Sandy Munro gives a presentation on who will survive in the auto world

CyberGus

Well-known member
First Name
Gus
Joined
May 22, 2021
Threads
67
Messages
5,807
Reaction score
19,080
Location
Austin, TX
Website
www.timeanddate.com
Vehicles
1981 DeLorean, 2024 Cybertruck
Occupation
IT Specialist
Country flag
To me, there is one even larger part of the puzzle you didn’t mention. The dealer networks!
Agreed that the dealers have little value-add, and are wary of EVs for the reasons you cite. I don't think they'll ever disappear but I'm envisioning a pullback and consolidation over the next decade.

Given how I've been treated at some dealerships, I won't miss them.
 

FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Threads
207
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
6,012
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Financial Advisor
Country flag
It seems that in this conversation the scope is being limited to one side. I do agree in principle with Crissa on the point that a quick shift to EVs is potentially going to cause a lot of pain and loss of skilled workers. It will not be pretty.

But what of the alternatives. We CAN slow down (big oil would love this) and smooth out the curve. What consequences would this bring? I'd argue that the effects of climate change are also going to end up causing pain and loss of jobs (just maybe not the same ones).

Which scenario is worse? I'm not going to say one or the other. But I think it's wise to at least be honest about what the alternatives are. Elon is pushing as hard as he is because he sees the climate change issue as critical to mankind's survival. Quickly followed by becoming multi-planetary. EVs are the fulcrum with which he intends to move humanity into a safer relationship with climate change. The faster we do it the less the climate needs to be mitigated and the more pain we avoid.

But yes, it looks like the cost will partially be the utter failure of big auto in the United States. Not a happy side effect. But also not Elon's problem to solve. Big auto had the data and time to have solved this issue WAAAAAAY earlier. That they are just now getting to a half measure of action is their own fault. And really on a larger scale, it is the fault of all us citizens that did not push hard enough to force the issue way earlier. I am They. We are all part of the They that didn't do enough yet.
 
OP
OP

firsttruck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Threads
172
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
4,036
Location
mx
Vehicles
none
Country flag
Just like for climate change, in the past there was time for a smooth transition. But that time is gone.

The battery tech to make EVs viable was available in the late 1990s with NiMH used in later GM EV1s. A Canadian scientist created the large format NiHM and GM bought the patent. After GM was able to kill requirement for EVs in California, GM refused to license the large format NiMH battery tech to any automakers. Shortly after that GM sold the patents to Exxon. Not hard to guess what Exxon was going to do (bury them).

Lack of large format batteries was the reason Elon & Tesla had to resort ridiculous engineering task to linking several thousand cells together for a pack.

If the legacy auto OEMs had seriously started the transition 23 years ago there could have be a slow continuous reduction of number of workers in the industry. But in the reality of our capitalistic system that could never happen. Executive pay and immediate shareholder value can never be allowed to decrease even of that is best for the enterprise in the long run.

What Elon & Tesla did during the start of Tesla Roadster, Model X, Model S and finally high volume production breakthrough Model 3 was all available battery tech and all major legacy auto OEMs could have done the same thing as Tesla. From a technology and volume production the OEMs could have done this much easily than Tesla.

The difference was desire. Elon was determined to help the world do the right thing for the future even if it bankrupted him (as a millionaire).

The legacy executives and shareholders were not interested in any reduction of their wealth and even now when things are now crisis level they can barely be budged.
The workers of the legacy OEMs should be blaming management for letting this problem fester until it became a crisis. But the workers will instead be encouraged to blame the environmentalist and that climate change is a hoax. That the "other" just doesn't want them to have a job.
 

Sirfun

Well-known member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Dec 28, 2019
Threads
55
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
4,872
Location
Oxnard, California
Vehicles
Toyota Avalon, Chrysler Pacifica PHEV, Ford E-250
Occupation
Retired Sheet Metal Worker
Country flag
Just like for climate change, in the past there was time for a smooth transition. But that time is gone.

The battery tech to make EVs viable was available in the late 1990s with NiMH used in later GM EV1s. A Canadian scientist created the large format NiHM and GM bought the patent. After GM was able to kill requirement for EVs in California, GM refused to license the large format NiMH battery tech to any automakers. Shortly after that GM sold the patents to Exxon. Not hard to guess what Exxon was going to do (bury them).

Lack of large format batteries was the reason Elon & Tesla had to resort ridiculous engineering task to linking several thousand cells together for a pack.

If the legacy auto OEMs had seriously started the transition 23 years ago there could have be a slow continuous reduction of number of workers in the industry. But in the reality of our capitalistic system that could never happen. Executive pay and immediate shareholder value can never be allowed to decrease even of that is best for the enterprise in the long run.

What Elon & Tesla did during the start of Tesla Roadster, Model X, Model S and finally high volume production breakthrough Model 3 was all available battery tech and all major legacy auto OEMs could have done the same thing as Tesla. From a technology and volume production the OEMs could have done this much easily than Tesla.

The difference was desire. Elon was determined to help the world do the right thing for the future even if it bankrupted him (as a millionaire).

The legacy executives and shareholders were not interested in any reduction of their wealth and even now when things are now crisis level they can barely be budged.
The workers of the legacy OEMs should be blaming management for letting this problem fester until it became a crisis. But the workers will instead be encouraged to blame the environmentalist and that climate change is a hoax. That the "other" just doesn't want them to have a job.
Desire is right. Elon had a desire to build an awesome car that would not need fossil fuels. And the GM had no desire to mess up a good thing. They knew EV's would totally disrupt their way of business. Some people call it marketing.
Sponsored

 
 




Top