The question is also how much power the battery can continuously output, if it's the 3000hp for 15 seconds that won't be of much use for a max speed test.
There's a reason why all the world's land speed records since the 1930s [1] get set at the Bonneville Salt Flats or similar flat desert terrain. FWIW, the speed listed in this article was exceeded in 1937. The hard part is not necessarily going fast, it's going fast in a street-legal vehicle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_land_speed_records
It is an impressive feat of engineering to get to a vmax record in a BEV.
I suspect theres inductance and capacitance enough that even if the motors can't handle the voltage, it can be "clipped" until the pack comes down. (Especially since fmu these are 3phase AC motors, the motor driver is already regulating voltage and current to produce whatever the optimal waveform is)
(https://youtu.be/z6q7du1q2U8)
It's also interesting that the fastest time on the Nürburgring at 5 min 19 was from a Porsche hybrid with 900 hp, a fair bit quicker than the BYD which took 6:59 I think. The Porsche had a lot more downforce than the BYD.
You're talking about the non-production Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo race car. A Corvette ZR1X did 6:49 with a third of the HP
"The tires on the Veyron can only last 15 minutes at top speed, but that's ok because the fuel tank only has capacity for 7 minutes at top speed." (From memory, IIRC, Top Gear on the Veyron)
> the tires will only last for about 15 minutes but it's okay because the fuel runs out in 12 minutes
But they don't make false claims about them.
(1)
https://insidechinaauto.com/2025/02/11/byd-rolls-out-autonom...
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/11/cars/china-byd-smart-driv...
Why ? You "just" need a car that can steer and brake, what's the problem with steering and braking ? Need a steering wheel, good brake pads and tires
TBH the complexities are not even comparable, track engineering for a car is probably a few orders of magnitude more complex than straight line speed.
same car doing Nürburgring Lap https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td_c1zeEn2Q
> The U9 was developed by German car designer Wolfgang Egger, who previously served as a head designer for Alfa Romeo, Audi and Lamborghini, and began working for BYD in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangwang_U9
But honestly, ther are a Lot of production cars that went considerably faster. And the non-production Porsche 919 Hybrid EVO did it in 5:19, which is an entirely different league.
There is a “car” in my hometown in Coventry that goes (I think) 700 mph, but I can only do it in a straight line because it’s powered by two turbo jet engines
That's really cool, I thought it was surpassed :D
For performance applications. None of these cars are great daily drivers.
These are not those cars though.
The downforce to weight ratio is quite different between the U9 and Porsche also. Apparently the Porsche weighed 850kg and probably produced as much as that or more in downforce. The U9 is more like 2500kg and not especially downforce orientated.
There's another eclectic design though, the McMurty that laps thing faster than petrol cars due to having a fan up the downforce https://youtu.be/5JYp9eGC3Cc I don't think it has a Nurburgring time yet.
Sabine Shmitz did the 19,100m length in 10:08.49 using the ford transit van.
That's a far cry from 7:14
However, this year a Ford SuperVan 4.2 made the Nordschleife in 6:48.393, so even without Sabine Schmitz a van was faster than the BYD.
> However, this year a Ford SuperVan 4.2 made the Nordschleife in 6:48.393, so even without Sabine Schmitz a van was faster than the BYD.
You are spouting such absurdities, that is a van in name only:
https://carbuzz.com/nurburgring-ford-supervan-42-lap-record-...
And it was driven by Romain Dumas someone far more qualified to set such a record than Sabine Shmitz - despite your "even without Sabine Shmitz" disingenuous wording. Sabine is half television personality half racing driver...
Funny you mention the Ford SuperVan because that’s much closer to the 919 Evo in the "no homologation no limits" category than anything you could register and drive off a lot. A fairer and much more impressive benchmark is the road-legal Ford Mustang GTD running a 6:52. That's still far quicker than the BYD, with roughly two thousand less horsepower.
If anyone hasn't seen this, I highly recommend it, even if you're not a car fan.
This allows for more fuel to be added for more bang per engine stroke!
Someone else mentioned KERS (kinetic energy recovery system); that seems a lot more likely.
The regular 9X costs about US$236,000 before Trump tariffs. About half of a Ferrari. Also jumps potholes, can do tank turns, and has some autonomous capability.[1]
There's also the Yangwang U8, which is an hybrid off-road SUV. Does tank turns, and floats.
It's really a promotion for their other cars, but these things are sold in the UAE, Kuwait, and China, at least.
Nope, probably too busy faking emission results, lobbying at the EU parliament , or designing overpriced mid tier cars in the US
The hard bits are connecting that power with the ground long enough to reach speed safely, and storing enough energy to do so. EVs don't solve that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev6DiHOidcg
While I agree with your statement in broad strokes - I'd reframe it as the same amount of engineering takes you much further in an EV than an ICE car. Considering this, the Chinese really swung for the fences, and what they made here is quite impressive
The closer ICE comparison would be Koenigsegg (447 kph/278 mph), Hennessy Venom GT (435/270) and SSC Tuatara (455/283, no shenanigans). SSC have reached 295, they were clearly aiming for 300. It's no 308 but it's reasonably close.
All these are also relatively small companies with relatively low budgets -- none of the big manufacturers seem interested in top speeds anymore.
One thing many car channels are pointing out is that the car could've reached even better numbers looking at how easily it reached its record pace. I wonder if the bottleneck is the battery. Hell, it supposedly discharges at full power in 2 minutes.
