Announcing the CleanTechnica Car of the Year Award
This article has been co-written by Kyle Field and Zachary Shahan, with support and suggestions from a few other members of the CleanTechnica community.
Just as there are many sites reporting on cars, energy, and the planet out there, many awards have been created to call attention to a variety of focus areas for each of these topics. Over the years, we have looked long and hard specifically for automotive awards that represent what we at CleanTechnica stand for, but have yet to find any that resonate. Having started this site to catalyze action and to engage a community, we decided that the time was right to launch our very own award — the CleanTechnica Car of the Year Award — to represent our ideal car for the upcoming year.
This new award seeks out the best cars of the upcoming year based on:
- How green the car is, with specific focus on the car’s efficiency, materials, and manufacturing footprints.
- How consumer friendly the vehicle is.
- The overall, net-positive impact on the planet.
In other words, we want to highlight the cars that pull a high number of buyers away from dirtier cars, the cars that use the greenest materials, the cars that are manufactured in a greener way, and the cars that have chart-topping efficiency.
Based on these criteria, we have selected the following finalists for the 2016 CleanTechnica Car of the Year Award:
- 2016 Chevy Volt
- 2016 Nissan LEAF
- Tesla Model X
- Tesla Model S 70/70D
Winner Selection
How is the winner selected? We’re glad you asked! Since one of our key means of catalyzing change is community (that’s you!), we need each of you to vote. Whether this is your first time on the site or you have been a daily reader since the beginning, we need you to hop on down to the link/poll below and vote. It’s easy and just takes a few seconds.
Here’s a link to the poll if the embedded poll above doesn’t work for you.
The Fine Print
Please, only one vote per person. Voting closes December 31st, 2015, at 11:59:59 GMT. Winner will be announced via a post on CleanTechnica on January 1, 2016, followed by an official award to be presented to the winning manufacturer by January 31st, 2016.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
My vote goes to the BMW i3. I did not find the right button, please add it.
“In other words, we want to highlight the cars that pull a high number of buyers away from dirtier cars, the cars that use the greenest materials, the cars that are manufactured in a greener way, and the cars that have chart-topping efficiency.”
That is basically the definition of the i3.
1. BMW i3 – 124 MPGe
2. Chevy Spark EV – 119 MPGe
…..
6. Nissan Leaf – 112 MPGe
…
10. Model S 70D – 101 MPGe
….
15. Model X – 92 MPGe
And don’t really know where to put the 42 MPG/106 MPGe Volt. But it’s at least combined worse than any of the other.
Global EV sales (Jan-Oct):
1. Nissan Leaf 38.908
2. Tesla Model S 36.302
3. Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV 32.503
4. BYD Qin 28.365
5. BMW i3 20.190
6. Renault Zoe 13.623
7. Chevy Volt 12.872
And as Jalopnik puts it:
http://jalopnik.com/the-bmw-i3-is-officially-much-greener-than-almost-every-1462999376
GM should have made the Volt an SUV instead of a sedan. Sales would be better.
They can make a Subaru style wagon.
They can also add 2 inches of leg and rear seat headroom.
Google gives you a great opportunity to earn
98652$/WEEk at your home .If you
are some intelligent you make many more Dollars.I am
also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my
Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i
never tell a lie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see
this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!! ☻ ▼ ▼ ▼
————————————————————————————————-
»»»»»»»»» Go to my Account For WE
+asdzxcz
+adzxczcz
Thanks, rebecca. But I think it’s pretty tough to all of a sudden make $98,652 a week working from home. 😀 😉
That was a typo. You can actually make $986,520 a week working from home.
But only if you look like “Rebecca”. And your clients are wealthy oligarchs. Who are happy to pay to avoid their wives from discovering their preferences for being potty trained, etc.
LOLs aside, is it not possible to clean up these threads a bit.
Why is this profile not blocked yet? I see “she” has already posted 105 comments on this particular Disqus profile, which was mcreated earlier today. (Don’t know when your site’s clock ticks over, but either way, that’s over a hundred comments in a few hours.)
Presumably each of those “comments” was identical and involved making lots of money from home. Don’t know how many of those were posted to Cleantechnica, but how does spam filtering work here. I often notice these “get rich quick” spam comments and they’re annoying.
I haven’t noticed anything on your site spelling out your policies regarding spam, as I guess you’ve simply outsourced this to Disqus. But it would be useful to know how I, as a regular reader, could improve the experience for everyone else.
I flagged the comment.
Is that all I can do?
What happens next?
We block the IP addresses, email addresses, and usernames repeatedly. They just keep using new ones.
We also blacklist commonly used words so they are hopefully held for moderation. They change them enough to get through.
All you can really do is flag them, and all we can really do is what we’ve been doing.
Cool. I’ll just keep flagging then.
I do have an idea for permanently fixing the problem, though, if you’re interested…..
Sure. Would love to get rid of these spammers.
I’m guessing that the overwhelming majority of spam emanates from brand new accounts, exploiting the window of opportunity between the creation of the account and the reaction of the moderators. As I discovered in the example above, this can mean over 100 spammy comments per profile, and all they need to do is create another profile to continue. In the meantime it wastes a lot of your time.
The trick would be to get the spammers to waste a lot of THEIR time, in a way that is difficult for a machine to replicate, and unlikely to inconvenience a real person who just wants to comment.
There are probably a lot of different ways to do this. I’m not a fan of CAPTCHAs, and Turing tests need to keep improving to stay one step ahead of advancements in AI. Plus, human labour in certain parts of the world is cheap, especially if all they have to do is copy and paste.
So…
It is “normal” human behaviour to enter a new group tentatively, especially one we think we might like to be a part of. We stand at the periphery a bit and first get an idea of who everyone is, who the opinion leaders might be, what the conversations are all about, what the group protocols might be and what the “preferred opinion” might be on any number of controversial topics. And so on.
We are generally very reluctant to barge into new social situations. We don’t want to be judged for being stupid, ignorant or rude.
The evidence for such “humanity” would be visible in the digital trail we leave behind, and it would look completely different to that of a robot, or someone whose motives were FUDdy, trolly or spammy.
Of course, if someone wanted to be really clever and get really rich, they would compare the digital traits of both groups, based on large databases of known and verifiable account versus those already identified (by humans) as being fake/malicious accounts. They could then determine patterns of differences, and continue doing this heuristically and iteratively. Then compile simple software filtering rules, and supply this as a service to websites. So there’s that, for anyone who’s interested.
