck camping it was around 60 miles each way, and that was a nearby
spot.
ranger_danger wrote 1 day ago:
I can't imagine the DIY minimalist crowd is terribly popular, or
profitable... I wonder how long they will actually be able to stay in
business.
Animats wrote 1 day ago:
There's a configurator now.[1] Lots of factory options. The trouble is
that it turns into a $30,000 and up vehicle.
URI [1]: https://www.slate.auto/en/personalization
throw7 wrote 1 day ago:
I want this with an ice engine.
chubs wrote 1 day ago:
I'm very positive, however note that when they mention "injection
molded polypropylene composite material" - this (i think) is the same
material used for Seadoo Spark jetskis. I owned one and had a minor
crash, and because this material cannot be repaired, the entire hull
needed replacing, it was an insurance write-off. I hope they've thought
about how to make this car repairable and not 'disposable' after the
first inevitable minor crash. Of course this may not be a fair
comparison because jetski hulls are exposed, whereas car chassis' have
panels and bumpers.
Loughla wrote 1 day ago:
That's what I want. That's almost exactly what I want.
If it were 4x4 it would be literally exactly what I want.
resters wrote 1 day ago:
This is extremely refreshing. I think that it would be possible to make
something like this in the US for under $15K even. Cars and trucks are
so over-engineered and come with tons of low value options intended to
drive up the price.
For a case in point, consider that headlights that turn on and off
automatically in response to darkness (or rain) are not a standard
feature on many cars, yet they include a manual switch that costs more
than a photosensor only because of the trim-level upgrades.
Cars could include a slot for a tablet but instead come with overpriced
car stereos and infotainment systems that are always light years worse
than the most amateurish apps on any mobile app store.
As should be very clear by now after the 2008 US auto industry bailouts
and the 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs, the US auto industry is heavily
protected and faces virtually no competition, which is why a common
sense vehicle like the one in the article sounds revolutionary, though
I imagine BYD could deliver something a lot more impressive for $10K if
allowed to compete in the US without tariffs.
doctorpangloss wrote 20 hours 6 min ago:
> in the US for under $15K even
People say stuff like this. When you buy a $1 USB cable from
AliExpress that probably took 25 seconds to manufacture, okay, that
makes some sense, from that narrow point of view. But then the
courier is going to spend like 3 minutes futzing with delivering it
to you. Someone is paying something, no? You have an incomplete
picture of costs, and hopefully your answer to the example conundrum
isn't, "Delivery drivers are underpaid."
It's more complicated than features leading to a bill of materials
and time in a factory.
It costs at least $15,000 to replace a roof in San Francisco, and
maybe closer to $60,000. It costs basically nothing to manufacture
roof tiles, and the whole thing can be done in a day. If you could
answer the question why, and persuasively, you know, run for mayor.
aucisson_masque wrote 1 day ago:
BYD is also heavily subsidized by the Chinese government.
If the us were not to fight back, the non subsidized industries would
die, Chinese would stop subsidizing, rack up the price and
competition would be too difficult to start again because of the
monopoly on lithium and advance on technology.
It's been done thousands of times with other industries and
countries.
Most recently Google, who had been giving Android for free when
windows phone were licensed and Samsung tyzen cost money to develop,
then forced manufacturer to accept outrageous terms to ship Google
play service in their phone when all competition was already dead, is
now under scrutiny for antitrust.
kurtis_reed wrote 18 hours 55 min ago:
> It's been done thousands of times with other industries and
countries
False
fourside wrote 17 hours 7 min ago:
Not a terribly compelling argument
resters wrote 23 hours 27 min ago:
Chinaâs approach to funding BYD is meant to replace much of the
capital it might raise in freer markets, providing subsidies, tax
breaks, and preferential policies to offset limited access to
liquid equity and debt markets.
This support, totaling $10-12 billion from 2018-2022 plus in-kind
benefits, mirrors the role of U.S. automakersâ $160-220 billion
in public market raises and $50-100 billion in private capital, but
with less financial risk for BYD due to state backing.
I think what people are missing is that EVs can be dramatically
simpler to manufacture than internal combustion vehicles. This
leverages manufacturing advantages and so with or without
subsidies, China has big advantages due to its advancements in
manufacturing tech.
Recall when China started making hoverboards for a fraction of the
price of a Segway? Making EVs at scale required largely the same
manufacturing pipeline.
It is the foresight of Chinaâs industrial policy, not the amount
of subsidy that has created the manufacturing powerhouse China has
become.
US attempts are crude (sledgehammer) methods that leave the market
far less free with mostly downside for everyone and no industrial
policy goals, only domestic incumbents being protected from
reality.
kasey_junk wrote 22 hours 54 min ago:
The lack of freer markets is itself a response to the biggest
subsidy the Chinese government provides its manufacturers, the
currency controls.
maxglute wrote 22 hours 6 min ago:
RMB is undervalued by ~10-30%, with latter being extreme
estimates, pegged to usd with small floating band. It's minor
advantage vs executing competent industrial policy that durably
drives production costs down fraction vs competitors. Add
10-30% to PRC EV production costs and western (especially US)
producers still nowhere near.
kasey_junk wrote 21 hours 17 min ago:
Thatâs _just_ the peg. The other currency controls include
the prevention of currency outflows by Chinese capital and
the restriction on foreign holders of Chinese debt. All of
that drives the costs down.
My personal opinion is that the Chinese EV would dominate in
a completely free market, but we will never know.
My broader point is that itâs weird to say that the cash
subsidies make up for the lack of freer markets capital,
thatâs double dipping.
maxglute wrote 19 hours 53 min ago:
Currency controls drive costs down (really
loss/inefficiency) in the sense that it contains
misallocation like illicit capital flight, i.e. stashing
grafted funds meant for industrial programs abroad. That's
less advantage than mitigating the disadvantage of legacy
of PRC corruption - not double dipping, but ensuring sauce
stays in the domestic bowl to be dipped at all. And
ultimately "freely" competing with reserve USD privilege is
a stacked game - the currency controls themselves aren't
subsidies, they protect employment of subsidies, i.e.
ensuring higher % of X gets directed properly to industry,
rather than mansions in vancouver, it's not a multiplier
like X*2.
If the argument is that currency controls gives PRC a more
stable basis for financing industrial policy (deal with
fluctuations and keep domestic captive bond buyers), then
sure, but that layer is levelling the playing field.
Ultimately it comes to productively using actual allocated
$$$ for indy programs to develop durable competitive
advantages that can be sustained in lieu of subsidies. VS
printing more billions to bail out legacy auto as domestic
job programs - which op was replying to, everyone protects
domestic auto, even PRC also has to prop up some SEOs, but
they also focus on indy programs that's just about
hammering pure industrial competitiveness to eventually
build comparable item for fraction of the cost.
IMO why this proposal is exciting. If US producer can
figure out how to produce somethign that's only 50% more
expensive then PRC versus 200%, then it's a huge win.
constantcrying wrote 1 day ago:
>I think that it would be possible to make something like this in the
US for under $15K even.
The closest this comes to is a Dacia spring. Which is not a great
car. The dacia could not be made at US labor costs. 15k is an absurd
price, Chinese companies can do it because they pay Chinese labor
costs and have serious economies of scale. Unless you sell hundreds
of thousands of these a year AND pay US workers like Chinese ones,
15k will not happen.
rasz wrote 1 day ago:
4 door Jimny are ~$15K in Dubai.
GoToRO wrote 1 day ago:
Dacia Spring launched in Romania at 6000$. Now it's 15-18000$ just
because they can.
cco wrote 1 day ago:
I'll do you one better, car headlights should never be off while the
motor is running. Just like motorcycles since the 70s (maybe 80s?).
No switch at all, ignition on, headlights on, period.
testing22321 wrote 22 hours 18 min ago:
Canadian vehicles require this by law.
dr_kiszonka wrote 1 day ago:
I like this. Turns out a few countries require DRL:
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp
tzs wrote 1 day ago:
Personally I feel like cars with headlights in the daytime on days
with good visibility can be too noticeable. I find myself giving
them too much attention because they stand out more in my visual
field.
When the oncoming cars do not have headlights on I find it easier
to give them just enough attention to see that they are behaving
normally leaving more attention to devote to things other than
oncoming cars.
potato3732842 wrote 12 hours 18 min ago:
>Personally I feel like cars with headlights in the daytime on
days with good visibility can be too noticeable. I find myself
giving them too much attention because they stand out more in my
visual field.
Especially the cars with the projectors that bounce around.
actinium226 wrote 1 day ago:
But what about for electric cars? Maybe whenever the car is in
anything other than P, and for 5 minutes after P?
BLKNSLVR wrote 1 day ago:
Niche counter example:
Parents who sit in their idling cars for (fucking) ages while their
cars are facing the tennis courts thus blinding the player on the
other side of the court for however long it takes them to either
turn their car off, drive off, or someone to tell them turn their
fucking headlights off.
zitsarethecure wrote 23 hours 3 min ago:
Along similar lines would be those people who constantly start up
their cars in campgrounds after hours for whatever reason.
morepedantic wrote 1 day ago:
How long have you been holding that one?
BLKNSLVR wrote 1 day ago:
It's only been a recent thing, noticeably more frequent the
last couple of years.
Before that I've not had to intervene at all, as far as I can
remember.
There aren't that many courts where cars park facing them, but
my home courts are one of them ;)
dbtc wrote 1 day ago:
Simple solution: when the wheels start rolling, the lights come
on.
I'd still prefer to override both on/off though.
smcleod wrote 1 day ago:
To be honest most of those accessories are actually incredibly cheap
at manufacturing time and several have a direct impact on safety
(e.g. ensuring people don't drive around with lights off). The cost
usually comes as companies use them for pricing tiers where they
market them as suggested extras to ratchet up profits.
mceachen wrote 1 day ago:
Driving with your lights off at dusk or dark gets you (rightfully)
pulled over by law enforcement in CA. It's well-correllated with
driving under the influence.
I'm a huge fan of many car safety regulations, but this isn't one.
(Sign me up for car-hiding-in-blind-spot notification lights on
side mirrors, though, those are great)
smcleod wrote 1 day ago:
I don't understand what you're saying here - you think it's good
to have your lights turned on - but you don't want them to
automatically turn on?
bluedays wrote 1 day ago:
Because of my ADHD I would constantly get pulled over if
automatic lights were removed
smcleod wrote 1 day ago:
You and I both!
sneak wrote 1 day ago:
I think they mean that it gives a clear signal to LEOs that the
person driving is likely distracted/unfit.
smcleod wrote 1 day ago:
Everyone makes mistakes. It's important to make it easy to do
the right thing.
the_gipsy wrote 1 day ago:
That doesn't make any sense. Eliminatung DUI is not a matter of
detection, and automatic light sensors save lives.
sneak wrote 1 day ago:
This is simply because police donât do their jobs. It would
be trivial to simply wait outside bars at 2AM and give out tons
of DUIs but a significant percentage of the population are
alcoholics and this would result in massive blowback against
the police.
Go to any small town watering hole at 2AM to see this in
effect. The police have no legal obligation to prevent crime
or enforce laws. None.
margalabargala wrote 1 day ago:
It could make sense. We don't know the numbers.
Let's say net X lives are saved each year because of automatic
lights turning on.
Let's say net Y lives would be saved each year without
automatic lights, via more effective detection of drunk drivers
and stopping them before they kill someone.
Is X > Y? We don't know.
> Eliminatung DUI is not a matter of detection
There are a lot of avenues to decrease DUI, among which one is
effective detection combined with enforcement.
the_gipsy wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
Okay, let's compare it to: Let's not make auto-pilot
mandatory in planes, because sometimes a copilot has found
that a pilot was drunk when taking off manually.
Even if there was a drunken pilot epidemic that causes 10
plane crashes per year, and autopilot only prevents 1 plane
crash per year, it would be ridiculous not to make the
autopilot mandatory and rely on its absence to catch some of
those drunken pilot crashes.
smcleod wrote 1 day ago:
The EU has done lots of reach on road and car safety, there's
lots of data out there - just perhaps not in the US as many
American made cars have significantly lagged behind in terms
of safety features.
margalabargala wrote 1 day ago:
The EU also is far more strict on DUIs.
throwawat19r83 wrote 1 day ago:
I don't know if it's an EU rule, but in my (European)
country cars are required to have their lights on at all
times, even during the day. The lights switch on
automatically when you start the car
SideburnsOfDoom wrote 1 day ago:
It's a good idea in some places. An overcast winter's day
in the North isn't that well lit by default.
froindt wrote 1 day ago:
After I visited Iceland where it's mandatory, I liked the
improved visibility so much I turn my lights on for every
single trip. It was not a takeaway I was expecting to
have from the trip.
chuckadams wrote 1 day ago:
I'm baffled that daytime running lights are not mandatory
on all models of all cars in 2025. My 13 year old Grand
Caravan has them, though I suspect it's because it comes
from the Daimler Chrysler era.
potato3732842 wrote 12 hours 24 min ago:
I love to baselessly praise europe as much as the next
idiot in the comments but most North American models
that got DRLs before it was legally required got them
because they've been required in Canada since the 90s
cma wrote 1 day ago:
There may be something like that that does make it
counterintuitive. Usually those kind of Malcom Gladwell
paradoxes end up overstated.
There would be other factors, like drunk people are probably
safer with their lights on too. Lane keeping probably makes
it harder to detect drunk drivers too but also may make them
safer.
seanmcdirmid wrote 1 day ago:
BYD could totally avoid the tariffs by making in the USA (well, they
were planning a factory in Mexico, and tariffs on car parts will kill
that if something doesnât change). They already set up a bus
factory in SoCal. My guess is that Chinese automakers are still
hesitant about introducing their brands to Americans given politics
(Volvo and Polestar are Chinese owned but I think the design is still
mainly done in Sweden?).
Japanese, Korean, and European brands already make a lot of vehicles
to get around tariffs, although it makes sense for some sedans to be
made abroad given American lack of interest in them (so economy of
scales doesnât work out), and sedans typically not being tariffed
as harshly as trucks.
newuser94303 wrote 1 day ago:
Chinese investment in the US is inherently risky. For example
TikTok. BYD would be stomping GM and Ford. The next thing you
know, they would need to sell their factory.
aurareturn wrote 1 day ago:
BYD could totally avoid the tariffs by making in the USA (well,
they were planning a factory in Mexico, and tariffs on car parts
will kill that if something doesnât change). They already set up
a bus factory in SoCal. My guess is that Chinese automakers are
still hesitant about introducing their brands to Americans given
politics (Volvo and Polestar are Chinese owned but I think the
design is still mainly done in Sweden?).