(Edit: noting they did the ring)
VW ID.R
Xiaomi SU7 Ultra
Lotus Evija X
F-150 Lightning SuperTruck
Nio EP9
Ford Transit SuperVan
Cars built for straight line speed are rarely fast in a track – you won’t find the Bugattis breaking any fastest lap records either.
ICEs have more above it.
But yes, the link I posted is lacking lots of data. Apologies.
- 6:59.127 Lap Time - The first lap record on the Nürburgring
- 496.22 km/h - The Fastest Car on the Planet
- 1200v - World's first series-production model with ultra-high-voltage platform
- Over 3000 HP - Global horsepower record for production cars
- 30000 rpm - Global fastest motor rpm - 4 motors
There is some indication that putting rapidly accelerating cars on streets is leading to a proliferation of accidents.
I just had the numbers run to check this. About 650,000 fewer people would have died over my short life so far, if the US had the vehicle fatality rate of my home country.
Putting this level of performance (and better) into boring suburban SUVs bought by ambivalent consumers is negligence.
We hit a wall there for a while. Cars were actually becoming less powerful and slower on average for a couple of decades as governments tightened emissions and safety requirements. It took Tesla to blow the walls off EV production and consumer acceptance. It's a good reminder that progress doesn't happen in a straight line.
That top power draw would drain the 80kWh batteries in around 2 minutes, though I'm guessing you'd hit thermal throttling or catastrophic failure before that. The batteries are allegedly rated to 30C, meaning 2 minutes to full discharge at max current.
I'm curious how the heat dissipation of EVs compares to ICE vehicles. You have much higher efficiency vs combustion and get to split the power between 4 motors instead of one engine, but you don't get the heat capacity of a massive engine block, or the convection of cold air intake + hot exhaust out the tailpipe.
Xiaomi Su7 Ultra had a 400W twin fan, 530W liquid pump and a 28kW heat dissipation for powertrain.
It's not unexpected for a record-attempt car to have severely decreased range at top speed, they're pushing up against all the limiting factors at once, hard. I seem to recall reading something about the Bugatti Veyron only having 15 minutes of tyre life at full throttle, but this not being an issue because it only carried 12 minutes worth of fuel. :)
The majority of the lemans (or any endurance race) challenge is not from the electric drivetrain (or regenerative braking) but from the ice drivetrain and friction braking. This is reinforced by the ease that WEC and IMSA have had in implementing electric hybrid drivetrains with relative ease over the last 10 years (by most measurements making the endurance more achievable).
Also check the same for say a Toyota
You say that like it's an advantage while it's really the opposite. As a car buyer I'm only looking at cars their manufacturer plans to fully support over their lifetime. That rules out new, unproven manufacturers as well as the ones with proven bad support.
Support-wise, trying owning an older model of Tesla like a do and you’d know that your statement cannot be further from the truth, my car bricked several times after a software update and getting repairs done gets met with “oh that’ll take __ to get parts”
...because they don't do model years? Most cars are like that too, except they increment the model year annually, whether or not there are substantive changes.
Their battery and charging technology is impressive and their supercharger network gives them a moat, but not enough of a moat. A concerted federal effort would quickly erase it, and that not happening yet is mostly down to incentives.
It's a premium product. Whether due to brand, features or something else, it's undeniable that Tesla was doing something right vis-à-vis BYD. (That said, they've been losing their edge since even before Musk's recent fuckups [1].)
[1] https://cnevpost.com/2025/09/08/tesla-sells-57152-cars-china...
Allowing in Chinese EVs into markets where there are important domestic auto manufacturers will be very bad for those domestic manufacturers. (US, Germany, France, S.Korea, Japan, etc.) Outside of Tesla, none have EV brands competitive with the Chinese firms and if customers in those non China markets migrate to Chinese brands en masse, it would be tremendous disruption and the failure of many storied domestic brands.
It is important that the US have strong auto companies. Same is true for Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, etc.
China should have strong car companies for their domestic market. The problem comes when they end up destroying other/outside markets.
Look at solar panels, drones, batteries, for similar comparisons.
It's similar to the logic behind anti-trust actions against monopolists. If the playing field isn't level, then the USA government steps in to level it.
(Whether BYD is subsidised or not is another question, but the above is the logic of protecting local industry.)
More recently though, it kind of seems like if the playing field isn't tipped strongly towards the US, then the US government will step in to tip it their way.
America has some of the lowest cost of capital and most effective financial markets in human history.
If the Chinese markets are blocked that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is inaccessible.
Another aspect of government subsidies is that they mask incompetence.
It would make no sense to destroy your own industry because it can’t compete with a heavily subsidized foreign industry.
Everyone does.
China funds it upfront, while the US does it after the spending and calls it a bail-out, or a "government contract"
If your product sells like made at a subsidized price, but not at the unsubsidized price, it's not a real business.
Car manufacturers serve many purposes. Aside from keeping the UAW membership onside, they are a strategic buttress for an emerging future war risk.
Australia maintained subsidies to Ford and GM for onshore production precisely because of this. And they stopped when a strategic realignment made successive governments decide the risk didn't justify the expense. A decision they may now be regretting.
We have had very little peace in the rest of the world in the meantime between the colonial wars, the various proxy wars of the Cold War, then the numerous stupid adventures of the modern America and now Russia wanting to be an empire again.
(Nuclear) deterrence is why we’ve only had proxy wars instead of direct wars
It's 2025. We're still asking what happens when one group has lots of guns, tanks, fighter jets and missiles, and the other doesn't? Also, there is a difference between stockpiling arms and maintaining the ability to produce them if necessary.