But in the meantime, it can be much simpler, based on simple psychology:
1. We want new people to be able to comment right away. Normally, someone would open an account because they have a specific comment in mind for a specific story, or a reply to another comment. So we want to reward them immediately. But we don’t want spammers to exploit this. So we impose a limit on the number of comments.
CONT…
+asdazxc
CONTINUED.
Initially, this limit would be quite low (perhaps two or three comments in the first 24 hours, or fewer) because most normal people don’t just barge into a new conversation. They’re still a bit nervous about the correct etiquette, and they’re waiting to be recognised and acknowledged. Very often, their comments will be quite short, simply parroting what others are saying, or perhaps replies to the identified “leaders” of the group along the lines of “well said” or “I agree completely”. Because (real) people have a strong desire to be accepted into a group.
You can even have a “sticky” post where new members can introduce themselves, (or are obliged to) and then wait to be “welcomed” by a trusted moderator.
2. The number of allowed comments per day increases by a small number each day. If at any point a person reaches their limit for the day, they get a polite message thanking them for their interest in the community, explaining that we wish to protect the community from spammers (and other malcontents) and inviting them to come back again tomorrow. Most (real/normal) people would be happy with this.
3. If necessary, if someone exceeds their comment quota for the day, they could be subjected to some sort of Turing test if they wish to continue posting. The frequency of such tests would increase until it was required for every subsequent comment posted on that day. But this is not the ideal solution. Turing tests need to be updated regularly to stay ahead of the bots, but still be simple enough for a human to pass easily. Tough problem. (Personally, I need about three attempts to decipher the average captcha. By that time I’m bored, annoyed and have forgotten what I wanted to say.) And if the “bot” happens to be some dude sitting behind a cheap laptop in Ulaan Bataar or wherever, there’s not much you can do. Most “normal” people, (who don’t have an axe to grind or a service to sell) understand that they need to “pay their dues” in a new social group. They’ll be back tomorrow. Especially if they receive an email overnight letting them know that someone has replied to, or up-voted, one of their comments.
4. The number of allowed comments per day only increases if the profile is posting comments. So if your limit was previously e.g. eleven comments, it will only increase if you come again another day and comment one or more times. You need to actually use the profile and interact with people if you want your quota to increase. You don’t necessarily have to use your entire quota on any day, but in order to grow your quota, you would need to come back again on multiple days. To RETAIN your quota, you must at least log on to the profile, perhaps once per week, otherwise your limit slowly ticks back to the newbie level.
5. The moment a profile starts behaving badly in the comments section, we expect the community to flag those comments. Even though it might take a few hours for someone to notice a dodgy comment and another few hours for a moderator to get the chance to verify the comment/s, the window for a abuse is small, due to the maximum comment limit. Once the profile violates the TOS, they are blocked.
6. Those who wish to abuse the comments system are now faced with a very unattractive risk reward ratio. They need to go through all the hassle of creating a new email address and a new profile, just to be able to post a tiny number of comments before being flagged and blocked, rendering that profile useless. In order to game the system, they would need to retain and manage a whole range of profiles, and log on to each of them repeatedly over a long period, carefully maintaining each one, simply to build up some “credit” that they might be able to use a few months down the line in one burst of commenting diarrhea, before being flagged. And they would need to actually post meaningful comments,
7. There would be a maximum cap on comments per 24 hours period. Perhaps 30 or 40 comments a day. NOBODY (except for pre-approved moderators, editorial staff, etc) would ever need to comment that often.
NOBODY (not even me) can type that fast! Or would have that much to say….
8. Almost all spam, and most FUD/trolling is very repetitive in nature. Surely it would be possible to run a comparison algorithm, comparing any new post with a database of previous posts by the same profile. If there is more than, say, 80% similarity with more than two previous posts, the post is automatically flagged. If there are more than perhaps 5 identical posts, the entire profile is blocked. (But could possibly be manually unblocked by means of sending a contrite and very human email to another human being.)
This is a very simple system and can be almost completely automated, (unless you want to insist on the initial human “handshake”).
It also allows for a platform around which to build a system to “rank” profiles, based on the number of comments and number of up-votes etc Because (real) people apparently enjoy that sort of stuff.
Ta-DAAAA! No more spam. A happy, engaged and engaging community.
The end.
P.S. If you hadn’t already guessed, am a robot.
I’m pretty sure none of these are built-in possibilities in disqus, but will have another look.
I agree with you but nominees for car awards are typically for brand new models or completely redesigned models. That’s the way Motor Trend and the other big name awards do it and I assume Cleantechnica is using the same criteria but it was not made clear in this article.
Yep. I guess we assumed that everyone assumed that.
Only 3 out of the 4 could be nominated by that criteria. We would need a new 4th choice to replace the Model S 70/70D then.
The Model S 70/70D came out in April this year (April 8, 2015).
Exactly my point. 3 of them are 2016 models and one is 2015 model. Tesla normally don’t even consider “model years” but even Tesla has classified all Model X’s as 2016 model.
Like you said, Tesla doesn’t do model years — it updates its vehicles in numerous ways throughout the year. (Not sure where you saw the X was a “2016” model year, but my guess would be from the EPA, DOE, or such since they always indicate a model year.) Since the 70/70D was new this year, it was included with other models new this year.
http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-autopilot-demo-video/
Read Jay Cole’s comments, the EV guru and editor/writer whatever of InsideEVs.
If you define the award by “New or largly updated EV models that has started taking deliveries to customers during the past year” then I would have no problem with you mixing different model years even if it’s unlike what car magazines do.
Not sure why you say so, but the 70/70D was new this year and seemed like a significant enough change. Car & Driver included it in a list of top new cars of the year, so we went with that precedent.
It’s a top car for 2015. But your award is supposed to be “for the upcoming year” so basically 2016 years models. I’m probably just being picky, but if you want to make this award into a yearly thing then at least I would like to know some kind of set rules for the nominations.
I should also add that I love the work you guys do, even when I complain (for valid or not so valid reasons :P)
The way I was thinking of it was new cars from 2015. All of these 4 are new this year (despite the deceiving “2016” label on 3 of them).
That I’m satisfied with. Put it in a clear definition for the next years award =)
Will do. 😀
And btw, I enjoy your comments here, even when they go against our assumptions and are of a more critical nature. 😀
I actually want to make a note about listing the Model S 70 and 70D together. I think the all-wheel-drive is actually what makes it worthy of the award. It’s a huge deal for market acceptance.
It was for new cars. Otherwise, we would have included it.
