Ford Could Get 50% More Profit Without EVs

[got3fords]

https://archive.is/dsItM#selection-5651.0-5651.42

Sponsored

 

[underwhelmed]

Not about profits. It’s about an agenda…

 

[Colo_Ranger]

Not about profits. It’s about an agenda…

Agreed. Given governments dictation of eliminating ICE vehicles by 2050, Ford (and all others) have no choice but to move in that direction. Any time the government gets involved, profits suffer. My opinion is that Ford (and other manufacturers) would have a small EV footprint but keep ICE in production. Then they could capitalize on both markets, but the government is forcing them to take on unprofitable changes.

As a side note, when the government makes a mandate, they stifle innovation. I would love to see hydrogen powered vehicles. Chevy had a prototype Colorado some time ago and it was sweet, but the government is mandating electric.

If we move outside automobiles for a moment, we can take into account the EU dictating that all electronic devices use USB-C for charging. This stifles the innovation. Apple moved from the 30-pin connector to the lightning cable ~10 years ago. While the lightning cable is antiquated now, and type-C is better, when the lightning connector was released it was leaps and bounds above anything else out. Instead of letting Apple innovate the next 'game changing' connector, they are limited to using the type-C port. No company will be able to advance the technology of cables because type-C is required by government. Maybe type-C is better now, but who is to say that another system won't surpass the type-C connection? Will any company invest in a new cable type? No, because they won't be able to sell it, since the EU requires type-C.

Back to automotive: is there something better than EV? Maybe, but will manufacturers invest in a new technology when the government says all vehicles have to be EV? I doubt it.

I don't believe in electric vehicles, at least how they are now. They don't fit my needs. I don't like the time it takes to charge them. I have a buddy who drove from California to Colorado in his Tesla Model Y. I've done that drive in a day. It took him 3 days because of all the stops to charge. For around town drivers, they may be fine, but I take longer trips all the time and would not be able to take those trips with the extended charge times. I know charge times are improving, but they aren't on par with filling up a gas tank.

Right now, charging stations are free, but I have started seeing stations charge for EV charging. My buddy with the Model Y's biggest 'selling point' is the free charging and he gets really upset when I tell him its only free until they can charge for it. When all new vehicles are EV, there will be no free charging stations. His response was 'we don't talk about that'.

That was a very long winded way of saying, the government is forcing companies to invest in a technology that, at this time, makes them lose money.

 

[Colo_Ranger]

Hydrogen powered Chevy Colorado

 

[dtech]

Yeah you're right, all gov imposed standards are counter productive and humanity would benefit greatly by abolishing them: traffic management, we should drive on any side of the road, go on red, electrical fixtures and voltages, clocks and calendars, fuel standards, rr track gauges, broadcast standards, weights and measurements, metal strength and construction standards, food and water purity standards, aviation, just to name a few. Oh yeah and companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, general dynamics to name a few are all floundering because of gov contracts. There is a gov entity called NIST in Boulder that works to develop standards and they don't work in isolation, in fact they work closely with commercial concerns. I don't know the specifics of the USB class c legislation but I highly doubt that it bars future innovation. Now there are winners and losers as it pertains to selecting standards but on the whole I would argue that have greatly benefited humanity and many adopted standards have historically been driven by governments. EVs are a different matter and certainly controversial, but there seems to be a general consensus that hydrogen powered vehicles are currently less practical for replacing the ice. Companies like Ford, GM, US Steel and assorted brick and mortar firms long ago saw their valuations drop relative to the Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook , Apple, to name a few , I personally am skeptical that this was all owing to gov regulations. Agriculture, especially corn growers and energy companies have long benefited by favorable gov policies.

 

[Colo_Ranger]

Yeah you're right, all gov imposed standards are counter productive and humanity would benefit greatly by abolishing them: traffic management, we should drive on any side of the road, go on red, electrical fixtures and voltages, clocks and calendars, fuel standards, rr track gauges, broadcast standards, weights and measurements, metal strength and construction standards, food and water purity standards, aviation, just to name a few. Oh yeah and companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, general dynamics to name a few are all floundering because of gov contracts. There is a gov entity called NIST in Boulder that works to develop standards and they don't work in isolation, in fact they work closely with commercial concerns. I don't know the specifics of the USB class c legislation but I highly doubt that it bars future innovation. Now there are winners and losers as it pertains to selecting standards but on the whole I would argue that have greatly benefited humanity and many adopted standards have historically been driven by governments. EVs are a different matter and certainly controversial, but there seems to be a general consensus that hydrogen powered vehicles are currently less practical for replacing the ice. Companies like Ford, GM, US Steel and assorted brick and mortar firms long ago saw their valuations drop relative to the Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook , Apple, to name a few , I personally am skeptical that this was all owing to gov regulations. Agriculture, especially corn growers and energy companies have long benefited by favorable gov policies.