Yea you nailed it in the end. No way BYD would invest in a factory
when the entire government and media are anti-China and could expel
you out of the country any moment. The US is not predictable for
businesses and investments right now.
resters wrote 1 day ago:
Companies spending money to navigate tariff regimes adds tremendous
cost and inefficiency that makes everyone worse off.
hansworst wrote 1 day ago:
Wouldnât they still need to pay tariffs on all the parts they
manufacture in china? Maybe Iâm misunderstanding the tariffs but
it sounds like Chinese companies would have to build completely
separate supply chains to keep the US market
seanmcdirmid wrote 1 day ago:
Before no, or at least not very high tariffs. Now I have no idea,
Trumpâs story changes daily. However lots of US made autos are
using Chinese parts so they are all affected to some degree.
worik wrote 1 day ago:
> BYD could totally avoid the tariffs by making in the USA
Or concentrate on the 80% of the worldmarket that is not the USA
seanmcdirmid wrote 16 hours 35 min ago:
Ya, this only applies if they even want to sell passenger cars in
the USA. They definitely donât have to.
stevage wrote 1 day ago:
They're very popular in Australia.
tw04 wrote 1 day ago:
>heavily protected and faces virtually no competition
Huh? Out of the top 25 vehicles sold in the US in 2024, 16 of them
are non-US automakers. Just because the US is actively blocking
China from dumping heavily subsidized vehicles into the north
american market, doesn't mean they "face no competition". Kia and
Hyundai alone show that it's VERY possible to break into the US
market if you have even a little bit of interest playing fair.
URI [1]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g60385784/bestselling-cars...
decimalenough wrote 1 day ago:
The only real way to break into the US market is to have factories
in the US. Trucks in particular are protected by the notorious 25%
"chicken tax", which has been in place since the 1960s.
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
tw04 wrote 1 day ago:
>Trucks in particular are protected by the notorious 25% "chicken
tax", which has been in place since the 1960s.
And yet, that applies to everyone, including US automakers, which
is why Ford had to do unnatural things to import the transit from
Europe.
They aren't protecting US automakers, they're trying to retain
some semblance of manufacturing in the US, which I'm fully in
support of.
Both because those are well-paying jobs and because it's a matter
of national security.
warkdarrior wrote 1 day ago:
> they're trying to retain some semblance of manufacturing in
the US, which I'm fully in support of.
>
> Both because those are well-paying jobs and because it's a
matter of national security.
Why should manufacturing jobs be well-paying? Human
productivity has not kept up with business improvements at all.
A contemporary robot can assemble car modules much faster than
a robot from, say, the 60s. A human now works at the same speed
as a human from the 60s.
lelandbatey wrote 1 day ago:
"Manufacturing jobs" doesn't mean doing the same job as in
the 60s. Human productivity improves by offloading more to
machines/tools/processes while having the humans manage other
things. A human making cars now is not moving their limbs
twice as fast as humans in the 60s, they're using tools that
get the job done 3x faster than the person in the 60s. The
jobs are actually quite different across time, but we
colloquially call both "manufacturing jobs".
mulmen wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think this is true. Yes robot capabilities have
increased but those business processes also make people more
productive. I recently toured the F-150 assembly line and it
is clear a lot has been done to improve worker productivity.
mulmen wrote 1 day ago:
> They aren't protecting US automakers, they're trying to
retain some semblance of manufacturing in the US, which I'm
fully in support of.
"The US can't make anything" is an absurd delusion. We are the
second most productive economy in the world.
> Both because those are well-paying jobs and because it's a
matter of national security.
We are fully capable of meeting our defense needs already. If
you really care about reinforcing our military-industrial
capability the best way to do it is to arm Ukraine.
klysm wrote 1 day ago:
Will believe it when I see it unfortunately looks like very early
stages
iZSJERil wrote 1 day ago:
I could imagine this being popular for company and fleet trucks, but I
can't imagine it being popular for personal vehicles with the general
public. The people I know who drive personal pickup trucks want the
absolute biggest one they can find and have zero interest in actually
doing any truck activities with it. They drive their Raptors and 2500s
to work and to burger king and that's it. If they do any customization,
they might take it to a shop and pay them to put a louder muffler on
it.
drunner wrote 1 day ago:
Can we do this for combustion cars too please!
conductr wrote 1 day ago:
Looks up my alley. I already went backwards and got a low mileage 2013
specifically to shed all the technology crap. Iâd much rather have
something newer and nicer
rmason wrote 1 day ago:
I think one of the most amazing things about this new company is that
its run by women who held prominent roles in the Big 3. Its an
intriguing vehicle but a Ford Maverick pickup offers far more value for
the same price.
Sad to say but if the thing was made in Mexico and was priced at
$15,000 it would be a huge hit. By the time you accounted for the
$7500 federal tax credit it would be priced at around a quarter the
price of a gas 4 cylinder powered pickup. An entire industry of add-ons
and wraps would spring up around it.
nodesocket wrote 1 day ago:
Not following why itâs women run has any real bearing. Letâs
judge people by their accomplishments not their sex and race.
paddw wrote 1 day ago:
I don't read it as saying run by *women*, I think it's just saying
"run by women" in the same mode as "run by guys from".
rmason wrote 1 day ago:
Actually I meant it in a good way. To my knowledge there has
never been a car company anywhere that was started by a female
team.
Just checked with ChatGPT and it confirmed while there have been
women involved with EV and battery startups there hasn't ever
been an all female founder led car company. Now that Mary Barra
became the CEO of GM it was wildly heralded that there was no
longer a glass ceiling in the auto world. But I'd posit actually
starting a company, raising money from investors like Jeff Bezos
is taking it to another level.
The good news is that I don't think its the last new car company
that will get started. I personally know of a guy in Ohio who
wants to manufacture a car he built using a diesel engine that
gets over 100 mpg and can beat both a Dodge Viper and a Tesla
Model 3 to 60 mph.
ChadMoran wrote 1 day ago:
Do you think women have had equal opportunities leading to this
moment?
aksss wrote 1 day ago:
I like the idea of this as a Framework-style vehicle. If they really
leaned into the mod community and were making deliberate decisions to
support this, it could offer a lot of traction.
Shame there's no AWD version of this. That, the larger battery option,
in truck mode with a rack and tonneau cover would be great for
contractors as an around-town job vehicle.
thekevan wrote 1 day ago:
>The rather extreme omission of any kind of media system in the car is
jarring, but it, too, has secondary benefits.
>âSeventy percent of repeat warranty claims are based on infotainment
currently because thereâs so much tech in the car that itâs created
a very unstable environment in the vehicle,â Snyder says.
I'm totally cool with them not having an infotainment screen or even a
stereo itself. But speaker management might be a pain.
I really hope they decide to either include speakers to which you
connect to your own infotainment system or at the very least, have the
space or brackets where you can bring your own speakers and install
them without cutting.
Having a bluetooth speaker take care of all the sound is just too bulky
and cumbersome for those of us who need to live with constant music in
the car. Plus, I don't want to leave a $150 bluetooth speaker in my car
all the time and encourage break-ins.
mulmen wrote 1 day ago:
Looks like the dash and door cards are pretty much just flat plas-
er, reinforced polymer. Aftermarket stereos and speakers come with
mounting brackets and bezels to cover the holes youâll need to cut.
germinalphrase wrote 1 day ago:
There is a video going around showing Slateâs answer is an
optional, removable Bluetooth speaker. It looked similar to a JBL.
Thereâs a bracket to mount it on the dash.
spookie wrote 1 day ago:
just place 4 bluetooth speakers connected to eachother in a mesh or
something
cma wrote 1 day ago:
I'd rather have my Bluetooth speaker stolen than an installed stereo
stolen where they just gut parts of the car and rip things up. But
it will be a bigger target since it's easier to resell.
BoorishBears wrote 1 day ago:
> But it will be a bigger target since it's easier to resell.
Indeed:
URI [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Toyota/comments/1bt8ck8/loved_dro...
sandebert wrote 1 day ago:
Really interesting stuff. Reminds me of Ox ( [1] ).
URI [1]: https://www.oxdelivers.com/
tboyd47 wrote 1 day ago:
> a sub-$20,000 (after federal incentives) electric vehicle
Buried the lede, didn't we?
Animats wrote 1 day ago:
This is really useful. It's an upgraded kei truck. All the modern
safety features - airbags, ABS, rear view camera, anti-collision
braking. None of the frills - infotainment, connectivity, etc.
Does it have air conditioning?
mixmastamyk wrote 11 hours 9 min ago:
A video linked says yes.
383toast wrote 1 day ago:
Anybody know the safety of these vs typical trucks?
taco_emoji wrote 1 day ago:
The rest makes sense, but no stereo? Why not?
blt wrote 1 day ago:
As a car audio enthusiast, the biggest obstacle to putting a system
into a new high-tech car is bypassing the deeply-embedded infotainment
system while retaining decent aesthetics and steering wheel controls.
The idea of getting an electric drivetrain and new-car safety with a
90's-style blank canvas for audio is amazing.
I hope that the noise isolation and intended speaker mounting locations
are good!
maerF0x0 wrote 1 day ago:
feature, not a bug, they want you to buy their $4000 BOSE upgrade
which is actually $500 of equipment.
skort wrote 1 day ago:
Do you have any proof or even a hint of a reason that this will be
the case? Or is this just nonsense?
Their FAQs even state:
> Built-in infotainment systems raise a carâs price, and they
become outdated quickly and have high failure rates.
It seems unlikely that a company saying this will throw in a $4,000
infotainment system in a $20,000 vehicle.
whoknowsidont wrote 1 day ago:
The parent comment was about the general trend for car
manufacturers to do this, not the manufacturer in question.
manacit wrote 1 day ago:
I read this as the parent complaining about other car
manufacturers selling you crappy default stereos so that you'll
upgrade, not that Slate is excluding a stereo on this truck to
upsell you.
In fact, I would be rather surprised if you could buy $4,000
worth of stereo equipment for this car, given their promo
materials seem to include a $100 bluetooth speaker below an
iPhone.
guywithahat wrote 1 day ago:
The issue with this is they claim the cost savings came from not having
a screen and other silly features, but thatâs not where money is
spent.
The real cost savings came a tiny, 150 mile battery. It could easily be
<100 miles loaded up after a few years of use, which means there are
very few use cases for this truck, and it certainly doesnât make
sense without the tax credit. Cool idea, but thereâs no getting
around the price of batteries
acyou wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, exactly. And a 150 mile battery is still not that tiny in terms
of size and weight, and still probably costs more than 20k alone,
(unless you source it from China.)
turnsout wrote 1 day ago:
Let me introduce you to a concept we call "the city"
brundolf wrote 1 day ago:
The plastic frame probably helps by making it super light. And that +
the lack of paint definitely helps cut manufacturing costs
ceejayoz wrote 1 day ago:
There are plenty of use cases for a ~100 mile truck.
DangitBobby wrote 1 day ago:
Right, but it needs to be competitive with ICE cars that travel
several hundred miles per tank and fill up in minutes. Literally 0
of my friends have been willing to transition to electric due
primarily to range anxiety, and that's for vehicles that achieve
over 200 miles per charge. I drive an EV and even I would simply
never, ever consider this vehicle based on the range.
monkaiju wrote 1 day ago:
As the owner of a 2014 Nissan leaf with ~70 miles of range left,
this statement makes no sense... ~100 miles (after years of use
and loaded down) sounds amazing. I use my leaf CONSTANTLY and
only resort to my 2000 Chevy S10 for things like dump runs, home
projects, helping friends move, etc.
DangitBobby wrote 16 hours 51 min ago:
Maybe if it was the only EV in town I'd change my tune. I am
willing to pay extra for a battery that will take me 200 miles
because I make one-way 100m trips often enough. Keep in mind,
where I live there is some decent charging availability, but
the places I would visit don't have much. I've also had a
couple of experiences where I get to the charging place and it
doesn't work for some reason. I have some range anxiety for
sure.
mystified5016 wrote 1 day ago:
I drive 20 miles a day and fill my tank once a month.
Or I could plug in my car every night in my garage. Where I
already park and exit my car every day.
There's no competition to be had here. It's a choice between
going to the gas station occasionally or not at all.
The 100 mile EV doesn't go beyond 100 miles, but that's not what
it's for and not why I need it. I need a puddle jumper to get
beat up and rode hard in big city traffic for 20-40 minutes a day
and that's it.
ceejayoz wrote 1 day ago:
Iâd want one of these for in-town stuff, which is 90% of my
driving.
DangitBobby wrote 16 hours 50 min ago:
I'm just saying, many people aren't going to buy an EV until
they see it as a strict upgrade over the ICE alternative.
eightys3v3n wrote 1 day ago:
I would buy a 160km truck to drive to and from work.
saagarjha wrote 1 day ago:
I'm curious what kind of workplace you go to regularly that a
truck is a good option for?
Jach wrote 1 day ago:
You can get a lot of Uber rides for $20k.
ceejayoz wrote 1 day ago:
$50-100 a day goes quicker than youâd think.
monkaiju wrote 1 day ago:
2 years worth according to my math using ride.guru and that's
in advance. That also means I don't have a truck and I have to
coordinate trips twice a day. And that strictly commuting, not
accounting for all the other uses I have for a car...
aksss wrote 1 day ago:
There are plenty of use cases in the narrow band that it can
operate, but it is a pretty narrow band.
Around town commuter in climate that doesn't need AWD/4WD, like
great for shopping, commuting, or for small contractors doing jobs.
Two people in the vehicle plus luggage, it will be interesting to
see what happens to range.
Love the concept.
ceejayoz wrote 1 day ago:
That ânarrowâ band is the vast majority of American driving.
People drastically overestimate their needs in this regard. [1] >
According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation,
95.1 percent of trips taken in personal vehicles are less than 31
miles; almost 60 percent of all trips are less than 6 miles. In
total, the average U.S. driver only covers about 37 miles per
day.
> In a study published in 2016, researchers at MIT found that a
car with a 73-mile range (like an early version of the Nissan
Leaf), charged only at night, could satisfy 87 percent of all
driving days in the United States.
URI [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/07...
mring33621 wrote 1 day ago:
too many comments here to read them all
but, MMW, i think they will sell every single unit made
basic truck + freedom of customization will be very popular in the USA
acyou wrote 1 day ago:
Okay, but is (was) this assuming on putting in Chinese batteries? If
not, where are you going to get the cells and pack for that money?
doright wrote 1 day ago:
From the Wikipedia page:
> Unlike most vehicles sold in the United States, the Slate Truck is
not expected to have any Internet connectivity
Well that's certainly a sentence. It wasn't true just 20 years ago. It
makes me wonder about the world we've grown into with deeply
intertwined apps becoming not only the norm but expected.
