Electric cars

Gloomendoom

AnotherJoe wrote: »

True, but only a part. The speed and acceleration are the major part of it , you dont find super cars with an acceleration of 10 seconds for 0-60 on the grounds the appeal is other factors.

The top speed would remain major factor. I can't see family saloons or hatchbacks being engineered for 200 mph top speeds, or even 150.

Martyn1981

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The top speed would remain major factor. I can't see family saloons or hatchbacks being engineered for 200 mph top speeds, or even 150.

Hiya. The Tesla S is software limited to 155mph, and with a 0-60 of approx 2.3s can outperform most sportscars (in speed) and most supercars in acceleration.

Imagine paying $250k for a Ferrari, but having to forgo a street light drag race because the $100k family saloon in the next lane would wipe the floor with you?

BTW I think the Tesla 3 does 140mph.

henry24

AdrianC wrote: »

That tax disparity can't continue, though.

A £1.20 litre of unleaded or diesel contributes 20p of VAT and 58p of duty, leaving 41p of fuel.

£1.20 of electricity contributes 5.8p of VAT.

And when they tax them the same as petrol cars will they still be worth buying?

zeupater

henry24 wrote: »

And when they tax them the same as petrol cars will they still be worth buying?

Hi

It's likely that as fossil fuel revenues fall, the loss to the exchequer will need to be recovered through applying a per mile road charge to all vehicles ... if revenue is deemed to be needed from transport there's really no other way of doing it as there'd be no way of differentiating where the energy used for transport has been derived from or where the energy generated is consumed (thus VAT issues!) ...

It would also be very likely that the government would see this approach as being an encouragement for owners/users of ICE vehicles to replace them with EVs to meet emissions targets .. tax the vehicles per mile for road use & keep the petrol/diesel taxation high ...

In conclusion, the government's hands are effectively tied by international treaty to achieving what EVs offer to deliver, so no matter what anyone thinks, there'll be a combination of 'carrots' (EV purchase assistance etc) & 'big sticks' (ramping up ICE use taxation etc) which will ensure that EVs will remain significantly cheaper to run than ICEs whatever the base value at the time ... it's really the most simple & most logical solution ...

HTH
Z

almillar

286 miles in not that far

About 70 miles less than I did yesterday, with zero charging available at my destination - so any charge time would simply be adding to an already long day.

I'd have needed to stop for petrol in my RX-8!
How long were you driving for (time)? How good is your bladder?! Not stop for a pee or a coffee?

Stopping for a charge, for most electric cars that can rapid charge (call that at least 22kw), as a very general rule, 30 mins would get you to 80%. Don't ask how far that will get you, because the answer would be the same as 80% of a fuel tank. Varies by car.

The faster that fast charge gets for Tesla owners on the motorway, the greater proportion of a neighbouring town that will have to have all of the fridges turned off.

Can't tell whether this is a joke or not, but just in case anyone believes it - it's rubbish.

I wonder if EV's will harm/destroy the sports car, super car and hyper car markets, as nobody wants to pay £100k's or even £m's on a car that can't compete with a 'milkfloat'?

Plenty of Subarus can beat Ferraris round a track, but people still spend far more on Ferraris.

Imagine paying $250k for a Ferrari, but having to forgo a street light drag race because the $100k family saloon in the next lane would wipe the floor with you?

The Ferrari defence would be about handling round a track, balance, and emotion. No argument in a straight line though.

A £1.20 litre of unleaded or diesel contributes 20p of VAT and 58p of duty, leaving 41p of fuel.

£1.20 of electricity contributes 5.8p of VAT.

Good point. The exchequer will lose money, as they are doing on zero road fund cars too. They're happy to have that policy to get people into EVs. I wonder when they will lower fuel duty then? Hahaha! Going the other way, I can't see how they would be able to charge me differently for my car's electric in my garage, from my home's electric, and they can't just raise the VAT rate on electricity. Smart meters won't help this either AFAIK.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

almillar wrote: »

Going the other way, I can't see how they would be able to charge me differently for my car's electric in my garage, from my home's electric, and they can't just raise the VAT rate on electricity. Smart meters won't help this either AFAIK.