But the Model S 70/70D is not new. If it were 4 new models then I would have easily accepted that the BMW i3 was not on the list.
the 70/70D was new this year. last year, the only the 60 and 85 were on offer.
Also, take note of which cars these 4 finalists are potentially displacing. (We don’t have comprehensive data on that, but I think it’s an important matter and we can make some assumptions.)
If I would do that it would be very easy to argue that there are a lot of people going BMW (i3) that would have gone gas guzzlers otherwise. So then it would definitely have a spot on the list.
When IHS Automotive made research on where Model S customers came from the largest former brand was former Toyota buyers and of them most had been driving a Prius before. So we don’t always have to make assumptions. =)
1) yeah, but it’s not included for other reasons (basically the same model as last year).
2) yes, am well aware of that, but then how many switched from the Prius to the LEAF & Volt? i’m guess a higher %. and of the ones who didn’t switch from a Prius, what vehicles were they switching from? my hunch is people went to the Model S & X from lower-MPG cars than the other buyers who switched to the LEAF & Volt. Would love to have full data, but haven’t seen it.
If I understand your 2nd point properly I tend to agree with your hunch. People buying the Model S or X are probably more likely to have been coming from other luxury or even 100k cars already which are known to be great performance vehicles with less then great mpg. The Volt and Leaf owners would most likely be coming from less expensive vehicles which may not be as “nice” but often have better mpg simply from having lesser engines and/or being smaller then the luxury vehicles.
Yeah, that’s my hunch.
Haven’t seen comprehensive data on the topic, but would love to see it.
The 70D is the first car to displace *4-wheel-drive* gasmobiles. This should give it substantial market penetration in the snowbelt, more than the other cars will.
I voted for the Model S, though only because it’s Tesla’s bootstrap to the Model 3. Almost voted for the Leaf because it’s affordable. Anything to stop the hybrid from winning. We just don’t have time for half solutions.
I voted for the X but agree we don’t want half way solutions.
I voted for the X since I think it will do more than all of the others to bring awareness to EVs + is expected to sell as much as the Model S (all trims) and is likely being bought in place of very low-MPG SUVs.
Good points. Most new families can pinch their pennies and buy an X if they really wanted to. These X’s will likely last them for decades becoming the ubiquitous new family car for the masses. In twenty years from now kids will play “bingo” spotting X’s. They’ll be spotted everywhere like the VW bugs were in the 70s and the Model Ts in the 30s. It’s because the Xs don’t need to be idling to be the home away from home. X’s will become the center for all family activities. Because they are made to last they may even be used for generations. Toyota used to have commercials stating they get passed down to the kids and last for decades. The X’s may last two to three times longer.
That would be cool. 😀
In twenty years! We play that today in California. Ok…not with X’s yet…we do it for all electric cars. My best for one model was 17 Model S’s within 10 miles of LAX on the way home from Guatemala in July. We saw 48 EVs on the way down to my in-laws house for thanksgiving just this past Wednesday…but that was over 2 hours.
Really? It is an $80000 car? This is somewhat ridiculous to assume most families can afford this.
I would say the average consumer, those who do not have the knowledge we do about electric cars and those who do not have $500+ a month to spend on a car payment, is going to need the electric car to be closer to $30,000 or under. Tesla is a niche product, and if you can afford it that’s fine, just don’t assume others can.
Considering the average child costs 200K or more to raise an 80K car is nothing.
See http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator
It is quite sobering…
I would definitely choose the Tesla then. 😉
Absolutely! 😉
Ivor . . . With all due respects, you’re either a clueless millionaire or a clueless billionaire. Which one is it?
See my comment to Paul, above.
Having just spent the last two decades sharing child-raising duties with my wife and succeeding (ie: well adjusted young adult,) I don’t dispute it cost around $200K. But all of us would be living in a cardboard box on the street corner if a “nothing” purchase of an $80K new vehicle were factored in.
Where are your $80K cars, by the way. You’ve got one for weekdays and another for weekends, I’m guessing?
With all due respect the Tesla is hopefully not just a typical American car meant to be replaced every five years. Nor is it a Japanese car meant to be replaced every 15 years. It’s a car that once bought should last until in an accident. Sure the batteries will need replacing every ten to twenty years but everything else about the vehicle should last forever. It is made of aluminum so the body is good. The motors are self contained and modular. There are very few components in a Tesla compared to a normal ICE. There is every indication this vehicle could last forever. Look at what Cuba has done with cars from the 50s. Arguably they are cars that were built before auto manufacturers started hiring out MBAs from Harvard who specialized in building cars that needed replacing every few years. Still though the cars from the 50s had many more parts. Tesla vehicles are much better than the best autos ever made.
So what I’m saying is one Tesla will last a lifetime. You will not have to buy four or five 40K cars. One pricey investment that saves you probably twice as much as if you bought the standard ICE cars. Kind of like buying PV for your roof. People think it’s expensive and they don’t realize how much it saves over time. Exactly the same idea. You don’t have to be a millionaire to invest smartly.
You are completely out of touch with working class people if you think the average person can afford the upfront cost of a Tesla. I can’t really afford the two cars I have. My wife and I are both disabled. I have three kids. PV for my roof? I live in an apartment mr. snobby.
My wife bought a 1995 Saturn from the dealer, used with 10K miles, for around $10K in 1996. I took over payments a few years later and it became my car. 19 years later, it had 133k miles on it and I sold it for $500. It still ran but I didn’t feel it was worth putting any more money into it. I hate to say it but, if my wife kept it, it probably wouldn’t have made it past 7 years. This is a combination of her being rougher on cars in general and less forgiving to flaws caused by simple wear and tear that wouldn’t bother me nearly as much.
Coincidently, I also owned one of those “Cuban” cars: a 1951 Chevy Stylieline coupe that I kept running as a daily driver for 9 years. While there was great aesthetic appeal in owning such a car and its mechanical simplicity meant that I could do virtually all the maintenance on my own, it would have been a death trap if I had ever been involved in a serious accident and certain mechanical components were crude at best, The 3 speed mechanical transmissions on those old Chevys were particularly fragile (don’t get me started with the horrendous Powerglide automatic trannys of the day) and were often replaced with more modern units by people who actually drove those old cars, instead of collecting them for displaying at classic cars shows. Bottom line here is that I don’t believe the old rides were remarkably better than newer ones, simply more interesting.
