Toyota to make some EV's. Why are they so ass-ugly?

[JSH]

The EU has come up with a pretty good formula to reduce emissions (both CO2 and local) and encourage EV sales:

[Isaac Zachary]

So the reason why Toyota EV's are ugly is because you should buy a Volkswagen if you want an EV?

Anyhow, good news. It looks like we're going to be able to stay in our current place from here on out that previously had a 40A 240V EVSE. The wires are still there, so it could easily be converted back if we ever get an EV again.

The problem will be the hundreds of miles to anywhere over several steep, sometimes snowy mountain passes. I'll have to look again, but there don't seem to be any quick charging stations for over 200 miles, maybe 300, on the way to the in-laws' for the first part of the 600 mile trip.

But if we made a 24kWh Nissan Leaf work before then I'm sure we can make another EV work. I just have to figure out how to pack the kids into the back of an Aptera.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

So the reason why Toyota EV's are ugly is because you should buy a Volkswagen if you want an EV?
.

Toyota's EVs aren't ugly. Well except for the stupid black fenders but it looks like those could be painted. At least they aren't rough molded in grey plastic fenders.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

Toyota's EVs aren't ugly. Well except for the stupid black fenders but it looks like those could be painted. At least they aren't rough molded in grey plastic fenders.

True. They're ok looking. I don't see much difference between them and a gas powered vehicle.

I know it's a personal preference, but I'd like to see a design that stands out as EV. The 1 Gen Leaf does. So does the Aptera, IMO. And a CUV seems the furthest from EV as it can get. I know, that's just my opinion.

One thing that I don't like in current trends are the neutral colors, black, white and grey. Give me yellow, red, blue or green. I'd even take purple or brown over grey.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by JSH

Wisconsin adding a $100 fee to register an EV doesn't make used EVs obsolete. A 2012 Nissan Leaf still plugs into a Level 2 charger and charges



Nissan's original battery is warrantied for 8 years / 100K miles. The replacement is also warrantied for 8 years / 100K miles. So the question is: Will someone pay $1125 a year to keep driving their Leaf? Batteries are basically like prebuying fuel.

Why would I pay the extra $665 tax+title on a $2000 car that can drive 35 miles and is only as useful as a moped that pays $25 annually in taxes?
Especially when an actually useful 400 mile range BEV pays the same taxes?

If the insurance and registration were VERY LOW I certainly could make use of older EV as a second car

But if I’m paying that much extra plus the annual $100 extra Plus the higher insurance I could never justify a second car like a leaf and would need a single full fledged full range EV and no other vehicle to make the TCO to even come close to making sense but then the up front costs are sky high.

There just is zero use case for a limited range BEV because the cost of entry for minimal utility is far too high.

If the taxes matched the age, value, range and utility of an older BEV people could make them work for in town driving, there just is no legal way to get the taxes out of the equation to make them work from a financial standpoint, the cost per mile is way too high.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Why would I pay the extra $665 tax+title on a $2000 car that can drive 35 miles and is only as useful as a moped that pays $25 annually in taxes? Especially when an actually useful 400 mile range BEV pays the same taxes?

Your complaint is pretty much only relevant to early Leafs with crappy batteries. There is a limited number of them and they will exit the vehicle pool in due time. There are plenty of other EVs out there that are getting cheaper by the day.

$665 a year is $55 a month. There are plenty of people paying $50 a week for gas to commute back and forth to work. Some of them might want a cheap commuter.

BTW, what is the break-down of that $665? The Wisconsin DMV says a plate is $85 and EVs have a $100 surcharge.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

What is the efficiency requirements for EV's. Does it matter? The least efficient EV for sale in the USA get the equivalent of 70 mpg. Do you think we need to start regulating EV efficiency at this point?

You're missing the point of why I mention such an absurd notion; that the government already implements massive carrots to purchase EVs and massive sticks to dissuade ICE sales.

The proper way to frame my assertion that EVs are massively subsidized and ICE is penalized isn't to see what Norway is doing and compare that to us, but to imagine what things would be like if we reversed them.

Imagine ICE vehicles receive a $7,500-$10,000 tax subsidy, but EVs do not.

Imagine EVs must meet certain miles per kWh requirements or face penalties, but ICE vehicles don't have such requirements.

Imagine you had to pay for a yearly inspection to make sure battery fluid wasn't leaking, but ICE vehicles had no inspection requirements.

Imagine if electricity to charge the EV had an extra 20% tax on it to fund infrastructure.

Have I made a convincing argument yet? Is there any disagreement except some people just don't feel like the truth is the truth (or we can quibble about the term "massive)?

I don't point all this out because I'm anti-EV, because I am among the most enthusiastic about them. I'm just against retarded ideas.

Why do people arguing against tax credits always go to the extreme case?

Tax credits are extremely dumb, so perhaps an extreme aversion to extremely bad ideas is the only reasonable position.

The USA still has a pretty broad middle class that owns their own home and buys new cars. They could charge at home if they had an EV. However, they don't have the budget to spend $5,000 to $10,000 more on a car to get an EV. These are the people that incentives can be the deciding factor. However, middle class people don't get the full EV tax credit. A family of 3 making $70K a year would only get $3029 for the Federal EV tax credit. They would need to make $107K a year to get the full $7500.

My helicopter budget is a bit insufficient too. Perhaps a tax credit for people exactly in my position could be created to help push us over into a purchase. Making the tax credit refundable would help even more if I didn't have sufficient tax liability (not paying my fair share).

Where is the logic that a family making $70K a year should get a smaller EV tax credit than a family making $107K a year?

