Cars that are designed from the ground up to be EVs tend to be much better than trying to shoehorn an EV into an ICE design.
The new Lexus ES350e, which comes in both hybrid and EV flavors, has been pretty universally panned as a mediocre EV [1]. Lexus anticipates that the vast majority of ES sales will be for the hybrid model, and I expect the same will be true of the Corolla.
The updated bZ and new bZ Woodland on the other hand, which are built as ground-up EVs on the e-TNGA platform, actually seem pretty decent. And I'm hopeful for the upcoming EV Highlander, too (although that will use a modified version of the TNGA-K platform).
I would prefer if Toyota just released a new EV model with roughly the same proportions as the Corolla, instead of going with the one-size-fits-all approach. But maybe they'll finally be able to get it right this time.
Everyone thought Toyota was Nokia when Tesla appeared... I think those days are over. Toyota survived that one already with a facelift for Prius.
BYD Dolphin base in Japan is $19k, the new Racco kei car is $14k. They're not doing so well - they just have no selling point. They're not even the cheapest of EVs in Japan, let alone the cheapest of all cars for Japan - $19k is literally 4k over the current gen JDM Corolla. I think that is an indication that BYD has no secret sauce but their pricing are just introductory one to starve off last bits of Western industrial capacities spared by Japanese automakers.
There's a lot of schadenfreude in the Netherlands about German car manufacturers but then we all know what happened the last time German industry went kaput...
So I suppose we all have to support our brothers and sisters from the East until they get their act together.
> Personally I think it's time for the personal car to disappear anyway.
Yeah I dunno.
I think the majority of people will fight to the death if one tries to take away the individual mobility (and replaces it with either nothing or corporate-owned assets).
So yeah maybe that prediction in the first sentence is actually accurate, depending on how strongly that opinion is held and pushed.
In America maybe. Here in Europe it's not really viewed as a birthright like that. And don't forget, America artificially created a dependency on the car with its city design, for economic reasons.
And no I don't think anything corporate-owned is the answer, as corporations are the main reason we're in this mess.
But like I said it is my personal opinion. The challenges we face as humanity, like pollution (not just global warming), and infinite growth can't be solved without some big changes. Quick fixes just won't do it which is why we're not actually solving anything.
I don't think it will happen though. There's too many vested interest in just burning the world until it's gone.
Europe is a big place. For example, if you are a farmer living in Finnish countryside, good luck surviving without a personal car. Lots of city folks also have relatives or summer cottages in the countryside, and own some cheap car just to reach them. And for families living in smaller cities, the public transport system is often inadequate, in rural areas it's non-existent.
I don't drive much, but the little I do improves my quality of life significantly. Personal cars shouldn't disappear, but cities should be designed to minimize need for them, and public transport systems should be improved. Those of us who need a car to reach rural locations still should be able to own one. Taxation should focus on car usage, not ownership, and tax usage more in cities than in areas where cars are more necessary. Owning a car is not inherently worse than any other form of ownership.
> Here in Europe it's not really viewed as a birthright like that.
I have never left Europe in my life, and I can with certainty say that this is wrong.
We do have a bunch of city-dwelling people that can do without, yes, but once you leave those perspective-skewing places, there is no way to pleasantly exist without some sort of car.
That said, I agree that more could be done without them, and I think that eBikes are doing a ton of work there to enable people to use the one car they have to own less. If only they weren't by now priced like actual cars..
__
Also bonuspoints for not doing the dumb thing and buying a special-purpose-only cargo bike but the smart thing of owning a regular eBike, a trailer hitch and a bike trailer. You can get so much done with a bike trailer.
If you're in europe, go check out hinterher.com. Great stuff
> Also bonuspoints for not doing the dumb thing and buying a special-purpose-only cargo bike but the smart thing of owning a regular eBike, a trailer hitch and a bike trailer. You can get so much done with a bike trailer.
Cargo bikes are great for kids. I would be far too terrified to put them in one of those trailers.
That's also what the LLM said when I stress-tested my comment, but I grew up seeing many kids being driven around in fairly safe looking trailers, so I'm not 100% sure if that holds up.