The idea is there but I'm wondering about the execution. Here's hoping
it takes off.
Maxamillion96 wrote 1 day ago:
if the truck becomes popular enough post-market modifications will
probably be sold as an extra.
fellowniusmonk wrote 1 day ago:
If this thing really comes out in a couple years by the time it's
ready for mass production to hit consumer hands there will probably
be 2 or 3 self driving kits designed for it. The mods for this
thing would be amazing.
A buddy of mine who creates shaped interactive art panels with
oleds for disney and other groups interactive events texted me
about this, installing video panels on this is going to be a
breeze.
I'm more excited about this as a platform than even as a car, this
is going to be like browser JS, the Lisa and VW Bug for creating an
EV tech skill pipeline.
leoapagano wrote 1 day ago:
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore this truck. But I feel the same
way about this truck that I do about the Framework Laptop (having owned
one)âcool idea, cool product, but will Slate be around in 5 years to
keep making parts and offering support for it?
nrp wrote 19 hours 52 min ago:
5 years later, weâre still around and more successful than ever,
both from a mission achievement and a business fundamentals
standpoint.
sixdimensional wrote 1 day ago:
This is a fair concern, I imagine. If it is highly user serviceable,
maybe that isn't a concern.
That said, I think you raise a bigger issue - I'd like to see MORE
things like Framework, Fairphone or Slate - user serviceable,
customizable - maybe low initial cost.
To me, this feels futuristic, exciting, optimistic and positive.. we
need more like this, so how can we make these kinds of businesses
more likely to succeed, resilient, etc?
nashashmi wrote 1 day ago:
Good trend. Other companies should follow suit. Simplify the car
enough. And make it cheap. Sometimes I feel like Chevys are just like
this. Real cheap machines. Or those white ford vans made for industrial
use.
anticorporate wrote 1 day ago:
I wish those Ford Transit vans were made at a cheaper price point.
There's not one in stock in my metro area for less than $50,000.
billconan wrote 1 day ago:
While I like this concept, for my next car, I need the safety features
like 360 view, blind spot warning, lidar etc.
Also, though I think using tablets and detachable speakers is cost
effective, it may promote car break-ins?
trgn wrote 1 day ago:
i hate trucks because they're big and trash up my neighborhood with
their noise and size, just don't belong in the city. but since some
neighbors have started driving electric (rivian, cybertruck), I
tolerate them so so so much more. it's amazing how just making them
electric has changed (and I hope, continues to change) the gestalt of
my block.
pavlov wrote 1 day ago:
For comparison, this is a $16k car in China: [1] Itâs like if you
could buy an old Nokia for $200, or a new Android smartphone for $160.
The old Nokia certainly has nostalgic qualities and some concrete
practical benefits like all-week battery life, but overall itâs not a
great deal.
And this is why you have >100% tariffs on Chinese cars â American
manufacturers know they canât compete.
URI [1]: https://carnewschina.com/2025/03/25/byd-sealion-05-ev-launhed-...
rchaud wrote 1 day ago:
Those cars are priced for the budgets of domestic Chinese consumers.
BYD exports to Europe are priced similarly to car models sold there.
For the same reason, this Slate truck is very unlikely to cost just
$20k when it reaches the mass production stage.
pavlov wrote 1 day ago:
Thereâs a 27% tariff on BYD cars in Europe, designed to bring the
price more in line with European manufacturers.
thederf wrote 1 day ago:
I'm quite excited about this. Ticks all my boxes for "low" tech,
simple, moddable, useful, and cheap. I'm hoping my aging Pontiac Vibe
holds out long enough to upgrade to one of these, if they succeed. I
put in a preregistration!
aaronschroeder wrote 1 day ago:
Vibe solidarity! I have a 2009 with manual everything - even the old
crank windows and manual door locks. This truck seems right up my
alley.
doctorpangloss wrote 1 day ago:
The problem is, the kind of person who cares about those things, as
valid as they are, buys 0-1 cars per 20 years, and the market is
driven (ha ha) by people who buy 2-3 cars every 2 years.
thederf wrote 1 day ago:
Hah. Fair point. I'm around 210k miles and aiming to squeeze as
many more out of it as I can.
stantaylor wrote 1 day ago:
Very true. This truck appeals to me very much. My wife and I have a
2010 Accord and a 2014 CR-V. We could afford newer and/or fancier
cars, but we just don't care about those things.
We're thinking of buying a newer car at some point, but between
interest rates and, now, tariffs, we're not in any hurry.
data_ders wrote 1 day ago:
Hell yeah Pontiac Vibe! My 2008 is at 308k! Iâll drive into the
ground
thederf wrote 1 day ago:
Niice, giving me hope! My '06 is showing its age, but I hope it's
got another 100k in her!
stantaylor wrote 1 day ago:
My 30-year-old daughter is still driving the Toyota version, the
Matrix, also 2008, that we bought in about 2013. She loves the
thing. If she didn't have it, I'm sure I would still be driving it.
I find it hilarious that it's a limited-edition M Theory model. It
has a badge glued to the dash that says "1926 of 5000." For a
Toyota econobox.
moralestapia wrote 1 day ago:
This is not real.
This will be real when you can go to some place, pay $20k and drive out
with such thing.
If you're into car CGI, this is a much more enjoyable resource [1]!
1:
URI [1]: https://www.behance.net/search/projects/Car%20Render
CydeWeys wrote 1 day ago:
I'm wondering why the hood is so big, given that it doesn't need to
contain an engine? Is that where the batteries are located? Or is it
just mostly empty space in the form of a frunk serving as a crumple
zone to meet crash testing standards? I hope it's not just a strictly
aesthetic thing, because you could reduce that distance and end up with
an even more practical truck.
mrWiz wrote 1 day ago:
It has a 7 cubic foot frunk in there.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
The question is... how many farmers / ranchers need these pickups?
There seems to be like an absolutely crazy competition for vehicles for
a very narrow group of people.
Who will be buying all of these pickup trucks?
AlexCoventry wrote 1 day ago:
I'm looking for a vehicle which doesn't track my location, and doesn't
have complex software controlling vehicle functions which could kill
me. Maybe this is for me.
constantcrying wrote 1 day ago:
>and doesn't have complex software controlling vehicle functions
Nobody should be allowed to buy a car without these functions. You
aren't a good enough driver.
trinix912 wrote 1 day ago:
Not when they're constantly failing. I've a 2020 Honda Civic with a
lane assist that has quite a few times tried to spontaneously
squeeze me into the wrong lane. I was better off without it.
loloquwowndueo wrote 1 day ago:
If they make a sedan I would buy it in a heartbeat at those prices. A
pickup or suv doesnât work for me.
Animats wrote 1 day ago:
Price seems to be creeping up. Car and Driver says $28K.[1] That may be
related to "incentives".
This could be very popular with companies that need small fleets of
pickup trucks. The ones that have company logos on the side.
URI [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVeYjxQPdz4
odo1242 wrote 1 day ago:
Yea, incentives are currently about 7-8k depending on state so that
sounds about right.
__mharrison__ wrote 1 day ago:
I'm not sure why I read this as a $20k guitar pickup...
jmward01 wrote 1 day ago:
The big thing I would want from this is no call-home/telemetry. I want
privacy so I want a vehicle that gets me from a to b.
porphyra wrote 1 day ago:
At $20k it is actually comparable in cost to a GEM el Xd pickup [1]
which can only go up to 35 mph, has 78 mile range, and costs $18k [2].
Totally different class of vehicle, of course. [1]
URI [1]: https://www.gemcar.com/gem-el-xd/
URI [2]: https://electriccarsalesandservice.com/products/2024-gem-el-xd...
neogodless wrote 1 day ago:
I do wish we'd all just call this a $27.5K USD truck. If it ends up
allowing some people to get a tax credit, awesome. But that's not the
price they are targeting for selling this truck. And that tax credit
is far from a guarantee come late 2026 / early 2027.
(That's before any "later adjustments" to the price, not to mention
the effects of uncertain tariff policy.)
duncancarroll wrote 1 day ago:
All the images look like renderings. Is the car actually in
production?
neogodless wrote 1 day ago:
[1] This has launch event photos that claim to be of prototypes.
URI [1]: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/04/amazon-backed-startup-w...
wojciii wrote 1 day ago:
> "and the only way to listen to music while driving is if you bring
along your phone and a Bluetooth speaker"
Why not make a physical connection (power/network) and define a form
factor for entertainment system with or without screen and speakers and
let other companies design something to fit the space available. I
don't understand why no one does this instead of selling cars full of
crappy software that can't be upgraded.
NegativeLatency wrote 1 day ago:
Double DIN already exists with fairly standard plugs in the back
wojciii wrote 23 hours 0 min ago:
This is not plug and play. I want plug and play. You could even
make an entertainment system which just runs using a phone
connected using usb or bt.. which would make it just like android
auto but without needing the car to support anything from google.
mattlondon wrote 1 day ago:
That's what cars always used to have. Made them easily stealable
though.
wojciii wrote 23 hours 5 min ago:
This can be fixed by locking the device to a specific car .. by the
user.
benguild wrote 1 day ago:
this is cool but does it meet strong safety standards?
bob1029 wrote 1 day ago:
"strong safety standards" are what got us to the point of 5000lb
pickup trucks and A-pillars that are so wide they arguably kill more
people (predominantly pedestrians & cyclists) than their constituent
airbags save.
It is cartoon villain tier to compromise the visual range of the
driver at the safety expense of everyone outside the vehicle, who is
not shielded by 2 tons of mass.
Much of what is wrong with automobiles is a severe inability to think
in higher order terms.
malwrar wrote 1 day ago:
I love this concept and will probably buy one for that reason alone.
150 miles is too low though, I already struggle with the 180 I get out
of my current electric car. Really cool to see more ideas in this
space, congrats to the founders getting this far!
moate wrote 1 day ago:
Seems like they're offering a battery upgrade package, the 150 is the
"MVP" battery
scosman wrote 1 day ago:
This is just beautiful. A small, functional, electric truck. Not a
luxury SUV with a tiny truck bed for cowboy cosplayers, or a cyberpunk
glue heap.
I hope they sell millions.
rossdavidh wrote 1 day ago:
I want one.
tintor wrote 1 day ago:
What are downsides of "no paint"?
9283409232 wrote 1 day ago:
I'd buy this immediately and just paint it myself. This care looks
perfect for modding.
mthulhu wrote 1 day ago:
This makes a lot of sense for a run around town and short commute car.
It specializes for that use case perfectly. I can see a world where
families have one decent gas/hybrid car and one cheap EV. That set up
could save a lot of gas money over time while meeting the needs of the
household.
Also, when is the last time an economy car/truck looked this good? The
slate is beautiful.
I think it has a real shot if it arrives as promised, but we know how
these things go.
coolspot wrote 1 day ago:
Remember when cybertruck was supposed to be cheap minimalistic truck?
No paint, spartan interior, simple materials and straight shapes. $39k
price tag. Yeahâ¦
randmeerkat wrote 1 day ago:
This is cool, but you can buy a 3 year old used model 3 right now for
close to $25k that has 300+ mile range. The model 3 also has, wait for
it, a/c and speakersâ¦
rawgabbit wrote 1 day ago:
I don't want to drive Führer wagon.
fads_go wrote 1 day ago:
wonder who is going to service that mod 3 if T. folds?
neogodless wrote 1 day ago:
How long is the bed of that pickup?
You mean this?
URI [1]: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-first-pickup-truck-is-a-diy-...
bufferoverflow wrote 1 day ago:
150 mile range makes it close to useless. As soon as you take it on a
highway, the range will likely drop by half. Which means you can only
do a round trip of 37 miles before you have to charge.
Even a very aerodynamic Model 3 loses half of range at highway speeds.
URI [1]: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/vkz0SOnR45Gved9B-q9ncP...
plorg wrote 1 day ago:
The range figure is determined by a test regulated by the EPA and
actually does account for a variety of driving conditions,
specifically including highway driving. The graphic you linked to
actually shows that the advertised range is very close to the range
at all highway speeds.
chubs wrote 1 day ago:
The article does talk of it being a relatively simple proposition to
embiggen the range with an bigger battery kit if that helps. But
yeah, it's not a ton of range.
spicybbq wrote 1 day ago:
It really depends on how they define their mileage rating. If it is
an inflated number like some EV manufacturers, then yeah. If it is a
conservative rating, then it's a useful amount of range for an "in
town" vehicle.
porphyra wrote 1 day ago:
It's not about "inflating" it. It's more that the energy needed to
move your car a certain distance is quadratically related to the
speed, due to aerodynamic drag.
Efficient vehicles spend less energy on other stuff besides moving
the car (e.g. by having heat pumps, induction motors that can be
turned off without any drag, etc), so tests conducted at a lower
speed will appear to have a better range than tests at a higher
speed. Meanwhile, less efficient vehicles that waste energy at low
speeds will appear to have more similar range at both low and high
speeds.
ac29 wrote 1 day ago:
EVs dont lose 50% of their range at highway speeds. Even if they did,
I'm not sure why you think you could only go 37 miles between charges
(I think you meant 75 mi?).
bufferoverflow wrote 1 day ago:
> EVs dont lose 50% of their range at highway speeds.
Yes, they do, compared to 25 mph. I even gave you the chart.
acdha wrote 1 day ago:
Tesla does not quote a 550 mile range for the Model 3, any more
than an ICE carâs range is stated as what a hypermiler could
get.
As the chart shows, the reverse would be true: if theyâre
advertising a 150 mile range you would be able to beat that
considerably if you drove at 30mph.
bufferoverflow wrote 1 day ago:
> if theyâre advertising a 150 mile range you would be able
to beat that considerably if you drove at 30mph.
Yes, because it's true. But who drives at 30 mph? Grandmas
maybe. Not exactly target audience for a truck.
The peak efficiency is actually at 25 mph, not 30.
acdha wrote 20 hours 25 min ago:
People who buy trucks because they need a tool to do a job?
The guys who buy one instead of getting hair plugs are
commuting to work at 85mph but people who actually haul
things tend not to want their cargo getting damaged. This
isnât the vehicle for someone doing long distance towing
but itâs a great choice for someone who wants to carry
cargo around a farm, supplies and tools around their local
job radius, carry bikes or surfboards, etc. and the modest
size means theyâre not only saving a ton of money up front
but also paying less over time since itâs cheaper than gas
and they can charge without a special trip.
