Let's keep the politics out of this thread.

freitasm:

 

Let's keep the politics out of this thread.

 

HarmLessSolutions:

 

Basil12:

 

So is it where the owner of the brand is located or where they are made? Tesla are American but also made in China and Germany. 

 

Its the same thing with Jaguar / Land Rover. Defenders, Discoveries, Range Rovers and Jaguars, some of which will be EVs soon, are made in Britain and seen as British but these days are owned by Tata Group of India. 

 

So what is the reasoning behind shunning Chinese or presumably other Asian manufacture? I'm boycotting products from US in retaliation to the tariffs, climate change denial and other chaos being brought to bear by the orange felon which isn't too much of an inconvenience (Wrangler/Levis, bourbon, Californian wine, iHerb) but I would really struggle to avoid Chinese made goods these days with our Polestar2 and one of our solar inverter as well as numerous major electrical devices being of Chinese origin. 

 

Determining the country of origin for motor vehicles is a complicated process these days. There's at least three main variables, the country of the marque ownership, the country where the marque is located and the country of manufacture. For example most utes are made in Thailand. Does that make them Thai vehicles. The marque is owned elswhere and the R & D is done elsewhere.

One of my cars is nominally Australian but built in Germany with US engine and gearbox with company ownership in the US. It's certainly seen as an Australian car, but is it?

I don't think it's so much a fact of shunning a country of origin as much as parochial pride in their locally produced vehicles. I don't think in the case I originally referred to it was case of boycotting any particular country, just parochialism. To give an example my Australian car was shunned in the Aussie market solely because it wasn't built in Australia even though some of the R & D was done there.

Technofreak:

 

[snip]

 

One of my cars is nominally Australian but built in Germany with US engine and gearbox with company ownership in the US. It's certainly seen as an Australian car, but is it?

 

I don't think it's so much a fact of shunning a country of origin as much as parochial pride in their locally produced vehicles. I don't think in the case I originally referred to it was case of boycotting any particular country, just parochialism. To give an example my Australian car was shunned in the Aussie market solely because it wasn't built in Australia even though some of the R & D was done there.

 

There's a fine line between parochialism and xenophobia but we'll go with the former. That is a nationalist ideology that often keeps businesses and their manufacture acceptable for far longer than would be justified if manufacturing economics and technical advancement were considered in isolation and companies that cling onto that differentiation do what they can to foster that veneer of public good. 

Assuming it is Holden that you are referring to in regard to your vehicle's case they have ceased production in Australia because the economics of producing outdated vehicle technology became so prohibitively expensive. The nostalgia of Holden being a 'you beaut' Aussie product lost its relevancy decades ago as its 1978 Commodore was introduced as an Australian car that was in reality a rebranded Opel Rekord'. Ford are undergoing the same slow death in the US, UK and other manufacturing sites with their foray into EVs struggles to gain traction against the Chinese and other nations' with clean slate EV production facilities and innovations unencumbered by vestiges of ICEV production. This is something we will see increasingly as 'legacy' car manufacturers lose the battle against the disruptive technologies that power the EV revolution.

Parochialism has no stable foundation in an increasingly globalised world and clinging onto such concepts will become increasingly difficult to do and justify, as will also be the case for continuation of ICEVs in general. 

Technofreak:

 

Volvo/Polestar may well be still Swedish built (and therefore not seen as a Chinese car by most buyers) but still Chinese owned, I haven't checked. However as an example of famous brands now being Chinese, MG is an old iconic English brand but is most definitely Chinese through and through these days.

 

I bet Geely is happy people think Polestar/Volvo are Swedish.

The cars are designed in Sweden, but produced in China in Geely's factories there. And majority owned by Geely.

jarledb:

 

I bet Geely is happy people think Polestar/Volvo are Swedish.

 

The cars are designed in Sweden, but produced in China in Geely's factories there. And majority owned by Geely.

 

alasta:

 

Technofreak:

 

Volvo/Polestar may well be still Swedish built (and therefore not seen as a Chinese car by most buyers) but still Chinese owned, I haven't checked. However as an example of famous brands now being Chinese, MG is an old iconic English brand but is most definitely Chinese through and through these days.

 

 

I thought SAIC still had an R&D centre at Longbridge?

 

I would love to see them bring back the Austin and Rover marques, but apparently there are complications with the ownership of those trademarks. 

 

Longbridge got sold off and the R&D relocated to London.

Rover reverted back to Jaguar Land Rover ownership after the Ford sale, though resurrecting the brand is not on the agenda while JLR's existing brands struggle to stay afloat.

Austin is back in Britain as a niche producer.

BMW kept the MINI and (dormant) Triumph nameplates.

HarmLessSolutions:

 

Technofreak:

 

[snip]

 

One of my cars is nominally Australian but built in Germany with US engine and gearbox with company ownership in the US. It's certainly seen as an Australian car, but is it?

