S-Curve EVA adoption video

[MEDICALJMP]

Lars Strandridder does a good job of showing how disruptive technology grows in the S-curve shape instead of linear progression. If you were not convinced that ICE has stage IV cancer before this may convince you.


By the title of his channel you can tell he is a Tesla fanboy, though he does a decent job of keeping his gushing in check (usually). ?

 

[DarinCT]

5 minutes to make his point, 15 minutes of the same thing. Nowhere in the 20 minutes does he address the chasm at 2:45 (sorry on mobile or I'd link it). Sure, solar, color TVs, and corn seed have a nice S-curve because it's a commodity that's remove and replace.

Going from ICE to EV may seem like a no-brainier for many of us on this forum. For many, the idea of changing how we get to work, friends, doctors, and family from a dependable to a new technology is too big an ask. I assert that EV will have to cross the chan for the amount of change.

For more about the chasm see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle. Adaptations of the model

 

[Crissa]

But that's exactly why adoption is an s-curve, @DarinCT . Most people won't see it until they do, and then it'll be a no brainer for them all at once.

Last year, the cheapest TCO car was EV. This year, the fastest car was EV. Also this year, the Leaf hit that 20k mark - if you need a car for what 99% of people do, there's your cheap car.

Next year the longest range car will be EV. The year after that the cheapest TCO trucks will all be EV.

At that point, what reason would anyone have to buy an ICE powered car?

-Crissa

PS - literally all my friends who are basically living hand to mouth but needed a new car just bought a Leaf this year. That's just amazing. But that cheap TCO and now the hurdle being just the size they can leap meant they did it.

 

[ajdelange]

For more about the chasm see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle. Adaptations of the model

The article seems to miss the critcal fact that the adoption curve is the integral under the bell curve which produces (drum roll) an S curve.

 

[DarinCT]

Oh FFS...
@Crissa @ajdelange

Yes, the technology adoption life cycle is an S-curve which is the integral, blah, blah, blah... That's not what I'm talking about.

People are not rational buyers. If that was the case, then we'd all be buying the car that fit our needs. People buy cars based on status, perceived value, and imagined dependability. When the item is a commodity like a color TV or corn seed (the original research for S-curve of adoption), there is fundamentally no behavior change. People who will try new things a.k.a. innovators will purchase it simply because it is new. Early adopters will then pick something up because they want to see how it might change their world. I think at this point we can still agree.

The next point is where I think we start to disagree. The early majority group is next and they don't typically do things based on the newness, they are the first to follow a leader. The research suggests that the more behavior change is required the less likely they are to "take the plunge". Like I said before, commodities that do not require big changes are more commonly accepted. For corn farmers, the leap wasn't so much about behavior change as it was a financial risk. The greater the behavior change, the greater the financial risk, the greater the chasm is perceived to be. (There are other factors e.g. network effect which both hinder initially and amplify later.)

Like I said before, the change to an EV is not as simple as removing and replacing your ICE vehicle. It might seem like that to us as we are the innovators/early adopters. Even if all the charging infrastructure was in place, it would still be a chasm.

At that point, what reason would anyone have to buy an ICE powered car?

For every reason they buy a car that is not related to TCO and range. To name a few, looks, upfront cost, carrying costs/insurance cost, room for family, appease significant other, brand loyalty, included features, safety ratings.

To recap, yes, not a line, it's an S-curve (I never said it wasn't). This S-curve has a kink in it right when we think the derivative starts to climb, it will fall, often to zero or negative, before going exponential. This kink is psychological. This kink is small to non-existent for commodities of low risk. This kink is larger for greater behavior change and greater perceived risks.

 

[Crissa]

I'm just saying that's why the S-curve is a surprise. I agree with you, @DarinCT . People aren't always logical. They latch onto different things. But when the best car for whatever reason they buy a car is EV, they'll shift over to EV. And that'll be sooner than you think, because alot of these people who haven't given it a thought, most definitely will when these things happen.

Like all those videos of supercar guys being driven in the Plaid. They must have known the Plaid doesn't fool around, and yet, it still surprised them.

So the S-curve surprises people. Because it'll seem like overnight, everyone has changed their minds. Right now, Tesla makes 2% of new cars in the US. Next year they'll make 4%. Then 10%. Their headroom for growth is mind-boggling... And they haven't even started to cut prices to get butts into seats. They're doing the opposite right now, sand-bagging, because they don't have extra cars to sell.

At the same time Tesla is doing this, each other automaker has promised 20k, 50k, 100k, of each of these other models. And that's double the doubling that Tesla is moving into.

Then public opinion will snap, and it'll be a no-duh moment.

-Crissa