I'm an advocate of small government, not everything government does is bad, but they have a tendency to operate in 'this is the only way' policies. They can make directives for better emissions, without dictating the method used. Saying all vehicles have to be EV means no one will spend time or energy developing a new, possibly better, technology.

 

[got3fords]

There is a difference between standards and forcing you buy something you don't want or need. Classic example, ethanol in fuel.

 

[dtech]

I'm an advocate of small government, not everything government does is bad, but they have a tendency to operate in 'this is the only way' policies. They can make directives for better emissions, without dictating the method used. Saying all vehicles have to be EV means no one will spend time or energy developing a new, possibly better, technology.

BTW - the US has/is funding hydrogen fuel development , $7B in the recent energy act . The purpose of my response wasn't to defend gov policies or spending, as it's bureaucratic morass where elected officials and would be elected officials have for decades pledged to "drain the swamp" but the swamp proliferates.
As to Ford being more profitable if they weren't "forced" to make EVs - some of their choices are questionable like the F150 Lightning , EVs certainly have their limits/drawbacks and to me the larger the EV the more obvious the warts. Both Ford and GM make claims that they can make something better than Tesla but thus far they have failed to deliver.
I live over on the Western slope where most people are at odds with numerous state policies but having lived in Denver for 30 yrs the air quality there wasn't the best for my respiratory system, (ozone levels frequently elevated) I can't imagine how bad it would be if there were no emissions standards or if unleaded gas was still allowed.

 

[chasbo]

 

[Jason B]

Agreed. Given governments dictation of eliminating ICE vehicles by 2050, Ford (and all others) have no choice but to move in that direction. Any time the government gets involved, profits suffer. My opinion is that Ford (and other manufacturers) would have a small EV footprint but keep ICE in production. Then they could capitalize on both markets, but the government is forcing them to take on unprofitable changes.

As a side note, when the government makes a mandate, they stifle innovation. I would love to see hydrogen powered vehicles. Chevy had a prototype Colorado some time ago and it was sweet, but the government is mandating electric.

If we move outside automobiles for a moment, we can take into account the EU dictating that all electronic devices use USB-C for charging. This stifles the innovation. Apple moved from the 30-pin connector to the lightning cable ~10 years ago. While the lightning cable is antiquated now, and type-C is better, when the lightning connector was released it was leaps and bounds above anything else out. Instead of letting Apple innovate the next 'game changing' connector, they are limited to using the type-C port. No company will be able to advance the technology of cables because type-C is required by government. Maybe type-C is better now, but who is to say that another system won't surpass the type-C connection? Will any company invest in a new cable type? No, because they won't be able to sell it, since the EU requires type-C.

Back to automotive: is there something better than EV? Maybe, but will manufacturers invest in a new technology when the government says all vehicles have to be EV? I doubt it.

I don't believe in electric vehicles, at least how they are now. They don't fit my needs. I don't like the time it takes to charge them. I have a buddy who drove from California to Colorado in his Tesla Model Y. I've done that drive in a day. It took him 3 days because of all the stops to charge. For around town drivers, they may be fine, but I take longer trips all the time and would not be able to take those trips with the extended charge times. I know charge times are improving, but they aren't on par with filling up a gas tank.

Right now, charging stations are free, but I have started seeing stations charge for EV charging. My buddy with the Model Y's biggest 'selling point' is the free charging and he gets really upset when I tell him its only free until they can charge for it. When all new vehicles are EV, there will be no free charging stations. His response was 'we don't talk about that'.

That was a very long winded way of saying, the government is forcing companies to invest in a technology that, at this time, makes them lose money.

Apple is probably a poor example of innovation. They come out with something 'new' for iPhone, that was available on Android for years. Apple innovating a new cable standard that works only for Apple is to maximize profits by selling an 'Apple approved' cable at $50, instead of the $15 it should cost. AND, not including the $50 cable with the phone to 'save packaging' when bought separately has 3 times the waste as it would have if it came with the phone. That's why EU mandated USB-C there.

 

[Rocketeer61]

Agreed. Given governments dictation of eliminating ICE vehicles by 2050, Ford (and all others) have no choice but to move in that direction. Any time the government gets involved, profits suffer. My opinion is that Ford (and other manufacturers) would have a small EV footprint but keep ICE in production. Then they could capitalize on both markets, but the government is forcing them to take on unprofitable changes.