 

I don't think it's so much a fact of shunning a country of origin as much as parochial pride in their locally produced vehicles. I don't think in the case I originally referred to it was case of boycotting any particular country, just parochialism. To give an example my Australian car was shunned in the Aussie market solely because it wasn't built in Australia even though some of the R & D was done there.

 

 

There's a fine line between parochialism and xenophobia but we'll go with the former. That is a nationalist ideology that often keeps businesses and their manufacture acceptable for far longer than would be justified if manufacturing economics and technical advancement were considered in isolation and companies that cling onto that differentiation do what they can to foster that veneer of public good. 

 

Assuming it is Holden that you are referring to in regard to your vehicle's case they have ceased production in Australia because the economics of producing outdated vehicle technology became so prohibitively expensive. The nostalgia of Holden being a 'you beaut' Aussie product lost its relevancy decades ago as its 1978 Commodore was introduced as an Australian car that was in reality a rebranded Opel Rekord'. Ford are undergoing the same slow death in the US, UK and other manufacturing sites with their foray into EVs struggles to gain traction against the Chinese and other nations' with clean slate EV production facilities and innovations unencumbered by vestiges of ICEV production. This is something we will see increasingly as 'legacy' car manufacturers lose the battle against the disruptive technologies that power the EV revolution.

 

Parochialism has no stable foundation in an increasingly globalised world and clinging onto such concepts will become increasingly difficult to do and justify, as will also be the case for continuation of ICEVs in general. 

 

Ironically, Japanese-branded vehicles built in the US often have more American content than the Detroit Big 3. That said, badge parochialism still runs deep among American drivers, and many of them would regard the Big 3 as too big to fail, no matter how good or bad the vehicles.

HarmLessSolutions:

 

There's a fine line between parochialism and xenophobia but we'll go with the former. That is a nationalist ideology that often keeps businesses and their manufacture acceptable for far longer than would be justified if manufacturing economics and technical advancement were considered in isolation and companies that cling onto that differentiation do what they can to foster that veneer of public good.

That can be argued both ways. I agree in some instances local manufacturing has been sustained longer than it should have. There are also instances where industries are interdependant and when one is deemed uneconomic and is closed down the currently economic businesses suffer and may become uneconomic too. Slowly the technology that supports those businesses also disappears. Keeping one uneconomic industry going can have benefits far greater to the public good then the cost of that business.

HarmLessSolutions

 

Assuming it is Holden that you are referring to in regard to your vehicle's case they have ceased production in Australia because the economics of producing outdated vehicle technology became so prohibitively expensive. The nostalgia of Holden being a 'you beaut' Aussie product lost its relevancy decades ago as its 1978 Commodore was introduced as an Australian car that was in reality a rebranded Opel Rekord'.

The EV evangilism shows through here. Please explain where current ICE vehicles are outdated compared to an EV? It was economies of scale that stopped motor vehicle production in Australia nothing to do with the vehicles being EV or ICE. If it is as you say the economics of producing prohibitively expensive outdated vehicles why are they not producing inexpensive modern vehicle technology?

Yes the original Commodore was based on the Opel Rekord and Senator but it wasnt just a rebrand, there was a lot of Australian R and D in the original Commodore. However by 2006 the Commodore was completely a 'you beaut' unique Australian product and just as Australian and as popular or more popular than any Holden prior to the Commodore which was proven by the record sales the Commodore made over the years. The end was driven by the shift of buyers in the large car market to SUV's. 

HarmLessSolutions

 

Ford are undergoing the same slow death in the US, UK and other manufacturing sites with their foray into EVs struggles to gain traction against the Chinese and other nations' with clean slate EV production facilities and innovations unencumbered by vestiges of ICEV production. This is something we will see increasingly as 'legacy' car manufacturers lose the battle against the disruptive technologies that power the EV revolution.

 

Parochialism has no stable foundation in an increasingly globalised world and clinging onto such concepts will become increasingly difficult to do and justify, as will also be the case for continuation of ICEVs in general. 

 

Some more EV evangelism.

I'd suggest the Chinese motor vehicle industry is doing to today's established motor vehicle industry what the Japanese motor vehicle industry did to yesteryear's established industry 40 or more years ago and for for similar reasons, cheaper, reliable cars. It's not because they're making EV's. 

To prove my point for a very long time, and even perhaps still today, Tesla never made any money from selling cars, their money was made in selling credits (government subsidies) to ICE manufacturers. Making new tech EV's didn't make Tesla profitable. Now China is doing to Tesla what the Chinese are doing to ICE manufacturers. BYD has overtaken Tesla in the EV sphere.

I'm not sure what disruptive tech you're talking about.

When it's all boiled down whether it's and EV or ICE vehicle you generally have a 4 or 5 passenger seat vehicle with luggage space which has a wheel on each corner with two wheel/four wheel/all wheel drive. Standard safety features like airbags, etc will be fitted. Depending on the spec level there will be things like auto headlights, adaptive speed control, automous braking and stability control, over the air updates, automatic remote central locking, head up displays, etc etc. The only difference is the motive power and both have their pros and cons. As far as I can see the tech is the same, ICE or EV.

