Nobody Wants Electric Supercars. But Why?
High-end buyers want something special, something other people can't have. But the rise of electrification has democratized one of the supercar's most sought-after traits: power.
If an automaker wants to launch a new electric supercar, it has to at least be as quick as
Hyundai's family hatchback
. In a world where an electric five-door can hit 60 miles per hour in 3.4 seconds for $68,000, is spending the extra $150,000 for something that's half-a-second quicker really worth it?
Probably not.
For combustion engines, the added cost is at least still worth it. Automakers paywall power and performance behind cylinder counts and forced induction, allowing them to charge consumers obscene amounts of money for the art of incremental performance gains.
But EV powertrains steamroll over that business plan.
One thing that might entice some supercar buyers is a longer-range battery. But even that will be a short-lived desire that disappears as the charging infrastructure grows and battery technology advances. Those are two things that automakers don't directly control in a world where every building with electricity is a potential charging station.
Yes, many EVs have performance restrictions, with automakers limiting top speeds or installing software to protect the battery. But these are limits that could easily increase as the technology advances. And none of the breakthroughs are likely to make EVs slower, more expensive, or not travel as far—quite the opposite.
Rimac Nevera R
Photo by: Rimac
The rise of electrification has democratized one of the supercar's most sought-after traits: power.
Soon, every car will have the capability to be fast, which is something CEOs and automotive executives have taken note of.
Tony Roma, the Corvette's boss, acknowledged that in a recent interview. Roma says that an electric Corvette would need to be "engaging" in new ways since 0-60 times are "meaningless" metrics when it comes to electric vehicles.
And he's not the only one. Rimac founder Mate Rimac told us last year that the company is having a hard time selling its Nevera hypercar. Koenigsegg and Pagani have echoed a similar sentiment, saying that their customers simply don't want a battery-powered hypercar.
It makes sense. Electric vehicles lack the personality that defines what we love so much about combustion-powered cars—the smell, the sound, the feel—things that make each model unique. It's what fuels the passion that many of us have for these machines. But there's no denying that these are just reminders of the powertrain's inefficiencies packaged, marketed, and personified for our lizard brains.
Hyundai Ioniq 5 N
As battery technology advances, we may soon live in a world where the cost of a car isn't determined by how much power you want, but by how far you want to travel. EVs aren't just cars with batteries and electric motors; they represent a fundamental shift in what's possible for the price. For many consumers, that means being able to afford mainstream cars with supercar levels of power, like the Ioniq 5 N.
That car makes 641 horsepower and starts at just under $70,000. If you don't need 221 miles of range, and Hyundai offered a smaller battery, the company would inadvertently create a lighter, faster, cheaper, and fundamentally better-performing hatchback.
That's a value proposition supercar makers (and high-end brands in general) can't sell to buyers who want to be different. As cars embrace technology and software, we'll likely be able to make any car feel, act, and sound like other makes or models through the digitization of the automobile.
Ultimately, if EVs do win out, some supercar makers may not survive the transition.
More on the State of EVs
The Electric Ferrari Isn't Coming This Year
Lamborghini: Now's Not the Time for an Electric Supercar
Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily.
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
Share this Story
X
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IPO market heats up: These 4 names prepare to go public next
EquityZen head of market insight Brianne Lynch joins Market Domination with Josh Lipton to discuss the initial public offering (IPO) market in light of Figma's (FIG) recent public debut and whether companies need to have an artificial intelligence (AI) story to succeed. She also shares which private companies are likely to go public next. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Which are the possible candidates in your opinion, that would be on your radar, who might be willing to test the public markets this year? Sure. So, you know, several of the names on our IPO outlook for the year have already gone public. But there are a few that we're still waiting on. One of the big ones being Klarna. This is a company that was planning to go public in the spring, tabled those plans given the volatility in the market post deliberation day. Uh but they're reportedly now looking at a September IPO. So that'll be, um, the next of several Fintech IPOs we've seen. You had Circle, um, Chime, eToro. So certainly, uh, Fintech is an area where we're seeing more activity and given Klarna's brand recognition, um, and you know, value in the market, that's one we have our eyes on. Right now if you're going to go public, Brian, do you have to have an AI story? Do you have to be able to just sprinkle some of that AI magic on your S-1? Yeah. I would say at a minimum you have to try. And Figma, you know, that's something that played into their story as well. They had so many case studies of their large enterprise clients saving, you know, lots of time and money because of the AI tools that they've built into their products. So, I think that's a table stake for any company that is looking to go public. And that might be the best option for public market investors at the time because you have to remember a lot of these pure play AI companies are still very young in their life cycle. They're less likely to be going public in the next few years. So yes, that's bringing more investors into the private markets to invest. Uh but to kind of capitalize on that interest, public companies or contenders to go public will also need to have that as part of their story. Do you think there there are certain kinds of private companies, Brian, that would be more likely to receive a warm welcome to the public markets in in this environment against this backdrop? Sure. I mean, we've seen a few examples of what has worked. You know, I talked about a little bit about the need for growth, the need for profitability, but when we look at the companies that may be coming next or even the IPOs we've seen in the first half of the year, it hasn't been just one sector or one industry. You've seen Fintech, um, you've seen crypto, which is obviously growing a lot and given, you know, the regulatory tailwinds, uh, we expect that to continue to be a hot market. Um, but then, you know, Netskope, another name on our outlook, that's a cybersecurity company. Um, StubHub, another one. That's an e-commerce player. So, it's definitely not a, you know, one sector narrative that's driving the market. It's more are you growing? Are you profitable? Do you have the brand name? Um, and do you have a a story that's exciting to investors, uh, especially, uh, given the lack of public companies relative to private companies now. Related Videos Berkshire Hathaway earnings: 'Perfect' stock to own when 'worried' Tesla must pay $240M+ for deadly 2019 car crash: What to know Fed Governor Adriana Kugler to resign Dow falls more than 500 points on jobs report, tariffs Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Micah Parsons fallout: Jerry Jones' contract tactics with star players once again bites the Cowboys
