BEVs deals and information

EricMears

It's very confusing when a new post quotes a number of different posts without attribution ! I think only this bit was a reply to one of mine :-

almillar wrote: »

. . . Fair enough, but please remember that the battery rental includes a couple of benefits that would have a cost otherwise - a warranty, as mentioned above, breakdown recovery (yes, including if you run out of charge). Take the cost of RAC membership for your diesel out of that £828.

Without a battery lease, my Leaf includes 'free' breakdown recovery providing I have an annual 'service' at a Nissan garage. Such a service is exorbitant for the minimal amount of work done but still not as dear as it would cost for a main dealer ICE service. I think the current rate for my next service is approx. £150 (but certainly a lot less than £800).

My battery has an 8 year warranty.

If I wanted a separate recovery service, RAC wouldn't be my first choice. Two ICE cars in recent years cost approx. £40 (for the pair, not each) per year.

joefizz

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm a bit lost now too Joe.

You started off arguing that BEV's were not cleaner if they displaced a roadworthy ICE, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that happening.

Martyn, I didnt argue that. I argued that in the majority of the cases right here, right now given UK usage that buying a new BEV or ICE and scrapping an ICE would do more damage right here, right now and over the next 10 years than keeping your current ICE. The rush to dispose of old equipment (regardless of what that equipment is) is front loading greenhouse gases to now when we should be trying to reduce (and increasing greenhouse gases by having the stuff made in China is still greenhouse gases).
It might balance out over 10 years or more but instead of front loading now and making the problem a lot worse that would be slow over time and as mileages decrease and electric ride sharing/public transport and only using ICE for long journeys/towing etc it could mean your 3 year old ICE now would last you pretty much forever....
...10 years from now is 2030 and we wont be able to buy ICE cars, whether they want to scrap them all instead of a phased withdrawal...



If you do in excess of 20k miles per year you should be given a BEV and your old car given to someone doing 4-6k miles per year... ;-)

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Plus the penetration of BEV's is too small, at just a few percent of new cars, which themselves are only about 5-10% of the whole fleet.

My argument was for any new car regardless of drivetrain..

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You suggest that cars last 6-7yrs and clock up only 50k miles, but the real figures appear to be twice that (figures you've mentioned you would be happy with).

No Martyn, I said you couldnt extrapolate that figure of average 6-7 years times 7k miles average usage and come up with a meaningful number. All you get is the average miles now x average age of car now which isnt even the average mileage of a car in circulation. You have taken that comment and run with it a couple of times now as if Ive said the above and quite clearly I havent. I was only mentioning that the average mileage was getting lower when I was under the impression it was still around the 12k mark. (without getting derailed Ive mentioned the norway study into some of the possible reasons for this,pcp limits being one but not the sole factor)



You seem to have entirely missed the crux of my argument in that this 6-7 year figure has only decreased/increased in times of recession/downturn, when every piece of logic would indicate (as with the US figures) this should increase as time goes on and cars get more reliable. As someone pointed out the latest figures show its increasing (I took their word, didnt check myself) and that again is in line with my comments about recession/credit withdrawal etc.
There is evidence that for example PCP variants of cars are being taken out on shorter lifetimes to improve residuals or just building cars to a price that can be rented with lower expected lifetimes. I know people sometimes put this down to malevolence but it could just be treating cars as any other modern commodity, designed and built to a price in the market knowing it will be obsolete after two pcp terms as new and used.

Its all to do with economics. If there is to be a recession then the next bailout of the car companies will come with scrapping 8 year old+ ICES for new BEV/hybrids/etc. (there, you finally got me to make a prediction ;-)). Which for the vast majority of people will be the wrong choice from a greenhouse gas emissions standpoint. The smart choice would be to replace high mileage drivers with BEVs and built the infrastructure to suit, remove high polluting ICEs from the roads (or convert to LPG where possible) and making manufacturers produce cheap easily obtainable common failure parts (which is probably never going to happen, but has happened with WEEE, sort of, and now domestic appliances so I do hold out some hope)



You had mentioned lifetimes of 250k miles (I think I could be wrong but it was a big number) in comparisons when so few cars other than mercedes diesel taxis ;-) make that and when in fact the average effective lifetime in UK cars (which is increasing for economic reasons) is a lot lot less than that. My argument was that that effective uk lifetime was driven by economic and not roadworthy/potential mileage/age conditions.

Well maintained cars can last for huge mileages but they are taken off the road prematurely in the guise of being good for the environment when its really bailing out the car industry.
You mentioned before BEVs being capable of 500k miles, I dont doubt that, I know ICE cars with 500k miles on them. I havent and probably wont drive 500k miles in my life so that could possibly be one car for life... with just brakes, bushes, springs etc changed.

...ever wonder why car companies hate Tesla?

Martyn1981 wrote: »

BEV's have the potential to last far, far longer than ICE's, which would seem to run counter with your main position, wishing (and I agree with you on this) that cars lasted longer.

Unless you can show that 6-7yr old roadworthy ICE's are being scrapped to allow new BEV's to enter the market (and that's the only/main way in for them), then I really don't follow what you are saying, and I am trying, honest.

No Martyn, you keep introducing BEVs as the be all and end all of the argument, my point is that 6-7 year old roadworthy ICEs have been scrapped to replace them with new ICEs and now ,with the original post, BEVs. My point all along has been the CO2 loading up front of any car will do more damage than allowing cars to run (i,e, changing economics, not road safety or other things) to a reasonable lifetime and then be replaced. This is entirely the car industry.
As you say BEVs should make this longer, although again I would point out in my own experience that entropy has more to do with the lifetime of a car than being ICE or BEV. The rubber in suspension bushings will degrade with time just as much in either car and if you live by the sea the steel will corrode in both just as much.