This seems so anachronistic.... When was the last war where tanks were important..?
Car are made using components from all around the world... How would you even make a tank in a Tesla factory?
It describes how tanks were modified to protect, first, against attacks from the top, and then, from drone attacks from all sides.
They claim “But they remain important, especially for trying to take and hold territory. With their heavy firepower, they will continue to have a role in attacking, defending and supporting the foot soldiers of the infantry.”
FWIW, I agree with your general sentiment, though.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the car industry as it is now would fight retooling their factories tooth and nail, move production to other countries and do anything else they can to be able to continue making as much profit as they can.
I wonder how much you couldn't though. Obviously you'd need to retool the whole thing, and the cannon is a bit more complicated than simply a metal cylinder, but just how much more complicated? The reloading system is probably the most complex after of the jet turbine that powers those things.
My other question is, with gigacasting, how much better could a Tesla factory build an M1 Abrams compared to a traditional automakers?
A tank weighs like 60 tons or so. The engine and transmission alone are heavier and bulkier than whole cars, so basically none of the infrastructure you have available in many car factories is dimensioned correctly. Modern armor is composite and includes stuff like ceramic components which you would not have the machines, processes and knowledge for. "Gigacasting" sounds impressive but it's "just" aluminium injection molding that can do relatively big and integrated parts and you can't just fill in some steel-composite armor material mix in the hopper and have a fully formed Abrams fall out the other end of the machine. Things like barrels are forged (I think), which you again would not have the right infrastructure for. And so on and so forth.
My guess would be: It would be more sensible to apply division of labor and - for example - have many of the car factories spit out CNC and cast parts that fit into their usual production envelope and are then integrated into other/bigger systems at your friendly neighborhood US armory (Krauss-Maffei or wherever, more likely), specalized stuff like aircraft parts from their Gigapresses, have them do electrical work for other systems, produce lighter (support-)vehicles, use their skills and infrastructure in quick mass production for things you really need a lot of (shells, basic supplies for your war-torn population's needs, and so on), have their prototyping labs work on more cutting-edge/improvised stuff like the Drones we see in Ukraine and Russia. I'm sure there are plenty more good (terrible) ideas to be had.
> so anachronistic
tell that to ruzzia
what a load of warmongering bs.. I literally can't think of a single example. Korea, Vietnam, France, Britain, Japan, Germany every country involved in a war in the past ~100 years had prepared for it. Maybe maybe Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't properly prepare? Though they were highly militarized. On the contrary, the more you prepare and get people frothing at the mouth the more likely it's gunna happen.
Thank god none had been between two nuclear powers so far
> tell that to ruzzia
They had a bunch of tanks and seemingly lost huge amounts of them. They seem to be a prime example of tanks not working in the modern context
Without proper strategy nothing works. Size of the russian army was too small for the task to fight and occupy such a huge county as Ukraine.
Also russians had bunch of old tanks, almost all of them made in USSR.
"Car are made using components from all around the world..." That's part of the problem. Building more here may bring some of the components closer, at least to friendlier countries.
The average Chinese person is very gung ho about invading Taiwan
America was synonymous with competition. To see protectionism championed, is to really see the end of an empire.
China has supported key industries (like EVs, batteries, solar, semiconductors) that it views as strategic. Each country should do the same for their own situation. There is no such thing as pure capitalism- and what you see is 'protectionism' is to a lawmaker a way to ensure that the local company survives and provides jobs for the local region/state, etc.
And as the other commenter mentioned, auto manufacturing plants were retooled to make tanks and jeeps in WW2 and so no country that cares about their own military survival should cede auto manufacturing to another country, let alone China.
This is laughable given the history of the auto industry in America.
Foreign automakers (Toyota, BMW, etc.) build competitive factories in southern states and often paid better wages and delivered higher quality products. All this without decades of protection.
U.S. auto jobs still got wrecked despite the decades of "By American" policies anyway, since domestic auto companies decided to automate and offshore much of the work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_i...
We did too, but we didn't effectively hold any of the executives or financial planners liable for the terrible direction domestic auto companies had gone in, and as a result those companies are still failing to produce competitive vehicles.
During the last few decades, I have almost never heard about a big US company making any big investment, like a new factory, or even just a new HQ, except after receiving very substantial state aids in the form of various kinds of tax reductions.
In many parts of Europe this kind of aid that is received in USA by most big companies would be labelled as illegal state aid and forbidden.
It is. But the reality is that those companies are complacent fossils who have lost all their vigor, and only threat of extinction would force them to innovate. Which they’re not under because legislators agree with you (in no small part thanks to their lobbyists).
Like many things, we’ll realize the extent of how badly we messed up when it’s way too late.
Western countries simply don’t have the supply chain required to compete with China. China is often by far the best supplier for a lot of components and the sole supplier able to provide some raw materials in large quantities.
Honestly, we are not far from reaching a point where using the old Chinese strategy might be our best bet: mandatory JVs with local companies if the Chinese companies want to access our markets.
GM alone has spent most of its history waffling between whether it wants to be a large bank itself or not. (The "GMAC" division has threads back to 1911, was spun out in the '00s as "Ally Bank", has been mostly repurchased with others to reform a larger "GM Financial" starting in the 2010s.)
The other part of it is that marginal costs are weird in the modern software-defined world. Motorized windows are cheaper today than the plastics and mechanical parts of roll up windows. Similar for the mechanics of manual mirrors. An electric motor tuned precisely for that mirror is fewer parts than a manual mirror. A camera system is sometimes even cheaper than mirrors today, which is wild.
