joelthelion
Global NewsAnyone read down the end end of the article where Ford is like, nah bro, dont let this in the US? This is stiffling innovation more than humans wanting drinking water.
Im really happy for Mexico.
I’ve said this in other threads but the US is going to become a third world car nation. The rest of the world will have cheap EVs, and we’ll still have expensive ICE vehicles. Other companies that are allowed to sell here will use us as the R&D sink, while just sticking the same old engine in newer after newer vehicle, while coming out with cheaper options elsewhere.
More pollution and more cost. Ain’t the US great?
Seems so backwards given how car dependent the US is as a country ... (yes, in NYC and some others you don't need one but for the most part)
Yup. The irony of that situation is not lost on me, but since the US is so car brained and reliant on cars, companies know they have a captive audience who needs to buy cars, so which better group to push your highest margin products to?
Jim Farley is a fucking clown. The head honcho of Ford doesn't drive a Lincoln, and that alone is enough to never buy a ford. They wont drive it themselves.
Fuck that guy.
Invest in public transport instead. It will be of a much bigger benefit to all.
They are also doing that.
Yes, but also they already have a fuck ton of road infrastructure, so this is also good. The transition takes time and this will lower co2 faster than waiting the 30 years it would take to get the infrastructure in place to reduce car usage enough to impact co2 emissions.
I have to ask, if it really takes 30 years to get infrastructure in place to reduce car use (it doesn't, but for the sake of argument), then shouldn't we be starting on it, like, yesterday? Where are all of those efforts? Are EVs really just a stop-gap measure?
If, for whatever reason, you could only choose to do one, then yes public transit infrastructure should be the priority. This might be surprising, but I'm not involved in Mexican politics, so I can't comment on why those efforts aren't occurring. My guess would be car-centric propaganda is wide-spread there just like it is in the states.
My 30 years comment isn't how long it takes to get a town, community, or even a city to embrace car-antagonistic infrastructure. That's more like 5-10 years for a majorityof transport use to change. I meant how long it takes to turn a nation to majority non-car transit.
No, I don't think EVs are being deployed as a stop-gap here. It's definitely an attempt to capitalize on the EV market gap that American automakers are leaving wide-open. That doesn't mean it isn't still good, just not the better solution.
In the United States, we are choosing to do just one. There's no serious effort to transition away from private automobiles as the default (or only) transportation option. It's still easier, politically, to demolish private property to expand a freeway than it is to remove on-street parking for a bike lane. It's going to be even harder to transition after several decades of more automobile infrastructure expansion, and consequent land-use patterns, especially if EVs (and especially especially self-driving) making driving cheaper and more convenient.
Mexico City, though, has an extensive public transit network including buses, BRT, light-rail, and private transit services. But similar economic behavior applies. If EVs make driving cheaper than it is now, it becomes more appealing compared to those transit options, and people will drive more, and the transition away from private cars will get that much more difficult. And if the Mexican government doesn't explicitly tie adoption of these new, low-cost EVs to the elimination of ICE cars, pollution may just get worse as the ICE cars get sold down the line to less-affluent people.
There's precedent for this. Mexico City once tried to reduce emissions by imposing a scheme allowing drivers with even-numbered registration plates to enter the city on even-numbered dates, and odd-numbered plates on odd-numbered dates. It failed, and smog got worse, as people just held on to their old, more-polluting cars when they bought a new ones, so they could drive one or the other every day.
In short, cheap EVs like this might be good for the Mexican economy in the short term, but they're going to increase private car use, which might even increase CO~2~ emissions.
Ugh this comment again. Seems like every article like this has people in the comments who are disconnected from reality.
instead
EVs and public transit are not mutually exclusive. Investing in EVs is less expensive and gives more-immediate results. You're suggesting everyone just toughs it out for a decade or more.
This comment again because it's correct. The speed of building out public transit is a political problem, not a technical one. People don't switch to EVs for high-minded environmental reasons, they switch because they're cheaper to run. And if they're cheaper, the Jevons Paradox means that people will drive a lot more. We'll double down on car infrastructure, and all of the other environmental destruction it brings.
EVs will not save us, and if the goal is public transit and human-oriented cities, we need to just build public transit and human-oriented cities. The political and legacy infrastructure barriers are only going to get bigger in the EV future.
You're so right. Blanketing the country in transit infrastructure could happen in a day if it weren't for those pesky politicians! And everyone would immediately use it and there would be no more ICE cars on the road. My bad.
Who said anything about a day? Obviously, it takes time, but we have to start, and transitioning away from electric cars is not going to magically be any easier than ICE cars.
Not mutually exclusive endeavors.
No, but we're not doing one of them.
I'm currently using my Olympia e-bike for doing most of the groceries and what not. My (sadly still ICE) car remains in garage for most of the time, unless I have to travel far away. This guy could substitute my e-bike for said purpose and would be much more convenient when bad weather or heavier load - I'd loose recreation aspect, but I can get that elsewhere. So yes, an interesting vehicle, indeed.
top speed of 50 kilometers per hour
I guess it could be interesting for some people...
Most driving in inner city doesn't even go over 35mph without traffic, with traffic people walking with baby strollers would pass any car...
Absolutely don't need more in any city
Laughs in 45 MPH zones (72 Kph)
Not defending it but this car wouldn’t keep up with the regular roads I drive to work. I’m curious how quickly it can accelerate too
Then how would I show off my beautiful driving abilities at 280km/h?
Paratransit users:
Am I a joke to you?
I dont think Ive been in a city that didnt have some 60kph stretches while transiting zones, at the very least. It's not a bad vehicle but that is very slow - there are ebikes that are faster.
Most places (excluding car centric ones) don't need people to drive on expressways for daily commute.
Combine this with people using trains/planes for long distance infrequent travel and there's no need for high speed driving if all you need is a car for routine stuff.
Only a few places come to mind where this car would be a bad fit and USA, Canada are top of the list
most people.