Where is the logic that anyone capable of fronting the money in the first place should pay less of their share of taxes that society has deemed is necessary for governmental operations? What is the logic in the government choosing which technologies to support, and which to harm to address a problem so complex that nobody could ever understand it sufficiently well enough to prescribe any particular remedy?

Why quote the extreme case instead of the average case?

CA consumes more gasoline than any other state, and there are probably more people that visit this site from CA than any other state. It's also a good proxy for the whole US. The national average price now is $2.89. The average federal/state tax is $0.50, or about 17% of the fuel is taxes. The tax rate is higher when prices are lower as was the case a few months ago, and the rate is lower when fuel prices are high.

If we are talking federal incentives the Federal gas tax is 18 cents a gallon and hasn't changed since 1993. Paying 18 cents a gallon in fuel taxes isn't going to make someone decided they need to go out a buy an EV.

Your statement seems to suggest the conflicting ideas that it's a problem that the federal tax rate hasn't changed in a long time, and that changing the tax would have little impact on consumer behavior. As I'm constantly saying, the most reasonable way to change fossil fuel consumption is to change the tax rate. Any other proposal is less efficient, less effective, and less ethical.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by JSH

Your complaint is pretty much only relevant to early Leafs with crappy batteries. There is a limited number of them and they will exit the vehicle pool in due time. There are plenty of other EVs out there that are getting cheaper by the day.

$665 a year is $55 a month. There are plenty of people paying $50 a week for gas to commute back and forth to work. Some of them might want a cheap commuter.

BTW, what is the break-down of that $665? The Wisconsin DMV says a plate is $85 and EVs have a $100 surcharge.

This illustrates an artificial incentive/disincentive. People are quick to justify or reject a decision from looking at only one tiny aspect of the whole picture. If you take road taxes out of the fuel and charge them some other way, that suddenly becomes the big reason why the vehicle "is so expensive." On the other hand, you tell people that EV's are 3 times more efficient than ICEV's and suddenly they think they're saving so much money on them because they get 100MPGe. The same thing with range. "After going 200 miles I have to charge for hours" turns people away because they think they drive trips of 200 miles all the time, when they probably only do something like that once or twice a year.

But what's the overall cost? How would the advantages and disadvantages actually affect you? That's what is needed to know if it's a good choice or not. But it's hard to see the whole picture and avoid little things here and there.

As another example, it looks like people might not buy these Toyota EV's simply based on "they don't like the headlights."

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As I'm constantly saying, the most reasonable way to change fossil fuel consumption is to change the tax rate. Any other proposal is less efficient, less effective, and less ethical.

Yes, you are consistently saying we should just raise the gas tax (You are also constantly saying we shouldn't have a gas tax and should fund roads through income taxes)

The problem with a gas tax is that it is regressive. The people most effected by the gas tax are the poor. It is not ethical to punish the poor because you want the wealthy to change their buying behavior.

If you raise the gas tax to a level that would get upper and middle classes to buy an new EV because it was cheaper than a gas car you would price people in lower income brackets out of driving altogether. Most of the USA doesn't have public transportation so suddenly low income people can't go to work. If you want the poor to still be able to go to work and provide those services we like then you would have to give them money so they could buy gas. Suddenly the simple solution isn't simple anymore. If you think raising the gas tax is unpopular try pairing it with universal basic income.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

Yes, you are consistently saying we should just raise the gas tax (You are also constantly saying we shouldn't have a gas tax and should fund roads through income taxes)

My consistently saying that to reduce consumption of something, the appropriate measure is to increase taxation on it. Infrastructure funding is a separate topic, and it isn't reasonable to fund it via gasoline tax when gasoline consumption is variable, yet infrastructure is crucial. Infrastructure needs to come from the general fund like everything else we consider to be a crucial government function.

The problem with a gas tax is that it is regressive.

Regressive means treating people disproportionately such that the wealthy stand to profit more or lose less than the unwealthy. An example of this is tax subsidies for wealthy people to purchase new EVs.

An example of a flat tax is 17 cents per gallon of gasoline. It's agnostic to the wealth of who is purchasing the product because the proportion of tax remains the same if you purchase a gallon, or 50,000.

The people most effected by the gas tax are the poor. It is not ethical to punish the poor because you want the wealthy to change their buying behavior.

Those with less means are always at a disadvantage. It's practically the same definition. Taxation isn't punishment to anyone, but a requirement of funding government functions society deems necessary. The use of the word "punishment" is inappropriate because no definition fits what is happening.

If you raise the gas tax to a level that would get upper and middle classes to buy an new EV because it was cheaper than a gas car you would price people in lower income brackets out of driving altogether.

You're underestimating the ingenuity of humans to solve problems. Driving a fuel inefficient car isn't the only way to get from point A to point B. Creating the disincentive to consume fossil fuels maximizes ingenuity to solve the problem, whereas prescribing the solution minimizes it. Poor people aren't incapable of adaptive creativity.

Most of the USA doesn't have public transportation so suddenly low income people can't go to work. If you want the poor to still be able to go to work and provide those services we like then you would have to give them money so they could buy gas. Suddenly the simple solution isn't simple anymore. If you think raising the gas tax is unpopular try pairing it with universal basic income.

Most of the poor in the US do have access to public transportation because most of the poor live in cities and surrounding suburbs.

Though it's generally not a good idea to give anything to those with no skin in the game, I'm undecided about UBI. We're already taking money from those with greater means (and from future generations) and distributing to those with fewer in thousands of different ways. Perhaps consolidating some of those thousands of ways into a simpler plan would be more efficient.

If (and I'm not affirming this conclusion) CO2 emissions are necessary to reduce, it has to be across the board. The "poor people" exception isn't going to cut it. It's like saying poor people don't need to obey traffic laws because we need to maximize their ability to get to their destination to earn at the peril of everyone else.