A Case For Minimalism

Is there a Cliff Notes version of the OP? From what I gather, he views cars as appliances. Something that performs a needed function in ones life with as little upkeep as possible and doesn't get much satisfaction from actually using it. As long as it does it's job, he is satisfied with it and has no intentions of replacing it. It's like my washer/dryer from the mid 80's. For the every 10 days to 2 weeks I run a load of laundry, it performs a satisfactory job. The newer models are cooler with exciting colors and neat features like front loading and automatic detergent dispensers, but doing laundry isn't really something I enjoy doing.
Actually it's the exact opposite. I have owned thousands of cars and have probably written over a thousand articles chronicling my experiences. However, I also own a car dealership and most car buyers out there appear to be mainly concerned about three things. type of transportation (car, truck, SUV), reliability and status.

I'm also not from California. I'm from Georgia. Right now I'm seeing a lot of folks who would buy Benzes, BMWs and Lexuses buy a Tesla instead. When I go to an auction on Thursday afternoon that liquidates Tesla trade-ins, it's not the Nissan LEAFs and Toyota Priuses that are stacked siz deep. It's the luxury cars from not too long ago.

The southern arc from Oregon and California that stretches all the way to Tennessee and Southern Virginia represents a rust free and relatively temperate area where the majority of Americans now live. As a guy who has been given the rare opportunity to own some of the best cars ever made over the last 20 years, I would love to say that the EV market is just a trend and that gas powered vehicles will be able to fend them off.

They won't. EVs are safer, faster, offer better fuel economy, and allow for a far greater opportunity to pursue styling that isn't available for the gas alternatives. They are also going to be far more profitable with or without the current federal tax credits (new and used) even if it doesn't come directly from the net profit of selling that vehicle. An EV allows automakers to also build several gas guzzlers to a degree that no economical ICE powered car can match. This is why GM will be mass producing a new V8 engine in the near future, and also why small gas sippers are about to become extinct.

The automakers are going to spend over $500 billion on EVs this decade and for right now, many of the largest automakers such as Hyundai/Kia aren't spending any money at all on R&D for their gasoline engines. The cars we drive now are going to be incredibly cheap and last longer because most folks simply won't drive them as much. EVs are already far cheaper in China and other Asian countries, and the United States will likely be a market for many similar models.

In case you're wondering who I am, I'm this guy. The EV market is frankly only about a decade old in the American car market (2011 until now). We're still at the beginning of a paradigm shift.
 
Last edited:
I agree that we are at the beginning of a paradigm shift. The reasons, and the shift itself, are complex in nature.

That's why I think it's too early to call the minimalist winners going forward.

I agree wholeheartedly that your minimalist approach in the past has been a good one, but to predict the future based on past results is a mistake in many endeavors, including cars.
 
Ramblings such as the OP and many of the responses are great for classrooms of 30 or so economists.
Each stated "fact" or supposition or seemingly focused paragraph can be assigned to a student who'd be asked to add facts or dispel falsehoods etc.

Does anybody actually know how many cars were taken out of circulation by "Cash for Clunkers" AND how many years ago it was?
I ask because maligning that program and falling back on "free market" statements is such obvious political shorthand.
The benefits of ridding the roads of heavily polluting vehicles is never mentioned/assessed.

Uneducated economists would classify our westward expansion (aka Manifest Destiny) "free market" because the right people prevailed.
 
Last edited:
Is there a Cliff Notes version of the OP? From what I gather, he views cars as appliances. Something that performs a needed function in ones life with as little upkeep as possible and doesn't get much satisfaction from actually using it. As long as it does it's job, he is satisfied with it and has no intentions of replacing it. It's like my washer/dryer from the mid 80's. For the every 10 days to 2 weeks I run a load of laundry, it performs a satisfactory job. The newer models are cooler with exciting colors and neat features like front loading and automatic detergent dispensers, but doing laundry isn't really something I enjoy doing.
The majority of owners buy cars for this very reason.
 
The ultimate minimalism comes with the end of car ownership. I suspect that in the not too distant future we'll just order an autonomous robo-taxi on our phones and ride to our destination in privacy. No car ownership fees, parking issues or maintenance to worry about.
 