The guy who mows my lawn drives under 100 miles a day,
doesnât need a huge cargo capacity, and certainly doesnât
want to overpay for a work truck. Iâd bet thereâs a
sizable market of people like that.
hsshhshshjk wrote 1 day ago:
Round trip, you can go somewhere up to ~37 miles away and drive
home to recharge on a single charge. You're both saying the same
thing:)
Rebelgecko wrote 1 day ago:
If I'm reading the chart properly it looks like the M3LR gets a
smidge better than the advertised range at 65mph?
UncleOxidant wrote 1 day ago:
"but is this extreme simplification too much for American consumers?"
No, it's not. This American consumer says bring on the simplicity. Also
like that this is not some monster sized thing.
_fat_santa wrote 1 day ago:
I think many consumers want a simpler "dumb" car, just look at sales
of the 5th generation 4Runner. That car came out originally in 2010
and they sold it through 2023 with barely any upgrades and their best
sales years were all in the 2020's.
Lots of people say it's because offroading got popular but I think
it's also because that car was "dumb" compared to more recent
offerings. And personally as an owner of a 4th generation 4Runner,
one of the things I like most about is that it's "dumb".
VyseofArcadia wrote 1 day ago:
This is amazing. I hope it succeeds. If I had any use for a truck I'd
be lining up to buy one. They make one in a compact sedan or hatchback
form factor and I am in. Heck, even better a subcompact.
thederf wrote 1 day ago:
I compared the dimensions of the Slate with my '06 Pontiac Vibe
hatchback, and it's only a few inches longer. I suspect the Slate +
Fastback kit will be pretty close to a hatchback in size and
function.
ge96 wrote 1 day ago:
this seems so funny to me like "hey you want to buy something worse"
I'm talking specifically about the no stereo/screen
thecrumb wrote 1 day ago:
Love this! Would like to see a (manual) split rear window- super
helpful for hauling longer things in a smaller truck. I put 10'
conduit in my Ridgeline all the time.
sidewndr46 wrote 1 day ago:
1. $50 for a reservation
2. No guarantee of delivery date
3. No right to purchase
4. No guarantee of purchase price
5. No assignment of purchase to other parties
I've got some lunar real estate to sell you if you think this product
will ever exist
rpmisms wrote 1 day ago:
I want exactly this, but with a hybrid engine, RWD, and a manual
transmission. I would buy it new for $28k, no frills.
SamuelAdams wrote 1 day ago:
Looks like the biggest thing isnât even mentioned: no telematics
control unit to track your behavior.
URI [1]: https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics/personal-informati...
baby_souffle wrote 1 day ago:
> Looks like the biggest thing isnât even mentioned: no telematics
control unit to track your behavior.
Is that confirmed? I would buy one *today* if this was known to be
true... but I am 80% sure that they don't have any in production; all
I see are renders.
There will almost certainly be a WiFi radio (for at home OTA updates)
but there will likely be a modem, too, for people that like to
remotely manage charge. The modem may be an optional extra and the
WiFi traffic is something I can block/inspect as needed.
ac29 wrote 1 day ago:
> There will almost certainly be a WiFi radio (for at home OTA
updates) but there will likely be a modem, too, for people that
like to remotely manage charge.
My 2024 EV doesnt have WiFi or Cellular radios.
germinalphrase wrote 1 day ago:
Which EV is that?
saagarjha wrote 1 day ago:
It's too late big car got to them
baby_souffle wrote 1 day ago:
> My 2024 EV doesnt have WiFi or Cellular radios.
Which car is that?
greyjoyduck wrote 1 day ago:
No electronics in an EV, nahhhh
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
For anyone curious, if you made a similarly sized gas-powered pickup
with an i4 engine, it would be penalized more than a full-sized pickup
for being too fuel inefficient, despite likely getting much better
mileage than an F-150 because, since 2011, bigger cars are held to a
lesser standard by CAFE[1].
1:
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#O...
dlcarrier wrote 10 hours 14 min ago:
It's worth noting that CAFE standards have been in effect since the
70's, and disincentivized small vehicles since long before the 2011
updates.
nimish wrote 1 day ago:
Repealing these Obama era rules would go a long way to restoring
automotive affordability. Can't undo cash for clunkers though
darth_avocado wrote 1 day ago:
And what youâre describing is exactly the reason Kei trucks
arenât a thing despite most farmers actually liking them for their
utility.
You canât import them unless they are old because we want to
protect the automotive industry. But we canât build them new either
because they donât meet the safety standards (FMVSS) and are
penalized more for being fuel efficient because the standards are
stricter for smaller vehicles.
ganoushoreilly wrote 1 day ago:
To be fair, kei trucks are horrible in crashes too. Thatâs a big
part of states starting to ban them.
darth_avocado wrote 1 day ago:
Motorbikes are much worse in crashes than kei trucks, we are more
than happy to make, sell and operate them. I donât actually buy
the âunsafeâ reasoning. Itâs also perfectly street legal to
buy and drive cars and trucks from the 60s with abysmal safety
ratings.
proggy wrote 1 day ago:
Theyâre horrible in crashes in the North American region.
Thatâs because the average vehicle size in North America is
much, much bigger than the vehicles in the Kei trucksâ region
of origin. And streets in North America are, on average, much,
much wider and permit higher speed traffic than those in Japan.
The cars themselves arenât inherently unsafe; if you keep them
mostly on private property and only take them out on low-speed
public roads with light duty vehicles, theyâre still operating
in an appropriate context. Also pretty appropriate in historic
city centers where the roads arenât too fast and the trucks and
full size SUVs arenât too numerous. But yeah, take one out on
the interstate boxed between two semi trucks, an F-350, and a
Suburban and youâre going to be in real danger.
zx10rse wrote 1 day ago:
Automotive industry is one of the biggest scams on planet earth. One
of my favorite cases recently is how Suzuki Jimny is banned in Europe
and US because of emission standards allegedly, so the little Jimny
is emitting 146g/km but somehow there is no problem to buy a G-Class
that is emitting 358g/km oh and surprise surprise Mercedes are going
to release a smaller more affordable G-Class [1] -
URI [1]: https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-g-wa...
DidYaWipe wrote 1 day ago:
The Jimny is my favorite example of a cool little vehicle that
would address a glaring hole in the U.S. market.
The situation here is pathetic. We can't have truly small trucks or
sport-utes because of obviously incompetent or corrupt regulations.
mjrpes wrote 1 day ago:
I wonder if that's why Ford, Ram, and Nissan all at the same time
decide to discontinue their mini cargo vans a year ago.
throwawaymaths wrote 1 day ago:
If you're talking about the ford transit (I'm just guessing) but
maybe the tariff rules changed? IIUC The transit was shipped to
the US from europe as a "bus" because it was configured with car
seats on board and then they would strip the seats and ship them
back to europe. Buses are exempt from tariffs otherwise
municipal public transit would be even more in the drink.
mjrpes wrote 1 day ago:
This is the Ford Transit Connect. They're known as mini cargo
vans and popular with trades and for city driving because
they're slightly smaller than a mini van. The equivalent to the
Transit Connect was the Ram ProMaster City and Nissan NV200.
They all were discontinued within two years of each other.
rasz wrote 1 day ago:
>This is the Ford Transit Connect.
isnt that a VW made in Poland?
leephillips wrote 1 day ago:
The Jimny or similar Suzuki models would not be offered for sale in
the U.S. because itâs basically the latest iteration of the
Samuri, which died there after Consumer Reports falsely claimed
that it was dangerously prone to rollover.
DidYaWipe wrote 1 day ago:
I don't recognize it as being a Samurai descendent.
Related note: I just saw a Suzuki Sidekick on the road in L.A.,
in Geo Tracker trim... a rare sight nowadays. It sounded like
shit, but with a robust platform a vehicle like that would be
just what the U.S. market lacks: a burly SMALL sport-ute.
kranner wrote 1 day ago:
The Samuri, sold in India as the Gypsy and used extensively by
Indian police, did rollover alarmingly often until the 1993 model
when the track width was increased by 90mm.
olyjohn wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah but look at it. It's a tall vehicle. Of course it's more
likely to roll over. It's tall so that it can go over things.
It has a purpose. Don't drive it like a sports car and dont
haul your family in it on the daily. People bought utility
vehicles and used them as family haulers and then bitched when
they rolled over. It's stupid. Drive a car.
It's like complaining that you bought a boat, but the water
surrounding them is dangerous and you could drown in it. So we
need to make it work on land so that you can take the kids to
school in it without drowning.
kube-system wrote 18 hours 43 min ago:
After the mid 1980s, SUVs were consistently and explicitly
marketed and sold to families as passengers vehicles.
kranner wrote 1 day ago:
I think the idea may have been that these would help with bad
Indian roads â even our potholes have potholes â but the
police neglected to account for having to participate in the
odd car chase now and then.
pelagic_sky wrote 1 day ago:
I had rented a barebones Jimny last month when I was in Auckland
for the week. Not saying it was prone to roll. But holy hell was
it feeling like I could roll that bad boy on some curvy gravel
roads. I also loved it.
mft_ wrote 1 day ago:
Manufacturers must hit a level of CO2 emissions on average across
their whole fleet. As such, Suzuki is choosing to discontinue the
Jimny because of the tougher fleet average targets starting in
2025.
Overall youâre right that itâs a bit of a fix; Mercedes
âpoolsâ its emissions with other manufacturers/brands. It
currently pools with Smart, but may also pool with Volvo/Polestar?
[0]
Itâs such an obvious approach to âgameâ the targets, itâs a
wonder the EU didnât see it coming when they introduced the
scheme.
[0] [1] ...
URI [1]: https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/mercedes-benz-intends-...
cenamus wrote 1 day ago:
A last effort to extend the many favors granted to the dying
german auto industry
antman wrote 1 day ago:
Link not working
throw10920 wrote 1 day ago:
This is why its so important to be super careful with how you
write regulation - because even if the intent was good, it's so
hard to both anticipate unintended second- and third-order
effects, and it's so difficult to update after you've pushed to
production.
Just like code, regulation isn't intrinsically valuable - it's a
means to an end, and piling lots of poorly-written stuff on top
of each other has disasterous consequences for society. We have
to make sure that the code and law that we write is carefully
thought out and crafted to achieve its desired effect with
minimal complexity, and formally verify and test it when
possible.
(an example of testing law may be to get a few clever people into
a room and red-team possible exploits in the proposed bill or
regulation)
motorest wrote 1 day ago:
> This is why its so important to be super careful with how you
write regulation - because even if the intent was good, it's so
hard to both anticipate unintended second- and third-order
effects, and it's so difficult to update after you've pushed to
production.
It seems that the goal is to pressure automakers to improve the
efficiency across their entire line instead of simply banning
low-efficiency models altogether.
If an automaker discontinues a low-efficient model in order to
have access to a market, isn't this an example of regulation
working well?
throw10920 wrote 22 hours 43 min ago:
Did you read the parent comment?
> so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow there
is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km
This is an example of a manufacturer discontinuing a more
efficient vehicle while continuing to sell a larger vehicle
that is significantly less efficient.
That's the opposite of what you want. So, no, this is not an
example of regulation working well.
tonmoy wrote 1 day ago:
I donât see the issue in that though. If the target was to keep
the average emission down across the entire country and if
inefficient brand A decided to merge with efficient brand B to
keep the average down that seems like it still adheres to the
spirit of the law
pbhjpbhj wrote 1 day ago:
Seems more like it meets the letter of the law.
The spirit was surely be too accelerate efficiency by ensuring
all manufacturers improve. That has been negated; reducing the
necessary efficiency for some manufacturers just because others
are doing well.
It's like if you allowed multiple people to mix blood samples
for a DUI check. Sure, there'd have to be less drinking over
all, but some would still be drunk af and the effectiveness of
the law would be greatly reduced.
Jweb_Guru wrote 20 hours 26 min ago:
Not a great analogy. CO2 emissions are a global phenomenon,
so the average emission level is exactly what matters.
Drunkenness is not.
Jweb_Guru wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah it's not really "gaming" anything.
kranke155 wrote 1 day ago:
They likely saw it coming⦠and deliberately did it this way.
All local industry distorts their relevant politics. Thereâs
lobbyists in the EU too.
The EU economy has a lot of car manufacturing, so cars are
probably a big deal in Brussels.
motorest wrote 1 day ago:
> The EU economy has a lot of car manufacturing, so cars are
probably a big deal in Brussels.
Car manufacturing is a strategic component of a nation's
defense infrastructure. It goes way beyond trade protectionism.
chihuahua wrote 1 day ago:
Especially in Germany, which has several major manufacturers
(Daimler-Benz, VW, BMW) that are important to the economy.
Additionally, VW is part owned by the government of one of the
states, which is why they are frequently favored by the
government. Despite various scandals at VW, there are rarely
any serious consequences for the company, because the
government always finds a way to make trouble go away.
And Germany is fairly influential in the EU so they probably
extend the protection of these companies to the EU level.
kranke155 wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
EU politics are basically French, German politics vs smaller
countries now, I think. The triangle balance of France,
Germany, UK has been replaced by a more centralised but also
more diffuse model, although Poland seems to be becoming more
important.
jimbob45 wrote 1 day ago:
Is that weighted for individual car popularity? Because
couldnât you put three push cars in your lineup that you
donât realistically expect to sell and be fine?
rv3392 wrote 1 day ago:
AFAIK the average emissions are based on cars that were
actually sold. So yeah, it's weighted for popularity in a way.
nullc wrote 1 day ago:
I have a small(*) twenty year old i4 pickup and I regularly get cash
offers for it while out and about. There is a lot of demand for the
small inexpensive and relatively fuel efficient utility vehicles that
the government currently prohibits manufacturing.
(*Ironically, though small it has a considerably longer bed than many
currently produced larger and less fuel efficient trucks... I'm
mystified by trucks that can't even contain a bike without removing a
wheel or hanging one over a gate. Looks like the bed on this EV is a
bit short too, but a short bed on a small truck is more excusable
than a short bed on a huge truck)
api wrote 1 day ago:
> since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1].
... and this is why American cars got so huge, if anyone was curious.
mtillman wrote 1 day ago:
Fine print: The truck in the link is only $20K after government
subsidies/rebates. So if the government gives my tax dollars to
buyers of this truck, then it will cost $20K.
nullc wrote 1 day ago:
It's ~28k without them, particularly when considering recent
inflation it's an attractive price... inflation corrected it's in
the vague ballpark of other small IC trucks when they were still
available.