Totally agree. The problem is that it instead has General Motors and Ford.
Tariff them so they're super expensive! Or set import quotas, so they can't displace too much demand. Either way, letting some of them through gives Americans visibility into what others are building while continuing to largely protect domestic manufacturers.
Politically problematic - the illusion of China as a peasant state manufacturing little more than knock off rubber dog turds would be shattered.
I agree in principle but I can’t fail to notice what is to me the obvious parallel with the subprime crisis.
We, as the general public via the state, are once again saving companies which badly failed according to the market due to their shortsightedness and inability to properly invest. It shows that the current system, which its proponents - generally profiting tremendously from it - like to frame as meritocratic, is a charade. It exists as long as the same wins and suddenly stops to apply when they don’t.
It’s hard for me to support intervention to save some companies while not doing anything to curb the rising inequalities and the overall lack of contribution of the richest. I think people are not blind to that and it partially explains while extreme political parties are on the rise.
The problem is not that Chinese EVs are entering other markets, BMW and others have done that for decades. The problem is that China is making car manufactoring a commodity.
The margins have been high for car manufacturas. China rolls that complelty over with lower laber costs (normal car has only a few thousand dollars in labor costs), end to end supply chain, cheap energy, higher automatisation level, simplified stack and lower margins. Significant lower margins.
Btw. USA and Europe got as rich as they are because of being manufactoring powerhouses previously. Was that fair ever to the rest of the world? Probably not. Now China is doing the same thing and suddenly everyone needs to protect their markets? A little bit ignorant and short sighted eh? Btw. China was smarter then us. They stoped allowing this and made it mandatory to have chinese people invovled in the expansion of american and europeon companies.
And they are buying companies around the globe too while we all watch and let it happen.
U.S. and European dealer, maintenance, even government models are in for a shock when ev percentages approach 50% and even 25% (only continued adoption models away)
And this has made the US more wealthy than ever with easier lives.
I want a level playing field/market competition. Allowing China's illegal subsidies and anti-market tactics to dominate the global EV industry is very dangerous, which is why they are already countervailed in many developed countries.
Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
Subsidies are not the reason why China's EVs are cheap. The reason is that China has a much more competitive EV market than the US or EU. There are many manufacturers that are competing with one another, the charging infrastructure is much better than in the West, and Chinese cities heavily discourage internal combustion engine vehicles.
> Subsidies aren't necessarily bad, but it's become China's choice of blunt instrument to price out/drive out foreign competition.
China specifically encouraged foreign car companies to enter its market, most recently Tesla (which has done very well in China). Allowing foreign car companies to compete in the Chinese market was a major part of China's strategy to improve its own domestic manufacturing.
Of course, they're also just good at building things since they do so much of it. And cheaper labor. Much better supply chain.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/ev-strategies-in-us-eu...
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3322666/c...
Not really, not much similarities between China and EU subsidies past 15 years. China's NEV subsidies are illegal because they are either conditioned on illegal tech transfer, local content requirement, or restrict market access. To give a high level view of the problems:
1) forced technology transfer/IP theft -- all foreign automakers/EV battery producers forced to give up IP to access China's market (and subsidies). This was litigated before the WTO by the EU in 2018 (see WT/DS549):
Hybrid in a Trade Squeeze, Keith Bradsher, Sept 5, 2011, NYT
... The Chinese government is refusing to let the Volt qualify for subsidies totaling up to $19,300 a car unless G.M. agrees to transfer the engineering secrets for one of the Volt’s three main technologies to a joint venture in China with a Chinese automaker, G.M. officials said.
Power Play, Trefor Moss, May 17, 2018, WSJ
... China requires auto makers to use batteries from one of its approved suppliers if they want to be cleared to mass-produce electric cars and plug-in hybrids and to qualify for subsidies. These suppliers are all Chinese, so such global leaders as South Korea’s LG Chem Ltd and Japan’s Panasonic Corp. are excluded.
... Foreign batteries aren’t officially banned in China, but auto executives say that since 2016 they have been warned by government officials that they must use Chinese batteries in their China-built cars, or face repercussions. That has forced them to spend millions of dollars to redesign cars to work with inferior Chinese batteries, they say.
... “We want to comply, and we have to comply,” said one executive with a foreign car maker. “There’s no other option.”
Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries. Keith Bradsher and Michael Forsythe, Dec 22, 2021, NYT
The government soon said electric car buyers could get subsidies only if the battery was made by a Chinese company. G.M., which had not been notified of the rule, started shipping Buick Velite electric cars in 2016 with batteries made in China by LG, a South Korean company.
Angry consumers and dealers complained that local officials were denying them subsidies, people familiar with the episode said. G.M. switched heavily to CATL for the huge Chinese market.
Why a Chinese Company Dominates Electric Car Batteries.
... A rival had released a video suggesting that a technology used by the company, CATL, and other manufacturers could cause car fires. Imitating a Chinese government safety test, the rival had driven a nail through a battery cell, one of many in a typical electric car battery. The cell exploded in a fireball.
Chinese officials took swift action — by dropping the nail test, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. The new regulation, released two months later, listed who had drafted it: First on the list, ahead of the government’s own vehicle testing agency, was CATL.
