Paying too much at the pump? It's the perfect time to go green, buy an electric car

[oldmanwinters]

From ChatGPT:

Objectively, the claim is almost always wrong for a modern person using either animal or automobile as their primary transportation, because gasoline is only one line in the comparison. A horse is not a hay-powered Corolla. It is a living animal that consumes resources, requires care every day, and inconveniently continues generating expenses while parked.

The sensible comparison is total annual cost of transportation, adjusted for how much useful transportation each option actually provides.

The proper cost comparison

For a car, you would count:

* purchase price and depreciation
* financing cost, if any
* gasoline
* insurance
* registration/taxes
* maintenance and repairs
* tires
* parking/tolls
* possibly garage space

For a horse:

* purchase price and depreciation/resale value
* feed and hay
* pasture or boarding
* veterinary care
* farrier/hoof trimming or shoeing
* dental care
* tack, saddle, bridle, blankets, grooming equipment, etc.
* fencing, shelter and stable maintenance if kept at home
* trailer and tow vehicle if the horse ever has to be transported
* mortality/liability insurance where applicable
* manure disposal
* replacement costs and emergency medical expenses

And unlike the automobile, the horse costs money whether you travel or not. Leave your Honda untouched for a week and it consumes essentially no gasoline. Leave a horse untouched for a week and you may return to discover that biology has been filing invoices in your absence.

The really important issue: cost per *useful mile*

Suppose someone travels 10,000 miles annually.

A reasonably economical car might cover those miles at something like 25–40 mph average real-world travel speed, with highway portions much faster.

A horse ordinarily walks around 3–4 mph, trots substantially faster, and canter/gallop faster still, but sustained everyday riding cannot simply be calculated as "horse maximum speed × distance." The animal needs rests, water, feeding, recovery, safe footing, and reasonable daily mileage.

That produces a huge hidden cost:

the rider's time.

Imagine a 20-mile commute.

A car might take 30–40 minutes.

Horseback at an average sustainable travel pace might take several hours.

Even if the horse somehow cost slightly less in dollars, spending another three or four hours traveling every workday would make it economically disastrous for almost anybody whose time has value.

That means a rigorous equation would look something like:

Effective transportation cost =(annual ownership costs + operating costs + value of travel time)
[Divided by] useful miles traveled

That final term, value of travel time, absolutely murders the horse in most modern situations.

Geography changes everything

There are circumstances where the equation becomes much closer.

A horse becomes relatively attractive if someone:

* already owns suitable pasture and shelter
* produces or obtains cheap feed
* can perform much of the animal care themselves
* travels short distances
* lives somewhere where roads are poor but trails or open country are plentiful
* has little need to carry bulky cargo
* rarely needs to travel more than perhaps several miles at once
* already keeps horses for agricultural or recreational reasons

Conversely, keeping a horse in a suburb or city usually annihilates the supposed savings. Boarding alone can turn "cheap transportation" into "surprisingly expensive pet with opinions."

Cars have capabilities that have to be priced somehow

There is also a problem with treating a mile as a mile.

A car can:

* travel hundreds of miles in a day
* operate comfortably in rain, snow, heat and darkness
* transport several passengers
* carry groceries or cargo
* provide climate control
* travel safely at highway speeds
* be parked for days
* be operated without feeding it twice daily
* transport a sick or injured person quickly

A horse cannot fully substitute for those things.

So a proper comparison should ask not merely:

> "Which costs less?"

but:

> "What would it cost to obtain the same transportation capability?"

This is where the horse comparison tends to collapse. If the horse owner also needs occasional taxis, rental cars, deliveries, public transportation, or a truck and trailer because horseback transportation can't satisfy particular journeys, those expenses belong on the horse side of the ledger.

Gas prices would have to get spectacularly ugly

Here is why high gasoline prices alone rarely reverse the calculation.

Take a car getting 30 mpg and traveling 12,000 miles per year.

It consumes:
12,000 / 30 = 400 gallons

Even at an outrageous $10 per gallon, that is $4,000 per year in fuel.

At $5 per gallon, it is $2,000.

So doubling gasoline from $5 to $10 adds $2,000 annually.

Keeping a horse can easily consume thousands of dollars annually before the rider has traveled a single mile. Thus gasoline would have to become extraordinarily expensive before fuel alone made horse ownership clearly preferable.

The result changes if you're comparing a huge gasoline-guzzling truck against a horse already living on your farm, naturally. Human beings possess a remarkable talent for constructing comparisons in which their preferred answer wins.

There is one situation where "horse versus car" becomes genuinely interesting

A rural household that already needs a horse could plausibly find it economical to use that horse for some local transportation.

For example, imagine:

* horse and pasture already exist
* feeding costs are already being incurred
* destination is 2–5 miles away
* safe trails exist
* parking/tethering is available
* the rider isn't under severe time pressure

Then the marginal cost of riding somewhere may be remarkably low. You shouldn't assign the horse's entire annual upkeep to transportation if you were going to own it anyway.

Likewise, someone who already owns a car shouldn't count its whole purchase price against every trip. For the question, "Should I ride the horse or drive to the store today?", you're comparing marginal costs, not total ownership costs.

That distinction matters enormously.

The horse wins at something else

There is an amusing historical twist here. Automobiles did not merely beat horses because gasoline was cheap. Cars solved many of the economic problems created by horses.

Urban horses required enormous amounts of feed, stabling, labor, veterinary attention and land. They got sick. They became injured. They tired. Cities had to remove staggering quantities of manure and dead animals. A parked automobile, despite its many faults, does not eat oats, kick the garage attendant, contract colic, or deposit several kilograms of evidence that it was parked there.

So an objective conclusion would be:

For an average modern American traveling thousands of miles per year, a conventional economical automobile would remain financially and practically superior to owning a horse even at gasoline prices far above today's normal levels.

A horse can become economically competitive primarily when distances are short, land/feed are inexpensive or already available, the horse is already owned for another purpose, and the rider assigns relatively little economic cost to additional travel time.

In other words, "$6 gasoline means we're going back to horses" is a satisfying complaint at the pump, but a rather poor transportation-cost model. The horse, upon reviewing the spreadsheet, would probably demand a raise.

Originally Posted by sdp

We need electric horses then so we are not paying too much at the barn.

Or an Iron Horse!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079357.../rm3142375682/

[IMJ]

The dude went to ChatGPT to resolve whether or not we should own horse's or cars. Best. Post. Ever.

On that note we need the robo-horse from Marshall Bravestarr. That resolves it cleanly.

[Barkworm]

Originally Posted by IMJ

The dude went to ChatGPT to resolve whether or not we should own horse's or cars. Best. Post. Ever.

On that note we need the robo-horse from Marshall Bravestarr. That resolves it cleanly.

His name was 30/30! I loved that toy.

[Mayhem]

Sister in law used to own horses. Between stable costs, feed, grooming and other costs, she was spending around £500 per month on one horse.

[Stu_Padasso]

Originally Posted by Mayhem

Sister in law used to own horses. Between stable costs, feed, grooming and other costs, she was spending around £500 per month on one horse.

In my neck of the woods, horses are mostly a luxury for wealthy ranchers and farmers. Otherwise, they are used as therapy animals. It’s simply more practical and economical to use ATVs and side-by-sides.