ICEV's and EV's are going to co-exist for sometime yet.

Technofreak:

 

Some more EV evangelism.

 

I'd suggest the Chinese motor vehicle industry is doing to today's established motor vehicle industry what the Japanese motor vehicle industry did to yesteryear's established industry 40 or more years ago and for for similar reasons, cheaper, reliable cars. It's not because they're making EV's. 

 

To prove my point for a very long time, and even perhaps still today, Tesla never made any money from selling cars, their money was made in selling credits (government subsidies) to ICE manufacturers. Making new tech EV's didn't make Tesla profitable. Now China is doing to Tesla what the Chinese are doing to ICE manufacturers. BYD has overtaken Tesla in the EV sphere.

 

I'm not sure what disruptive tech you're talking about.

 

When it's all boiled down whether it's and EV or ICE vehicle you generally have a 4 or 5 passenger seat vehicle with luggage space which has a wheel on each corner with two wheel/four wheel/all wheel drive. Standard safety features like airbags, etc will be fitted. Depending on the spec level there will be things like auto headlights, adaptive speed control, automous braking and stability control, over the air updates, automatic remote central locking, head up displays, etc etc. The only difference is the motive power and both have their pros and cons. As far as I can see the tech is the same, ICE or EV.

 

ICEV's and EV's are going to co-exist for sometime yet.

 

EVs and the technologies that they encompass are disruptive technologies. If you're not aware of what that term means check out this presentation:

The coming transition away from ICEVs towards EVs is evangelism so much as economic logic, and China is using its financial and totalitarian might to accelerate that process. Legacy vehicle manufacture is already struggling to compete with the onslaught of EV introduction and that competition will only increase in the coming years.

Technofreak: To prove my point for a very long time, and even perhaps still today, Tesla never made any money from selling cars, their money was made in selling credits (government subsidies) to ICE manufacturers. Making new tech EV's didn't make Tesla profitable.

Personally I’m not too fussed one way or the other. I think the politics is overblown, and to the extent that the car might be spying on me, the Chinese government can’t really do much to inconvenience me but the Americans sure could. If the Japanese and Europeans want to catch up with China then hell yeah, go for it. But in the meantime it benefits everyone that the Chinese EVs exist and are so good.

Long term we do need more local manufacturing and less Chinese. But this has nothing to do with politics or racism: it’s simply that COVID showed us what engineers already know. Single points of failure are bad!

SaltyNZ:

 

Personally I’m not too fussed one way or the other. I think the politics is overblown, and to the extent that the car might be spying on me, the Chinese government can’t really do much to inconvenience me but the Americans sure could. If the Japanese and Europeans want to catch up with China then hell yeah, go for it. But in the meantime it benefits everyone that the Chinese EVs exist and are so good.

 

Long term we do need more local manufacturing and less Chinese. But this has nothing to do with politics or racism: it’s simply that COVID showed us what engineers already know. Single points of failure are bad!

 

Hence all the talk of "de-risking" and "ally-shoring".

HarmLessSolutions:

 

Technofreak:

 

Some more EV evangelism.

 

I'd suggest the Chinese motor vehicle industry is doing to today's established motor vehicle industry what the Japanese motor vehicle industry did to yesteryear's established industry 40 or more years ago and for for similar reasons, cheaper, reliable cars. It's not because they're making EV's. 

 

To prove my point for a very long time, and even perhaps still today, Tesla never made any money from selling cars, their money was made in selling credits (government subsidies) to ICE manufacturers. Making new tech EV's didn't make Tesla profitable. Now China is doing to Tesla what the Chinese are doing to ICE manufacturers. BYD has overtaken Tesla in the EV sphere.

 

I'm not sure what disruptive tech you're talking about.

 

When it's all boiled down whether it's and EV or ICE vehicle you generally have a 4 or 5 passenger seat vehicle with luggage space which has a wheel on each corner with two wheel/four wheel/all wheel drive. Standard safety features like airbags, etc will be fitted. Depending on the spec level there will be things like auto headlights, adaptive speed control, automous braking and stability control, over the air updates, automatic remote central locking, head up displays, etc etc. The only difference is the motive power and both have their pros and cons. As far as I can see the tech is the same, ICE or EV.

 

ICEV's and EV's are going to co-exist for sometime yet.

 

 

EVs and the technologies that they encompass are disruptive technologies. If you're not aware of what that term means check out this presentation:

 

 

The coming transition away from ICEVs towards EVs is evangelism so much as economic logic, and China is using its financial and totalitarian might to accelerate that process. Legacy vehicle manufacture is already struggling to compete with the onslaught of EV introduction and that competition will only increase in the coming years.

 

I can't say there was any real value in that video. There were better ways to have used the time spent watching it. 

I don't see s EV technology or the technology they encompass as being disruptive, I'd say more evolutionary. They don't change the way we travel they just change the motive energy.