As of this week, EU has over 100+ countervailing measures (anti-dumping/anti-subsidy) in force against Chinese imports, ranging from ceramic tiles (AD560), to decor paper (AD712), to polyester yarn (AD690); in addition to few more dozens of on-going investigations from candles (AD726) to hardwood plywood (AD717).
Your example of this is from 2011. Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago.
This was a policy that was enacted when China first opened up. It was a fair deal: foreign companies got to exploit cheap Chinese labor, and in return, they transferred some IP to China. However, that IP transfer was never enough to make Chinese cars internationally competitive. Only the development of EVs - where China is the biggest R&D spender in the world - allowed China to leapfrog foreign manufacturers.
You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing.
> So these are very deliberately orchestrated mercantile policies to gain advantages with forced tech transfer, limited foreign competition, and subsidized overcapacity and export subsidies.
The problems with this explanation are:
1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense.
2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies. As a result, Tesla has done very well in China. The foreign companies that are losing market share in China are the ones that missed the EV transition. VW dominated the Chinese auto market until just a few years ago. Now, it's heading to 0% market share. Why? It didn't focus on EVs.
3. China is not dumping its "excess capacity." Chinese companies are selling their cars in foreign markets at a substantial markup, and netting large profit margins in foreign markets. That's the opposite of how dumping works.
> As of this week, EU has over 100+ countervailing measures
This was a purely political decision. Automobile manufacturers in France were scared of Chinese competition and demanded protectionist measures. The Germans opposed the measures, because they sell lots of things in China and don't want to get into a trade war. The French won that fight at the EU level.
Sure, I'm giving you a chronological high level view of China's illegal practices past 15 years when China's NEV subsidies programs started.
> Chinese joint venture / technology transfer requirements in the automobile sector were eliminated several years ago.
This was never allowed and China upon China's 2001 Accession were required to phase them out 15 years ago, which China never did.
> You also raise domestic component requirements to qualify for subsidies. The US does exactly the same thing.
Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing requirement since 2015.
> 1. China leads in EV R&D. Chalking up its dominance to theft of foreign IP doesn't make any sense.
False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea. The lithium ion battery industry was single-handledly created by Sony in Japan back in the early 1990's; quickly followed by South Korea. China was very late to the game and so far behind, which is why China forced tech transfer from Japan and South Korea since 2011 (see example #1) and effectively banned them in 2015 (example #2) -- still refuses to enforce IPR of foreigners, which isn't anything new. Japan + Korea in fact started going after the Chinese infringers only this year and in Europe -- already scored significant legal victories and sales injunctions in Germany. Many more coming and CATL isn't far in their legal pipelines.
> 2. China specifically invited Tesla to enter the country, and showered it with subsidies.
Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer and other jazz in China. Tesla is an exception, not the norm. After EU filed WT/DS549, China promised to reform FIL and supposedly implemented in 2020/2021, but Tesla still remains the only foreign automaker without forced JV/tech transfer today.
> 3. That's the opposite of how dumping works.
Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works and why there are over 6-7 dozens of anti-dumping measures against China in EU. Dumping doesn't depend on a markup or profit/loss, but on the undistorted "normal-value" born by market without gov't interference -- eg, price fixing or illegal subsidies.
> This was a purely political decision.
Again there are over 100+ ACTIVE anti-subsidies/dumping measures in force against China. It's just one of many and has been on EU's radar for 15 years.
The Chinese automobile industry in 2011 is hardly relevant to the EV industry in China today. The EV industry was not built by technology transfer requirements.
> This was never allowed
It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop.
> Sure, Biden's IRA passed in 2022 is a counter measure against China's domestic sourcing since 2015.
The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022.
> False. Most, or close to 80% of all ACTIVE lithium ion battery patents are held by Japan and South Korea.
You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D.
> Sure, again Tesla is the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without forced tech transfer
Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer." Foreign companies knew what the regulations in China were and made a rational business decision to trade some amount of IP for access to cheap labor. Both sides benefited. But beyond that, nowadays, any foreign car company can operate in China without a local joint venture partner. Tesla was the first, but it's not the only one, and other companies are free to leave their joint ventures if they want to. Most of the large foreign automobile manufacturers in China have either acquired majority stakes in their China operations or have bought out their JV partners completely. This is the norm now.
> Wrong again. That's exactly how dumping works
No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank."
of course they are relevant and are built on tech transfer.
> It was not only allowed, but actually viewed as a legitimate way for underdeveloped economies to develop.
Again, this was illegal then and China was taken to the WTO in 2018 (WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology ) as I'd already explained (example #1).
> The US has all sorts of "Buy American" provisions and subsidies, going way back before 2022.
Sure, which EV or batteries before 2022?
> You're talking about the 1990s. I'm talking about now, 30 years later. The Chinese lead in battery technology and spend massive amounts of money on R&D.
Again, "ACTIVE" patents. Patents last just 20 years. Korea in particular have already dominated most automotive lithium ion battery patents 10-15 years. Again, this why is China forced tech transfer and "effectively" banned Japan + Korea battery makers when they realized their local "champions" still couldn't catch up or compete in 2015. China's obsession with LFP whose core patents expired last 3-4 years is likewise no coincidence and their "RECENT" investment in "post"-lithium ion batteries, such as sodium.
> Not true. First off, just as a footnote, there never was "forced technology transfer."
Again, see the WTO case WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology
> No, dumping involves selling your products below the cost of manufacture in foreign markets. When you instead sell them at a substantial markup, that's called "making bank."
Again this doesn't apply to China. China's "local price" or "cost of manufacture" is not considered a "normal value" as their entire supply-chain is distorted by gov't subsidies.
