| ▲ | YeahThisIsMe 2 days ago |
| Weird that this is presented as a problem for some reason. They're objects that lose value when you use them. That's normal. |
|
| ▲ | gregoriol 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| If something looses value faster than something else it can be compared to, then it's considered as worse, meaning fewer people are going to buy it, meaning if you have one, you'll be able to afford less than others in a few years. |
| |
| ▲ | rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Something's ability to store value is only one factor, and probably not the most important, when you're not buying it as an investment. A bar of gold will hold value a lot better than a car, but that doesn't mean a car is a worse purchase. | | |
| ▲ | Ekaros 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Depreciation is huge factor if you buy something for utility. I think we can say that EV and ICE has nearly same utility, perks on either side. Faster refuelling vs. being able to do it at home. Now next we can compare operational costs, what is the cost of fuel/electricity and maintenance. With home charging yes EVs are ahead. But if we take into account Purchase price minus price you get when selling. Well EVs are often more expensive to start with. And then they depreciate more so you get less as an percentage from original purchase price. Now it can very well be that you come lot of ahead in scenarios where you replace car with new one every 3 or 5 years with ICEs. So total cost of ownership does matter. And big chunk of that is depreciation. Unless you are one of the few who buy new and then drive it to junk yard. | | |
| ▲ | rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Unless a 5 year old EV has lost a lot more functionality than a 5 year old ICE, that situation doesn't seem likely. If in 5 years, your EV (that had similar utility as an ICE when you bought it) has lost so much value relative to a new EV, then the new EV must offer much more utility over both the old EV and the old ICE, in which case your ICE should have lost a similar amount of value. | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Are you trying to use logic to convince the resale value to be higher? | | |
| ▲ | rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | My point is either the assumption that their functionality doesn't decrease rapidly is incorrect or that they won't continue to depreciate at a much faster rate than ICE in the future. It just doesn't make economic sense. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | kreetx 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | While I don't dispute EV depreciation (it's a fact, no matter the explanation), then I don't think depreciation is as "huge" of a factor as you make it out to be. People buy new cars all the time, while the added utility over a used car is negligible. I.e, I've only bought cars that are 10+ years (exactly due to the depreciation factor!), but most other people buy or lease as new of a car as they possibly can afford. Doesn't make financial sense to me, yet it's done so very often. | | |
| |
| ▲ | rurp 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would we compare a car purchase to a gold bar purchase when they are completely different things? The article is comparing two products that substitute for each other, so it's notable that the market treats them differently. Someone looking to buy a car is either going to get an ICE or EV; not an EV or a gold bar. | |
| ▲ | gregoriol 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | As I said: "than something else it can be compared to"; if we are talking about cars, you compare to other cars, not to gold or even bikes. If this car looses more value than another, then it's shit. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dabbledash 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because people prefer their objects to lose value more slowly? Not sure why this would be hard to understand. |
| |
| ▲ | rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If they're losing value primarily because better options are becoming available rather than their own functionality decreasing, that's not necessarily a bad thing. | | |
| ▲ | xienze 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It is because people are incentivized to just wait for the "better options" that everyone knows are coming soon. Or, let's say you bought one and had an accident that totals the car but oops, the steep depreciation curve means you have to go out of pocket to pay off a total loss. No one wants that. | | |
| ▲ | joshuaissac 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > you bought one and had an accident that totals the car but oops, the steep depreciation curve means you have to go out of pocket to pay off a total loss That can happen with a conventional car as well, which is why gap insurance exists. The regular insurance should still give you the replacement price (which would be the depreciated value). | | |
| ▲ | RhysU 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The gap insurance will be more expensive. Resell still matters with gap insurance. | |
| ▲ | xienze 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes but again, the steeper depreciation curve makes it more likely to happen. |
| |
| ▲ | rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today. If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that? | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Again, you're attempting to use logic to convince reality to change. People make irrational decisions. That's a fact. People "should" do things they don't. That's a fact. The question is not, "What would a logically-driven being do?", but "What are people doing?" | |
| ▲ | xienze 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Always waiting for "better options" is often irrational. You should buy what's best for you today. If you're trying to get people to switch en masse to EVs, it's not good for everyone to be in perpetual "ehh there's gonna be way better ones around the corner" mode. > If the value of your EV has dropped to $10k and you get paid out that much for an accident, then in theory you should be able to buy a similar condition EV on the used car market for $10k. What's the problem with that? The problem is when your loan balance is $20K and you're only getting a $10K payoff... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Tesla lowered the prices dramatically in Jan 2023: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1F5IQOynIawoXiJPV... It does not seem remarkable that a new product takes some time to find its market price, and COGS goes down as supply chain improvements are made. And there was a $7,500 tax credit at time of purchase introduced in Jan 2023. At least the graph comparing Model Y to Ford F150 seems expected. |
|
|
| ▲ | electric_muse 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hey, did you read the article? The newsworthy point is that the EVs depreciate faster than gas counterparts. But hey, that just means better used EV prices for the rest of us. You can get some high end gently used ones for a great price. — “ For Tesla owners in the U.S., their 2023 Model Ys are worth 42% less than what they paid two years ago, while a Ford F-150 truck bought the same year depreciated just 20%. Older EV models depreciate even faster than newer ones. ” |
| |
| ▲ | linsomniac 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not sure I'd call an F-150 a "counterpart" to a Tesla Model Y, especially when the F-150 Lightning exists. I assume that it is because F-150 vs F-150 Lightning disproves the premise of this article. | |
| ▲ | 2OEH8eoCRo0 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Better used EV prices for buyers just means that EV sellers get ripped off Why buy a car that depreciates hella fast? |
|
|
| ▲ | high_na_euv 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dafuck? No. It says that it deprecates faster than other type of cars which should be worse in this particular criteria |
|
| ▲ | p1dda a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trying hard to rationalise your EV purchase I see |
|
| ▲ | rpigab 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Wierd that we're presenting SpaceX rockets that explode shortly after takeoff as a problem. They're objects that disintegrate in the atmosphere at some point when you use them. That's normal, it even has a name: rapid unscheduled disassembly. |
