Comment by Animats

Comment by Animats 14 hours ago

120 replies

The US is falling way behind in electric vehicles. If BYD could sell in the US, the US auto industry would be crushed.[1]

What went wrong is that 1) Tesla never made a low-end vehicle, despite announcements, and 2) all the other US manufacturers treated electric as a premium product, resulting in the overpowered electric Hummer 2 and F-150 pickups with high price tags. The only US electric vehicle with comparable prices in electric and gasoline versions is the Ford Transit.

BYD says that their strategy for now is to dominate in every country that does not have its own auto industry. Worry about the left-behind countries later.

BYD did it by 1) getting lithium-iron batteries to be cheaper, safer, and faster-charging, although heavier than lithium-ion, 2) integrating rear wheels, differential, axle, and motor into an "e-axle" unit that's the entire mechanical part of the power train, and 3) building really big auto plants in China.

Next step is to get solid state batteries into volume production, and build a new factory bigger than San Francisco.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BYD_Auto_vehicles

IceHegel 12 hours ago

I think one of the biggest problems in the United States is the misallocation of ambitious people. The highly educated and ambitious people see finance, government, tech, and corporate executive tracks, as the way to convert their energies into social status.

Even startups these days seem to be a case of too many chiefs, not enough Indians.

  • jmpman 11 hours ago

    When Elon gets excited about displacing his engineers on a whim with H1Bs, why would any highly educated ambitious person want to work for Tesla?

    • theshrike79 11 hours ago

      And the worst thing is that Elon could've been a living legend by building/funding colleges and schools focused on the tech his companies need, software development, robotics etc. Or even given out million dollar scholarships for the very top students.

      And he still would've been worth over 250 billion easily.

      Instead he chose to buy the president and start "optimising" the government with AI.

      • mapt 3 hours ago

        There's a question about his actual goals in government.

        He's an ambitious person. And AI enables a degree of surveillance state that we find it difficult to even begin to imagine. All the logistical difficulties of something like Orwell's 1984, of the Stasi having 1/3 of Berlin on the books as informants against the other 2/3, go away completely. We have more cameras than ever. Every person gets to enjoy the kind of focus that went into tracking down Luigi. DOGE has exfiltrated all our sensitive databases to servers that they control; Every 'Chinese Wall' intended to ensure some kind of separation of concerns has been broken down, almost certainly including various formally classified intelligence-gathering campaigns. You can't necessarily stuff that genie back in the bottle. If somebody wanted to be... not president, but authoritarian leader of a post-democracy, Musk would be well positioned technologically.

        It wouldn't be inconceivable to set up an AI to do all the same sort of fraud & identity theft attacks against an individual that for-profit blackhats do, or that a Kiwifarms harassment campaign can do, without much of any actual staffing. Only DOGE starts out with your social security number, your tax records, your drivers' license, license plate reader records, web history, everything. That individual could be a Wall Street Journal editor who wrote something Musk dislikes, or ten thousand Redditors who are making fun of Teslas.

        • tessierashpool an hour ago

          If somebody wanted to be... not president, but authoritarian leader of a post-democracy, Musk would be well positioned technologically.

          of course, that was his very explicit goal. Thiel backed Curtis Yarvin, who came up for the plan for this and called it RAGE. google it, it's all written down. they hoped to put in Bezos or Zuckerberg and have a more efficiently-run dictatorship replacing our democracy. because they didn't understand politics, they got the ketamine addict instead, who renamed RAGE to DOGE so he could also use it to power a crypto pump-and-dump.

          *edit: and because it was never a realistic plan. because they didn't understand politics

      • cryptoegorophy an hour ago

        I think we would’ve lived in a different world if Elon didn’t use twitter. We might have actually landed on Mars already.

      • motorest 10 hours ago

        > And the worst thing is that Elon could've been a living legend by building/funding colleges and schools focused on the tech his companies need, software development, robotics etc.

        Could he, though?

        I mean, he might have the cash, but if you look at his history you don't see that much interest or respect for basic academic principles, or even any basic academic achievement whatsoever.

        He conveys an image of someone who is mentally trapped in prepubescence, and who repeatedly does things that a prepubescent kid does to try to gather admiration. I meant who desperately tries to pass themselves off as elite gamers? How long will it take until he moves on to DJing? That's not someone who has any interest in founding education institutions.

        The man does have an army of terminally online sycophants, which I now wonder whether they are astroturfed.

      • le-mark 8 hours ago

        Elon has proven to truly be the dumbest smart guy ever. He alienated Tesla’s core customers; tree hugging liberals, and anyone who cares about sustainability. The GOP nor their voters care and never will. I called this Tesla stock crash months ago; did not act on it though.