I mean, psychologically, you're completely right. But realistically, a trailer is probably fine - as long as you understand object permanence and drive safe and like there's your kid behind you.
> America artificially created a dependency on the car with its city design, for economic reasons.
That's nonsense. Most American cities were built after automobiles were already a thing, that's why our cities are designed around automobile transportation. Many European cities are much older than cars, of course they were laid out based on the transportation of the day.
And I don't get your dig at the end related to American city design being some for economic reasons. What city wasn't design in part for economic reasons? Homes, businesses, roads, etc are always positioned in a city in part based on economic impact and value.
American cities are better for the general public anyway. Would you personally choose to spend over half your pay renting an expensive micro apartment in the middle of the city, or drive a 30-60 min commute to your big house on cheap land in the suburbs? Europeans don't get that choice, since land is so scarce.
We absolutely, 100% do. Not everywhere, just like it isn't universally true in the US, but it definitely is a choice that many in Europe have. We just aren't chained to a car even in this case, public transport is still great even if you don't live in the city center.
It might be great where you are but it definitely isn't where I am in Norway, nor was it in quite a few of the rural places I visited in the UK this summer.
I'd take the short commute for sure. I'd rather not waste so much of my life trapped in a metal box that is statistically one of the most likely things to accidentally kill me. Time is the one thing I can't just make more of.
In a lot of metro areas, its not like that mortgage on a "big house on cheap land" is really that much cheaper than the smaller apartment further into the city. And these days that cheap "big house" is often a small near zero lot line house far away from anything interesting.
Oooh wow yeah I can get a house way out in the sticks. It'll take me an hour to get to any real job opportunities, entirely dependent on my car. Sure, there's no real city amenities anywhere around, but hey you've got that tiny little backyard for all those activities! Sure, there's no city pools, there's no city parks, there's no sports complexes (unless you're in high school), there are no theaters, there is barely a library, there isn't really public green spaces but hey you've got a few square feet of Bermuda grass to mow. All for probably a little over $2k a month.
I'd much rather live in a place with city parks, with municipal recreation centers, with good public libraries, close to actual job opportunities, lots of choices of cuisines when I choose to eat out, access to transit opportunities to get around the larger metro areas in multiple ways, etc. Its more expensive, and I won't be able to afford as much square footage, but hey having actually functional bike trails and sports leagues to participate in and not having to drive for hours to catch a sports team I like to see or catch a show in a theater sure beats just being alone in a cheap box with an empty small yard way away from anything fun to do.
I've only had one long commute in my life, and I carpooled so I wasn't even the one driving it. It sucked wasting so much time shuffling around in the car in traffic.
The complaint about cars resonates with me. I feel the same way about being tied to an apartment though - why work so hard just to give it all away to the landlord?
The sad truth is time lost to commute is no different to time lost paying for a more expensive apartment closer to work. They are balanced by the market. Unless you're wealthy, you have to trade to time to survive.
Looking in that area, there's some amazing cheap houses with lots of space
It's not for everybody, but options like this simply don't exist at all in Europe.
As for me, I paid around 400k in Australia and I'm near / walking distance to parks, rec centers, aquatic centers, cinemas, all kinds of sports facilities, libraries, shopping centers. Many high paid jobs for engineers nearby. I don't commute every day, and when I do I listen to podcasts, or think about ideas I've been working on, or make phone calls.
> I feel the same way about being tied to an apartment though - why work so hard just to give it all away to the landlord?
Comparing a $424k house, you can get significantly closer into the city and have a much better commute. It's a false dichotomy to think one needs to rent at those kinds of prices further into the city, or at least a city with actual city-like amenities and wide job prospects within a 10 minute drive. You just might have other tradeoffs, like a smaller lot or an older house.
My current home is slightly larger than that first example, there's a bus stop outside, I ride my bicycle to the office, take the train to my favorite sports games, and is somewhere around the same value with recent appraisals. But I've got significantly less grass to mow, and my property taxes are a bit higher.
It's really a personal choice. I would definitely choose the city apartment, as long as I can afford to not have a car I'll choose that, at least for now. Can't fathom the idea of having to drive to the office/city centre/shops when I can just walk.