Japanese vs. American? I don’t draw any clear lines there, but my minivan experience would have me pick our Mazda MPV over our Ford Aerostar any day of the week (the latter was absolutely the worse vehicle we ever owned.) The minivans were what we took on long trips and used for carpooling our kid with all of his friends. Those vehicles lived hard lives. Would I ever buy an aluminum bodied one? Not on your life! Steel is the only way to go if you’re serious about having the body components last more than a decade under real world use. Would a Model S or X be worth refurbishing with a new battery pack in 2022? I’m going to guess the answer is no. Will a steel Model 3 be worth it ten years after the fact. I’m going to guess it would be.
You don’t have to sell me on the advantages of electrics over ICE. That’s why I just bought a used but low mileage I-MiEV for about a tenth of the cost of the Teslas we’re talking about here. It does everything I want and I don’t consider it to be “a tenth of the car.” If it does as well as the Saturn (and I’m guessing it will,) it should last me as long as or longer than that one. Will it be worth swapping in a new traction battery in 2022? I’ll get back to you then. 🙂
I’m interested on your views about steel vs aluminum. I’ve been assuming aluminum will outlast steel because aluminum’s rust protects itself and doesn’t keep rotting like it does on steel. That’s the reason you always see aluminum in storefront doors, windows, and other places exposed to the elements. So I’m thinking Tesla chose aluminum not just because it is much stronger and lighter but also because it will never corrode if used correctly. Despite it being much harder to work with.
The battery costs are magically low, like 8 or 12K, at the end of warranty. I think Tesla is selling them so cheaply because they do not want the bad press that would follow. A high battery price, any markup beyond Tesla’s cost, would hurt them more than they could ever make by a bit of profit. The gigafactory should ensure these bargain basement battery prices.
Boy, that could be a long conversation. All I can say for now is that both aluminum and steel are marvelous materials. For autos, I’d always pick steel for long term durability and for competitive pricing. For airplanes, where lightless is always going to be more of an issue, aluminum is the logical choice. So glad to read in many places that the Model 3 is probably going to be a mostly steel car.
Hmmmm. Ok, so you like steel. Just seems so outdated. Like working with wood when steel was available…
I’ve linked this article several times before when the topic of steel vs. aluminum vs carbon fiber comes up. It relates the bicycle tube frame construction, but there is much that can be gleamed here regarding anything that moves . . .
https://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=29
Thanks, I was looking for something substantive. It’s already got my interest “that cyclists care about four more things: price, number of gears, peer approval, and weight.” I have some pretty strong views on bikes. They want to go around in bug suits. They’ll spend 5K to save a pound when they usually could get much better results by simply losing their 20 to 40 lbs of fat. And talking about bikes amongst their friends for peer approval is so very important to them. Bicyclists obviously get brain freeze from being out too early in the morning and never quite recover. But now that I’ve had my morning rant about bicyclists I’ll go read the rest of the article.
Read the article. Wasn’t impressed. He even got some things wrong.
Bicyclists come in a variety of flavors, much like car owners. The guy who wrote that article, Grant Petersen, is somewhat of a controversial figure in much of the modern bicycling world. He’s not a fan of the Latex suited would-be racers on tweaky carbon fiber bikes with hyper-skinny tires, or the way that sort of thing is marketed to mainstream bicyclists today as the “correct” way to do things. Grant is basically about practical cycles being used for commuting, with riders dressed in comfortable street clothes. I’ve gotten a lot of good advice from his articles and his book, Just Ride . . .
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Ride-Radically-Practical-Riding/dp/0761155589
I might not agree with every last word he’s written, but it’s a good jumping off point. Likewise, is the $100K EV that can go 0 to 60 in 3 seconds what most people really need just to get around town to do boring domestic stuff? Some people claim it is and I often find myself providing the counterpoint.
Fair enough. Then I like the guy. However he needs to get his facts right about rust and aluminum. Steel rusts and a rust spot will keep on growing unless cleaned out and resealed. Aluminum on the other hand doesn’t. So it’s perfect for lasting through the decades if built, like Tesla Model S cars. Like a reinforced safety tank yet is still light.
There’s steel and there’s steel…
“General Motors is applying third-generation advanced high-strength steel to the new Chevrolet LOVA RV from SAIC-GM, thereby reducing the weight of selected body components by approximately 20%. The recreational vehicle (RV) was launched on 19 November 2015.
The new steel offers a superior balance of strength and ductility as compared to the first generation of high-strength steels. The fuel economy of a vehicle is generally considered to increase by 6 to 8% for every 10% reduction in body weight.
In 2009, GM began encouraging steel manufacturers to produce third-generation advanced high-strength steel with superior formability and tensile strengths of 1,000 MPa and higher for vehicle bodies.
Among all the state-of-art steel-making processes, the GM China Science Lab in Shanghai identified the Quench and Partition (Q&P) process as one of most promising solutions for producing third-generation advanced high-strength steel.cQ&P steel represents a new type of ultrahigh-strength steel with good ductility to improve fuel economy while promoting passenger safety.”
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/20151203-gmqnp.html
Well, my first car was a 1951 Ford (red convertible). I could have smoked your ’51 Chevy any day…. ;o)
I don’t doubt it. Not sure about the Fords of the day but Chevys of that period were geared like farm tractors. In addition to the transmission that were as fragile as fine crystal glassware, they were hooked up to the differential by an enclosed driveshaft called a torque tube. It was a bizarre system.
If I had money back then I would have gone with a ’60s vintage 4 speed with floor shifting, standard universal joints on the shaft and a significantly less tall set of gears inside a fairly modern rear end. Then, it would have been down to the overhead valve straight 6 against your flathead V8 . . . And then, yeah . . .
watch out! 🙂
My ’51 had been tweaked just a bit. Including dual Hollys. I don’t think it would have been close…. ;o)
Base model X will be $75k minus $10k in federal and state incentives, so $65k plus tax in California.
Still not very affordable but not $80k either.
Even with slow sales, since they will likely last forever with some maintenance, in 20 years there will probably be quite a few on the road.
it’s $80,000 at the moment, unless they lower it next year.
Ohh… Well, they’ve claimed it will be $75k after the early adopters have paid their premium. 😉
ah, haven’t seen that.
Yes, once again, I tend to think very few here who comment are actually median income earners (around $54K annually in the US . . . and DROPPING.)
My wife and I are just above this amount, but not by much.
We would be laughed out of a lending institution if we asked for a loan for even a $30K new car. It’s absolutely absurd to think that we would attempt to qualify for an $80K one.
You might be surprised what kind of loan you can qualify for if you have a good credit score. The local credit union here qualified me for a $54k auto loan over 5 years with no proof of income at 2% interest simply because my credit score is great. If you don’t have a good score… then I have no idea.
