DougWantsALeaf wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:45 pm
That's what bugs me. Bolt drivers don't try to take down Leaf drivers, and vice versa.
Bolt drivers, and perhaps Leaf drivers, can get defensive and (I would say) in some cases irrational, particularly in a "versus Tesla" discussion. Sometimes it will boil down to their insistence that their personal preference (sure, they're your preferences, like what you like) should be taken, ipso facto, as
- representative of an undefined but major portion of the market, Might a major portion of the present or future market run in parallel to your personal preferences? Maybe. Is it that way because you emotionally feel it or want it or think that efficiency thinking trumps a lot of things? Nope.
- and that there are no real objective differences between the value of vehicles, it's all (in effect) personal preference (nope).
One point of frustration for me with Bolt drivers is that I see some of them absolutely loving their BEVs, but perhaps not realizing that some of them were more or less going to fall in love with any decent similar vehicle, but the market is so starved for competition in this area that some of them have exaggerated the values of the vehicle, IMO. Of course, yes, some of them see the vehicle accurately and love it and that's great.
There's a broader issue here for me that I can relate to the long-term-discussion story arc and to 62 kWh batteries:
I can't remember for sure if it's discussed in the documentary "Who KIlled The Electric Car?" but there was thinking, which I think played a role in some of Nissan's early decision-making, that the average commute is only so far, and so if you build a BEV to go x amount past that distance, then it should be good to fit y percent of the needs of z percent of the population. I don't remember how it might be framed to look at the early thinking around the Volt PHEV, but perhaps they were to some extent responding to this. I think Tesla's early BEV thinking was different - going after a much more expensive, elitist, lower-volume, longer-range, more-durable (spending money up-front to try to provide for longer battery life) and faster and more exciting (to some) portion of the market.
My point in the here-and-now is that Tesla was in some ways right to take the approach they took, and, whether one agrees or not (or to whatever extent one agrees) that we should be more willing to discuss this calmly, and mull it over, and learn what we can from the discussion. In what way do I think they were "right"? I think I mean this not only in a sense of defining their own competency and finding a profitable niche in a large $2 Trillion (at the time) global vehicle market, but also in terms of a long-term vision for how many BEV producers can find a business-sustainable way to disrupt the established hydrocarbon-burner vehicle market.
My own over-simplified point on this discussion overall is that I see manufacturers, back in 2010, and even now, pursuing the sub-compact and compact segments in the US market with $40k BEVs, whereas I think BEV sales volumes would be much higher and better if manufacturers would pursue other larger interior volume segments, and by-and-large with more luxury. Just because BEV helps with the environment doesn't mean that BEVs have to be designed and produced and sold as low-margin and/or geeky-looking and/or painfully-practical family "econocars". On the contrary, I think once the BEV powertrain is in place and performing well, it frees up car production, sales, ownership and operation to leaving behind much (but perhaps not all) of the econocar thinking and just kind of "getting on with it" as to the other considerations we all have when looking at vehicles.