Prime or Tesla 3

when you only have one vehicle, it's easy to be close to your customers and enthusiasts. when you have 25 different models, everyone is a potential customer. that makes it a bit more difficult.

 

No question. That doesn't change the fact though.
I do hope Tesla can maintain that connectedness as they grow. It will be a challenge.

 

let's analyze this last sentence some more. what do you feel has changed?
toyota never promised or said they would make an electric vehicle. from most reports, gen 4 is a huge improvement over gen 3, even though it may not suit your taste or needs.
prime is a compromise, but not on the market yet, so we can't totally analyze.
it sounds to me like you are the one who's changed, not toyota. and i think that has happened to a lot of hybrid drivers.
but other non hybrid drivers will continue to move to hybrids, especially when gas goes back up. so, with more and more options on the table, i think it's all good.

 

Looks like the Dems are opposed to the "green" sticker HOV access proposal for the some of the same reasons I am; it's a regressive benefit that only the wealthy are able to take advantage of.

If the goal is to reduce certain emissions, then the solution is to set laws that limit those emissions. Providing subsidies that only wealthy people can take advantage of is shameful.

 

CA does $$double Plug-in incentives for lower incomes...not sure how many take advantage.
But you are looking at it from moral perspective. Bottom line need green HOV stickers or the plug-in movement suffers set-back, I don't think that's gonna happen. Am I wrong?

Really need to look at plug-ins as a new American business venture that CA, Congress, Autos are trying to make happen to create jobs. It's not emisssions really, it's just like ethanol E10 in my mind.

 

"The Dems" opposing further "green" sticker HOV access were "business-aligned":

I don't usually think of "business-aligned" politicians as caring much about the interests of the less affluent. I usually default to assuming they care more about the interests of the oil industry.

Having said that, I am dubious about the rules that allow drivers to directly buy their way into HOV lanes by paying additional tolls. And, I think the federal plugin battery subsidies should be direct and immediate subsidies at the point of sale rather than tax credits that cannot be rolled over into future years that can only be fully taken advantage of by people who pay large taxes on their large incomes and captital gains.

The federal battery subsidies for plugin cars are inherently aimed at new car sales which implies some level of financial ability but it does not necessarily imply unusual wealth (aside from the tax credit issues described above). Between the federal subsidy and the CA state rebate someone can but a new Nissan LEAF for about $19,000 MSRP before dealer incentives and discounts. A Chevrolet Spark EV with an 82-mile range can be had for about $15,000 after subsidies and before dealer discounts.

 

otoh, there are subsidies that only benefit low income, and this is not really about benefitting higher income, but about cleaner air. i have no problem with just setting air quality standards higher, but the political will doesn't seem to be there.

 

Of course I'm looking at it from a moral perspective. Any other perspective, by definition, is immoral. If any policy is put in place, it first has to be moral. It also needs to be rational, and effective at meeting the objective. The value of the benefit must exceed the cost.

Why is plug-in setbacks necessarily bad? Half of the people buying them are not plugging in, and I wouldn't either. With CA electricity absurdly high, it's cheaper just to burn the fuel. So then, the environment is further impacted by mining the minerals needed to make the batteries, which aren't being used, and then extra gasoline is being burned to lug the heavier car around.

Plug-in cars should only be purchased by those who want it for the ability to run on electricity and have a means to charge it. Any incentive that encourages people won don't want that is corrupt, illogical, and fails to meet the objective of reducing environmental impact and resource consumption.

... and "job creation" isn't what government is for. The government is very good at enforcing laws to protect individual rights and protect the commons, but very bad at creating jobs that improve the overall economy.

This isn't about cleaner air, but about politicians being the slimy scum that they are; playing on the emotions of their uninformed and impulsive citizens to secure votes while lying in bed with lobbyists.

The political will isn't there because cleaner air isn't an agenda lobbyists are interested in.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh on politicians, as I'm sure many of them have good intentions; it's just that they have let their guard down and compromised their character without even knowing it.

The article states the reason why the "business-aligned" politicians were opposed to green stickers; it's a benefit not accessible to lower income people. What would be the business reason for opposing the stickers? Why should I doubt the reason given by the Dems?

Why? It's extra revenue for the community, which can be enjoyed by all people, while being funded only by the wealthy. It's practically perfect in that it's an elective tax on the wealthy for the benefit of all. The rich don't have to be mad because they don't have to pay if they don't want to, and the poor don't have to be mad because they will be the beneficiary to the extra revenue (unless the funds are used to create subsidies for new vehicle purchases).

I haven't decided if there should even be a subsidy, but the one we have should just go directly to the manufacturer for each vehicle sold, with the savings being reflected directly in the purchase price of the vehicle. The car should just cost less from the beginning rather than relying on the consumers ability to pay a higher initial amount, with promise of a rebate later on.

$15,000 is not cheap. Lower income folks are not able to spend that much on a new vehicle. Heck, I live an extremely comfortable lifestyle on a $40k income and still don't spend that much on vehicles. I assume most people buying new cars either have higher incomes than I do, or have dual incomes to rely on.