And before anyone calls me Mr Snobby, I’ve had below median income for the last 10 years or so. I’m just very frugal and carry no debt other than a home loan which doesn’t seem to have damaged my credit score. I’ve also avoided having kids which, of course, is a huge money saver.
No name-calling, but I simply don’t believe it. I’m going to be talking to the loan agent at my credit union soon and will ask him about this. I don’t have a stellar credit rating but it also isn’t terrible. My interest rate is higher than what you claim to be qualified for, but loans aren’t based soley on that. Average annual income, debt (mine was virtually non-existent coming into my recent used EV purchase) and the price of the intended purchase over the typical 5 year loan were cited to me as greater extenuating factors.
No kids? I guess you could call that a “money saver,” but I’d call it an incomplete and potentially empty adult life. But, hey, enjoy the fancy wheels instead. :-/
Ha! I know it’s hard to believe but neither me nor my wife want children. I’ve felt that way for 39 years and never wavered. Just goes to prove that everyone is different, mmm?
I understand your skepticism and I was also surprised that they didn’t want proof of income, but that was my experience with Arrowhead Credit Union. I think they figure if you’ve gone at least 7 years without failing to pay debts, they’re happy to throw money at you and assume you’ve done the math and can actually make payments. They can also repossess the car and get more money back than remains owed on the loan within a year or less, so it’s really not very risky on their end.
I’m not sure why you’re skeptical on the interest rate. Even Tesla is offering a 3% loan through their partner banks (Wells Fargo and Bank of America, if I remember correctly). Interest rates are just at stupidly low levels right now.
Anyway, good luck, and if you shop around I bet you can get a loan. Unless the bank sees “kids” on the credit report and says No Way Jose! 😉
Hey, whatever works. But, yeah, fancy cars are about the first thing to go when you bring a kid online. It’s all about priorities.
It wasn’t clear in the post that I first replied to that you had a significant other (ie: wife) in the household. Assuming she is also a breadwinner, that’s going to bump up you eligibility for vehicle loan options significantly, even if she isn’t signing on as a co-owner. I should clarify that our TOTAL HOUSEHOLD income is just above the statistical average US household level, not just my salary or my wife’s salary alone . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
All this said, with all of life’s expenses factored in, my recent used i-MiEV purchase is affordable, but tight enough for me to now having me count.my pennies more carefully for the next few years. It works out to monthly loan payments at just below $150. Add in insurance and that ups it to $200 monthly. Registration is cheap in Arizona through the alternative fuels vehicle’s program – much cheaper than a comparable sized ICE – and it doesn’t have to be a new vehicle to qualify. “Fuel” is much cheaper as well, even in the current market of sub-$2 per gallon gasoline.
Monthly payments and insurance on a $54K vehicle would be WAY beyond my means, even if had Mahatma Gandhi’s credit rating (which I don’t) . . . and, honestly, I don’t really like any of the big ostentatious cars in that price range all that much, even the current crop of electric ones. Again, it’s all about priorities.
Congratulations on avoiding kids. With most governments built on Ponzi schemes requiring an ever expanding population, the amount of societal propaganda is overwhelming to most of us. In a fair society, you would be rewarded with fewer taxes!
Wouldn’t be much point in trying to save the planet “for the sake of our children” if nobody ever had any.
Why bother trying to save humanity if we could all just stop making more of them. That would be great for the planet, of course. Less great for the species as a whole.
You needn’t worry about our species survival. Instead worry about this planets survival due to our current out-of-control breeding!
The problem with most people who proclaim that “there are too many people in the world” is that they’re talking about OTHER people.
I usually invite such people to contribute to the solution by immediately removing themselves or their own family members from the population. To date nobody has taken me up on my idea….
I like your extreme views. However I’m more into changing view points. Letting people know there are alternatives that are much better than the status quo. Like renewable energy. And getting hobbies rather than marrying, breeding out of boredom, growing fat, and dying feeling you’ve treaded water your entire life.
People sometimes need to know what the alternatives are…
Haha, well said. 😛
All flippancy aside, who gets to decide what constitutes “controlled breeding” and what is “out of control”?
I agree that current human population is probably beyond what can be maintained for any length of time, even at current levels of consumption. I’m not sure what the “sustainable” carrying capacity of the planet is, but I know that more and more people, all wanting more and more stuff, is not a situation that is likely to end well.
But who gets to make the decision, on who should breed and who shouldn’t? Or how many children I am allowed to have?
What criteria do we use for making these decisions?
How do we avoid abuse of the system by those in charge?
How do you physically prevent “The Undesirables” or the “Had Enoughs” from breeding?
And how do we ensure normal progressive evolution of the species if the primary mechanism of “survival of the fittest” has been removed?
Of course, the problem of over-population in any particular species does have a tendency to self-correct. I figure I have a good chance of witnessing such self correction within my lifetime, in an “event” that will involve the fairly sudden loss of (somewhere in the order of magnitude of) a billion souls. An event I refer to rather dramatically as “Gigadeath”.
There is a good deal of lively (albeit morbid) speculation amongst my group of friends as to the likely cause of such event. Current odds-on favourite would probably be the collapse of one of the (limited number of) staple food species, due primarily to loss of genetic diversity within the plant population which would leave it extremely vulnerable to some new strain of pathogen.
Cheerful stuff.
P.S. And guilty as charged. I’m a bit of a “breeder” myself. Hope that doesn’t mean we can’t be friends. Or that I am now required to do the biblical infanticide thing a la Abraham to get the divine stamp of approval…
Controlled is replacement rate or less.
Given the very low death-in-childhood rate in developed societies, replacement rate is 1 child per person, or 2 per couple.
Out of control is more than that.
This isn’t very hard, ecologically speaking. If we were managing the population of another species, we’d do this without thinking about it. But people start acting funny when it’s humans.
Anyway, to avoid any bias, I’d just give everyone a single child permit (“replace yourself”). If you don’t want kids you can give them to someone who wants more kids. A few people would hoard them until death and this would allow the population to slowly drop.
China’s one-child policy made sense except for one spectacularly idiotic thing: *they didn’t have any sex education in schools and didn’t teach anyone how to use birth control* until about 5 years ago!!! So how exactly were people supposed to patriotically implement the one-child policy? We all know people are going to have sex, that’s been proven.
I’d much rather round up old white Republicans for forced extermination. They’re a far greater drag on society than kids. Just my tongue-in cheek thoughts into this curious genocide conversation . . .
🙂 Me too.
If each couple had 1 kid, we’d be fine.