    • motorest 11 hours ago

      > (...) why would any highly educated ambitious person want to work for Tesla?

      To that dimension I would add ethics as well. It's very hard to justify working for the likes of Tesla when being mindful of the attitude the company and company representatives have with regards to basic issues ranging from workers rights to totalitarianism.

    • zem 10 hours ago

      I mean, that's one way to get Indians!

  • almosthere 9 hours ago

    Well the problem is US wants to be the world's managers. And all we cared about is writing messenger apps. Totally missed the boat on building things, like houses, boats, and most of all new weird things we don't even have a concept for.

    • IceHegel 3 hours ago

      Agreed, and this is a somewhat recent phenomenon (see wtf happened in 1971)

      For example, we have 100+ drone startups in the United States. But our overall drone production capacity (hammers in Civ) hasn't actually increased. We just have 100 companies buying grey market from Vietnam and Indonesia, many of which came from China originally.

      The way the system should work is if you want to do a drone startup, you need to build a drone factory. That's what the money is for.

      If the startup fails, maybe the market leader buys the factory for cheap. This is how the automobile industry was in the United States - a bunch of those companies went bust, but the factories were often kept online by the winners.

    • grues-dinner 9 hours ago

      Watching nearly the entire software-financial complex burn to the ground when the vaunted "moats" dry up is going to be a hell of a sight. All this AI hype is just going to end up commodifying the very thing that the entire industry is built on: management of processes.

      Places that understand that physical production cannot be abstracted forever will prevail.

    • ajmurmann 3 hours ago

      The problem is that things like houses and boats became political tokens and/or don't have the same profit scaling as software. Housing is mostly restricted by political opposition that made it very hard or even illegal to build much. Building ships is labor intensive which is expensive here, but AFAIK at least construction of navy ships has become a bargaining ship that gets moved around to support senators rather than being allocated to the most efficient place. In general it also seems like unions in the US are somehow more of a problem than in Europe or at least Germany where I grew up. They seem less powerful here but somehow less reasonable.

    • motorest 8 hours ago

      > Well the problem is US wants to be the world's managers.

      I think the problem is more nuanced than that. The US was effectively "the world's managers", in the sense that their economic might, entrepreneur culture, and push for globalization resulted in a corporate structure where the ownership and executive levels were US whereas non-critical business domains reflected the local workforce, whether it was the US or not.

      This setup worked great while the US dominated the world's economy and influenced their allies and trading partners to actively engage in globalization.

      Now that Trump is pushing for isolationism, of course things change.

      • IceHegel 3 hours ago

        I would push on how well GDP measures "economic might".

        If I were to tell you a country over five years grew its GDP 5% in 1900, that would mean houses and roads and factories and mines and a whole range of things were built.

        In 2020, 5% real GDP growth could be an increase in the value of various services. In fact, you might not need to change the physical world at all to achieve that growth.

        • Marsymars 22 minutes ago

          Services are all basically a proxy for the physical world though. Other than things like art and media that people value for their own sake.

  • Jorge1o1 9 hours ago

    Andrew Yang launched a presidential campaign based on this idea, he wrote a book:

    “Smart People Should Build Things”

  • generalizations 3 hours ago

    They go where it's feasible to go. As long as regulation hamstrings industries, it'd be idiotic to build there. Ambitious people just want everyone else to get out of their way so they (I) can build stuff - and they'll go where there's less resistance.

    Oh, there's a "tax credit" to make it easier? Sounds like more paperwork & friction. No thanks!

    That's one reason Tech is such an attactor. Low barrier to entry.

  • rco8786 7 hours ago

    Can you demonstrate that this misallocation is worse in the US than it is in other countries?

perihelions 9 hours ago

- "BYD did it by"

Also the many systemic, industry-wide factors discussed last week in

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692677 ("America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back (molsonhart.com)" — 1010 comments)

I agree with the gist of that piece; focusing on specific engineering choices (important as they are) is missing the forest for a particularly interesting tree. Any American EV maker is heavily disadvantaged right now, no matter how clever they are.

testing22321 7 hours ago

The US automakers lost the plot a long time ago, and have just been sucking out money without innovation or improvement since.

When California and the EPA tried to legislate lower emissions 9 years into the future, the US automakers sued to block saying it was impossible. Japanese automakers were already selling vehicles that met those standards.

When they badly, badly screw up, they just get bailed out with public funds and then go on to pay execs tens of millions of dollars a year and fat bonuses. Guaranteed profits no matter what made them lazy and uncompetitive.

