| ▲ | epistasis 13 hours ago |
| > EV sales share in the US is down to 6% (and falling every quarter). It's not every quarter, but it's steady and that spells absolute disaster for US car manufacturers: https://www.coxautoinc.com/insights/q3-2026-ev-sales-report-... US car companies have been protected and bailed out too many times and are now not only completely uncompetitive on the global market, but set up to be completely demolished as EVs take over. Their bad leadership and overall inefficiency mean that either investors are going to pay a massive price, or US consumers are going to pay a massive price. If we keep on pushing up consumer costs by propping up bad manufacturers with protectionism and bail outs, the US's entire economy is drug down by that. There needs to be some creative destruction, ruthless culling of the least efficient manufacturers, so that their best workers can go to the better manufacturers, if the US is ever going to be a top tier car manufacturer again. I hadn't followed just how bad US manufacturers were failing at EVs the past two years, what with all the other disasters unfolding, thanks for the wake up call. Two years of wasted time, of the US falling even farther behind... such a massive fail and yet not the most massive. |
|
| ▲ | CharlieDigital 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It isn't just US manufacturers. I'd say Koreans are probably the closest to the Chinese, but Japanese manufacturers have fallen behind. Toyota spent too much time with hydrogen. Nissan? Honda? Mazda? None of them have a solid lineup of electric vehicles. I appreciate Toyota's hybrids, but that is not the future and every model year that they try to delay, they are missing out on developing the technology, experience, internal expertise, and platform refinement. |
| |
| ▲ | hnav 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Toyota is the leader by profit, has been selling cars with batteries and electric motors for 3 decades and simply doesn't want to pile into a crowded space where you effectively have to be dumping your product at cost to have a chance of success. While most others are wasting money on failed forays into the EV market, Toyota has quietly made their entire fleet (modulo trucks) hybrid. At this point anyone can design a chassis to accommodate a skateboard battery and some drive motors. The only thing Toyota would need to wholeheartedly jump into EV is the supply chain and production capability for big battery packs. Admittedly this is a biggie, but don't discount the possibility that batteries are not at the end of their evolution and early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor. | | |
| ▲ | chii 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > early entrants might get burned by some new chemistry or form factor. the iphone is an outlier imho, and i dont think EV will replicate this. The manufacturing capacity of batteries in china will continue to be a dominant force, and prevent competition in other countries from really setting up properly. Not to mention the chinese EV giants have the R&D budget to be the ones to discover new chemistry. | |
| ▲ | fromwilliam 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, my Toyota BZ is great. |
| |
| ▲ | _heimdall 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That does beg the question though, if none of the major non-Chinese manufacturers are focused on EVs did they all entirely miss the boat or do they know something the Chinese don't? Its absolutely possible that they did all miss the boat, but even the stats just in this thread point to a drop in EV sales and economic challenges with regards to price and demand. The Chinese keep prices low with very low labor costs and subsidies from a totalitarian government, our goal isn't and shouldn't be to compete with that on price. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Chinese keep prices low with .. subsidies from a totalitarian government Lower labour costs per hour can be balanced against lower cost of living for workers. Industrial Policy Spending for China’s EV Sector (subsidies) have dropped from $13,800 USD per vehicle in 2018 to $4,700 USD in 2023 and are less today in 2026. How do these subsidies compare to US subsidies to the fossil fuel oil and gas industry? | |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | BYD subsidies ended this year and Xiaomi was never subsidized. |
| |
| ▲ | Root_Denied 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Toyota didn't just spend (past tense) too much time with hydrogen, they're still going with it trying to take a "multi-path strategy" that includes hydrogen engine development. I'm not sure where they think the market for this exists in sustainable numbers. | | |
| ▲ | kalleboo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's really insane. I live in Japan where you'd think Toyota may have some pull to make their dream come true. My city actually has one (1) hydrogen station, it's only open a day or two a week - it's basically only open by appointment, you have to call ahead if you want to be sure to be able to fill up. | |
| ▲ | kunai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh no, how dare a company try and invest R&D into a diversified portfolio of propulsion technologies. I'm sure HN has all the right ideas, just like they had the right idea when Starship was almost sure to beat SLS to orbit and full IOC a decade before Artemis II. I'm sure Morizo is crying after winning his latest gentleman drivers' race and wiping all his tears away with his paper yen. It is genuinely insane how divorced SV is from actual people and reality. |
| |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's a shame Nissan didn't lean harder into EVs since the Leaf is a great little car, and they were releasing them since 2012. | | |
| ▲ | CharlieDigital 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's a shame __________ didn't lean harder into EVs