As a side note, when the government makes a mandate, they stifle innovation. I would love to see hydrogen powered vehicles. Chevy had a prototype Colorado some time ago and it was sweet, but the government is mandating electric.

If we move outside automobiles for a moment, we can take into account the EU dictating that all electronic devices use USB-C for charging. This stifles the innovation. Apple moved from the 30-pin connector to the lightning cable ~10 years ago. While the lightning cable is antiquated now, and type-C is better, when the lightning connector was released it was leaps and bounds above anything else out. Instead of letting Apple innovate the next 'game changing' connector, they are limited to using the type-C port. No company will be able to advance the technology of cables because type-C is required by government. Maybe type-C is better now, but who is to say that another system won't surpass the type-C connection? Will any company invest in a new cable type? No, because they won't be able to sell it, since the EU requires type-C.

Back to automotive: is there something better than EV? Maybe, but will manufacturers invest in a new technology when the government says all vehicles have to be EV? I doubt it.

I don't believe in electric vehicles, at least how they are now. They don't fit my needs. I don't like the time it takes to charge them. I have a buddy who drove from California to Colorado in his Tesla Model Y. I've done that drive in a day. It took him 3 days because of all the stops to charge. For around town drivers, they may be fine, but I take longer trips all the time and would not be able to take those trips with the extended charge times. I know charge times are improving, but they aren't on par with filling up a gas tank.

Right now, charging stations are free, but I have started seeing stations charge for EV charging. My buddy with the Model Y's biggest 'selling point' is the free charging and he gets really upset when I tell him its only free until they can charge for it. When all new vehicles are EV, there will be no free charging stations. His response was 'we don't talk about that'.

That was a very long winded way of saying, the government is forcing companies to invest in a technology that, at this time, makes them lose money.

"Right now, charging stations are free, but I have started seeing stations charge for EV charging. My buddy with the Model Y's biggest 'selling point' is the free charging and he gets really upset when I tell him its only free until they can charge for it. When all new vehicles are EV, there will be no free charging stations. His response was 'we don't talk about that'."

People my age have seen this before. Anyone remember when diesel was garbage gas and cheaper than regular?

 

[Capt Jon]

I don't believe this is actually about electric vehicles. Like everytihing else they are doing recently it is about control. Control your ability to move around as you wish. Flip a switch and your ev is useless. Besides that owners are finding they are not really what they seem. Useless on long trips, worthless in cold weather. They are scared of water around them. Can't safely park them in your garage. Because when they go up in smoke they are difficult to extinguish and they will take your house with them. What about people like me that don't have access to a charger, I live in a marina. I'd just enjoy driving the nearest charging point and sitting for hours while it charges. Not for me, ever.

 

[Colo_Ranger]

Apple is probably a poor example of innovation. They come out with something 'new' for iPhone, that was available on Android for years. Apple innovating a new cable standard that works only for Apple is to maximize profits by selling an 'Apple approved' cable at $50, instead of the $15 it should cost. AND, not including the $50 cable with the phone to 'save packaging' when bought separately has 3 times the waste as it would have if it came with the phone. That's why EU mandated USB-C there.

Apple included the cable, but not the wall wart. Governments say they want to decrease waste and Apple started not including the wall wart as most people already have one, then Samsung copied them, then the government said wall warts had to be included. All phone manufacturers have their 'approved' cables for more expensive. You can use cheaper cables with iPhones, they just don't carry the certification. Apple may not always have the first of something, but they arguably do it better. It took Google many years to perfect their 'ecosystem' while Apple's has been incredible since the beginning. This isn't an Apple/Android thread though, so... I will stop there.

 

[Joejk3d]

Not about profits. It’s about an agenda…

It's about survival... if Ford sits on its hands and doesn't lead or try to lead in this field, Toyota, Hyundia, Kia, Chevy, Tesla, etc... are going to eat their lunch.

You may not like EVs but... they are the way forward for a VAST amount of the transportation market. Yes Gas/Diesel will remain relevant in many areas, but most people in their mundane commutes and such - EVs are the answer in time.

Now with that said, its only the case because of the US's fetish with cars vs functional mass transit, rail like most other developed countries. We ripped out easy access to getting around cities via trams, rail, busses and instead went fully car focused...

 

[Grandaccess]

It will be 100+ years before they can aim an EV at the truck market?
I dont see an EV working for me for a long long time (I will be dead first)
They can only Force the issue on us because they are garbage right now, its what they want for you Own nothing, drive an EV and eat Bugs ...
F*** "Them"

Sponsored