> Europeans don't get that choice, since land is so scarce
don't think that's true, there's plenty of satellite towns and rural areas around every city
It's a choice, sure, but the tradeoffs available are different. Those rural areas tend to be more expensive than e.g. American suburbs.
In my sprawling Australian city, the nation's median earner would need about a 45-minute commute to get to an affordable 800 sqm block with detached house. I'd say that's about the smallest block which justifies suburban life. Until covid, it would have been about 30 mins. I've got a backyard, veggie garden, sheds, greenhouse, large patio, and I live walking distance to trainline, multiple parks, multiple shopping centers.
Simply not an option in London, Paris, etc. Gemini suggests Leipzig or Bordeaux might compare. But although salaries are lower in Bordeaux, I was not able to find a listing online for over even 600 sqm which was comparably priced to my own house. There's a few castles/manors in need of some tlc if you have deep pockets though.
I live in Canada (Toronto) and choose to live and raise my family downtown. We bought a multi-bedroom condo in a slightly older building (better layout and larger size than more modern buildings). My child walks to school and we socialize with the parents during dropoff, is constantly meeting the neighbourhood kids in the public parks, and my commute is a 15 minute walk. We are also within walking distance to all the amenities the city has to offer (aquarium/museums, shops, etc). I sometimes think we live in Sesame Street w/o the muppets; my 8 year old runs the cash register for me at several stores we shop at because the owners know us so well.
Any "savings" I would have moving to the suburbs would be cancelled out by the thousands in commuting costs (I'd have to buy, maintain and insure a car, which I only now use car sharing and the occasional old school rental). All being equal, a larger home would be nice, but then I'd be in a position where I go out less.
I'm not saying urban life is for everybody, but you make it sound like a choice between dystopia and utopia (it was awful during the height of COVID, though). The fact that the American cities that are closest to the urban ideal are so expensive does signal that people would like to live like that, but for very various reasons (ranging from zoning to historical gov't mortgage insurance only applying to houses) has not been expanded much elsewhere.
I meant to compare (caricatures of) cities, not lifestyles within a city.
I'll struggle to explain myself concisely.
Basically, the Urban ideal is gatekept - you can't access the benefits without paying for them. The general public is better of moving to smaller cities where land is affordable. They will earn a bit less but keep much more for themselves.
> Any "savings" I would have moving to the suburbs would be cancelled out by the thousands in commuting costs
Absolutely.
1) Within a city, these tradeoffs are balanced by the market
2) If there's more cheap land outside city (outer suburbs), this balancing brings prices in the inner city down
3) As that outer land becomes exhausted (new outer suburbs too far to commute), inner-city prices skyrocket
4) A small city is surrounded by more underdeveloped land and hence workers capture a larger share of their own production
5) Improved public transport helps to rebalance inner and outer suburb prices
If there's a fixed amount of land and a large population, best you can do is lots of 5) (urban ideal). It's not a bad thing. If there's land available though, you also have the option to spread out further into more small cities (suburban ideal). There's obviously a continuum between the two.
Within a big sprawling city like Toronto, public transport investment would be a net positive. But people would be even better off IMHO if they instead spread further out into new cities.
> The fact that the American cities that are closest to the urban ideal are so expensive does signal that people would like to live like that
Desirability is a function of price. What's desirable at 100k might not be at 1M.
People living close together with good transport is economically far more efficient than the alternatives. That's the value - everyone is more productive. To access that benefit though, you have to live there. So the people who own the land have leverage to charge you more for it. You earn more but pay more for housing/land.
If you can afford it comfortably, highly Urban cities are almost certainly better for you. Working people though left high-value European cities en masse for dirt cheap land in America, Canada, Australia, etc. They earned much smaller salaries yet ended up wealthier - because they kept more for themselves.
You'd really have to define "better" there.
I'm American and also spent a few years living in Europe. I actually much preferred the smaller homes and more walkable cities in Europe, I don't need a McMansion to feel happy.
We moved back primarily because immigration laws are always tricky, our families were still in the US, and I didn't want to watch Russia invade Ukraine from a front row seat. If the decision were only about cost and lifestyle of home and city design we would still be in Europe.