Yes, but something that actually exists. It's weird to see these things driving around without a driver.

vUBRIcb.jpg
 
The ultimate minimalism comes with the end of car ownership. I suspect that in the not too distant future we'll just order an autonomous robo-taxi on our phones and ride to our destination in privacy. No car ownership fees, parking issues or maintenance to worry about.
Wishful thinking, if your phone can violate your privacy, so can a vehicle. If the vehicle is not yours, they can do whatever they want. You’re in public after all.
 
The ultimate minimalism comes with the end of car ownership. I suspect that in the not too distant future we'll just order an autonomous robo-taxi on our phones and ride to our destination in privacy. No car ownership fees, parking issues or maintenance to worry about.
One of the first words a child learns is 'mine'.

Any idea about the future that doesn't take into account that people like to own things has a big problem.

Human behavior only changes when the environment dictates that change. And in the case of communism and rideshare companies, the profits never existed. So there's no 'mine' to be had with an automotive version of that system.
 
Wishful thinking, if your phone can violate your privacy, so can a vehicle. If the vehicle is not yours, they can do whatever they want. You’re in public after all.

Privacy as in no driver, obviously there will be cameras around because people feel compelled to do stupid things. Keep in mind you'll still be surrounded by windows that people can see through so how much expectation for privacy do you have in any motor vehicle?
 
car buyers out there appear to be mainly concerned about three things. type of transportation (car, truck, SUV), reliability and status.
1. Type. 8 of the top 10 current best selling vehicles are gas trucks and SUVs, made by the majors. The only EV in the top 10 is a luxury $60,000 Tesla. Almost all are sold in wealthy CA zip codes, where money is water and these folks own multiple vehicles. Again, nothing "minimalist" about a new $60k luxury Tesla.
2. Reliability, which I would include range and convenience, hands down, goes to gas vehicles. Few who own EVs owns that exclusively b/c they just are not reliable enough. Aging vehicles become less reliable. But, again, for an old Civic you can find parts easily, including from scrap yards. New EVs are and will be difficult and expensive to maintain, with parts often not compatible due to intentional designs of obsolescence (much like aftermarket non OEM printer ink will not work in printers, one needs new VIN coded OEM parts to work on EV cars). This means a old ICE hands down is more reliable long term.
3. Status. Your theory is internally inconsistent, b/c status is not compatible with owning a aged car over say 5-10 years old. So if status is important, EV buyers will continually upgrade to newer models.

One other point, "minimalist" and requiring tax payers to shoulder the burden of paying taxes to offer rebates so wealthy people can buy new EVs; these concepts are incompatible. Minimalists don't need me to offer rebates to pay for their lifestyle choices.

This all generally defeats your opening theories.

When I go to an auction on Thursday afternoon that liquidates Tesla trade-ins, it's not the Nissan LEAFs and Toyota Priuses that are stacked siz deep. It's the luxury cars from not too long ago.
Luxury vehicles are routinely sold off, b/c the people who buy them desire status and driving old vehicles of any type is counter to status. It's always been this way.

I would love to say that the EV market is just a trend and that gas powered vehicles will be able to fend them off.

They won't. EVs are safer, faster, offer better fuel economy, and allow for a far greater opportunity to pursue styling that isn't available for the gas alternatives. They are also going to be far more profitable with or without the current federal tax credits (new and used) even if it doesn't come directly from the net profit of selling that vehicle. An EV allows automakers to also build several gas guzzlers to a degree that no economical ICE powered car can match. This is why GM will be mass producing a new V8 engine in the near future, and also why small gas sippers are about to become extinct.

The automakers are going to spend over $500 billion on EVs this decade and for right now, many of the largest automakers such as Hyundai/Kia aren't spending any money at all on R&D for their gasoline engines. The cars we drive now are going to be incredibly cheap and last longer because most folks simply won't drive them as much. EVs are already far cheaper in China and other Asian countries, and the United States will likely be a market for many similar models.
You have summarized the effect of government interference, creating unfair competitive interference. As mentioned earlier, cash for clunkers took my tax money to destroy perfectly serviceable vehicles in favor of stimulating new car purchases. That "reset" consumption and the auto markets and was BAD for the environment. ICE is under constant pressures which add costs and makes competition harder. I could go on. It's an unfair market favoring EVs.