They have two choices - they introduce a system where you do pay per unit of electricity - probably any number of ways that they could introduce a charge for it, but it would be quite onerous if they forced people to use some version of Economy 7 with multiple meters. I may have already made the point but the same Calor Gas is sold with different tax rates depending on whether it is for road use or domestic. (The simple technical way that they stop cross-over is that it is impossible to get gas out of a domestic tank into a car without most likely blowing yourself up - and the replacement costs of a brain exceed the likely tax savings).

In a technological age, it would be fairly straight-forward to put in some tamper-proof metering on car to charge per mile or per unit as preferred. EVs will not resolve road congestion and there will always be a desire to have some sort of mileage pricing as a throttle on that.

AnotherJoe

henry24 wrote: »

And when they tax them the same as petrol cars will they still be worth buying?

Yes for sure. But you are right they will have to raise additional tax on them somehow.

It doesn't seem likely it will be via tax on electricity though. Some type of road pricing most likely. A mileage charge wouldn't be difficult to put in place, they already note the mileage at MOTs so even if you didn't need an MOT, making a quick visit to get your mileage noted wouldn't be too onerous. Could be done as a drive through at MOT centres.

And by the time that comes in, probably what ten years away, EVs will easily be cheaper to run all costs included, than ICE cars anyway, plus given half the town centres will be putting bans of some sort on them, you wont be wanting to buy a new one.

Anyway, they are just a lot more pleasant to drive. Don't fit all life styles yet, especially long range only stop for a 5 minute pee break every 300 miles, drivers, (or those who say they do that) but thats just a matter of time before everyone except the most ludicrous long range holdouts dont even have range as an issue.

I would still drive an electric car even if it was the same cost as ICE just because its a better experience. Smoother, more acceleration, a bit quieter*, more room in the car size for size, on average since the electric gubbins take up less space than an ICE, especially those with "skateboard" designs where the batteries are all underneath.

And for those who commute some neat features such as warming it up and deicing before you get in to go to work, or running the air con for a few minutes before you go home rather than needing to open the doors and wait two minutes before you can get in the car without being roasted (yes that seems unlikely this time of year but ...) . Little things but still nicer all round and not stuff you'd want to lose once you've experienced it.

* that can be overrated, IME above about 30 road / tyre noise tends to take over anyway plus you've got all the other noisy cars round you.

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

I'd have needed to stop for petrol in my RX-8!

...and I'd have been well through the third tankful in my old Landy. Which is one reason I didn't take it.

How long were you driving for (time)? How good is your bladder?! Not stop for a pee or a coffee?

175 miles, 3.5hrs each way. If you can't go that long without a pee, you probably ought to be seeing your doctor.

Gloomendoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Imagine paying $250k for a Ferrari, but having to forgo a street light drag race because the $100k family saloon in the next lane would wipe the floor with you?

I might be rather smug when I watched it crash on the first bend. There is a reason Teslas are speed limited... their chassis aren't as advanced as their powertrain.

Since when has a $100k (£74k?) car been a "family" saloon? I was thinking of more affordable offerings from VW, Nissan and Renault.

Martyn1981

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I might be rather smug when I watched it crash on the first bend. There is a reason Teslas are speed limited... their chassis aren't as advanced as their powertrain.

Why would it crash on a bend? I thought they had a lower centre of gravity, intelligent braking, and torque steer from multiple motors?

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Since when has a $100k (£74k?) car been a "family" saloon? I was thinking of more affordable offerings from VW, Nissan and Renault.

It's not a sportscar design, it's a family saloon car. In fact the S is outselling the competitors with ICE's [edit - in the price range. M.]. Plus I did compare it too a $250k Ferrari. If you want to compare the Model 3 then I suppose the BMW M3 springs to mind, or perhaps the Porsche Boxer. Owners of those cars aren't (I'm sure) going to like having to avoid 'playing' with family EV's.

Do you remember the backlash against Porsche when their 'cheap' 924 couldn't beat 80's hot hatches? If the cars aren't seen to be above and beyond run of the mill cars, then they lose a lot of their perceived value.

Tesla have gone for the throat of the hypercar market with their Roadster2, since it'll outperform cars that cost 10x as much (at least 4x as much) ...... but still have decent luggage space!

I find this fascinating, but also crazy given the speed of change.

Slight digression, but specialist engine manufacturers like Cummins must be very worried about how they compete against mass produced motors that are simply multiplied as per the vehicles needs.