Having more than 2 is just greedy.
Oh, the big banks want you to borrow so much that you’ll be paying them interest forever. A small credit union won’t lend you huge amounts; one of the big megabanks will. Unfortunately.
Agreed that Model X will do more than the others to truly move society toward 100% EVs. Not just awareness, but stirring up product road maps of all automakers. Now light trucks and SUVs (Americas number one selling class of vehicles) are firmly in scope for the first time in history. This is a big milestone.
People, remember that not even Tesla is claiming that the Model S or X is a car for the masses. The S however hit an incredible milestone this year: #1 market share in its class against 100 year old companies. More sales than S-class Benz, more than 7 Series, more than the big Audis. This provides the cash flow to fund the Model 3 to go against 3Series. And what’s next? $18000 Camry? $25k F150? Gonna be interesting.
80-85% of Volt miles are all electric miles. Plug-in hybrids have a better chance of selling between the coasts, at least until the batteries get better and cheaper.
That percentage will increase with the new model’s longer range and the reality is that most all people still only consider an ICE vehicle. If the reliability is still as good and GM slaps their dealers into action, far more people would drastically cut their fossil emissions. Consumers avoid an expensive perceived risk and the Volt is the perfect bridge to an EV future. Whatever it takes…
True. Also, GM probably would have sold a lot more vehicles if the Volt had been designed as an SUV instead of a sedan. Can’t understand that decision. Can’t understand why they put the Chevy badge on it either.
I think that is the argument for the Volt.
And note that 1st-gen Volt drivers have been driving about as much on electricity as 1st-gen LEAF drivers. That makes them quite comparable, in my eyes. Question is, how will the new models sell & be used. Also, are LEAF drivers just driving less or are the renting cars or driving gas cars for a few thousand miles a year? are the Volts being sold to people who otherwise would just buy gasmobiles?
A lot of factors to consider.
I found a solid site that accumulates Volt stats. As it is an opt-in site, I would guess that the %EV miles on there are higher than average but still interesting to see. I would LOVE to get my hands on the big data for all Volt drivers at this level of granularity…
http://www.voltstats.net/
Yeah, it’s a great site. Not sure if the stats that come from GM are from that or for the fleet as a whole. Marion probably knows.
It comes from OnStar users.
The stats require you to have an active OnStar account, then share the info with VoltStats. So that isn’t the fleet as a whole, just a big sample of enthusiasts.
Since the manufacturers and dealers make no effort to sell their plug-ins, the only people who buy them are people who educate themselves by reading sites like this (and that’s a small number). For example, how many people walk into a Nissan or Chevy dealership knowing nothing about EVs and walk out with a Leaf or Volt? My guess: zero. IMO stats won’t be very useful until plug-ins become a mainstream product. People like us are a niche market.
Yes, every dealer I’ve asked has basically said the only people who buy their EVs come in specifically for them. But I wonder regarding the Volt. Think it’s easier for dealers to get behind since it doesn’t have pure-EV limitations with range, can still provide dealers with their service revenue, and is so loved by buyers. But who knows?
I would’ve considered the volt instead of the leaf had it been a larger vehicle (2 kids with strollers). And that’s my knock against it. They just needed to apply the EREV concept to their CUV line-up as well.
Right. The Volt should have been a CUV/SUV instead of a small sedan. Really bad decision on GM’s part.
I agree. If you’re not going to make the car drop-dead gorgeous then make it maximally functional. Rear hatch, fold flat rear seats should be a requirement.
I’m getting getting tired of snobby rich people who can afford a Tesla who look down on us people who want to be able to drive long distances.
I cannot afford a Model S. I voted for the Tesla because their mission, as stated 10 years ago, is to produce the Model 3, in three phases (Roadster > Model S > Model 3). I can afford a Model 3. The Model 3 is to be revealed in March 2016. I am happy for rich people to fund Tesla’s mission – so that I can buy a Model 3.
Yes I am the same way, I want emissions gone, not just for driving but for living and all energy.
I would be interesting how all of us on this site are doing in our own lives.
Perhaps another survey?
Salespeople tell me that the percentage of people who count the energy stars on appliances is 5%.
The percentage of people who vote Green (here in Australia) is 8%. So if all the ‘greenies’ stop 100% of their emissions (a very tall order given current technology), we reduce emissions by less than 10%. That’s not going to keep us under 2 degrees C of warming – not even close.
Therefore, it’s primarily a political/technological battle – we need policies (both carrots and sticks) that fast track zero emission technologies – at least until they gain a momentum of their own and rub out the old way of doing things. The greenest thing anyone can do is vote for a price on carbon. (And in my view, a most evil thing is to run a scare campaign that such a policy will destroy the economy)
“a most evil thing is to run a scare campaign that such a policy will destroy the economy”
Are Australian politicians doing that too? I thought that was a purely American phenomenon.
Yep, Prime Minister Abbott did this (scare campaign). Thankfully he was turfed out by his *own party*.
Also, on a personal level, we can support the clean companies and technologies that will entice mainstream buyers to go clean.
We should actually do a CT reader survey soon. We skipped a year (or two?).
“the Volt . . . has no future after affordable long range EVs hit the market.”
It has a longer future than that because it will take a long time to build out the fast charging infrastructure that will enable EVs to compete nationally with gas burners and hybrids.
Compare the first and second graphic. That’s how rapidly Tesla, a startup company, is installing Superchargers in the US. Think how fast a company with a lot more capital might be able to do the job.
Now that is a map I’d like totally covered in red!
It seems like that map hasn’t been updated in some time.
The time frames are still “today”, “2015” and “2016”.
And we’re one month away from the first two having no meaning other than for historical comparison.
Time to add a “2017” button, methinks. And maybe even hint at what’s expected for 2018?
“Today” when I grabbed that image was June, 2015. “2015” means EOY 2015. “2016” means EOY 2016.
You are right about it getting close to the end of 2015. Hopefully they’ll drop 2015 and add 2017 in another month.
That said, it would be interesting if they added an image for year one (2014?) and kept the EOY for each year after.
It should be noted that Tesla routines fails to meet the dates they set on the Supercharger map.
How do you know that?
Bob – check out this thread on TMC:
http://www.teslamotorsclub(dot)com/showthread.php/51162-How-trustworthy-is-Tesla-s-predicted-2015-2016-supercharger-map
Yeah. From my personal POV, the key Supercharger is Erie PA and I have no idea when they’ll actually build it.