I'd rather live in a smaller city where I earn a bit less and things are a bit less convenient, but I don't have to give all my money to the bank / person I bought the land from / landlord / etc.
If you can comfortably afford it, highly urban is usually better.
I resent the idea of masses of people spending their whole lives just transferring money from their boss to their landlord. Small cities with drivable suburbs dispersed over a great continent is to me a symbol of escape from millennia of tyranny. Each to their own, I guess.
The main challenge I have with living in densely populated areas these days is how fragile they are. Any disruption to power, water, fuel, food, etc and the I don't know what people in a dense area will do.
If the trade off is moving from transferring money from my boss to my landlord or from my boss to the dozens of systems I deeply depend on to live, I don't see too much difference there.
freetime2 · · focus · HN ↗
The new Lexus ES350e, which comes in both hybrid and EV flavors, has been pretty universally panned as a mediocre EV [1]. Lexus anticipates that the vast majority of ES sales will be for the hybrid model, and I expect the same will be true of the Corolla.
The updated bZ and new bZ Woodland on the other hand, which are built as ground-up EVs on the e-TNGA platform, actually seem pretty decent. And I'm hopeful for the upcoming EV Highlander, too (although that will use a modified version of the TNGA-K platform).
I would prefer if Toyota just released a new EV model with roughly the same proportions as the Corolla, instead of going with the one-size-fits-all approach. But maybe they'll finally be able to get it right this time.
[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ97R1nhq4M" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ97R1nhq4M
thelastgallon · · focus · HN ↗
Indeed. Toyota's days are numbered.
BYD is selling EVs for US$14K in Australia. Toyota is Nokia, they don't know it just yet. Corolla EV is 30K USD, gas 25K.
AUD 19,900 driveway (means taxes, registration etc included), or about US$14K: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49772728">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49772728
numpad0 · · focus · HN ↗
BYD Dolphin base in Japan is $19k, the new Racco kei car is $14k. They're not doing so well - they just have no selling point. They're not even the cheapest of EVs in Japan, let alone the cheapest of all cars for Japan - $19k is literally 4k over the current gen JDM Corolla. I think that is an indication that BYD has no secret sauce but their pricing are just introductory one to starve off last bits of Western industrial capacities spared by Japanese automakers.
expedition32 · · focus · HN ↗
wolvoleo · · focus · HN ↗
No, if they do that it's 100% on them.
And the German auto industry is really corrupt. See what they did at Volkswagen scamming the system and then refusing to own up to it.
I don't buy any cars anymore and if I did it wouldn't be German.
Personally I think it's time for the personal car to disappear anyway. Even an EV still pollutes a lot, it's not just about CO2.
hypfer · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah I dunno. I think the majority of people will fight to the death if one tries to take away the individual mobility (and replaces it with either nothing or corporate-owned assets).
So yeah maybe that prediction in the first sentence is actually accurate, depending on how strongly that opinion is held and pushed.
wolvoleo · · focus · HN ↗
And no I don't think anything corporate-owned is the answer, as corporations are the main reason we're in this mess.
But like I said it is my personal opinion. The challenges we face as humanity, like pollution (not just global warming), and infinite growth can't be solved without some big changes. Quick fixes just won't do it which is why we're not actually solving anything.
I don't think it will happen though. There's too many vested interest in just burning the world until it's gone.
rwyinuse · · focus · HN ↗
I don't drive much, but the little I do improves my quality of life significantly. Personal cars shouldn't disappear, but cities should be designed to minimize need for them, and public transport systems should be improved. Those of us who need a car to reach rural locations still should be able to own one. Taxation should focus on car usage, not ownership, and tax usage more in cities than in areas where cars are more necessary. Owning a car is not inherently worse than any other form of ownership.
hypfer · · focus · HN ↗
I have never left Europe in my life, and I can with certainty say that this is wrong.
We do have a bunch of city-dwelling people that can do without, yes, but once you leave those perspective-skewing places, there is no way to pleasantly exist without some sort of car.
That said, I agree that more could be done without them, and I think that eBikes are doing a ton of work there to enable people to use the one car they have to own less. If only they weren't by now priced like actual cars..