E.g. a early 2000's Nissan frontier base model was $23k in today's
money. It was a somewhat better speced (e.g. more hauling capacity)
and much better range, but this new car likely has significantly
lower operating costs that would easily justify a 5k uplift.
So I think it ought to be perfectly viable without the subsidy,
especially so long as the absurd CAFE standards continue to exist
giving EV's a monopoly on this truck size.
floxy wrote 1 day ago:
Even finer print: the $7,500 federal incentive is a tax rebate. If
you don't have a $7,500 tax liability, you won't get the full
amount. (this also applies if you transfer the credit to the
dealer at point of sale). I mean, money is fungible and all, but
your particular tax dollars aren't going to people who buy EVs,
they are just paying less in taxes.
morepedantic wrote 1 day ago:
>money is fungible
And then you contradicted yourself 2 phrases over.
PopAlongKid wrote 1 day ago:
>this also applies if you transfer the credit to the dealer at
point of sale
No, it does not. See Q4 at the following link:
URI [1]: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-h-frequently-asked-qu...
floxy wrote 1 day ago:
My understanding is that the dealer has to have the tax
liability. IANATL, YMMV.
Brybry wrote 1 day ago:
Electric vehicle tax credits are non-refundable tax credits meaning
you can't get a credit for more than you owe. [1][2]
Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles
(though there may be some infrastructure or manufacturing grants
for companies). [1]
URI [1]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600
URI [2]: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-w...
tzs wrote 1 day ago:
However instead of taking the credit yourself you can transfer it
to the dealer at time of purchase to use toward the purchase. You
can transfer the full $7500 credit regardless of how much tax you
eventually end up owing for the year.
crazygringo wrote 1 day ago:
That's not really true.
If the taxes someone would otherwise pay are going to their
electric vehicle instead, somebody else has to make up the
difference.
So yes, other people are getting my tax dollars to buy electric
vehicles. It just takes two steps rather than one, if you want to
look at it that way.
Brybry wrote 1 day ago:
Is the standard deduction giving people your tax dollars?
Anyone who itemizes?
What if someone declines a promotion and thus doesn't increase
their income and pay more taxes? Is that also taking your tax
dollars?
Sure, yes, if the government doesn't follow PAYGO[1] (which
they almost never do) and offset tax expenditures (tax
incentives) with reduced direct spending and government debt
increases then maybe, some day, some portion of your tax
dollars may get indirectly spent on this.
But how do we really know? Do we know what other secondary
effects will come from these tax incentives?
If electric cars catch on maybe the government will get more
revenue somewhere else (there are North American manufacturing
requirements to qualify after all) or have to spend less
revenue on something else (surely burning oil must have some
effect).
Or maybe the person getting the electric vehicle then uses it
to make more money and pay more taxes than they would have
before (unlikely but possible).
But, directly, they're getting back their own money. The real
issue with the credit is that it disproportionately favors
people who already make a lot of money (but taxes also
disproportionately tax people who make more money so maybe
that's fair).
URI [1]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31943
crazygringo wrote 19 hours 19 min ago:
> But, directly, they're getting back their own money.
It doesn't matter. Everyone else is now paying for all the
federal government services they consume. Other people are
paying for that. It's literally that simple.
nonameiguess wrote 1 day ago:
Congress doesn't retroactively raise tax rates to make up the
difference. If the government budget ends up in a deficit,
which obviously it does, not just because of this but for many
reasons, that is financed via debt. This isn't passed to the
population as higher taxes, but as inflation, which affects
everyone equally, including whoever got the tax credits in the
first place.
crazygringo wrote 1 day ago:
First of all, you're wrong about how debt is financed. It's
not via inflation, it's by taxes. Interest payments accounted
for 13% of the federal budget last year. That's enormous.
(Yes inflation reduces the value of debt over time, but debt
carries interest which generally outweighs expected
inflation.)
Second, Congress absolutely adjusts tax rates as well. Not
precisely one-to-one to match spending each year, but over
the long term it's all got to add up. Every dollar the
government spends today is paid with people's taxes either
today or their taxes tomorrow.
Third, the person who received the tax credits isn't being
affected "equally". If 1% of people get the credit, but 100%
of people pay for it, then the people who receive the credit
end up hugely ahead in the end, while the other 99% lose out.
So yes, for the 1% of people getting an electric vehicle tax
credit, it is almost entirely paid for by the other 99% of
people.
PopAlongKid wrote 1 day ago:
Goverment debt is reduced by increased taxes and/or reduction
in services just as much as it is by "inflation". Further,
inflation doesn't affect the person who got a $7,500
individual tax reduction as much as someone who didn't.
PopAlongKid wrote 1 day ago:
>Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles
Then who is making up the difference between the tax that would
have been paid, and the credit reduction?
anannymoose wrote 1 day ago:
So, should I wish to purchase a vehicle this tax year, I tell my
HR to adjust my income withholding such that I owe 7,500$ come
tax time and then reap the rewards?
Or is there more to the incentive structure?
floxy wrote 1 day ago:
What you have withheld is not part of the equation. It is your
tax liability that matters.
anannymoose wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm confused here, wouldnât me underpaying on my income
generate a liability that I can then claim this rebate on?
nullc wrote 1 day ago:
You can still get a refund with this tax credit, but it has
to be a refund of taxes you paid through things like your
payroll tax.
Non-refundable means that if the rebate drives your owed
taxes below zero you don't get the negative tax debt back.
If you don't earn much money most of your paid taxes go to
SS and medicare rather than income tax, so the rebate may
not do anything for you. But if you make at least median
income you should be able to fully use this rebate.
If you're retired and buy one of these trucks you'd be wise
to realize $100k in investment gains in that year in order
to fully exploit the tax credit.
floxy wrote 1 day ago:
Let's make up an example. Let's say you earn $75,000/year
and the tax rate is 10%. So you owe $7,500 in taxes. That
is your tax liability. It doesn't matter if you have your
employer deducting $144 from your weekly paycheck or $0
from your weekly paycheck.
URI [1]: https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/studen...
Brybry wrote 1 day ago:
The government still gives you back your money in a refund if
you overpay them.
Though, of course, you don't earn interest on it while the
government is holding it.
palmtree3000 wrote 1 day ago:
Withholding isn't relevant here. Non refundable means it can't
cause the government to net pay you money: that is to say, it
can't make your refund larger than your withholding.
anannymoose wrote 1 day ago:
Adjust my withholding to generate a debt to Th enticement
that I claim the rebate on? I think youâre thinking the
other direction.
aaroninsf wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, and you will benefit, because the role of the state is to
advance the collective and common good.
That's why we have TeH gOvErNmEnT.
standardUser wrote 1 day ago:
As opposed to other prices that are not the product of a political
economy?
_fat_santa wrote 1 day ago:
My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston
Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole purpose
was to raise the average fuel economy within their fleet.
Later they made a one off version for Goodwood that has a V8 stuffed
under the hood.
mmooss wrote 1 day ago:
> My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston
Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole purpose
was to raise the average fuel economy within their fleet.
Maybe that's a good thing. It compelled Aston Martin to provide
their customers with a fuel-efficient option.
lupusreal wrote 1 day ago:
Rebadging doesn't add any meaningful consumer choice.
masklinn wrote 1 day ago:
Nobody looking for a fuel efficient car would look at Aston, and
nobody looking at Aston would go for a fuel efficient car.
Which was borne by its sales: sold for nearly 3 times the price
you'd have paid Toyota for an iQ, it sold all of 600 units in two
years before being cancelled, Aston's second shortest production
run. The shortest was the Virage which sold more than 1000 units
in a year.
pm3003 wrote 23 hours 15 min ago:
At some point they offered a free Cygnet if you bought one of
their other models.
UncleOxidant wrote 1 day ago:
This is largely why all the vehicles around us have become
supersized. It's completely idiotic.
Yhippa wrote 1 day ago:
Anybody know how it got to this point? It can't be because of
regulatory capture, right? I don't think small cars are getting
made for the US because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG
requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build.
Aurornis wrote 1 day ago:
> I don't think small cars are getting made for the US because of
SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda
Fit based on it's build.
The famous 67MPG requirement was for a hypothetical 2026 model
year car
But Honda discontinued the Fit in the United States in 2020, long
before the hypothetical 2026 target.
The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them. There
are thousands of lightly used Honda Fits on the used market for
reasonable prices, but they're not moving.
Yes, the regulations are flawed, but that doesn't change the lack
of consumer demand.
Marsymars wrote 15 hours 16 min ago:
âReasonable pricesâ open to some debate. Thereâs such a
premium to the Honda nameplate that the prices that âlightly
usedâ ones go for make them a tough proposition over buying
new. (Which of course, is no longer an option for the Fit.)
From a look at prices in Canada, used 5-year-old 2020 model
Fits are going for more than they did new.
AlexandrB wrote 1 day ago:
> The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them.
I think this over-simplifies things. Strict milage standards
force a set of compromises on ICE car design that make them
both shittier and more expensive[1]. Why would anyone buy such
a product when they can get an SUV instead?
[1] Some examples: turbochargers, CVTs, start/stop systems. All
of these increase both the cost and complexity of building as
well as repairing the car. And with higher complexity comes
higher chances for something to fail as well so reliability
suffers.
mrguyorama wrote 1 day ago:
The Honda Fit had none of these. It was just a tiny car with
a tiny engine.
It's just that Americans do not buy tiny cars or tiny
engines.
Aurornis wrote 1 day ago:
> Why would anyone buy such a product when they can get an
SUV instead?
Isn't this just a circular way of admitting that people
actually wanted SUVs?
This doesn't explain why the used car market is full of very
cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a new SUV.
> [1] Some examples: turbochargers,
Have to disagree. These are a great way to downsize the
engine and maintain the same torque output. Yes it's more
parts, but modern OEM turbochargers are very reliable. If you
can reduce the number of cylinders from 6 to 4 or 3, that's a
net win in moving parts, consumables, and repair costs.
wredcoll wrote 1 day ago:
> This doesn't explain why the used car market is full of
very cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a new
SUV.
Is it really? Just to check I looked at carmax and found
this kind of price:
2016 Honda
Fit LX
$16,998*
26K mi
You can get cheaper ones in the $11k range with like 110k+
miles on them, is this really a meaningul price difference?
potato3732842 wrote 1 day ago:
But they only wanted SUVs because government nerfed sedans.
MegaButts wrote 1 day ago:
> both shittier and more expensive
> Some examples: turbochargers
I disagree that turbochargers are shittier. For most people,
hell even for a large subset of people that only want to race
their cars on a track, turbochargers provide huge benefits.
Yes, they add complexity and cost; they also vastly improve
fuel efficiency, create the best torque curve possible on an
ICE vehicle, and substantially improve power output.
Sometimes you actually need more complexity to build a better
system. I think turbochargers are a marvel of modern
engineering.
And while it's subjective and admittedly more enthusiasts
prefer naturally aspirated to turbocharged, I personally
prefer the character of a turbocharged engine. I'd rather
hear turbo whistles than a whining V10.
lupusreal wrote 1 day ago:
If what you want is a reliable commuter, because knowing
you can get yourself to work is more important than even
fuel efficiency, then turbochargers are a clear net
negative. I think most people view their car as a tool
first and foremost, and don't have the luxury to view it as
a toy.
> V10
Lmao what
rjsw wrote 1 day ago:
I am happy with my 1.6L EcoBoost Ford Mondeo. It gets
good fuel efficiency and has plenty of power to climb
hills.
MegaButts wrote 1 day ago:
Turbocharged cars have been reliable for a while now.
There was a time when people said the same thing about
fuel injection - because it is objectively more
complicated than carbureted engines. But as time went on
and they became more reliable and cheaper the only people
that care about carburetors now are enthusiasts because
they have so many drawbacks. It's the same thing with
turbo engines today, except they're already reliable and
better to drive (assuming you ever want to merge onto a
highway). If you consider the higher RPM typical for NA
vehicles they're arguably less reliable over time. If
you include rising fuel costs turbocharged is arguably
cheaper over the lifespan of the vehicle.
Buy whatever you want. But most people's perceptions of
'reliable' for cars is based entirely on rumors and
hearsay and has nothing to do with data. Most awards for
reliability are marketing gimmicks and aren't based on
useful data.
lupusreal wrote 9 hours 6 min ago:
What I know for sure is anybody talking about V10
engines is obviously utterly divorced from normal
person reality, and I can't take any of their
suggestions seriously.
Performance does not matter to the majority of car
buyers. Reliability and capability are what matters.
Whether you can count on the car doing what you need it
to do. Even fuel economy is second to those. Anybody
talking about the sound of turbochargers, performance
and V10 engined (seriously, WTF) is totally out of
touch.
ethagnawl wrote 1 day ago:
It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to exist.
The vast majority of new vehicles are crossovers or _light trucks_,
which aren't held to the same emission/efficiency standards.
Aurornis wrote 1 day ago:
> It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to
exist.
Consumer demand is still an important factor.
Sedans and compact cars are still out there, sitting on dealer
lots with reasonable prices.
smallerfish wrote 1 day ago:
Consumer demand is driven by marketing.
Workaccount2 wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah but the only way to protect myself if hit by a freight
train is to also drive a freight train.
MostlyStable wrote 1 day ago:
Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the
complex morass of regulations we currently have.
osigurdson wrote 1 day ago:
If interested in a case study, have a look at Canada's experiment
with it.
JumpCrisscross wrote 1 day ago:
> a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass
of regulations we currently have
Doesn't this just punt the morass into the magic variable of one's
carbon footprint?
How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid,
anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then,
separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's
mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.)
SecretDreams wrote 1 day ago:
> How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid,
anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then,
separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's
mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.)
It's a good concept that is also ripe for abuse with anyone who
has some amount of "fuck your rules" money. Same reason why fines
that don't scale with income/earnings in some form often do
nothing to deter "the rich".
I certainly like carrots more than sticks, but we need a couple
of sticks as well.
morepedantic wrote 1 day ago:
Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, at
which point just make it illegal. Most fines are proportional
to damages.
Criminalizing fossil fuels is insane. The fines should cover
the externalities.
SecretDreams wrote 22 hours 32 min ago:
> Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior,
No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt
across all income levels.
What does someone affluent care if they have to pay a $100
speeding ticket or a $20 parking ticket? That's just the cost
of business for them.
morepedantic wrote 5 hours 39 min ago:
>No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt
across all income levels.
Because you want to... hard stop behavior. Parking
violations cause harm, so the fine should be a function of
damage to society, not some weird fetish to make people
feel pain.