In recent years, when Dallas Cowboys ownership was trying to negotiate a contract extension with one of the team's star players, an agent in the middle of the process reached a boiling point. Talks were at a difficult standstill, team owner Jerry Jones and son Stephen were renewing efforts to engage the player in a private meeting, and the agent had enough. So they picked up a phone and delivered a message directly to the Joneses. 'Stop trying to talk to my player without me.' Inside the agent community, this has been a familiar story. For years, player representatives have complained behind the scenes about how the Cowboys continue to go about their business in high-stakes negotiations. In drawn out contact talks, the furor has often been a climbing scale, beginning with general annoyance, transitioning to heated or passive-aggressive exchanges. In the worst cases, it has resulted in breaking off talks for long periods of time. Often, the familiar decay in negotiations shared an underlying theme inside the agent community, with representatives alleging that Jerry Jones had a history of attempting to manipulate players into discounted deals. First by isolating them in a face-to-face meeting without an agent present — sometimes under the guise of discussing something other than contract talks — then by pouring honey into their ear about being a lifelong member of the Cowboys, staying part of the Dallas family and sacrificing a little financially to win Super Bowl immorality together. [Join or create a Yahoo Fantasy Football league for the 2025 NFL season] Sometimes, it was an alleged sideswipe tactic that remained tucked behind a curtain of secrecy, with both sides choosing to keep any rising animus private. Other times, it seeped out in telltale moments that are likely still fresh in the minds of Cowboys fans. Moments like quarterback Dak Prescott repeatedly and publicly putting his agent, Todd France, front and center as the conduit who would complete his last two drawn-out — and sometimes prickly — contract extensions. Or the representatives of former running back Zeke Elliott not only holding him out of training camp in 2019, but moving him to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico so he could train and more easily remain out of direct communications with the Jones family. Those were two of the higher profile instances of star Cowboys players trying to keep their contract negations in the hands of their agents in an effort to realize their full value as players. But there have been others, too. What there hasn't been up to this point, is a star player willing to step out and directly challenge the way Dallas and Jerry do business. That is, until Friday, when edge rusher Micah Parsons laid his lengthy concerns bare on social media, requesting a trade and stating that he no longer wanted to be a part of the Cowboys. Within it, there was one cutting line that has been a siren scream inside the player and agent ranks: 'I no longer want to be held to close door negotiations without my agent present.' That line was a reference to a March meeting between Parsons and Jerry Jones that ultimately left the Cowboys owner feeling as if he had directly negotiated a new extension with his pass rusher. Parsons then went on to spell out some previously untold aspects of that meeting. 'In March I met with Mr. Jones to talk about leadership,' Parsons wrote on social media. 'Somehow the conversation turned into him talk contract with me. Yes I engaged in a back and forth in regards to what I wanted from my contract, but at no point did I believe this was supposed to be a formal negotiation and I informed Mr. Jones afterward my agent would reach out thinking this would get things done. But when my agent reached out and spoke to [senior director of salary cap and player contracts Adam Prasifka] he was told the deal was pretty much already done. My agent of course told him that wasn't the case and also reached out to Stephen Jones. Again the team decided to go silent.' [Get more Cowboys news: Cowboys team feed] Parsons said it was at that point he and his agent, David Mulugheta of Athletes First, made the decision to let the Cowboys reach out when they were ready to do a deal. According to Parsons, 'Up to [Friday], the team has not had a single conversation with my agent about a contract.' For Cowboys fans and the franchise in general, the post by Parsons is an earthquake of significant magnitude. It's the first time a star player has been this expansive about a problem that agents and players have complained about for a while: A penchant to cut agents out of the process and try to cut deals directly with players using tactics or criteria that clearly are meant to create a negotiating advantage for the team. This despite Parsons saying on more than once occasion that he wanted Mulugheta to play a role in negotiating his extension. In the past, Dallas has honored those requests in the midst of bank-breaking talks with the likes of Prescott, Elliott, CeeDee Lamb and others. For reasons that only the Jones family can speak to, it appears they are refusing to honor it with Parsons. It's a reality that Jerry all but said directly in July, when he suggested that he had an agreement in place between himself and Parsons. 'I'm really not going to get into responding to what Micah said I said, or what [Micah] said he said, or what Mulugheta said, or what Stephen said,' Jerry insisted. 'I'm not getting into any of that at all. We're where we are. I sign the check. Period. … Micah, he's confident in himself, he should be, he's extraordinarily bright — I can't emphasize that enough. He's very capable of negotiating anything he wants to negotiate.' In the agent community, that smacks of a my-way-or-the-highway stance. And it's how you get to the point of pushing negotiations off the table completely — only to be replaced with a trade demand. Right now, it appears that's exactly what has transpired inside Dallas. But rather than the end of this story being a record-breaking deal that heals all wounds — as has been the case in so many other acidic contract talks for Jerry Jones and Dallas — it appears the only thing broken is the resolve of Micah Parsons to remain a Cowboy.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 35% tariff kicked in today on Canadian goods. How big of an impact will it have?