Europe's Basic Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (anti-subsidy regulation) has specific provisions for non-market-economy countries -- ie China, Article 2(7a)
In the case of imports from non-market-economy countries (6), the normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.The small amount of technology transfer that happened in 2011 for internal combustion engines is not relevant to the EV industry in 2025. It wasn't even enough back then to make China competitive in internal combustion engines.
> Again, this was illegal then and China was taken to the WTO in 2018
No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It's actually encouraged for developing countries.
> Again, see the WTO case WT/DS549 China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology
I don't think the WTO has ruled on that complaint.
> Sure, which EV or batteries before 2022?
The US faced virtually no competition for EV vehicles from China before 2022. The protectionist measures came up as soon as the competition appeared.
> Again, "ACTIVE" patents. Patents last just 20 years
You're really going to claim that China does not lead in current-day research? You're reaching back to decades ago, when that wasn't the case, to dismiss the massive Chinese R&D on batteries today.
> China's "local price" or "cost of manufacture" is not considered a "normal value" as their entire supply-chain is distorted by gov't subsidies.
Government subsidies are fairly small, and are paid to the consumer (not the producer), so they don't affect the cost of exported goods. Chinese companies are selling EVs in Europe at far, far higher prices than in China.
As I said, some EU countries are afraid of legitimate competition in EVs, because their own EV industry is hopelessly backwards. They're raising protectionist barriers, and coming up with a fig leaf to justify it.
Sure, China's tech transfer in BEV/hybrid/battery tech had been going on since 2011 and continued until fairly recently, not just in 2011 (read NYT article cited in example #1).
> No, technology transfer is not blanket banned by the WTO. It's actually encouraged for developing countries.
Wrong. That only applies to LDC, or Least Developed Countries under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT 1994. And we aren't exactly talking about high-tech EV/battery or semi-manufacturing tech, but better farming, irrigating, fertilizer techniques in countries like Bukina Faso, Angola, or Haiti. The rules aren't for China to exploit.
China's "developing" status allows "additional transition time," in implementing necessary local IP regulatory regime. China's WTO Accession was in 2001 and this transition arrangement/allowance expired about 15 years ago and China is still inconsistent with the global standard (see for instance EU's recent anti-injunction suit). Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.
> I don't think the WTO has ruled on that complaint.
Sure, there was hardly anything for China to deny or defend. China instead agreed to reform their foreign investment laws (FIL): no further market restriction or force tech transfer, but took another 3 years to implement in 2020/2021 and many are still afraid to pull out some 4-5 years later; again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.
> The US faced virtually no competition for EV vehicles from China before 2022. The protectionist measures came up as soon as the competition appeared.
BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s. The Japanese + Korean battery producers, such as LG, Panasonic, Samsung, etc banned in China since 2015 under Xi's protectionism (aka, Made-In-China 2025), have been in the US without any restriction for well over a decade. The last American battery producer, A123, collapsed in 2012 and the foreign battery producers have dominated the US market without any restriction. Unlike China, America has no problem collaborating with foreign trading partners.
> You're really going to claim that China does not lead in current-day research?
Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.
> You're reaching back to decades ago, ..
Sure, most lithium ion battery tech used in today's EVs were developed over 20+ years ago and most relevant EV battery patents developed past 10-15 years are by Japanese/Koreans and they will dominate for quite some time. Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.
> Government subsidies are fairly small, and are paid to the consumer (not the producer), ...
Already cited an article showing that China's consumer direct subsidy was significant (see example #1, $19+K per EV which more or less continued until 2019) and another showing that the consumer subsidy was anything, but pro-consumer (see example #3) -- consumer's choice was limited to EVs with Chinese batteries to funnel subsidies back to their local battery "champions" only -- ie, anti-consumer. China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.
> so they don't affect the cost of exported goods.
Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.
> Chinese companies are selling EVs in Europe at far, far higher prices than in China.
Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies. Also cited EU's Anti-dumping Regulation (2016/1036) explaining how the "normal value" is determined in such a case (see Article 2, Determination of dumping; A. NORMAL VALUE). It's well to remember however that Chinese EVs are countervailed under EU's Anti-Subsidy Regulation (2016/1037) where the price level/normal value is NOT a major consideration.
Thanks for playing, but I don't like talking in circles. Good bye.
No, it's strongly encouraged for least developed countries.
> Nothing under the WTO allows China's illegal forced tech transfer/IP theft otherwise.
There is no "forced tech transfer," and we're not discussing IP theft, which is not allowed by China's IP laws. Companies are making decisions to enter into IP sharing agreements with joint-venture partners, out of their own economic calculus. They're free to refuse.
> again Tesla being the only foreign automaker operating fully independently without a JV in China.
Not true. You need to update take a refresher on this issue. Toyota is setting up its own wholly owned operations in China, for example: [0].
> BYD's electric bus business in California has been around since the early 2010s.
This is a tiny niche in the US market. Meanwhile, US auto manufacturers have had large market shares in China for decades.
> Again, this is why China has focused on LFP (effectively royalty free after 2022/2023 for export) or post-lithium batteries instead. In other word, China is likely to benefit from their R&D in post-lithium once they are commercialized and mass-produced at scale years down the road, if ever.
So you're admitting that Chinese companies are respecting foreign IP and responding by innovating in areas not covered by that IP.
> Of course they do. That's what EU's recent probe (2024/1866 and 2024/27) revealed and also why China hand them out like Halloween candies.
