Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

They offer a discernible advantage for your telecommunications needs. Which is why DEMAND spurred their adoption at a certain price point.

EVs --as they exist -- offer limitations, not an advantage, and the price point they are at has hindered the demand for them.

They have done everything they can to juke the sales of the Chevy Volt -- which would be the everyman's EV, if one exists. Nobody commented on this thread about the January sales figures. Without the giveaway leases they did heading into the election to juke sales, based on straight demand, sales were back to dismal. Back down to 1,140 sold for the month.

There may be a parallel between EVs and the cell phone, but making it right now is ridiculous.

There is no advantage to an EV, other than feeling good that you are driving an EV, and that does zilch for most people. When I say no advantage, that includes price and functionality. A cell phone gave you portability and ability to be reached anywhere. When they got cheap enough, you didn't have to try to incentivize people to adopt them. They made people's lives easier and better. So DEMAND (my ongoing refrain on this thread) was what led to their adoption.

In terms of its function, what does an EV give you that another car doesn't? Right now, it offers only limitations -- and you pay more for it. That is not a good deal for most people, which is why demand is not there.

IF that ever changes, sure there might be demand for them. But given where they are -- and this is 100+ year old technology that really hasn't come very far in that 100 years -- are you really surprised that demand has been piddling, despite every effort to subsidize them and try to induce people to buy them?

 

People buy a car as a mode of transportation. Unless your EV can enhance your life in some OTHER way, why exactly wouldn't you buy the obvious premise that it is competing directly with other cars? People don't go shopping for a technology. They go shopping for functionality. And they make their decisions based on functionality relative to price. All I am saying is that the EV fails on both functionality and price in its current iterations.

It is possible that an EV could offer some functionality that satisfies some kind of demand, and that demand creates a market for them. But given where we are at now, what do the people on here who respond to my posts think that demand is? And if I am wrong about what I am saying, why do we have to subsidize them to billions of dollars of public debt a year and still find that the market isn't buying them?

 

In what way does your post relate to what I posted?

 

Again, did you read my post? How does anything you just posted in two posts now address what I wrote about cost relative to the function it provides? If it's a big enough life enhancer for you to avoid going to a gas station to end up paying more overall for your transportation needs, and get a car out of it with range limitations, then go ahead and buy an EV. Or if some perceived global warming benefit (never mind all the criticism of EVs because creation of electricity leaves a bigger carbon footprint than burning gasoline does) to you, again, knock yourself out.

The evidence would suggest that most people don't find the things you think enhance your life enhancements to their lives. There is little demand for these cars as they exist. For precisely the reasons I posted. On a cost relative to functionality basis, it is a bad deal for most people relative to other types of cars.

I still have no clue what my gas tank or a hurricane or snowfall have to do with anything I posted? But I've come to expect non sequitur posts from you, which make sense only to you.