If behavior is so unacceptable that you want to prevent it
altogether, criminalize it.
conductr wrote 1 day ago:
This has been a known problem and could be changed if the political
will to make common sense policy changes and corrections when
needed was anywhere near existing. Unfortunately, we live in a
[political] dystopia
guywithahat wrote 1 day ago:
I donât think it would be possible to produce a carbon tax
thatâs simple
patmcc wrote 1 day ago:
Tax the fuel. Gasoline now has a $X/gallon tax, as does propane,
as does coal, whatever.
What is the difficulty with that?
hamilyon2 wrote 1 day ago:
Not clear what is meant here. Does ethanol from corn count?
Methane from waste dumps?
Gray hydrogen?
Wood pellets?
Ammonia?
Electricity from unclear source?
Human ingenuity is infinite. It is not enough to enact simple
rules, people will just produce electricity with hydrogen and
claim it green if it will make them profit. If it will help
them evade carbon tax. Nevermind that hydrogen came from some
extremely polluting process involving damaging our planet
atmosphere and everyone's health.
kurthr wrote 15 hours 41 min ago:
Well, you don't need to tax the ethanol from corn or methane
from waste dumps or wood pellets, or ammonia itself. You
would tax the oil/gas/coal that came out of the ground that
was used to fertilize the corn, process the corn, transport
the corn, and distill the ethanol (otherwise it's double
taxation). You don't need to tax the wood pellets or the
stove they're burned in, or the electricity, just the carbon
that is burned to make and transport them. So this is largely
irrelevant.
A better question would be for imported items and services.
How do you prevent tax shifting from carbon emission havens,
which is no different from financial tax havens now. You tax
them at entry using the most beautiful word, "tariffs". If an
importing country doesn't tax carbon or carbon tariff their
imports then you tariff them. Interestingly, it would then be
a higher tariff for air transport than shipping. Where it
actually get complicated is services, which people really
don't like taxing. But if I run a LLM datacenter on coal in
china or make bitcoin burning middle east oil, or consult on
green projects on Indonesian gas those should be tariffed as
well, and that's more difficult.
kasey_junk wrote 1 day ago:
Itâs extremely regressive. Youâd need to also give a rebate
based on income level.
morepedantic wrote 1 day ago:
Tax the poor for carbon emission. They'll adjust. People will
walk, bike, take the bus, car pool, and buy used hybrids
instead of mustangs.
PS, regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding,
and ethical.
kasey_junk wrote 21 hours 14 min ago:
> regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding,
and ethical
Turns out you are wrong.
morepedantic wrote 5 hours 26 min ago:
Life-style should never be subsidized. God forbid that
someone feels the repercussions of their life-style,
which is the only feedback mechanism that will ever cause
change.
My moral system will stop global warming and save the
planet. Your moral system will destroy the planet and
kill billions. Everyone needs to be responsible,
including the poor. Tough.
patmcc wrote 1 day ago:
Give everybody $1000 (or whatever) to offset that. Ends up
being neutral for some folks, a net benefit to the poor, and
a net cost to the rich. This is already how lots of
jurisdictions handle regressive taxes.
Spooky23 wrote 1 day ago:
Thatâs the excuse that is used for agriculture. They sell a
vision of a Fisher Price toy farm, but make policy for giant
Midwest farms.
The proverbial blue collar truck owner is already screwed.
Random surburban dude should be paying through the nose for
his F-250. Create demand for fuel efficiency, and youâll
have cars like my dadâs 1993 Escort Wagon, that got 45mpg.
ponector wrote 1 day ago:
I think the best way is to tax fuel itself. This way worse mpg
result in more tax.
Tax diesel more than gasoline, LNG less.
nandomrumber wrote 1 day ago:
Thereby penalising existing vehicle owners who canât switch to
a more efficient vehicle overnight.
We have to come up with a rigorous alternative that doesnât
disproportionately affect lower income folk, because people tend
not to be overly concerned about nebulous concepts like the
climate impacts on unborn future generations, especially when my
carbon impact at the margin is negligible when taken in context
of global population.
ponector wrote 23 hours 44 min ago:
If it is an issue - then option is to have less driving. Take a
bus once in a while. Or bike.
Or switch to another old vehicle. Take old Golf instead of RAM,
etc.
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote 1 day ago:
Isn't that what a carbon tax is? Adding a tax to the fossil fuel
based on carbon content.
DrillShopper wrote 1 day ago:
We already do in the US (but the money mostly goes to road
maintenance)
ponector wrote 23 hours 38 min ago:
Apparently not enough, as USA has quite cheap fuel. Add 100%
carbon tax and people will start to pay attention to MPG
ratings. With x2 price increase gasoline in USA is still
cheaper than in Germany.
ChadNauseam wrote 1 day ago:
That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an
engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if
such a thing exists)
idiotsecant wrote 1 day ago:
By definition, more carbon is less efficiency. Efficiency is
about how much of the hydrocarbon you turn into heat. Diesels
often burn a little dirty. That's partly because diesel engines
don't burn all the fuel
AdrianB1 wrote 1 day ago:
You don't create carbon out of thin air, it's from the fuel, so
burning the same quantity of fuel will result in the same
quantity of carbon, no matter how the engine works. Therefore a
tax on fuel is a tax on carbon.
FrojoS wrote 1 day ago:
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ethanol_fuel_mi...
AdrianB1 wrote 1 day ago:
What is the point of the link?
Unless you play in the nuclear physics, Carbon in is Carbon
out. Carbon in fuel is Carbon out of the engine.
ghostly_s wrote 1 day ago:
Ethanol blends get worse MPG, and entail additional carbon
emissions in creation. They do not reduce carbon emissions.
idiotsecant wrote 1 day ago:
Incomplete combustion is a big component of emissions, and
it's exactly what you're saying doesn't exist
CorrectHorseBat wrote 1 day ago:
Yes but since incomplete combustion is inverse correlated
with fuel efficiency (unburned fuel is wasted fuel), it's
not really a trade off. What is a trade off is NO emissions
vs fuel efficiency. Burning your fuel oxygen rich will burn
of more fuel, but also makes more NO (due to higher
temperatures if I remember correctly).
cma wrote 1 day ago:
Those eventually degrade to CO2 so the increased warming
from them compared to co2 by mass is temporary, like with
methane.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
This is already done, in Europe most of the fuel costs are taxes.
bgnn wrote 1 day ago:
why can't we just tax the gas at the pump? this is, at least, what
I'm used to in Europe.
brianwawok wrote 1 day ago:
We do. But itâs a super regressive tax. Lots of very poor
people depend on a bad MPG car to get to work and live.
morepedantic wrote 1 day ago:
If you subsidize polluting life-styles, you'll get pollution.
You think the rich suffer from pollution and car dependency?
It's not at all clear that taxing gas will lead to worse
outcomes for the poor. It's entirely clear that subsidizing
pollution from the poor will lead to worse outcomes for the
planet.
kaishiro wrote 22 hours 46 min ago:
What isnât clear about the fact that increasing commuting
costs for those living paycheck to paycheck leads to a worse
outcome?
morepedantic wrote 5 hours 35 min ago:
Because you're only considering first-order effects.
Behaviors, markets, and systems will evolve around the new
rules. Public transit could improve. People could trade in
SUVs for hybrid sedans. People could carpool. People could
bike. People could walk. Corner stores could re-open.
People could demand zoning changes, instead of fighting
every nearby development.
bgnn wrote 1 day ago:
that's a different problem. US cities used to have good publhc
transport, but the urvanization policies since 50s is
car-centric. plus, because of the American cars having huge
engines they have bad MPG. The current situation US is in is
nothing to do with the tax regime.
rcpt wrote 1 day ago:
The purpose of the CAFE regulations is very explicitly to favor
American automakers who make big trucks.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
That was one of several purposes.
tlb wrote 1 day ago:
It wasn't the intended purpose. It turned out that way because
the Detroit lobbyists were smarter and more motivated than the
government policy people, and they bamboozled them.
smallmancontrov wrote 1 day ago:
The congress critters knew what they were doing and didn't do
it for free.
timewizard wrote 1 day ago:
Fuel is already taxed. What would a "carbon tax" add here?
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
That's overly reductive.
1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely
encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then
the tax is (at least short-term) regressive.
2. You can work around #1 by applying incentives for manufacturers
to make more efficient cars should lead any carbon tax
3. If you just reward companies based on fleet-average fuel economy
without regard to vehicle size, then it would be rather bad for US
car companies (who employ unionized workers) that historically make
larger cars than Asian and European companies.
4. So the first thing done was to have a separate standard for
passenger vehicles and light-trucks, but this resulted in minivans
and SUVs being made in such a way as to get the light-truck rating
5. We then ended up with the size-based calculation we have today,
but the formula is (IMO) overly punitive on small vehicles. Given
that the formula was forward looking, it was almost certain to be
wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated.
morepedantic wrote 1 day ago:
TIL poor people can't pollute, so their market segment shouldn't
be incentivized to cut pollution.
TIL that US car companies won't make smaller cars in the face of
different regulations, even though they made larger cars in
response to current regulations.
The only way to avoid perversions is to tax the problem directly.
The market will adjust to all proxies in unintended and harmful
ways.
parineum wrote 1 day ago:
A disincentive on a thing you don't want makes people choose
another thing that you may or may not want.
The only way to avoid perversions is to incentivize the things
you want.
Taxing cigarettes led to vaping. Maybe less bad but still a
nuisance.
morepedantic wrote 5 hours 43 min ago:
Are you agreeing with me, or did you drop a negative twice?
renewiltord wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah thatâs the truth. The mass of poor people are the
predominant polluters. They produce little of value and pollute a
lot. So the question then is whether you care about the
environment or about the poor and most people would rather the
latter.
nullc wrote 1 day ago:
> 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely
encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then
the tax is (at least short-term) regressive.
The idea that policy makers care about this in any meaningful
sense is absurd given the EV mandates, as EV's radically change
the lifecycle costs of cars in a way that is absolutely
destructive to people who aren't wealthy.
EV's lower the 'fueling' cost but shift part of it into large
cashflow crushing battery replacement costs.
Automobiles have been a significant engine in elevating less
wealthy americans because you can buy a old junky car for very
little and keep it limping along with use-proportional fuel costs
and minor maintenance. Even if it's an inefficient car, you use
it to go to work, so you're making money to pay for the fuel.
Less work, less work fuel required.
EV's significantly break the model and will push many more less
wealthy people onto predatory financing which they'll never
escape. Yet policy makers refuse to even discuss the life-cycle
cashflow difference of EVs, and continue to more forward with
policies to eventually mandate their use.
> it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the
other, but it hasn't been updated.
It's been broken all along. We've had decades to fix it.
DrNosferatu wrote 1 day ago:
This.
AdrianB1 wrote 1 day ago:
If you want to reduce carbon emissions, if the tax is regressive
or not does not matter as long as you tax emissions. If you want
to mix too many things, you will not get a good solution for any.
xvokcarts wrote 1 day ago:
Looks like as long as only positive change is allowed to touch
the poor, there will be little change.
austhrow743 wrote 1 day ago:
Going to let us burn because not doing so would be regressive.
bongodongobob wrote 1 day ago:
Are you saying used car sales would have a carbon tax? I've never
heard anyone suggest anything like that. It's just a tax on new
items.
danans wrote 1 day ago:
> 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely
encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then
the tax is (at least short-term) regressive.
You give it back to poor as a income-phased out refundable tax
credit. Crucially, base it not on how much they drive or
consume, but on their income.
Name it something like the "Worker's Energy Credit". In the worst
case, it cancels out the carbon tax spent by them commensurate
with their lower income.
In the best case poor people who don't drive much actually come
out ahead, and it's just a very progressive sales tax.
The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is
fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have
always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of
upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can
afford it.
betelgeuse6 wrote 1 day ago:
Why don't the poor just buy smaller cars? Less weight - less
pollution. Nobody needs a to drive a pickup, unless they run a
farm or construction firm. A car weighing less than a ton would
be perfectly enough for 99.9 % of drivers.
danans wrote 3 hours 38 min ago:
> Why don't the poor just buy smaller cars?
They do buy smaller cars. But they still spend a much
greater percent of their income on gas. Worse, most of the
auto industry has upsized their entire vehicle fleet. It's
not as easy to find small used cars as it once was. They
also are less likely to have jobs they can remote work, and
can't afford to live close enough to the workplace to use
transit.
Also many poor people need a larger car for their work. I'm
not talking about a vanity pickup, but something more like a
small pickup
or a work van. Others may have many children to drive (maybe
their own and others if they live in joint family
situations).
Their solution is to buy a 3rd or 4th hand large vehicle.
jeffbee wrote 1 day ago:
This is way too complicated. You just give it to everyone
unconditionally and tax it as income. We already have
progressive graduated income taxes with a huge exempt class, we
don't need to layer anything on top of that.
sokoloff wrote 1 day ago:
Giving it back based on being alive on Dec 31 seems the best
solution to me. (Itâs very difficult to game and if you give
900 billionaires under a million bucks in total, itâs just
not that big a dealâ¦)
danans wrote 1 day ago:
We manage to phase out ACA subsidies at 400% of the federal
poverty level, so I don't see why we couldn't use a similar
mechanism for an energy tax credit.
sokoloff wrote 1 day ago:
You can. It will cost political capital and erode the
clarity of the messaging about the purpose of the tax. It
also gives politicians one more thing to dick around with
later.
Personally, I think itâs letting the perfect be the enemy
of the 99+% perfect.
dgfitz wrote 1 day ago:
> The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which
is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have
always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead
of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who
can afford it.
Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1.
I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to
taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the
intent.
I would be interested in reading a study where all the tax laws
in the country were burned down and rebuilt, with no loopholes
or exceptions. Also, eliminate borrowing against a stock
portfolio. That is downright evil.
aianus wrote 1 day ago:
Thereâs nothing wrong with borrowing against stock, the
evil part is the step-up in cost basis when the billionaire
dies that prevents them from paying any tax at all.
It would be a good deal for the country to let the
billionaire use their skills to grow wealth without
interrupting it and tax them all at death.
sightbroke wrote 1 day ago:
> Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1.
Salary might be $1 but what is his effective income when he
files his taxes? That is what he is taxed on, which includes
things like dividends and selling of stocks.
danans wrote 1 day ago:
> Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1.
The tax would be on consumption, the credit would be based on
income, so Larry still pays when he buys gas (if not for his
cars, then for his planes).