 

there maybe at times good intentions, but there's almost always compromise.

 

are you talking about the Volt or the Tesla? last time I checked, Toyota has ZERO plans on building the prime, or any plug-in here in the United States. Even the Chevy Volt has much of its components Outsource, and all of its batteries.
.

 

Your screed obviously does not apply to BEVs which must be plugged in to go anywhere....

So, you are making statements about PHEV plugins. Very few Volt owners fail to plugin, according to automatically gathered OnStar statistics and anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you are only referring to the old Prius Plugin?

Where is the evidence that only half the cars are being plugged in? And which evil corporate lobbyists have been conspiring with non-"business-aligned" democrats to pass PHEV subsidies? Is this all the evil machinations of Big Battery?

 

GM is transitioning from Mexico-built to US-built engines any month now for the Volt. The battery cells and pack, motors, and power electronics are all manufactured in the US now. Once the change to US engines is complete it should have one the highest US parts and assembly content of any car on the dealer lot (probably upwards of 65%).

 

Volt (and/or Prime). I am mainly saying I'd be surprised if CA does not extent green HOV stickers. I agree totally that Toyota may be not totally aligned with USA policy, which tends to favor plug-ins over Toyota's hybrids.

...but Congress writes the rules that we play by...I once had a brief chance to work with a Congress staffer who was drafting some regs. They are all about setting up conditions for new businesses to develop without competition from bigger established companies etc.

 

The "Dems" who opposed the green stickers were identified as "business-aligned". They were a small group of Democrats who voted with most of the Republicans. The large majority of the assembly democrats supported extending the green HOV stickers.

You refer to legislators as "slimy scum" but suddenly you believe business-aligned legislators when they say they oppose green HOV stickers out of their concern for the less affluent? Really?

Basically, richer people are buying access to lanes on public highways that others cannot use on the same (non-monetary) terms. I tend to think that public roads should be public and equally accessible to everyone on the same terms. Why should the less affluent be limited to only using the stop-and-go lanes while the wealthier zip by at full speed?

HOV lanes encourage ride sharing which probably favors the less-affluent, if anything. Plugin HOV stickers are a subsidy that indirectly favors those who are wealthy enough to buy a plugin vehicle (generally new but possibly used) but such cars are inherently more expensive to purchase (possibly less expensive to operate) and that's just an inherent property of their advanced technology. The purpose of the subsidies is to make their cost more affordable and help bootstrap higher volume thus lowering their future cost and helping sustain R&D spending for future cars.

I think we generally agree here.

These are new technology cars and they are inherently not the cheapest cars even after subsidies. I don't think $15,000 is an unreasonable price given the full circumstances.

The alternative is no subsidies and passively standing by while the climate spins out of control. Bad idea. Plugin HOV stickers are just one of several schemes for helping to pull forward the date at which nearly all of our ground transportation can be free of fossil fuels.

 

Yes, really. I can't think of other reasons to oppose it that would benefit business, although it's very possible my lack of imagination is overlooking something.

If you have another theory why the business-minded Dems would oppose it, I'd like to hear.

That's true of most things. People who can afford to ride the bus zip around, chauffeured in a wifi connected vehicle, sheltered from the elements compared to those who cannot afford it and have to walk. Those who have the money to pay entrance fees to enter state and federal parks gain access to a natural place that those who do not have enough money are denied.

In a mostly free market economy, those with the means have access to opportunities others do not. They must still pay to take advantage of those opportunities, which increases economic output.

Green stickers for certain vehicles is essentially like paying a 1 time fee to single occupy HOV lanes, except the government doesn't collect much from the purchase. Assessing a fee to utilize the lanes creates a continual revenue stream for the government and properly allocates the cost of using the lane based on use. Lower income people still have free access to the lane by having multiple occupants in their vehicle.

Probably so. I would ride share if my hours were shared by anyone else in the company simply because I like people, and I also like the option to have others drive to increase my productivity. I could be responding to emails passenger (or checking Prius Chat). Ride-sharing should have aspects that appeal to anyone.

While I still don't have a strong opinion about plug-in subsidies, the best way to encourage sales is to directly pay a portion of the purchase cost. The larger the subsidy offered, the more of those vehicles will be sold.

Agreed. Eventually BEVs will be the economy option and ICE / hybrids will be the expensive option.

That assumes there is only 1 way to address climate change. Perhaps resources are better spent in other ways to mitigate climate change. There might even be more pressing concerns that negatively impact humanity that deserve a higher portion of our time and resources (war, disease, violence, hunger...)

 

Here, here!

 

Th "dems" favor free healthcare, education, telephones, housing ........ why not a car?

 

Hope to gawd you never want to help pay for a kid or 2, going to school where tuition costs $40k/yr.
There are several cities (for example in NY & CA) where $40k is needed, just to meet 6mo of pre tax mortgage payments - but then you'd still have to pay property tax/another $1k/mo .... and since the lion's share of high pay jobs are there - well - supply & demand. But yea - you can live comfortably some places ... & i hope to do it too some day ...
.

 

guadalajara