__
Also bonuspoints for not doing the dumb thing and buying a special-purpose-only cargo bike but the smart thing of owning a regular eBike, a trailer hitch and a bike trailer. You can get so much done with a bike trailer.
If you're in europe, go check out hinterher.com. Great stuff
disgruntledphd2 · · focus · HN ↗
Cargo bikes are great for kids. I would be far too terrified to put them in one of those trailers.
hypfer · · focus · HN ↗
I mean, psychologically, you're completely right. But realistically, a trailer is probably fine - as long as you understand object permanence and drive safe and like there's your kid behind you.
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
That's nonsense. Most American cities were built after automobiles were already a thing, that's why our cities are designed around automobile transportation. Many European cities are much older than cars, of course they were laid out based on the transportation of the day.
And I don't get your dig at the end related to American city design being some for economic reasons. What city wasn't design in part for economic reasons? Homes, businesses, roads, etc are always positioned in a city in part based on economic impact and value.
skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
usrnm · · focus · HN ↗
We absolutely, 100% do. Not everywhere, just like it isn't universally true in the US, but it definitely is a choice that many in Europe have. We just aren't chained to a car even in this case, public transport is still great even if you don't live in the city center.
ninalanyon · · focus · HN ↗
skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
vel0city · · focus · HN ↗
In a lot of metro areas, its not like that mortgage on a "big house on cheap land" is really that much cheaper than the smaller apartment further into the city. And these days that cheap "big house" is often a small near zero lot line house far away from anything interesting.
<a href="https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1108-Ginsburg-Ln-Princeton-TX-75407/339771365_zpid/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1108-Ginsburg-Ln-Princeto...
Oooh wow yeah I can get a house way out in the sticks. It'll take me an hour to get to any real job opportunities, entirely dependent on my car. Sure, there's no real city amenities anywhere around, but hey you've got that tiny little backyard for all those activities! Sure, there's no city pools, there's no city parks, there's no sports complexes (unless you're in high school), there are no theaters, there is barely a library, there isn't really public green spaces but hey you've got a few square feet of Bermuda grass to mow. All for probably a little over $2k a month.
I'd much rather live in a place with city parks, with municipal recreation centers, with good public libraries, close to actual job opportunities, lots of choices of cuisines when I choose to eat out, access to transit opportunities to get around the larger metro areas in multiple ways, etc. Its more expensive, and I won't be able to afford as much square footage, but hey having actually functional bike trails and sports leagues to participate in and not having to drive for hours to catch a sports team I like to see or catch a show in a theater sure beats just being alone in a cheap box with an empty small yard way away from anything fun to do.
I've only had one long commute in my life, and I carpooled so I wasn't even the one driving it. It sucked wasting so much time shuffling around in the car in traffic.
skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
The sad truth is time lost to commute is no different to time lost paying for a more expensive apartment closer to work. They are balanced by the market. Unless you're wealthy, you have to trade to time to survive.
Looking in that area, there's some amazing cheap houses with lots of space
<a href="https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8741-County-Road-863-Princeton-TX-75407/53082206_zpid/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8741-County-Road-863-Prin...? <a href="https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/131-Avalon-Dr-Princeton-TX-75407/83761001_zpid/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/131-Avalon-Dr-Princeton-T...? <a href="https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5682-Orchard-Pkwy-Fairview-TX-75069/113397540_zpid/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5682-Orchard-Pkwy-Fairvie...
It's not for everybody, but options like this simply don't exist at all in Europe.
As for me, I paid around 400k in Australia and I'm near / walking distance to parks, rec centers, aquatic centers, cinemas, all kinds of sports facilities, libraries, shopping centers. Many high paid jobs for engineers nearby. I don't commute every day, and when I do I listen to podcasts, or think about ideas I've been working on, or make phone calls.
vel0city · · focus · HN ↗
Comparing a $424k house, you can get significantly closer into the city and have a much better commute. It's a false dichotomy to think one needs to rent at those kinds of prices further into the city, or at least a city with actual city-like amenities and wide job prospects within a 10 minute drive. You just might have other tradeoffs, like a smaller lot or an older house.