They’re all dying

  • Animats 44 minutes ago

    GM and Chrysler went bankrupt and were partially bailed out, the CEOs were replaced and the Government took a stake in the companies, which eventually paid off.

  • yellowapple 6 hours ago

    > When they badly, badly screw up, they just get bailed out with public funds

    When this happens, I think it's only fair that the bailed-out company becomes publicly owned. If I'm forced to invest in a company with my tax dollars, then I damn well better be treated as an investor. Where are my shares? Where are my dividends?

    • directevolve 4 hours ago

      When the USG bailed out banks via TARP during the 2008 financial crisis, it did so by buying shares in those companies. It later sold those shares for a $30.5 billion profit.

    • EasyMark 3 hours ago

      If GMC had been “publically owned” it would have been gutted for profits (kickbacks) by its bureaucracy and politicians and been long dead by at least a decade. Bureaucrats are not good at running companies and private companies should not be providing public services (prisons, toll roads). I don't know why Americans have become so unpragmatic and either all in on “government doing everything” or “private corps doing everything” when life is never ever that simple.

  • ajmurmann 3 hours ago

    There also is the chicken tax which has been protecting US automakers in the pickup truck space which has lead to then leaning much more into that. Together with absurd CAFE rules that benefit huge cars and more beneficial tax write-off rules for vehicles over 3.5t regulation has lead to US automakers focusing on cars that are absurd by international standards.

torginus 10 hours ago

BYD's allowed to sell in Europe. They're not crushing the market here. They're not substantially cheaper, or better for what they offer for the price compared to other manufacturers.

  • herbst 10 hours ago

    Within only a few months I see more Chinese Electric cars than Tesla (or us cars generally) on swiss streets.

    Depending on what you are looking for they are WAY cheaper than comparable cars.

    • Sammi 9 hours ago

      VW is selling more EVs in Europe than BYD.

      • herbst 9 hours ago

        VW is not an American car maker. There are way more European cars in Switzerland than either Chinese or US. Obviously. Also more Japanese tho

    • mikrotikker 10 hours ago

      No way I'd trust them. When you crash them or they have a battery fault, the doors lock you inside before the battery catches fire. Many videos of this happening inside China with one recent event in the West.

      • motorest 8 hours ago

        > No way I'd trust them. When you crash them or they have a battery fault, the doors lock you inside before the battery catches fire.

        This matches reports from Tesla users. The cybertruck is specially prone to this sort of design problems.

      • dubcanada 9 hours ago

        Are there not similar videos of Tesla, or other electric cars doing the exact same thing?

      • yakz 7 hours ago

        There's a mechanical latch release handle integrated into the doors, but they are very much not meant to be used during normal operation and are designed to be inconspicuous. This seems to cause at least some people to fail to operate them during a fast-paced emergency situation.

      • herbst 9 hours ago

        That sounds like some kind of tiktok scare lol

  • jiehong 9 hours ago

    EU import taxes designed to make them less cheap than local cars do that.

    • kasey_junk 7 hours ago

      China has one of the least free trade regimes in the world, their currency controls alone amount to potentially more than Euro tariffs on cars and that’s just one part of their governmental stacking of the deck for their manufacturers.

      I think it’s easy to look at the outputs of their industries and compare them extremely favorably to the outputs elsewhere, especially in EV.

      But once you start comparing tariff adjusted pricing it gets much trickier much faster.

  • goosejuice 2 hours ago

    BYD could slash european prices by quite a bit. They price them competitively to take advantage of the margin. The increase in price compared to their domestic MSRP is pretty wild, 2x in some cases. In a race to the bottom, they will win.

  • doctorpangloss 4 hours ago

    You're right, but comparing Switzerland to America... You need a car to live in 90% of the USA. That said, talking only about specs or prices is pretty reductionist. If anyone on this forum could forecast car sales based on pre-delivery marketing, you know, become a billionaire investor.

DidYaWipe 13 hours ago

What went wrong is that the federal government didn't build or legislate a national charging infrastructure to match the scale of the interstate highway system.

They could have strong-armed the states into it with a combination of funding the construction and the way they mandated the 21 drinking age: by threatening to withhold highway funds.

  • phonon 12 hours ago

    They definitely tried... $7.5 Billion worth. It's on pause now :-(

    https://www.govtech.com/transportation/federal-funding-for-e...

    • hed 6 hours ago

      And how many stations did that yield?