Just imagine what could happen if GM, BMW, Mercedes, and the other backers of the SAE fast charging standard could do if they threw a few hundred million each at the problem? Instant fast charging network….
Would be nice. (And particularly if they leapfrogged fast charging and jumped right into superfast charging, like Tesla did.)
Not sure what you’re on about there Zach…. Pretty much all of these cars that have fast charging do an 80% charge in 30 minutes…
Talking about how fast the main OEM’s long-range EVs will be able to charge for a convenient road trip. Tesla’s Superchargers seem to barely cut it. Current CHAdeMO and SAE Combo DC Fast Charging is half has fast.
As far as I know, they all charge in about 30 minutes to 80%. This is a chemistry limitation inherent in the current range of chemistries currently in use. This includes Tesla.
So, the current fastest CHAdeMO chargers are built to take the most advantage of the current batteries that are on the road.
Put another way, if there was a 500 kW charger available, it would not reduce the charge time of a Kia Soul, or Leaf.
At such time as the cars themselves are capable of charging faster, faster chargers will become available. The SAE Combo charger and the CHAdeMo both scale up to ~250 kW
Yep. If i was in management in those companies i’d be acutely embarrassed by those graphics
Think about what it would like like if they all aligned on any single standard and pushed forward with 25% effort each…I’m honestly a bit surprised Shell or BP haven’t jumped on it yet. They have the footprint all they need to do is add some electrical infrastructure and a few lounge chairs.
I think you have a strong argument for the S (even potentially above the X), and I would never call you a snob. 😀
“I voted for the Model X because it puts pressure on established auto makers to get their act together.”
-Same here, and basically the reason I think Tesla has to win. Without Tesla, where would we be with regard to EV sales? How many people are buying LEAFs because they heard about the Model S but couldn’t afford it, but then discovered the LEAF?
Also, see my comments to Epicurus for why I think the X deserves to win: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/30/announcing-cleantechnica-car-year-award/#comment-2386841890
Side question Zach, will the Model 3 come only in one version or maybe like the Prius slightly different ones ( as far as you know)?
From what we know today, the Mod3 will be a smaller sedan than the current Model S. Following that, but on the same platform, they will release a Model Y which will be a compact utility vehicle with falcon doors…think Model S and Model X…just smaller.
Tagging on to what Kyle said, I assume the Model 3 will also come in various battery sizes.
Good point about people wanting a Tesla buying a Leaf instead. I think Tesla has done more than anyone else to raise the awareness of EV’s while the Leaf is a more affordable choice. Surprisingly I voted for the Leaf because of the affordability even though I would never personally buy one. (because of its looks but I don’t mean to keep ragging on it) =)
it’s a close race right now. good arguments for each option.
Leaf and Volt is a perfect combination for those who want to maximize electric miles and need two cars without breaking the bank.
I think there is some fear that Volt owners will start pumping in gas rather than waiting for the
charger more often than they should, but that’s probably very rare. Volt owners have every reason to maximize electric miles, both because they’re cheaper and because they make less CO2. I think the kind of person who would buy a Volt, either for the sake of the planet or to save money in the long term, or both, is going to plug in as much as possible.
So, much props Jim Seko! You’re part of the solution today and you help drive EV makers to build in greater volume and reduce costs for future buyers.
You’ve got a Leaf and a Volt? Awesome. I’ve got one Tesla, but that’s because we were able to cut down from two cars to one.
Somewhat begrudgingly I voted for the LEAF. It isn’t new, but it has sold more than any other and as the range increases (106 mi./charge), it should sell more because it is more affordable than the Teslas. Thus, I’m guessing that in terms of reduction of CO2, the LEAF would displace the most CO2.
I’d vote 2016 Leaf IF they advertise it well and produce in volume. Unfortunately we won’t know that till after Dec 31…
Yeah, we have to guess impact 😀
Hey, there are 113 2016 LEAF SVs available in the Los Angeles area! Click the “Build and price” button: http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf
I signed up to Nissan’s mailing list to be “the first to know” when the 2016 was available and apparently they totally failed to tell me the car was out. Nothing in spam folder either. *grrr*
I’m glad they beat their January estimate of release but if they can’t even contact people who signed up to be the first to know about the car, they’re totally failing in marketing – again.
Leaning towards voting Model X or S at this point.
lol. Nissan. As much as it gets kudos for being an EV leader, I’m totally sick of the gasmobile advertisements they email me on such a frequent basis. I came in only interested in a LEAF. Why am I getting gasmobile ads blasted my way a couple times a week? This oversight regarding the 2016 LEAF just continues that #fail.
I did stumble on one way to check the state of Nissan’s LEAF advertising:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMZh9kMjQ6Yc_JuCNIp1UDw
http://evobsession.com/fresh-2016-nissan-leaf-mountains/ shows they have at least two 2016 LEAF commercials out. Neither commercial is listed in their YouTube channel under the LEAF category which is AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. The latest commercial in the LEAF category is a year old.
Average views of the first 10 LEAF commercials are around 20k. Highest is 700k. Next highest is 70k. An Altima commercial at the top of the page has 1.4 MILLION views after 4 weeks. The latest LEAF commercial posted 4 weeks ago has… 7,751 views: https://youtu.be/QCnN9Dg-_QU
Gee, could it be that Nissan is paying to get views on their Altima commercial and not on the LEAF commercial? They aren’t even putting the new LEAF commercials on their frigging youtube channel! Way to make a big media splash with the release of the 2016 LEAF, Nissan.
Nissan Europe channel seems to be trying: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFArn7GtcJh-fKJeLSHbeJw
They only have one category and it’s all LEAF! Yet the featured commercial on the page posted a month ago has only 2,345 views so apparently they aren’t paying for advertising either. I wonder why LEAF is the only category on the page? Almost seems like a LEAF test advertising channel or something.
Argh… Alright, since all evidence points to Nissan making little effort to sell the 2016 LEAF, the LEAF is unlikely to sell much more than the Model S (Model S might even beat it since they keep increasing production speed) so I’m voting for S.
I don’t want to vote X because it costs $10k more (hopefully $5k in the future), uses more materials, and is less energy efficient (92 MPGe, 257 mile range on Model X 90D vs 100 MPGe and 270 mile range on Model S 90D). MAYBE X will sell more and inspire buyers not interested in S or who truly need the extra space, but I still see S as better for creating less CO2 in production and use and being slightly more affordable.
In the future I kinda think we should vote on the Cleantech car of the year towards the end of the model year rather than the beginning since we’re trying to take into account the behavior of the companies behind the cars rather than just the features of the cars.
ha, wow.
wow…
that’s a freakin’ article there! want to write it? (you nearly have already :D)
“In terms of inspiring mainstream buyers to want an EV it’s also the best.”