My current home is slightly larger than that first example, there's a bus stop outside, I ride my bicycle to the office, take the train to my favorite sports games, and is somewhere around the same value with recent appraisals. But I've got significantly less grass to mow, and my property taxes are a bit higher.
lentil_soup · · focus · HN ↗
> Europeans don't get that choice, since land is so scarce
don't think that's true, there's plenty of satellite towns and rural areas around every city
skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
In my sprawling Australian city, the nation's median earner would need about a 45-minute commute to get to an affordable 800 sqm block with detached house. I'd say that's about the smallest block which justifies suburban life. Until covid, it would have been about 30 mins. I've got a backyard, veggie garden, sheds, greenhouse, large patio, and I live walking distance to trainline, multiple parks, multiple shopping centers.
Simply not an option in London, Paris, etc. Gemini suggests Leipzig or Bordeaux might compare. But although salaries are lower in Bordeaux, I was not able to find a listing online for over even 600 sqm which was comparably priced to my own house. There's a few castles/manors in need of some tlc if you have deep pockets though.
hylaride · · focus · HN ↗
Any "savings" I would have moving to the suburbs would be cancelled out by the thousands in commuting costs (I'd have to buy, maintain and insure a car, which I only now use car sharing and the occasional old school rental). All being equal, a larger home would be nice, but then I'd be in a position where I go out less.
I'm not saying urban life is for everybody, but you make it sound like a choice between dystopia and utopia (it was awful during the height of COVID, though). The fact that the American cities that are closest to the urban ideal are so expensive does signal that people would like to live like that, but for very various reasons (ranging from zoning to historical gov't mortgage insurance only applying to houses) has not been expanded much elsewhere.
skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
I'll struggle to explain myself concisely.
Basically, the Urban ideal is gatekept - you can't access the benefits without paying for them. The general public is better of moving to smaller cities where land is affordable. They will earn a bit less but keep much more for themselves.
> Any "savings" I would have moving to the suburbs would be cancelled out by the thousands in commuting costs
Absolutely.
1) Within a city, these tradeoffs are balanced by the market 2) If there's more cheap land outside city (outer suburbs), this balancing brings prices in the inner city down 3) As that outer land becomes exhausted (new outer suburbs too far to commute), inner-city prices skyrocket 4) A small city is surrounded by more underdeveloped land and hence workers capture a larger share of their own production 5) Improved public transport helps to rebalance inner and outer suburb prices
If there's a fixed amount of land and a large population, best you can do is lots of 5) (urban ideal). It's not a bad thing. If there's land available though, you also have the option to spread out further into more small cities (suburban ideal). There's obviously a continuum between the two.
Within a big sprawling city like Toronto, public transport investment would be a net positive. But people would be even better off IMHO if they instead spread further out into new cities.
> The fact that the American cities that are closest to the urban ideal are so expensive does signal that people would like to live like that
Desirability is a function of price. What's desirable at 100k might not be at 1M.
People living close together with good transport is economically far more efficient than the alternatives. That's the value - everyone is more productive. To access that benefit though, you have to live there. So the people who own the land have leverage to charge you more for it. You earn more but pay more for housing/land.
If you can afford it comfortably, highly Urban cities are almost certainly better for you. Working people though left high-value European cities en masse for dirt cheap land in America, Canada, Australia, etc. They earned much smaller salaries yet ended up wealthier - because they kept more for themselves.
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
I'm American and also spent a few years living in Europe. I actually much preferred the smaller homes and more walkable cities in Europe, I don't need a McMansion to feel happy.
We moved back primarily because immigration laws are always tricky, our families were still in the US, and I didn't want to watch Russia invade Ukraine from a front row seat. If the decision were only about cost and lifestyle of home and city design we would still be in Europe.
skew-aberration · · focus · HN ↗
If you can comfortably afford it, highly urban is usually better.
I resent the idea of masses of people spending their whole lives just transferring money from their boss to their landlord. Small cities with drivable suburbs dispersed over a great continent is to me a symbol of escape from millennia of tyranny. Each to their own, I guess.
_heimdall · · focus · HN ↗
If the trade off is moving from transferring money from my boss to my landlord or from my boss to the dozens of systems I deeply depend on to live, I don't see too much difference there.