    • cpursley 9 hours ago

      [flagged]

      • motorest 7 hours ago

        > Yeah, because it was ineffective and the people running it, like most federal bureaucracy - extremely incompetent (to mind bending shocking levels).

        I think this sort of statement should be revised. From an outsider's point of view, there is a political current within the US that pushes with a fundamentalist fervor the idea that state institutions cannot do any good or anything right. This becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when they elect candidates that push these ideals, which have a vested interest in sabotaging, derailing, and shutting down projects.

  • voidfunc 12 hours ago

    > They could have strong-armed the states into it with a combination of funding the construction and the way they mandated the 21 drinking age: by threatening to withhold highway funds.

    Yea let's give the federal government more power. That's going so well right now.

    • motorest 10 hours ago

      > Yea let's give the federal government more power. That's going so well right now.

      Investing on a nation-wide infrastructure grid that fundamentally changes the nation's energy independence is hardly a reason to mindlessly parrot state rights cliches.

    • watwut 10 hours ago

      The current issue is the president ignoring legal limits of his power and breaking laws right and left. While his party cheers on.

      While useful parts of the federal goverment are destroyed, because they dont serve ultra rich.

      • globnomulous 9 hours ago

        In a way, the current administration perfectly demonstrates the value of a strong federal government: a kakistocratic, kleptocratic regime wouldn't dismantle the "administrative state" if it weren't an impediment to their criminality, incompetence, and rapacity.

  • atoav 12 hours ago

    Isn't this lack of forward thinking somewhat the general problem now?

    From an EU perspective the world as it has existed in the living memory is a world shaped by decisive US-actions. The way EVs have been approached were anything but that. Arguably neither did Germany, because of the way their politicians are entangled with the car manufacturers.

    • bgnn 11 hours ago

      Germany actively hampered it by promoting diesel as THE greeen fuel.

sebmellen 14 hours ago

The Chevy Spark EV is an incredible vehicle and has been my around town go kart for the past 7 years. Cost me $11k (!!) as an off lease purchase.

  • joshjob42 12 hours ago

    I adored my Spark EV til it sadly died (fairly scarily, on a highway access road) one day. Chevy was never able to repair it and ultimately gave me a nice payout after paying for a rental for me for nearly a year.

    But if you sold the Spark EV for 20k today with like 120mi of range, it would be perfect and would satisfy all my needs 99% of the time. Even mine (13k all in) was great here in LA with ~60mi of range. I loved how small and easy to park it was without feeling cramped to me at all. If it had CarPlay I'd've said it was the perfect car haha.

    It's a shame they haven't rebooted it yet as a pure EV. It's right there in the name!

EasyMark 3 hours ago

You're probably right about BYD, most people only see price and whether it's reputation is at least "ok". I personally will never buy that big of a purchase from a Chinese company until CCP is no longer in charge.

londons_explore 11 hours ago

> dominate in every country that does not have its own auto industry.

That's because they plan to have a small number of huge factories to keep costs down.

But that means they need cheap ships, and can only sell to places with no car tariffs - which tends to be the countries without an auto industry.

cryptoegorophy 40 minutes ago

You missed a big elephant in the room 4) China did a significant subsidies for BYD factories. If USA did similar % wise thing to Tesla then we would’ve have $20k teslas driving.

  • seanmcdirmid 37 minutes ago

    China subsidized EVs in the same way that America did (tax credits), and less aggressively so. Unless you mean incentives from Shenzhen and getting taxi companies to early adopt? They also added incentives in getting a car at all in cities like Beijing (EVs started out in a different lottery allocation for plates)?

herbst 10 hours ago

They are doing a lot of advertisment and promo in Germany which has a active and kinda stable car Industrie.

Pretty sure they plan to disrupt any market

lvl155 2 hours ago

Do you own a BYD? It’s not that great. Build quality is subpar. Problem with investing in China is that once tech transfer ends, there’s no promise that these companies are capable of continued innovations. It’s basically an ecosystem dependent on outside innovations that they can “transfer” and tweak. That’s the whole “communist” economy in nutshell.

panick21_ 3 hours ago

> 2) all the other US manufacturers treated electric as a premium product

This is because the LITERALLY CAN'T make money of a non premium product.

And for Tesla is just because Musk is stupid and went ALL-IN on self driving. They literally believe that the market will drop by 80% because of self driving. That's why the only build robotaxi and no model 2. Against the advice of basically everybody in Tesla leadership.

casey2 3 hours ago

Exactly how will BYD's 400k vehicals "crush" the US auto industry? They could give them away for free and not even make a dent.

refurb 9 hours ago

In terms of BYD dominance, one needs to keep in mind the subsidy that the Chinese government is providing, such that they can sell cars below cost.

https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2024/27...