> I would be interested in reading a study where all the tax
laws in the country were burned down and rebuilt
That would burn down the country. Tax policy and the economy
are a ship that has to be gradually turned in the optimal
direction, just like how for the last 40 years tax policy has
been gradually redistributing growth/wealth upwards. Sudden
changes (like we are seeing now with indiscriminate tariff
policy) are what results in the most harm to the poor.
> Also, eliminate borrowing against a stock portfolio. That
is downright evil.
Agreed, or just heavily tax borrowing against a portfolio
above, say, $2M/year. That way you don't penalize working
people borrowing against 401ks or taking home equity loans
for home improvements.
dragonwriter wrote 1 day ago:
> I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes
to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite
of the intent.
It depends what the exception is.
If the exceptions are "we treat a form of income received
disproportionately by the rich a 'not income' and tax it at a
lower rate, and on top of that we add an extra tax on top of
income tax on labor income, and cap the larger part of that
extra tax, too, to avoid burdening high earners", that helps
the rich, sure. But there are plenty of exceptions possible
that don't do that.
MostlyStable wrote 1 day ago:
All carbon tax is inherently regressive but that's also trivially
fixable. Make it revenue neutral and give every citizen a flat
portion of the total collected revenue. Bam, it is now
progressive, since on average richer people will spend more on
fuel (and therefore the tax) even though it is likely a much
smaller percentage of their spending.
Every single one of your ideas has problems that are solved by a
carbon tax. Taxes are simple, they accomplish what you want, and
they don't have loopholes. A carbon tax will _never_ have the
unintended consequence of making emissions worse. Many of our
current regulations, including the one I was responding to do
exactly that because they actually cause people to buy larger
trucks than they otherwise would with worse fuel efficiency.
A carbon tax might not on it's own be enough to solve the problem
(especially if you set it to low), but no matter what level you
set it, it will help. Thanks to unintended consequences, many of
our current regulations are actively counter productive, while
_also_ having negative economic and other costs.
parineum wrote 1 day ago:
> Make it revenue neutral and give every citizen a flat portion
of the total collected revenue. Bam, it is now progressive,
Unfortunately, poor people don't have the cash on hand to hold
them over until they get their Carbon Stipend on April 15th.
It's going to hurt poor people to charge them more at the
counter, even if you give them more later. The stipend is just
going to end up paying for less than the interest the tax
created on a credit card.
WalterBright wrote 1 day ago:
Finally, some common sense!
I'll boil it down to:
If you want less of something, tax it.
It's the most efficient mechanism for internalizing external
costs.
Wowfunhappy wrote 1 day ago:
^ In addition, I find it notable that the political party that
is in favor of more regressive taxes is also against a carbon
tax.
In an ideal world, I'd like the tax to be made more
progressive, but I'll take anything!
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
> since on average richer people will spend more on fuel
Why would you think so? People driving older cars, not being
able to afford to fly - will certainly spend more money on fuel
for their car.
leoedin wrote 1 day ago:
Rich people use more energy. Thatâs been shown by loads of
studies.
Maybe they drive a more efficient car, but they own much
larger houses which are heated or cooled consistently, they
travel a lot more, and they buy things with embodied carbon
emissions.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
Right, but now you're talking about adding the tax to the
whole economy, not just car fuel?
That's close to impossible to implement. You'd need to
track production and usage of everything in an extreme
detail. Plus tracking all purchases (items + services) to a
given person. So complete state surveillance of citizens.
Globally.
xnx wrote 1 day ago:
> That's close to impossible to implement.
For a carbon tax, I think you only need to track imports,
and domestic extraction of coal, petroleum, and natural
gas.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
âOnlyâ track imports?
xnx wrote 1 day ago:
I think customs already tracks this. Smuggling oil
and coal into the US at any meaningful scale seems
very unlikely.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
Right, but how do you track carbon in imported
goods?
xnx wrote 1 day ago:
You don't. We already outsource all kinds of
things (pollution, human rights violations) now.
edoceo wrote 1 day ago:
Tax all fuel. So those energy consumption of wealthy cost
more?
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
Ok, let's assume you do. Let's tax all fuels 300% in
the US.
Now all manufacturing stops as your production costs
are all over the roof. Everything is imported from
countries that do not have these taxes.
What problem was solved here? None.
triceratops wrote 1 day ago:
> Everything is imported from countries that do not
have these taxes.
Finally a good use for tariffs!
Loudergood wrote 1 day ago:
Do you think flying evades the carbon tax?
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
Yes, if you apply the carbon tax only for the fuel at
petrol stations. I am talking about realistic-to-implement
solutions.
sokoloff wrote 1 day ago:
Aviation fuel is dispensed at a limited number of places;
it would be easier (or just as easy) to implement a
higher aviation fuel tax than a higher auto fuel tax.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
It's trivial to implement auto fuel tax - it's already
in place in most of developed countries.
sokoloff wrote 21 hours 22 min ago:
There's an auto fuel tax in the US. Increasing that
from $0.184/gallon for gasoline and $0.244/gallon for
diesel to say $1.50/gallon and $2.00/gallon would
ensure massive losses for that party in the next two
or three election cycles.
Increasing the tax on aviation fuel to $2/gallon
wouldn't produce massive shifts in the next several
elections, therefore it's easier to implement.
adverbly wrote 1 day ago:
You are correct that most consumption taxes are intrinsically
regressive, but you can turn pretty much any consumption tax
into a progressive one by simply taking the money and
redistributing it at a flat amount per person.
I believe this would be more fair to children who are the ones
who will be most impacted by climate change in the end.
I believe there are even some governments that use this
approach, but many of them don't make it feel as significant as
it should. You should get a big fat cheque in the mail every
month as if you won the lottery.
Mister_Snuggles wrote 1 day ago:
I see the carbon tax as a 'stick' (to penalize undesired
behaviour, in this case emitting carbon), but it needs to be
coupled with a 'carrot' to encourage the desired behaviours.
I'd like to see a carbon tax coupled with massive investments
to make public transit legitimately good. There are too many
places where there is no viable alternative to driving, a
carbon tax will unnecessarily punish those people without
giving them a reasonable alternative.
Retric wrote 1 day ago:
The carrot is doing the things you want to do like getting
from A to B or building a home.
Government âcarrotsâ are almost universally a terrible
idea because they codify specific solutions. Instead you can
get the same effect more efficiently with a carbon tax large
enough for people to notice.
somat wrote 1 day ago:
We already have a carbon tax, you pay it when you buy the
carbon. 3 cents per liter federally and an additional 18 cents
per liter in California specifically.
SR2Z wrote 1 day ago:
This tax is only assessed on road transportation. It ignores
aviation, industry, or any one of the other sources of
carbon.
formerly_proven wrote 1 day ago:
Some European countries have total taxes to the tune of 90+
cents per liter (50-60% tax) with current gas prices, for
reference. (~65ct/l for the energy/carbon tax, specifically)
I donât think that level is sufficient to cover the
externalities.
Thrymr wrote 1 day ago:
It's hard to see any of this as "trivially fixable." Taxes are
inherently political, politics are complicated, changing
incentives on this scale are pretty much impossible in our
political system.
"Taxes are simple... and they don't have loopholes" is not at
all how taxes work in the US. Perhaps your imagined perfect
carbon tax is simple, but a simple tax with no loopholes is not
likely to happen. Everyone wants a break or exception, and many
of the interested parties are powerful.
mediaman wrote 1 day ago:
This is mixing two questions: whether a system can be
elegantly designed and do the job without major market
distortion, versus the question of whether various actors
will stand in the way to prevent it.
You could say the same thing about zoning. Higher density is
better for affordability, but faces opposition from
landowning existing residents. Does that make it wrong, or
not worth pursuing? No, and that particular movement seems to
be getting traction despite the political opposition.
I read "trivially fixable" as "there is an elegant solution
to this," not that "it is easy to get it politically passed."
gopher_space wrote 1 day ago:
As we learned in the 90s with email, an elegant solution
that doesn't take human nature into account isn't worth
pursuing. There used to be a joke checklist we'd send to
each other about this.
> I read "trivially fixable" as "there is an elegant
solution to this," not that "it is easy to get it
politically passed."
The huge problem with this line of thinking is that it's
easy to identify a half-dozen key players standing in the
way of your elegant solution and it would be easier to
remove them from the situation than change their minds.
It's an attractive idea that can become a fixed idea.
abakker wrote 1 day ago:
All costs are regressive to people with less ability to bear
them. By making them not regressive we don't change behavior!
It doesn't matter if they're regressive if the objective is to
get people to not drive or to burn less gas. Shifting the cost
to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce
actual carbon. There's a lot more low-income emitters than high
income ones.
triceratops wrote 1 day ago:
> By making them not regressive we don't change behavior!
I'm poor. I could get just the $X back as my carbon tax
dividend and continue with my current lifestyle. Or I could
make choices that emit less carbon, which will cost less
since they don't have a carbon tax cost to them, and save an
additional $Y on top of the $X I'm already getting.
What do I do?
abakker wrote 9 hours 12 min ago:
I mean, I assume that most people who are in a position of
financial stress continue with their near-term need to
commute to earn a living, and bear the cost of a tax that
hurts them.
The government's job is to say that in aggregate, they
people better off from the overall reduction in carbon
emitted.
My opinion is that trying to make consumption taxes
non-regressive is a fool's errand. If it needs to be
progressive, figure out what the total dollar contribution
needed and pick a rate that when scaled with incomes yields
the outcome needed.
elgenie wrote 1 day ago:
The fuel/carbon tax would still be behavior-shifting for
low-income emitters because it would still apply to
low-income emitters per marginal unit, and that part is
likely overall regressive because fuel is a larger
expenditures for low-incomes.
However, the part where the resulting revenue is pooled and
payed out in an equal amount back per capita is progressive,
since that payment is a greater fraction of a low income.
Desirably, it also means that low-income people emitting less
than the average would make money overall: consider a
household consisting of a single mom and two kids that take
public transit to work/school.
bryanlarsen wrote 1 day ago:
It would change behaviour more, not less.
If you set the carbon tax at about $1/gallon of gasoline, the
corresponding carbon rebate would be about $1000 per family
per year.
That wouldn't affect rich people much; neither the $1/gallon
nor the $1000 extra income is significant. But many rich
people get rich by being penny-wise, so many would change
behaviour, by buying an EV or similar.
But for poor people both $1/gallon and $1000 per year is
significant. If gas was $1/gallon more expensive, poor
people definitely would drive less.
Loudergood wrote 1 day ago:
The real hardship for the poor here is they cannot float
that $1/gallon for a year before getting the $1000
robocat wrote 1 day ago:
The same thing happened with electric car purchase
incentives in New Zealand. The poor cannot afford to buy
a new car - so only the well off received the efficient
car discount incentives.
The trickle down as those cars depreciated in value was
years away.
TylerE wrote 1 day ago:
That doesnât really sound like the worst thing?
Someone has to buy them for full price before they show
up on the used market 5-10 years later.
robocat wrote 1 day ago:
That doesn't make sense because the second hand car
is not cheaper by the amount of the subsidy. Say
subsidy is $20k, second-hand car might eventually be
$6k cheaper (and the discount time value of money
means that the $6k is actually less than $4k). Giving
the wealthy person $20k, and the poor person less
than $4k is strange.
New Zealand used car market is likely very different
from the market where you are. The cheapest Model 3 I
could find was a USD18000 for a 2020.
Subsidies make sense if the environmental gains
outweigh the costs of the subsidies.
Subsidies: there was a purchase subsidy, charging
stations were subsidised, and I think electric cars
are not paying their fair share of road maintenance
(much of our road costs are paid for by an excise tax
on usage via petrol-tax or heavy-vehicle-milage).
otterley wrote 1 day ago:
That math doesnât add up. If I buy a $100,000 car
for $80,000, and I sell it to someone for $60,000,
the recipient still gets a $40,000 discount.
And if you pretend that there is no subsidy, and
the original owner paid $80,000 just because it
cost that much unsubsidized, the second buyer still
gets the same discount off the original purchase
price.
So the fact that the car was originally subsidized
isnât relevant.
robocat wrote 22 hours 42 min ago:
The context is about when cars reach the poor -
your example of someone spending $60k is
irrelevant.
A poorer person in NZ spends at most a few
thousand on their car. The original retail price
is nearly irrelevant by the time it gets to
someone poorish (however maintenance/parts costs
do matter for old cars).
The financial benefit of a discount mostly goes
to the people that own the car while it
depreciates as it trickles down.
Context: In New Zealand, the vast majority of
people drive second hand cars (mostly imported
second hand from Japan). A 20 year old car is
regarded as newish in New Zealand. I am well off,
so I have two second hand cars, my daily driver
is 2006 I think, and I have a 1996 4WD for other
stuff. New cars are only bought by the well off.
otterley wrote 19 hours 10 min ago:
I hear you. The numbers I provided were
manufactured to illustrate the math and support
my argument, not to be representative of a
typical price.
robocat wrote 12 hours 50 min ago:
I thought about it some more but it is hard
to explain.
I wonder if your mental model is that a $20k
discount applies at all future prices - so
that when the car is sold for $5k that it's
"actual" worth is $25k.
My mental model is that when the car is sold
at $5k it is worth $5k and the $20k discount
has disappeared (the value captured by the
early owners).
Background: I'm a top 5% earner but I have
friends who are struggling financially.
My opinion is that the discounts is money
paid for by our taxpayers into overseas
pockets, that benefits a few well off people.
Strangely enough the discounts were
introduced by our more socialist party, and
removed by the incoming less socialist party.
I don't believe the discounts are an
equitable use of government funds.
I am also extremely sceptical that there is
enough environmental benefits: the policy
appears green but perhaps it is not
(greenwashed).
cma wrote 1 day ago:
You can give the rebate based on prior year or estimated
usage at the start of the year, and then repay at the end
of the year if it was too much, like with healthcare
subsidies.
bryanlarsen wrote 1 day ago:
The rebate is a fixed amount, no need for estimation.
bryanlarsen wrote 1 day ago:
The rebate can be paid out more frequently than annually.
kjreact wrote 1 day ago:
Having a carbon tax seems to be the most fair way to
combat climate change; unfortunately in practice it is
political suicide. Australia had a carbon tax in 2011
and was quickly repealed in 2014. Likewise Canada also
implemented such a tax in 2019 and was repealed this
year prior to their election. People like to say that
they want to help the environment, but when it comes
time to vote they vote against such policies.
xyzzy123 wrote 1 day ago:
The Australian implementation had a lot of problems.
Instead of being (something reasonably loophole free
like) a tax levied on fossil fuel consumption it was
a scheme that applied to the 500 largest emitters.
These emitters then (crucially) estimated their own
emissions minus offsets and paid tax on that.