That's the story with just about every "legacy" manufacturer because they don't understand the existential nature of the shift; it doesn't feel real while their ICE are still their money maker. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | j2i3jl23ij4 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hate to see it and I hate to say it, but the last time I was in Europe there were A LOT more giant american vehicles, at least outside of city centers. I really hope this SUV plague doesn't go global. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Danox 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One state makes up over a third of all EV sold in the country EV’s have a way to go in the United States. Hybrids seem to be doing a lot better in recent times. California accounts for roughly 35% of all U.S. EV sales, though some estimates put its share near 40%. |
| |
| ▲ | epistasis 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's certainly a way to view the data, but it's a way that ignores the trajectory of the technology and sets up The Big Three for complete failure. The Big Three have not figured out how to make compelling EVs, without a doubt, but it's not the technology that's the problem, it's the leadership's product choices and failure of implementation. Meaning that the entire industry will be pushed farther and farther behind in the race, only to be completely disrupted. This will happen far slower than the transition from Palm to iOS-style phones, because the lifetime of cars is far longer than phones and are far larger investments, but the trend is inevitable. EVs are superior on so many different fronts that there's ~0 chance that gas and diesel engines persist except for a tiny fraction of future market share. US manufacturers are trying to delay the transition as long as possible, which only ensures their own doom. | | |
| ▲ | CharlieDigital 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not just US manufacturers. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, etc. are also falling behind on the technology, expertise, and platform development. Koreans look competitive. It's interesting that the later the entrant to the market, the faster they are to adapt. | |
| ▲ | double0jimb0 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not just the Big Three, it's a boat anchor of the Big Three + Tier 1/2/3 suppliers. Tesla probably most vertically integrated of any, therefor most likely able to survive a major pivot. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | California is the world’s fourth largest economy, so this tracks. Whether or not flyover country gets EVs is immaterial to the overall US situation. They can pay forward curve petrol prices if they so choose (“freedom!”), or find a suitable EV if that is a more suitable choice for their needs, unless federal policy returns to assist with purchasing. I am hopeful, concerning recent regime change, that federal EV incentives come back to enable folks to buy affordable EVs (because we should be optimizing for affordable zero emission mobility for all, imho), but only time will tell. Wyoming‘s population of 600k people is less than one percent of total US population, for example. Californians buy about half that number of EVs per year (~300k-400k). | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Flyover country has several times the population of California. It’s vital to the success of American manufacturers that their products sell well there too. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nah. You go where the purchasing power is, and that is not poor rural America that is evaporating [1]. K Shaped economy. That’s related, but distinct from the fact that American auto makers are already dead. They collectively wrote off $50B in EV investment to turn away from EVs, and GM just created a $20B multi year stock buyback plan while not investing more in electrification. That is an active choice to allocate that capital to profits instead of investment to build EVs. The future is affordable, well built Chinese EVs. They already have the capacity to build 50M EVs per year, more than half of global total light vehicle demand. They are currently exporting ~12M/year, and constrained only by there not being enough marine car carriers available to ship more. They are building more car carriers to ramp exports to the world. How long would it take the US to learn how to build 10-20M EVs per year? A decade, probably more, on current trajectories, during which Chinese automakers will continue to ramp. “Build the machine that builds the machine.” [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48586250 (the US sold out its future in this context for globalization and shareholder returns, unfortunately) | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are plenty of well-off people in poor rural areas, and there are plenty of wealthy urban areas in flyover country. California is an important market but it's not so important that the rest can be ignored. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Please provide geographic economic citations of where. Here’s mine: Interactive: Visualizing Median Income For All 3,000+ U.S. Counties - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/interactive-median-income-u... (blue is better, red is worse) (assume 45k-$50k new vehicle price in the US, back out to the income needed to support a payment at current interest rates on a 5-7 year term, which is roughly $500-$1000/month, which is why auto loans are currently defaulting at record highs) /r/dataisbeautiful: USA auto loan delinquency rate from 2000 to 2025 - https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1ueked2/oc... | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It makes no sense to respond to this with a chart of median income. That tells you nothing about how many well-off people there are beyond limiting it to less than 50%, presuming the median is below whatever threshold you consider. Here's a table of states with median, top 20%, and top 5% figures: https://beforeview.com/income-percentile/state Mississippi, the lowest one on the list, has a top 5% at over $200,000/year. That's ~150,000 people in households who can comfortably afford a nice new EV, in just one small, poor state. The states defined by the Census Bureau as being in "the midwest" (a subset of "flyover states") contain about 70 million people. The top 5% would be 3.5 million people who can afford a nice new EV. And this is conservative: someone in the top 6% can probably afford one too, but I'm not counting them, and there's plenty of "flyover state" territory beyond the midwest. California is big enough and rich enough to have a huge amount of market power. But it's not so big and rich that it makes 100+ million Americans in the middle of the country completely irrelevant and ignorable. | |