No, tax rebates to customers in China do not reduce the cost of cars exported to Europe. China "hands [tax rebates to customers] out like Halloween candies" because it wants to rapidly transition to EVs (and has been incredibly successful in doing so).
> China's neo-mercantile economy prioritizes national "champions," not consumers.
Yet somehow, EVs are way cheaper in China than in the EU and US, and all the local companies are engaged in continuous price wars.
> Again, China's local price or cost of production don't mean jack -- China is a non-market-economy and their local price/cost products are artificially deflated by the Chinese gov't's illegal subsidies.
Those "illegal subsidies" (a loaded term) are overwhelmingly tax rebates to consumers - the exact same mechanism that the US and many EU countries use.
> Not really. Many are awe'ed as China's illegally subsidized overcapacity floods their local market, but often conflate the two: market domination vs. tech innovation. China's competitive edge is a function of China's illegal subsidies and protectionism. No evidence to believe Chinese EV/battery producers can compete without daddy Xi's big wallet or baton to keep away foreign competition.
This is just completely out of touch with reality. I'll just say two words: BYD, CATL. It's getting to the point that European countries are talking about encouraging battery technology transfer from China.
0. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...
That's your local political problem.
In the US, it's implemented thru 19 U.S.C § 3571. The EU's foreign subsidies are regulated by Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 based on the same WTO SCM Agreement.
While the WTO's regulations don't preclude local subsidy regulation, they must be consistent with the WTO's Agreement. In other word, any gov't subsidy favoring a "specific" company(ies) over domestic, foreign competitors, or distort market competition is an "actionable" offense and can be litigated before the WTO -- agriculture (quota based) and national security are however exempted. Others, such as export subsidies or local content requirement are prohibited under Article 3, "Prohibition" of the SCM.
Agree. However, those other companies in other markets didn't just destroy themselves overnight when China's industry decided to magically will itself into existence.
You know what did? Worthless companies who backed themselves into corner after corner by ignoring market trends, new technologies, and dissing consumers who didn't want oversized trucks or SUVs. Those same companies got multiple bailouts after being mismanaged for decades. Those same companies STILL refused to get with the times, and tried to force crappy oversized vehicles down our throats. Most people have zero need for trucks, yet GMC, Ford, etc tried to market them as the quintessential American vehicle. Yuck.
Folks, rip on the CCP as much as you damn well please. But don't fault them for picking an industry that they viewed as a future necessity, subsidizing its growth, and reaping the rewards of their investment.
Looks like US is using tariffs to compete.
The subsidies to Chinese EV companies isn't direct anymore. Most of it is in the form of tax refunds. The biggest "subsidy", though, is the incredible pipeline China has built to feed the industry. Their industrial policy has created an huge ecosystem capable of feeding batteries and components into their EV industry at a price point and scale that no other country can compete with. It's been an incredibly effective industrial policy.
I get what the OP means about the destruction of our auto industry but we can only hide behind that for so long. An ineffective and noncompetitive auto industry won't be able to scale up during a war either. I hope our industrial leaders and politicians are using tariffs and other trade barriers to the US car industry only as a temporary reprieve while we scale up our ecosystem too. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming one of those countries that keeps outdated domestic companies alive just to say we have those companies. Without export discipline and the ability to compete effectively on the global stage, domestic companies are just zombies kept alive by domestic subsidies. They won't be able to help us in the event of a war with a peer adversary.
China's NEV subsidies were/are illegal and Chinese EVs are countervailed in many developed countries (eg, the EU, Turkiye, Canada, US) because they are misapplied in three key ways.
i. forced tech transfer: no subsidies or market access unless hybrid/BEV/batteries tech transfer to China since 2011; violates China's 2001 Accession Protocal (see Section 7, Non-Tariff Measures); litigated before the WTO by the EU (WT/DS549)
ii, local content requirement: no subsidies or license/permit to operate in China unless automakers' EVs used Chinese batteries made by Chinese local "champions" only, namely CATL, since 2015; all foreign battery producers effectively banned and all EV producers forced to switch to local battery suppliers; violates Article 3(a) Prohibition of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement
iii, export subsidies: subsidies given to MIC exporters to under price/under cut foreign competitors in markets abroad; EU Commission's counter measures: 2024/1866 and 2024/2754.
Tesla China benefited significantly from China's NEV subsidies and is likewise also countervailed in the EU, at the import tariff rate of 7+%. Tesla no longer imports EV from China in the US/Canada.
Asking for other companies: Ford $9 billion, Chevy $11 billion
No idea if this is made up and no idea how to compare them but without knowing better it seems like both sides are subsidized
It's an AI generated answer. That's always the problem so you shouldn't be using it as a factual information source.
Elon Musk’s business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/e...
Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192
Subsidy Tracker: General Motors https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/general-moto...
etc... etc... etc...
Sure. But using AI for factual information seems akin to a form of gambling. ;)
ChatGPT is very good at giving me a link to a source. Friends making outrageous claims, not so much.
It'd be good if most people did that as a bare minimum, though it doesn't seem to be how it's often done currently.
BYD made electric busses for US transit agencies. They were the worst buses that I have ever ridden. Today, no U.S. transit agency still uses BYD busses, because none of them managed a service live longer than about a year.
BYD vehicles seem really nice for the first few hours, until you start discovering all the corners they cut to make their price point.
I also don’t like Tesla, but at least they have a nicer screen. Tesla also has big gaps between their parts looking from outside.
