Atvm Loan Requirement Changes

[Karnaj]

His point is that the average MPG right now is around 27 but by 2025, it will have to be 54. Thus, the advantage of the Elio is diminished. And, he's right. Eventually, every car may get 84 MPG and if that is ever the case, cost would be the only thing Elio has to their advantage... other than the neat factor.

Explained this way i see the point. I still don't see the big manufacturers pushing 85mpg until it's mandated. Just my opinion

 

[Ekh]

In New Mexico, I know, a homeowner can sell electricity that they generate.

We can sell electricity back to the area provider. It's a matter of law that was designed to promote the use of solar panels and other renewable resources.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

I have to call you on this one. Mpg is a constant. So is inflation and cost increase. My house will always raise in value over a long period. Over the long run, it doesn't matter what fuel costs, higher mpg will always be a benefit. The higher the cost of fuel the more benefit, but that doesn't mean a less likely chance of being a benefit at a lower cost of fuel.

"House will rise in value over a long period", is correct every morning until it isn't (keeping with the theme here). Think depression, and more recently recession, and add natural/manmade impacts, you're home could easily be gone i.e. Coastal flooding, loss of potable water, seismic events.
Housing for many, me included is/was the biggest "investment" I/we have made.
Also - inflation is not a constant.

 

[Rob Croson]

I agree, EVs are going to be the killing stroke. I do however think too much credit is being given to the auto makers on mpg. Imho, the only reason fuel efficiency has improved over the last decade is because of federal mandate. Mpgs raised very little from the 60's to the 80's. None of us can state for sure the reason, but all of us have an opinion why.

Manufacturers follow two things: Regulatory requirements, and customer demand. If the regulatory requirements do not force them to make high MPG cars, and the customers aren't willing to pay for them, then no sane manufacturer will make them. For many years there was no mandated requirement, and the customers didn't demand it. So who's going to make it?

The CAFE standard in 1983 was 24.0. By 2010 it was still only 27.5. Is it any wonder that the auto manufacturers didn't make more fuel efficient vehicles? The 2016 value for the Honda FIT is already 36 mpg. (It's based on vehicle footprint. Bigger vehicle have lower requirements.) By 2025 the mandated value for that size vehicle goes up to about 61 MPG! Elio's 84 MPG isn't really looking all that great when stacked up against average of 61, is it?

But let's assume that the Elio is delayed to 2018. The Honda FIT-sized vehicle in 2018 is already mandated by CAFE to have an average economy of 45 MPG. (The 2019 value is about 47. The chart is kind of hard to read.) Even stacked up against that, 84 is good, but not quite as good. And keep in mind that the Elio's 84 MPG is highway mileage, not the MPG rating used to calculate the CAFE value.

MPG ratings from the various manufacturers *will* go up over the next 9 years. They have to, or the manufacturer will be forced to pay some stiff penalties.

Sure, several cars only get 27, but the person shopping for MPG or decides not to buy an Elio isn't going to buy a big truck. They will shop for another fuel efficient vehicle. For example, I know several people with eco cruzes that get almost 50 mpg. I get 50MPG hwy with my 2003 Jetta.

And 27 mpgs is a joke. We should be way higher than it is right now. They know how to do it. "They" just keep screwing around.

Of course they know how to do it. But the market doesn't want it, and the feds aren't mandating it. So no one makes it. The auto manufacturers are promoting bigger, fancier, more connected, and more expensive cars. That's where the profit is. People have generally been willing to go along with it, and no manufacturer is going to slaughter the golden goose while it's still laying those big, fat golden eggs.

Explained this way i see the point. I still don't see the big manufacturers pushing 85mpg until it's mandated. Just my opinion

This is absolutely true. But the mandate has already been laid out.



As an aside, the CAFE article in Wikipedia is fascinating. It lays out how changes in the the CAFE standards killed the station wagon, created the minivan, and drove the migration from the traditional SUV to the crossover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

 

[Rob Croson]

"House will rise in value over a long period", is correct every morning until it isn't (keeping with the theme here).

This is so true. Something as simple as a manufacturer closing one plant in an area can send entire towns, and subsequently property values across the area, into a tailspin.

 

[Rickb]

Explained this way i see the point. I still don't see the big manufacturers pushing 85mpg until it's mandated. Just my opinion

It's the reason behind the DoE ATVM program to provide low interest loans to those that choose to develop higher mpg alternatives not mandate it.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

"House will rise in value over a long period", is correct every morning until it isn't (keeping with the theme here). Think depression, and more recently recession, and add natural/manmade impacts, you're home could easily be gone i.e. Coastal flooding, loss of potable water, seismic events.
Housing for many, me included is/was the biggest "investment" I/we have made.
Also - inflation is not a constant.