The EV market is frankly only about a decade old in the American car market (2011 until now). We're still at the beginning of a paradigm shift.
That's historically incorrect. Look it up. Electric vehicles have been around for over a century and were at a point directly competing - and losing - to ICE over 100 years ago. It's taken over a century for EVs to actually compete and they still lose in most real world practical applications of convenience, range, towing, and reliability for most consumers (again, see 8 of 10 top selling vehicles are gas trucks and SUVs). EVs will never in my lifetime be used for heavy duty pickup trucks or heavy earth moving vehicles, airplanes, etc. They have physical limits confined basically to a medium frame vehicle. They are excellent for yard tools, the make adequate purpose driven consumer cars, and excellent luxury cars for rich people. That's about it. And it's taken 100+ years to get to THIS point, which heavy market interference by .gov.


I also own a car dealership

They are also going to be far more profitable
Have you considered you may have a profit motivated conflict of interest? There's literally nothing minimalistic in new car ownership, especially EVs. If one must own a car, the "minimalist" approach is a really old reliable one for which most of the environmental costs are sunk. Not a new car. The EV push is largely based on propaganda and outright lies about longevity, climate change, carbon footprints, etc. that simply exchange the environmental costs of ICE for different (and often worse) environmental costs of EVs. The more we get educated the more these lies are apparent, and almost weekly more and more info comes out to prove this.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there a thread a day or two ago about a member here who couldn't get a coolant hose for his 2016 (maybe 2017?) Volkswagen? The part being no longer available, national back order, COVID shortages.. whatever.

My point being, I respect all that the OP went through with his Camry, but this scenario is going to be nearly impossible as time goes on. You'll never be able to find replacement parts, control modules, etc. as time goes on and the problem is getting worse. Doesn't matter what propels the vehicle.
 
1. Type. 8 of the top 10 current best selling vehicles are gas trucks and SUVs, made by the majors. The only EV in the top 10 is a luxury $60,000 Tesla. Almost all are sold in wealthy CA zip codes, where money is water and these folks own multiple vehicles. Again, nothing "minimalist" about a new $60k luxury Tesla.
I highly doubt those top 8 trucks and SUVs were cheaper on average than that “luxury” model 3.
 
Privacy as in no driver, obviously there will be cameras around because people feel compelled to do stupid things. Keep in mind you'll still be surrounded by windows that people can see through so how much expectation for privacy do you have in any motor vehicle?
Having people see you through a window as you drive by vs being video and audio recorded 100% of the time you are inside a vehicle are quite two different expectations of privacy IMO. And who would stop them from installing other devices that invade even more? Radars, network
/rfid scanners. Sky is the limit.
There is a reason cops need a warrant to search your vehicle. There is a level of privacy that is protected even in public.
 
Can a model 3 tow a speedboat or haul a load of lumber?
It can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. But ,whyt does it matter?
You specifically emphasized $60k Tesla as a luxury item that the elites from CA buy as toys, yet somehow an equivalently priced truck or SUV is not a luxury? Do you mean to say that the poor working class need them to survive?

This thread is about minimalism, a $60k vehicle, no matter how it’s classified is not minimalist.
 
OPs post about minimalism is over simplified. I’ve been working on electrification for about 15 years now, WAY before it became the cool buzz word for the marketing folks.

There’s little to no desire by OEMs to support SW updates beyond the designed life cycle of the product - that’s been a near constant with all the SW and controls content since I’ve been doing this. It costs a bunch and no OEM or their tier1s are running this out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s all down to profits. Obsolescence is designed right from the get go - that’s for HW and SW. I would be very very surprised if OEMs supported a product lifecycle of 25 years (12k annual miles by the average user
getting to 300k miles).

There’s far too many factors that make mass adoption of electrified vehicles without rebates and such to be a long term viable option as things stand. Some of the OEMs are seeing this and starting to change their model mixes to continue their ICE/hybrid options longer than planned. Not to mention after 10-15 years when the packs are toast, will the average user spend the $10k to install a new one? I doubt it - most folks would do the math and junk the vehicle and move on. So there’s goes long term minimalism imo.

Infrastructure improvements, battery manufacturing lifecycle (which includes mining and recycling are needing a closer look), pack charge density, cost of pack replacement, thermal operations are all major hurdles prior to mass adoption.

I do see electrification getting more popular - but it’s a long path to get there for mass adoption outside of those who want to get into EVs now and be early adopters.

TLDR: EVs got ways to go before they can be mass adopted. And the scenario in the original post isn’t realistic.
 
Back
Top