The issue with this is that it creates a whole
parallel (and largely fake) carbon accounting world.
Fake estimates, fake offsets, a complex web of
compensating subsidies - but real public money.
The field of carbon taxes is tricky because we can
imagine simple schemes which handle a few scenarios
in a fair way (ok, fuel! we know how to tax that) but
once you start thinking about agriculture or
construction you quickly get into complex estimation.
You then end up with armies of carbon accountants who
spend all day looking for loopholes and rorts.
Teever wrote 1 day ago:
Canada ultimately repealed the carbon tax because it
was used as a political cudgel against the Liberal
party that enacted it by the Conservative opposition
in a sustained fashion for several years.
Which is dismaying because carbon taxes are a
conservative solution to this problem and IIRC the
first political entities to suggest the
implementation of them in Canada were Conservative.
At the end of the day you have a nontrivial amount of
the population, and many in positions of power who
just outright deny environmental concerns and climate
change as an existential threat.
They aren't going to approach this problem in good
faith and it isn't obvious what the solution to their
nefarious influence on policy should be.
bryanlarsen wrote 1 day ago:
Canada's implementation had two problems:
1. The textbook implementation involves 3 parts:
tax, rebate and tariff. Canada only did the first
2. They were in talks with Germany/EU to create a
carbon tariff zone, but that never happens.
Without the tariff the carbon tax is massively
unfair to local producers.
2. The rebates were almost invisible. If they
would have been cheques in the mail it would have
had much more impact psychologically.
But I agree, the main problem was denialism and its
use as a political cudgel. It should be hard to
argue that carbon tax is stealing money when all of
it is given back, but they successfully did that.
david-gpu wrote 1 day ago:
Broadly agreed. IMO the Canadian carbon tax had a
marketing problem. It should have been called a
Carbon Dividend. First, it would have replaced
the negative connotation of the word "tax" with
the positive connotation of the word "dividend --
and it would have been more accurate to how the
program actually worked.
Second, and probably more important: the rebates
showed up in your bank account with a description
that didn't make the source obvious enough for
laypeople. Had people seen monthly "CARBON
DIVIDEND" credits in their bank accounts, they
would have noticed.
smnrchrds wrote 1 day ago:
It was never called carbon tax, but carbon
pricing. It being knows as carbon tax was the
result of of opposition efforts. The same
efforts and results would have happened had it
been called dividend or anything else.
shawnz wrote 1 day ago:
In official communications it was called the
Canada Carbon Rebate or previously the Climate
Action Incentive
listenallyall wrote 1 day ago:
Are you sure? Gas consumption is notoriously inelastic.
West coast gasoline is already a dollar or more than it
costs on the east coast. Do poor people drive less in
California than in Florida?
greeneggs wrote 1 day ago:
I think everyone drives less in California than in
Florida. (Google says ~14,500 miles annually per
licensed driver in Florida, versus ~12,500 miles in
California.) Gas prices are a factor in this.
SR2Z wrote 1 day ago:
Gas consumption is inelastic in the short term, but
everything is elastic in the long term.
If you want proof of this, just look at what happens to
sales of large vs small cars when the price of gas
changes.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
A revenue-neutral tax (like GP proposed) could, in theory,
change behavior. I don't know enough about human behavior to
say how it would work in practice.
Let's say that instead of taxing carbon, we pay people a
bonus for emitting a below-average amount of carbon
(proportional to the amount that they are below average by).
If the amount is in a certain range, it will be too small an
amount for wealthy people to care about, but large enough for
poorer people to do things within their means (e.g.
carpooling) to try to get it.
The results would hit certain geographic areas much worse
than others, and (if priced enough to change behavior) would
also probably depress car sales, which are two reasons why
the federal fuel tax has been flat for over 30 years.
brailsafe wrote 1 day ago:
> Let's say that instead of taxing carbon, we pay people a
bonus for emitting a below-average amount of carbon
(proportional to the amount that they are below average
by). If the amount is in a certain range, it will be too
small an amount for wealthy people to care about, but large
enough for poorer people to do things within their means
(e.g. carpooling) to try to get it.
So you're saying that the government should incentivize
poorer people to sell one of the last bits of their
functional autonomy for what would be trivial amounts?
"We'll just hang onto to this for a bit until you decide to
stop going anywhere or make friends at work".
californical wrote 1 day ago:
Think about how much easier that is to game though.
The original suggestion could be collected at point-of-sale
for carbon emitting products. Gasoline, airplane tickets
(based on average for the flights), even electricity are
easy to measure and charge at the point of sale.
In your example, the person has to prove how much they
didnât emit, which is way harder in practice, to get the
credit.
Rnonymous wrote 1 day ago:
Why tax the gasoline but then the airplane ticket and not
the kerosene?
And similarly i would extrapolate to do we tax the buyer
of electricity (which could be green sourced) or the
manufacturer - the gas burner. Or maybe even at the first
point of contact with the carbon source, the oil company.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
I was making an analogy to a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
That is tax all of those things, but cut every taxpayer a
refund for an equal share of the revenue. This is
ultimately identical to paying people for having
below-average use.
MetaWhirledPeas wrote 1 day ago:
> Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and
it doesn't reduce actual carbon.
Shifting cost to the emitters is a better way to put it. If a
factory can make 10m in upgrades over time to reduce their
carbon tax burden by 15m over time, they are definitely going
to do it. So I disagree: I say it does change behavior and it
does reduce actual carbon.
> There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income
ones
Whether that's true or not it does not mean a carbon tax
would not 'reduce actual carbon'.
otterley wrote 1 day ago:
Drivers of ICE vehicles are the emitters.
An ICE vehicle sitting in a driveway with its engine off
emits no pollution (that is, after the initial impact of
manufacturing and delivering it).
breakyerself wrote 1 day ago:
Carbon taxes become progressive with the simple step of returning
the revenue to taxpayers as a dividend payment using the existing
social security payment infrastructure. Richer people have such
outsized carbon footprints that most people would get back more
in dividends than they lost in higher costs.
bflesch wrote 1 day ago:
Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at
all, even in the EU.
sokoloff wrote 1 day ago:
This is a common trope, but is incorrect, at least for the US.
URI [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_Unit...
almostnormal wrote 1 day ago:
> Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not
taxed at all, even in the EU.
Not correct. Fuel for private aviation is taxed, including jet
fuel and avgas. However, there are very few "private" jets,
most are operated by some company, and therefore not private.
Jet-A1 for a truely privately operated C172 with a diesel
engine is taxed.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
What makes a jet private? Should Trump's Boegin 757 count as
one?
What if an airline is flying a jet with no passengers? Cargo
jets?
foobarchu wrote 1 day ago:
The same thing that differentiate a private car from public
transportation or freight, I would think. This distinction
isn't a particularly novel problem.
michpoch wrote 1 day ago:
We don't differentiate these in any significant way. Do
buses in your country pay different rate for fuel?
There are vans carrying 6 people on international routes in
Europe, is this public transport? Private? Anyone can book
it.
aceofspades19 wrote 10 hours 35 min ago:
Well actually, lots of places have special fuel for farm
vehicles that are exempt from certain taxes. It's dyed a
certain colour so if you get caught with that colour of
fuel in your vehicle you can get in trouble. So its not a
crazy thing to suggest that we tax different fuel at
different rates.
ikekkdcjkfke wrote 1 day ago:
Ffs
cogman10 wrote 1 day ago:
Which is bonkers. If ever there was a thing that should be
taxed it's jet fuel for private jets. 300% tax on private jet
fuel would be reasonable.
The emissions just to shuttle rich people from one side of the
country to the next (For some, multiple times per day) is
insane. You should need to be a billionaire just to afford
flying private jets and it should still eat a significant
portion of your income if that's what you choose to do.
And for what? Like, we live in the modern era, why does anyone
need to travel from NY to Florida to Texas to California in a
day?
Gibbon1 wrote 1 day ago:
I have a suspicion the reason why super wealthy people like
say Musk but he isn't the only one hate subways and high
speed rail is because they fly everywhere. You might like if
you could get on the subway in Glen Park and be at lands end
in half an hour. You might like getting on a high speed rail
and being in LA in 4 hours.
These guy will never ride a subway or take a train anywhere.
renewiltord wrote 1 day ago:
LOL on an e-bike I can beat BART to SFO from Glen Park
unless you time both to start at just the moment BART
arrives instead of at a random moment. If you want a Glen
Park to Lands End to take under 30 minutes, the cost would
rival the Iraq War.
cogman10 wrote 1 day ago:
Looks like the trains are running every 30 minutes.
A super easy solution that doesn't cost the iraq war is
adding new trains and running them every 15 minutes.
You'd have to deal with lower occupancy trains as a
result, which means it's not as cost efficient.
lenkite wrote 1 day ago:
Many politicians campaigning for green energy (aka AOC)
also fly on private jets everywhere so that they can fight
the oligarchy - this behavior isn't restricted to wealthy
businessmen alone.
drilbo wrote 1 day ago:
Maybe you shouldn't base your assumptions of the world on
politically charged clickbait headlines... Did her and
Bernie use a private jet? Quite possibly. Does that mean
they fly "everywhere" on private jets? Certifiably false.
cogman10 wrote 1 day ago:
Depressingly, I think that's why a law to stop this
behavior won't pass in the US. Wealthy and powerful
people love their private flights.
Doesn't mean that anyone engaging in this behavior should
get a pass nor that we shouldn't keep advocating for such
a tax.
gonzoflip wrote 1 day ago:
I'm no Musk fanboy, but it is funny you mention him not
liking subways or high speed rail because didn't he try to
build a subterranean high speed rail?
rasz wrote 1 day ago:
>didn't he try to build a subterranean high speed rail?
_for cars_
AlexandrB wrote 1 day ago:
The hyperloop was a shit idea from day one and thus far
no one has been able to make it work. It's also entirely
possible that Elon Musk floated this as a distraction to
stop the development of "regular" high speed rain in
California[1].
The Las Vegas "loop"[2], on the other hand, is basically
a parody of a subway - with a fraction of the capacity.
> In July 2021, the peak passenger flow was recorded at
1,355 passengers per hour.
As a comparison Toronto's subway can handle 28,000
passengers per hour[3] per direction or more. [1] [2]
URI [1]: https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperl...
URI [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Conventi...
URI [3]: https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway...
Gibbon1 wrote 1 day ago:
You'll note to two things that ties the hyper loop and
the Las Vegas Loop together is private cars.
Don't discount that these guys find ordinary people to
be scary and disgusting.
gonzoflip wrote 1 day ago:
Did I say it was a good idea? I was merely pointing out
that there's evidence that he is not the best example
for people that hate high-speed rails and subways.
>Stop the development of high speed rail in California
I thought that got funded, what happened?
pnw wrote 1 day ago:
I'm really intrigued to see how this does. Kudos to Slate for trying
something new and building it in Detroit at a great price point.
I see a ton of discussion on social media from people who want to buy
simpler vehicles with less features at a better price point (e.g. the
Japanese Kei trucks). I'm not convinced Americans will actually buy
such a vehicle because we are used to our modern conveniences in new
vehicles. You can even see that trend in this thread where people are
asking for more features, or things that were phased out decades ago
due to safety (e.g. bench seats). Perhaps Slate has figured that out
with their options packaging? I'm rooting for them regardless.
sema4hacker wrote 1 day ago:
> I'm not convinced Americans will actually buy such a vehicle
because we are used to our modern conveniences
My town is FULL of workers doing hauling, painting, gardening,
construction, etc., and they're all driving old worn rusting pickups
that barely seem held together. There's definitely a market for
minimal trucks designed to just get the job done without the "modern
conveniences".
twiddling wrote 1 day ago:
I also see this truck appealing to city/college/corp. campus
fleets.
Peanuts99 wrote 1 day ago:
This is like a car version of the Framework laptop. Love it.
maxglute wrote 1 day ago:
How much before incentives?
TFW just want cheap Hilux Champ.
nrmitchi wrote 1 day ago:
I see this and I don't see it as an every day, driving-on-my-commute
style vehicle. As someone who (previously) drove a 2014 honda civic,
cheaper cars leave a lot of comfort for longer drives. I can't imagine
this barebones vehicle being fun to drive for any extended period of
time, or any extended distance, unless you'd spent considerable time
customizing it to those needs (at which point, you've probably spent
more than buying something off the shelf).
I do see this being great for short utility trips (think running
errands, picking something up, etc), and as a utility vehicle (would be
nice to be able to have an 8ft bed).
It would be really interesting to me to see a fleet of vehicles like
this that are ultra-rentable; think a Bird/Lime scooter, but a utility
truck.
aidenn0 wrote 1 day ago:
If the timing weren't so off (I just bought a compact electric car),
then this would have been a real possibility for me: 150 miles is
about 1 weeks worth of driving for me, it's usually just me (or
occasionally +1), and we have my wife's car for driving the whole
family long distances. Of course I'm skeptical that it will come in
under $27,500 (implied by the "Under $20k after federal incentives),
and if it's much more than that it will start to get squeezed by
other options.
nrmitchi wrote 1 day ago:
Completely agree. It has to end up cheap enough to be a "tool",
rather than a "vehicle". If there isn't a clear price-based market
segmentation between the two, this will get crushed.
rockostrich wrote 1 day ago:
> I do see this being great for short utility trips (think running
errands, picking something up, etc), and as a utility vehicle (would
be nice to be able to have an 8ft bed).
Japan and the rest of the world figured this out decades ago. They're
called kei trucks. You can buy pre-2000 imported ones in the US from
like $5-15k depending on the miles/condition/year/transmission. I
have a 1990 Suzuki Carry that is solely used for trips to Home Depot
and picking up random furniture from FB Marketplace that I got for
$6k.
nrmitchi wrote 1 day ago:
> Japan and the rest of the world figured this out decades ago.
And it's great that the US is (seemingly, somewhat) catching up.
hbsbsbsndk wrote 1 day ago:
Aren't there issues with states randomly revoking registration for
imported kei vehicles because of emissions/safety/whatever?
rockostrich wrote 1 day ago:
I'm in NJ so as long as it's 30 years or older there's no
emissions required. If you're in a state that doesn't allow
registration of kei trucks then there are companies that make it
pretty straightforward to get them titled and registered in
states that have very lax laws like Montana.
nrmitchi wrote 1 day ago:
Not going to say it's right, but for a vehicle that is
occassionally used to drive between your home and the hardware
store, I'm sure that a ton of these types of vehicles are just
not registered. Even if you get caught without registration, the
inconvenience is relatively minor (when compared to a
daily-driver not being registered)
DIR <- back to front page