With the signing of an executive order, U.S. President Donald Trump upped Canada's tariff rate to 35 per cent, effective at 12:01 a.m. today. That's a 10 per cent increase on the 25 per cent rate that has been in effect on Canadian goods headed south of the border since March, and is a blanket tariff that will apply to Canadian products across the board. However, that doesn't paint the whole picture. A very small number of Canadian products will be subjected to the 35 per cent tariff. That's because the tariffs don't apply to all goods that are subject to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the existing free trade deal governing trade between the three countries. Those products can keep going across the border free of tariffs. Most of the goods Canada exports to the U.S. are covered by CUSMA. The Bank of Canada said in its monetary policy report released Wednesday that an estimated 95 per cent of stuff sent south of the border qualifies under that agreement. That means the new, higher 35 per cent rate will be felt by a small fraction of exports that are not CUSMA-compliant, which likely includes a broad array of products across all sectors, according to experts. "[CUSMA] is the one thing that is ensuring normalcy in trade flows in much of the economy," said Eric Miller, president and CEO of Rideau Potomac Strategy Group. "And so the maintenance of that exemption was absolutely crucial." WATCH | Trump increases tariff on Canada to 35%, White House says: There's no simple list of items that are CUSMA-compliant, because products are certified on a case-by-case basis, based on a number of complicated factors. In order to get the exemption, a certain amount of the product needs to be made in Canada, with Canadian inputs. Take the example of a steak versus that of a screwdriver. If a cow is born, raised, slaughtered and prepared in Alberta, then the steak — the end product — is clearly Canadian and would be shielded under CUSMA, says Miller. But a typical screwdriver is made of metal, along with plastic or rubber for the handle. The manufacturer would have to make sure that enough of the materials come from Canada, Mexico or the U.S. That amount is usually about 60 per cent, according to lawyer Daniel Kiselbach, a managing partner at Miller Thompson LLP. WATCH | What we know — and what's still unclear — after tariffs hiked on Canadian goods: Then, you have to make sure you're adding value to those parts and converting them to a finished product before shipping it out. In the case of the screwdriver, you're taking the raw materials and making them into a new, finished item, so that would meet the bar. Overall, anything harvested or mined is usually CUSMA-compliant, Kiselbach said. Anything manufactured or produced in Canada gets more complicated. Electronics and machinery, in particular, are product types that tend to have a harder time getting CUSMA certification. On top of that, the certification process can be challenging, requiring records showing where all a product's components come from, and it is costly. "[Businesses] don't necessarily understand what the rules are telling them," Miller said. "It's almost like cryptography or something." For that reason, Miller says some businesses have simply not acquired CUSMA certification in the past — something that's changing now that the rates are so much higher. WATCH | Is Canada-U.S. free trade dead?: While the fraction of companies that don't qualify for the free trade exemption might be small, Miller says the impact of the new rate should not be overlooked. Many of those who will be hit by the Saturday tariff increase will be small- to medium-sized businesses that rely on components that are made in countries outside of Canada — and can't easily replace them with materials sourced elsewhere. "If you are used to sourcing a particular input from China for the last 10 years, it's not so easy to go and say, 'Now I'm going to buy that good somewhere else,'" Miller said. "They can't easily change and they can't meet the rules, so they have to pay 35 per cent. And for them, going from 25 per cent to 35 per cent is pretty devastating," Miller. Kiselbach says 35 per cent tariffs might be higher than some companies' profit margins, meaning they'd be losing money on each item they sell at the current rate. Sectoral tariffs still in play The 35 per cent rate also has no bearing on the rates Trump has set for specific sectors. Those include a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminum, as well as 25 per cent on cars and auto parts, both of which had already been in effect. A new, 50 per cent tariff on some copper products, including copper pipes and wiring, also went into effect today. The Trump administration made carveouts for copper input materials such as ores, concentrates and cathodes, which is providing the industry some relief. And while the sector-specific rates are largely not new, the impact of these steep rates on important sectors cannot be ignored, said Alan Arcand, chief economist with the trade association Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. "These are very important industries for Canada," Arcand said. "These are tariff rates that are just not … sustainable for these industries. So that's really the rub of the issue right now." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