Just 2018 to 2022, BYD received $5.9B. And that doesn't include all the indirect subsidies that went to suppliers like the battery manufacturers.

It's a part of Chinese government strategy of "build it and they will come". Massively subsidize select industries, dominate the market.

Which is why the EU has put high tariff's on the cars.

  • ksynwa 9 hours ago

    That is not that much in terms of subsidy for a critical industry. I tried finding the awards for Tesla but the articles lump in government contracts and report the figure to be in tens of billions. I am sure they have received a comparable amount of funding. BYD has just been able to make better use of it I suppose.

    • [removed] 8 hours ago
      [deleted]
loufe 14 hours ago

Did you mean to say sodium batteries instead of lithium in your "BYD did it" sentence?

  • Animats 12 hours ago

    No. Five years ago BYD introduced their "blade battery", which is a lithium iron phosphate battery built up of plate-like "blades" in rectangular casings.[1] Wh/L is about the same as lithium ion, Wh/Kg is not as good, and Wh/$ is better. It will survive the "nail test" and does not not go into thermal runaway.

    Today, most of BYD's products use this technology. It's been improved to handle higher charging rates. Seems to work fine. Lithium-ion has better Wh/Kg, and it's still used in some high-end cars, mostly Teslas. BYD's approach has captured the low and medium priced markets.

    BYD has announced that they plan first shipments of cars with solid state batteries (higher Wh/Kg) in 2027. Price will be high at first, and they will first appear in BYD's high-end cars. Like these.[3] BYD has the Yangwang U8, a big off-road SUV comparable to the Rivian, and the Yangwang U9, a "hypercar". Just to show that they can make them, probably.

    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIt5z4wT9RE

    [2] https://electrek.co/2025/02/17/byd-confirms-evs-all-solid-st...

    [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHWXx1KsvVY

    • JimBlackwood 12 hours ago

      > Like these.[3] BYD has the Yangwang U8, a big off-road SUV comparable to the Rivian, and the Yangwang U9, a "hypercar".

      I really did not expect to open this and have it be presented by Kryten! Fun surprise! :)

nxm 6 hours ago

By 4) stealing patents and technology off of American companies

  • throw3817374 4 hours ago

    I was curious about this statement and did a search and could not find anything about it.

    It appears that EV technology is new enough that it's Chinese companies that are the ones innovating, especially in battery technology.

Panzer04 12 hours ago

I don't really see how any car company can "fall behind" in EV.

Fundamentally, IMO, EVs are such a simple concept mechanically that any company capable of building a conventional ICE vehicle can build an EV.

It's glib to say that - obviously there's a lot of unsaid complexity (battery back cooling, fitting into the frame, and so on), but the actual drivetrain component is just so simple. That EVs are still expensive is to me a sign that production hasn't ramped up yet. So long as production is limited EVs will remain a luxury product - but I can't imagine that's going to continue for all that much longer with an increasing backlog of used EVs on the market and decreasing battery prices.

  • derektank 11 hours ago

    Even if there were no improvements to be had in the vehicle itself, improvements in manufacturing processes determine how expensive the product is and thus how competitively priced the vehicle can be. Falling behind on price means falling behind on market share which means falling behind on efficiencies of scale which often means going out of business or at best becoming a niche producer.

    Honda and Toyota weren't able to outcompete US manufacturers in the 1980s by offering higher performance vehicles but by delivering similar quality products at lower prices by making use of superior production techniques like Lean and JIT inventory management.

  • constantcrying 11 hours ago

    Are you serious? EVs have been the biggest disruption in the auto industry. It has created major corporations who made the attempts of traditional manufacturers seem obsolete.

    VW Group and Stellantis totally failed to compete with Chinese manufacturers and were driven out of the Chinese EV market almost entirely. Competition is extremely fierce.

    >That EVs are still expensive

    Look up what they cost in China.

    >So long as production is limited EVs will remain a luxury product

    Around 50% of new sales in China. Not "luxury" in any meaningful way.

    The issue is that EVs do not differentiate themselves by power train. They differentiate themselves by battery and software.

fifilura 7 hours ago

> 3) integrating rear wheels, differential, axle, and motor into an "e-axle" unit that's the entire mechanical part of the power train

Obviously an electric vehicle is so much simpler than one with a gasoline engine. We have seen it already with lawn mowers who shrank from huge tractors to nimble robots.

An in particular when you don't start from the Autobahn-eater type of cars.