I figured that would cause the most CO2 reduction in the long run, so that’s the way I voted…
ALL are green except Volt but the criteria of pulling buyers will be filled by Leaf only because it will pull small price buyers which are always majority in any community than the rich buyers who evidently will choose Tesla.
In theory the Volt is “less brown”. In practice it’s been “massively less brown” and has been covering similar total EV miles as the Leaf fleet, if you believe GM’s press releases.
That said, BMW seems to be doing the most in terms of sustainable low-impact production, even if they are shipping carbon fiber halfway around the world in order to do it.
I know of a “rich” guy who bought and drives a used Volt. He loves it.
Let’s not stereotype.
Then leaf can win more
I was hugely torn between Tesla and Nissan. Tesla are a catalyst more than a car company and will hopefully be remembered in the future for this massively important role. But Nissan throw affordability into the mix which is crucial for uptake. I so wanted to vote for them both as we are stuffed without them 🙂 but in true Eurovision style it is 1 vote from the UK for Carlos Ghosn.
haha. no bad choices here, i think. 😀
I think the “rules” for this competition will need to be spelt out very clearly if it is to become a “thing” that the broader public are able to take seriously/
And the judging criteria would need to be very clear as well.
There is a very strong perception of Tesla bias on Cleantechnica.
Not saying that the bias is unfounded.
Just that, for these awards to have meaning, they must have integrity. And for that you require complete transparency.
This is challenging. I am actually planning to lease a ’16 Leaf SV in March (my 2nd EV) and I believe that there are not really enough EVs yet to limit the selection to the current year model, in which case the i3 would seem to be the best choice… But, from the selection of (4), I voted for the ’16 Volt. I think that Volt sales in the next few months are going to skyrocket and the technology packed into the Volt is quite impressive. I’m a purist myself and I have vowed to never buy an ICE of any type again but… for the ‘masses’, the Volt (I believe) meets your criteria just slightly (more) than the other three.
“I think that Volt sales in the next few months are going to skyrocket and the technology packed into the Volt is quite impressive.”
– I think you’re right. Hope so. Eager to see how it plays out.
“I’m a purist myself and I have vowed to never buy an ICE of any type again but… for the ‘masses’, the Volt (I believe) meets your criteria just slightly (more) than the other three.”
– I’m primarily in the same boat and agree, but I think the X will sell very well and top the luxury SUV class, while also bringing so much more attention to EVs that it boosts all EV sales (LEAF, Volt, everything).
Also, will GM really produce enough Volts to hit or rise above 40,000 or 50,000 a year? Will Tesla hit its estimate of 50,000 Xs a year?
Hard to know how things will really play out. And I think that’s what makes this award fun, as it inspires us to think carefully about where things will lead, and then allows us to compare with reality in a year or two.
Only one car on this list has truly raised the bar for EV capability and truly moved society closer to 100% EVs. That is the only EV in the world that can do the basics of what a 1990 explorer or 2000 Sienna can do:
1) Versatile, ample cargo and passenger space AND
2) Go nonstop at cruising speed for 3 hours (200 miles) on a Friday evening.
The Model X is truly a major milestone toward the mass market. It’s the benchmark against which all others will compare. Price drops will come. Cheers.
I wonder. What sort of pickup could be made using the ModX as a jumping off point? Probably could hold the range unloaded, lighter vehicle but less aerodynamic due to the open bed. I suspect most pickups don’t do 200 miles per day when loaded, more like 2 to 20 miles to the worksite.
Exactly. Much like that cultural aberration the SUV “evolved” from the basic architecture of the light truck, I see no reason why the same process could not happen in reverse, using the basic platform of the Model X as a starting point for a truck. Getting rid of all the fancy bits (falcon doors, huge windscreen, massive filter, leather and obeche trim, artistic second row seats, etc) would probably allow one to shave about 20-30 grand off the selling price. Might well be able to get away with a smaller battery, too.
As someone who actually uses a light truck (what we call a “bakkie”) for actual work from time ti time, what I would really like to see is a truck that leverages the advantage of carrying a big battery to site every day.
So a couple of 220V outlets (or 110V in uncivilised countries) would be very useful, as would built-in chargers for (hopefully soon-to-be-standardised) cordless tool batteries.
At the moment, many contractors ride around everywhere with a heavy petrol-powered generator on the back of the bakkie. And a five litre can of highly flammable dinosaur piss. And then, when they get to site, they suddenly realise that the genny aint working for some reason. Leaving the client (me) and other tradespeople on site very pssed off.
It’s an archaic system.
And you’re right: most contractors I work with have a very small daily range requirement. They get paid by the hour, or for work completed on site. When they’re in the truck, they’re not making money. So they tend to plan their jobs to limit transport time. They might nonetheless spend quite a bit in fuel, because they’re often doing short trips with heavy loads. So electric is a good fit for saving money, and wear and tear. (Drive shafts and diffs get hammered with heavy loads).
The frunk as a secure storage area for expensive tools is also a very handy feature.
But lets be honest with ourselves. The overwhelming majority of light trucks aren’t used for any kind of “work”, other than perhaps fetching a few bags of potting soil from the garden centre on a Saturday afternoon. For the average Joe, whose “truck” is merely a compensatory device for inadequacy in the pantal region, the required range is probably less than 50 miles per day.
Replacing all those ego-mobiles with electric vehicle would make a non-trivial difference to pollution levels.
C’mon Ford. Or Tesla. Or anybody! There’s a lot of money to be made here….
Yep. I really really really want to see the first battery-electric pickup. ASAP. Maybe it’s where Elon lives, but Tesla hasn’t been focusing enough on that…
Most local contractors (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, painters) don’t drive very much per day, although they may be carrying heavy loads. The combination of a secure trunk in front and open bed in back will be very popular.
And most pickups are bought as ego-mobiles. Tesla could sell a lot in that market. (They have to be 4WD for ego reasons obviously).
I missed seeing this poll in my top clean tech stories email. Was it posted there?
Yeah, must have been.
But we’ll post about it again once or twice anyway for people who missed it the first time around.
Model S 70D *BECAUSE IT IS ALL-WHEEL-DRIVE*. This makes it the first pure-electric to be all-wheel drive. This is a *huge* deal in the snowbelt.
The lack of 4-wheel-drive has deterred a lot of people I know from buying electric cars, so this is a very important development in ‘market acceptance’.