However, they start to break down and over a while, you can see the corners they cut.
The most attractive parts are the features they pack into the car for a fraction of the cost. The compromises are usually made where it's not immediately visible and for someone who changes his car in less than 5 years, I don't think it's an issue.
This is a fascinating data point. This should be more prominent.
Is that true today? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-26/us-cities... (discussion in HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45386578) gives another reason: “Federal Transit Administration rules that prohibit using federal dollars to purchase buses made by Chinese companies”
On the other hand they seem to be getting a lot in in London, mostly for short less busy routes far from the center. Here's some youtube shot in one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaHZufvD_C4 They do look a bit cheaply made compared to usual London busses.
On 13 routes with 16 more scheduled https://bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/BYD_BD11#Routes...
The problems seem to be mostly the batteries running out. Maybe they've improved?
(update - went and tried one in Canary Wharf https://postimg.cc/XBJ2zXvX https://postimg.cc/D8SjQWDM - was fine really)
Gonna need a source for this.
They always look OK but when you really use them is when it becomes obvious why they are cheaper. In the end I doubt the lower cost of labor is that meaningful considering the level of automation. China has been successfully stealing industries by selling lies...
Also, I have hundreds of orders for various product categories, ranging from tech/IT stuff, passing by audio equipment, kitchen tools, common household items and clothing. My experience told me that when it's considerably cheaper it's definitely going to be much worse and when it's just price competitive, there is a high level of "chance" that it's still going to have some weird flaw that will make the product not as good even if it is decently built.
At some point it is not just anecdotal evidence and a pattern, I am really curious why you would want to invalidate my experience. China is a very different country with very different set of standards and expectations; it is not something as controversial as you seem to think.
Edit: Sigh. I wish people would actually travel to China and try a BYD and then go to Australia and try BYD. it’s like 2 different cars. The China BYD is trash. BYD in Australia is actually quite nice and feels like really good value.
But then I look at the electric BYD buses in London that seemingly have no issues at all (that I've heard of).
We all know about the corrupt tofu dreg projects etc but that seems like more of a domestic problem.
https://www.fcai.com.au/new-brands-surge-in-strong-august-sa...
Xiaomi is literally trying to make everything from phones, cars, electronic tooth brushes, air fryers, soap dispensers, etc. It's astonishing.
I've had a few Xiaomi electronics including a dust mite vacuum and an air purifier. Both well designed and worked well for the price.
They simply thought it was too hard and went back to what was already working.
Taxis and buses are pretty old tech at this point. (Not just from an Uber/Lyft perspective either; taxis and coaches predate cars themselves, because the ideas/"tech" worked just fine with actual horse power.)
As for self-driving cars, so much of the efforts today remind me of that old Ford quote to the tune of "If I asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a better horse". It doesn't feel like an innovative step change in transportation, it feels like a slightly better car (when it works). It doesn't fix any of the current big problems of cars and over-relying on cars as our primary transportation form factor.
But also, yes, for the same reasons I appreciate that Walt Disney invested in trains and monorails. While Disney's train-oriented Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow vision never got properly built, it was still such a cool disruptive vision to explore. Also, not just the Epcot theme park that borrows the name but not the concept/ideals, all of the Disney Parks owe their existence to Disney's interests in trains. (The first theme park ride Walt Disney was involved with was building a rideable model train in his own backyard.) I don't expect Apple to build theme parks either, but if investments in train technology and vision pay off with similar secondary effects that maybe the trains don't get built but other cool things do, Disney offers the precedent that an interest in trains by a company that isn't supposed to be in the train business can produce interesting results.
There aren't any RIM-like companies in the car industry right now. And cars aren't really very useful as computers. Or at least not more useful than phones and tablets and laptops.
In Apple's case cars are far afield from their normal expertise, which is computing. Cars are already a low-margin product for most of the industry. Apple's management may have decided they could be better off not participating at all. Or buying a non-controlling stake in some other EV or car company instead of distracting management with a completely alien business and product line.
Jeff Bezos had good product/leadership sense but above that, had genius financial engineering sense. He knew exactly what the company needed to look like on paper every step of the way for it to become the behemoth that it became.
I’m fine with tariffs that keep around industries that are needed during wartime. That’s why there are tariffs on cars, no other reason is even remotely important. It has zero to do with GM and Ford making profits and everything to do with keeping GM and Ford around so they can pump out war materiel if needed.
The only benefit combustion engines have is the current faster refuel and run time. Everything else about electric motors is far superior to combustion. If and when F1 can hot-swap battery packs efficiently, combustion engines will be dead in that sport.
Outside of Formula or Nascar or other monocultures, that would be interesting, though.
This is despite dramatically reduced performance design and slower tracks.
Formula E is so much more fun than F1 though, because it doesn't have all the BS drama that F1 has adopted to buoy viewership. They do have silly gimmicks though. Before a race, viewers vote on which driver they like the best, and that racer gets a boost they can use during the race!
Also they use tires that are basically road ready, so that's fun.
bsaul•4mo ago
Gys•4mo ago
WillAdams•4mo ago
https://electriclemans.com/
plays out.
bestouff•4mo ago
AtlasBarfed•4mo ago
I haven't tracked LeMans much, I know the Toyota hybrids have been dominating it, but is it unrestricted hybrid drivetrains? Can builders make any kind of hybrid / regen / battery size / recharge drivetrain?
If not, I'd love to see what builders can do with go-nuts hybrids: wankel compact recharging, max-solid-state chems, etc.
dmix•4mo ago