Today NYT-
In San Francisco, a Sinking Skyscraper and a Deepening Dispute


By THOMAS FULLERSEPT. 22, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Millennium Tower, which its developers say is the largest reinforced concrete building in the western United States, has now sunk about 16 inches and is leaning six inches toward a neighboring skyscraper. The building’s tilt has become a public scandal, a dispute that has produced a wide-eyed examination of whether or not San Francisco’s frenetic skyscraper-building spree was properly monitored by city authorities. In a city bracketed by two major earthquake fault lines, the possibility of engineering flaws generates particular unease.
  
  “This is the first sentinel telling us maybe we should be a little more careful,” said Nicholas Sitar, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in how buildings respond to earthquakes. “Any time you have a tall structure leaning, you have to start looking very carefully.”
  
  Photo
  
  
  
  The developers of the Millennium Tower say that the construction next door of a transportation hub, above, has caused the building to sink. CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times
  As the scandal has unfolded in recent weeks, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, wrote to the current mayor, Edwin M. Lee, expressing concern about the number of buildings like Millennium Tower that are not anchored in bedrock.
  
  Mr. Lee responded that he had instructed city officials to amend the city’s earthquake safety plan to require a review of soil conditions and mandatory earthquake evaluations during property sales. At a hearing on Thursday convened by a Board of Supervisors committee, city officials said the Millennium Tower situation had caused them to reassess the way buildings are vetted.
  
  The building spree in San Francisco has taken place for the most part in an area that used to be part of San Francisco Bay, land created using dredged soil as well as piles of detritus from the 1906 earthquake.
  
  

 

[Rickb]

The problem is, I have been saying it the last few years. Others have been saying it longer. Another issue is that when someone on here says they won't hit the target, they get bashed. When EM actually misses the target, some people here try to put reasoning behind it.

Technically, excuses for delays is reasoning that lacks logic. It works for some not all. One shouldn't be name called and labeled a hater for exercising a common sense logical opinion based on actual progress and the amount of work that still needs to be done. Thankfully, Elio haters are only imaginary. Nobody is hoping that EM fails, but may question the progress. It will happen when it happens.

EM ass.u.me.s production, because they make qualifying statements that say things can change. With that said, reservationist's shouldn't ass.u.me EM's anticipated production date until there is a proof of concept, funding locked in, E's built/tested, engineering freeze in place, the 100 pilots are built and being road tested, the plant is tooled for production, and the 1500 employees are hired/trained, Elio stores and marshaling centers open for business, and PepBoy's mechanics are factory trained and certified to service my Elio since I am not a DIY gear head. Seems like some work to do between now and 2017.

 

[Ty]

Well, either way, in 457 days, we'll know if they hit their 2017 target.

 

[AriLea]

The discussion about Elio vs improving fleet MPG's or cheap EV's should always generate the thought that these products are moving targets.

It is true, if the Elio 84mpg's stays rock-stable, and it takes too many years to produce, some other makes may close the MPG gap a bit. But keep in mind, it may take any number of years for heavy 4wheel-cars to accomplish very much. Elio is much more in danger from automakers who change to a lighter or smaller platform, even to a clone Elio 3 wheeler than any competition from high-technology improvements.

Any MPG improvements current makers accomplish in technology via drive tech or materials tech, Elio can also adapt into.

But in this case of small, less car or tandem seating(or half the car), all current makers are reluctant to do that in a bargain basement pricing structure, because they do not want to compete with their own profits. Otherwise they could easily have done that by now. An Elio style business model makes very little sense to them right now. Only after the Elio (or clone) is out there will that paradigm break.

Now on electrics, the price and capacity is not dropping fast enough to bother Elio within the next few years. If the Elio exists by then, EM could them selves go that direction and easily segway back into the Elio business model because it's not tech based but material in nature. That is to say half the car is always half the price, even if it's electric, hybrid or some new super-duper ICE tech, like Liquid-Piston for example.

Tesla is a good example to look at. Do they have any reason what-so-ever to try a clone-Elio-EV? No, it's totally outside their normal expectation for a viable profit margin. One Tesla 2 seat sportster gives the same profit as multiple clone-Elio's, maybe about 20-50.. They seriously do not want to make that exchange.

Elio will always compete very well, unless someone adopts a high-volume, low price per unit business model. Unless it's a new market they have little reason to do so. Don't count on CAFE credits to change that anytime soon.