| ▲ | michaelt 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Los Alamos, in New Mexico :) Seriously though, everywhere I've lived there have been at least some doctors, dentists, college professors, business owners and suchlike; even Mississippi has hospitals, or so I'm told. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, I know and admit these people exist. I did extensive market research on the US EV TAM before being a late private early public investor in Tesla (~<$20/share), riding in the first Roadster to evaluate the product, etc, and even with updated models to account for socioeconomic strata that continues to bifurcate, I believe my thesis holds around who and who cannot to afford to buy new vehicles at current price levels (it’s definitely gotten worse than 15 years ago, for gestures broadly at everything reasons). I’m saying, broadly speaking, all of the purchasing power is mostly in urban areas, although there are some exceptions in the middle of nowhere as you commented. This does not mean we should leave Rural America out in the cold. Fundamentally, if we expect Rural America to buy affordable EVs (which, imho, they will need to do, and we should crank on policy to achieve), someone will have to force them to be affordable. Allow cheap, high quality Chinese imports, or nationalize an automaker as they approach failure. But right now, Rural America is captive to a parasite US auto industry profitmaxxing by minimizing production and maxing their profits, protected by tariffs. You cannot compel them to make affordable cars currently, but if you don’t, Rural America is fucked. “You can just do things.” (no current TSLA exposure, out long ago around “420 funding secured,” but still own a handful of Teslas out of sentimental reasons) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MisterMower 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That’s just what we need: more subsidies to Elon Musk via federal EV tax credits. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Limit subsidies to vehicles that are no more expensive than $25k after subsidies. Make them build cars like BYD, with sub 4% margins. No subsidies for Tesla, they had their chance. He can find a new grift. It’s time to focus on people who actually build, not those who use theatrics to inflate silly capital market numbers for power and status. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lesuorac 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Two years of wasted time Try two generations. I think it was obvious since the oil shocks that fossil fuels were not a good bedrock of the economy. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's interesting to try to work out what the civ-style "dependency tree" of viable electric cars has been. It requires at the bare minimum high energy density light batteries, which were a spinoff of the cellphone revolution. As well as high efficiency digital power control, which while not impossible in 1970 would have been larger and heavier without modern SiC semiconductors. Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements. | | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Solar panels are an even more remarkable example of compounding a thousand different 1% improvements. But they aren't really. In terms of efficiency, a 2x increase is a lot yes but the thing that has finally made them really viable is simply the cost dropping like a rock. I don't care if I have to buy 2x as many solar panels when they cost as much as a fence post. That cost reduction was entirely investment into production capacity. None of that couldn't have been accomplished decades ago. That's the saddest part. If we had been adults in the 70s, we could already be done the green revolution basically. We could have seriously prevented global warming. But a bunch of idiots rejected that and instead voted for people who doubled down on fucking up the middle east and burning liquids. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I interpreted the "1% improvements" to be exactly that effect of cost dropping like a rock (economic efficiency), not about the energy conversion efficiency. PV entrepreneurs are the real heroes of the climate movement, IMHO. They figured out markets that would have enough demand to push forward with developing the tech. Germany's government is a major hero too, they pushed the tech forward so far at a crucial time. Then China took up the mantle. Both supply and demand need to build together for the industry to grow. Government subsidies played a huge role in accelerating this, and will have paid for themselves so many times over. We're going to live in a world of super-cheap technology thanks to the modest tax-cut-based investments of governments the world over. It does suck that so many powerful people were against the obvious-in-retrospect good idea of solar PV, but I'd love to focus on all the heroes that pushed through anyway and made it happen. They deserve a lot of thanks! |
|
| |
| ▲ | epistasis 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, perhaps, but the time for the followers in the field to push on EV manufacturing capability has been the past 5-10 years. And the US majors are all followers, not leaders. About two years ago they all put out press releases saying "we are not seeing EV sales so we are pulling back on manufacturing" meaning "we couldn't figure it out and are scared so we are abandoning our future." With the strangle hold that these industries have on getting the government to bail them out, we are in a really bad position on the national level. We have let bad politics and weak management override good economic decision making. |
|