Martyn, I'll quite happily argue the toss over certain things but we really should be clear about misrepresenting comments, particularly if others read them out of context further down the chain of the thread. I know that wasnt your intention but Im just putting it out there as a general comment.
I now do have a lot of sympathy with Jordan Peterson!

silverwhistle

joefizz wrote: »

my point is that 6-7 year old roadworthy ICEs have been scrapped to replace them with new ICEs

I don't think anybody here would argue that that is undesirable from an embedded CO2 argument, I just don't think you've proved your point or provided evidence that it is happening.



Talking about MOTs and rags in filler caps is just irrelevant verbiage, which doesn't even make the point I think (and I may be wrong) you think it does - that cars are scrapped for minor MOT faults.



When I go out on the roads I see plenty of older cars. It's easy enough for mine, it's got 09 on the plate, but even if not sure what all the other numbers mean it's easy enough to see that they are older. [PS didn't realise until I just looked that 58 and 59 are early and late 2009!]

joefizz

silverwhistle wrote: »

I don't think anybody here would argue that that is undesirable from an embedded CO2 argument, I just don't think you've proved your point or provided evidence that it is happening.

Talking about MOTs and rags in filler caps is just irrelevant verbiage,

Look at the stats.

Martyn1981

joefizz wrote: »

No Martyn, you keep introducing BEVs as the be all and end all of the argument, my point is that 6-7 year old roadworthy ICEs have been scrapped to replace them with new ICEs and now ,with the original post, BEVs. My point all along has been the CO2 loading up front of any car will do more damage than allowing cars to run (i,e, changing economics, not road safety or other things) to a reasonable lifetime and then be replaced. This is entirely the car industry.

Sorry Joe, but I still can't follow what you are saying.

You are now back again to claiming that 6-7yr old ICE's are being scrapped (regardless of whether this is for an ICE or BEV) and that's your CO2 argument.

But nowhere can I see where you've shown this. The only reference (to a degree) you've given was your post when you said that the average lifetime (not average age) was 6-7yrs, but it's twice that, and also your post where you extrapolated a lifetime mileage of 50,000 miles based on 7,100 pa average, which again is incorrect.

Now you saying we can't work out average lifetime mileage, but we can, the average annual mileage is 7,100 miles (I've seen 7,900), and life expectancy on average is 13-14 years.

Because they are both averages, we can conclude that the average lifetime mileage is ~96,000 miles. Maybe I'm being thick, but I don't understand how it could work differently? Perhaps cars do more mileage in their younger years, and less in later life, but an average is still an average. If I'm missing something, could you please explain it for me with a numerical example, as I can't make head nor tails of this now.

joefizz wrote: »

Martyn, I'll quite happily argue the toss over certain things but we really should be clear about misrepresenting comments, particularly if others read them out of context further down the chain of the thread. I know that wasnt your intention but Im just putting it out there as a general comment.
I now do have a lot of sympathy with Jordan Peterson!

Sorry Joe, but I'm not misrepresenting you, in the earlier posts I quoted you, and the numbers you gave, so not only was it not mu intention, but I don't believe I have.

Again, I think the problem here is that you are making a number of claims/statements, without (yet) evidence, and also seem to think that disagreeing with averages, or differentiating between average age and average lifetime somehow explains it all, but I honestly can't follow the logic. Probably my fault, but if you can explain I'd be happy to read.

silverwhistle

You were talking about average ages, not the average age when cars are scrapped. If you provided the latter I must have missed it and perhaps you could post it again.


Insurance companies do probably write off more accident damaged cars than they used too, I suspect. People often complain about this, and the more practical ones buy the cars back and repair them.

joefizz

silverwhistle wrote: »

You were talking about average ages, not the average age when cars are scrapped. If you provided the latter I must have missed it and perhaps you could post it again.

Average age of cars is an indicator. I dont have stats for average age they are scrapped, but the average age of cars is published. Stats for scrapped cars have only recently been reintroduced due to the previous cars being dumped rather than pay to have them scrapped (its now a requirement to have a certificate of scrappage). The only reliable indicator for the last 20 years is the average age figure. A quick google shows the UK as the lowest in the EU.



The UK average age has only just gone back up to what it was 20 years ago when you would expect as with other countries the average age to rise as cars get better. This is an anomaly.


To get reliable pseudo age of scrappage you need to look at MOT figures and the likes of howmanyleft (as previously posted in this thread).
If a car is taxed or sorn and or motd it gives roughly the current age. When its no longer taxed/sorn and motd then its probably scrapped (or dumped, hence why you need a scrappage certificate now).


As mentioned earlier in the thread, go through howmanyleft and search for popular pcp models, see what happens to certain models/brands as they age... or dont age..
have a look at failure rates for some types of earlier evs... Losing 1/3 of a type of vehicle in years 3-4 is a hell of an anomaly.



Hence the comments about average age, mot stats etc. The info is all there. Have a look through car forums and see this discussed regularly.

joefizz

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry Joe, but I still can't follow what you are saying.

I know Martyn!



We are sort of arguing the same point over and over again and you are conflating a lot of it. You keep referring to assuming stats of lifetimes based on average mileage etc etc when the only published stats are average age of the vehicle on the road and average mile and as I said in my post the two cant be combined for anything meaningful.


You also seem to be confusing the quoted average age of the car on the road with my point about unusually high proportions of certain cars, popular with pcp schemes having a larger proportion of their number go missing from the mot and tax records at around 6-7 years old. I wish the numbers hadve been slightly different now rather than coincidentally about the same numerical figures.


Whilst the two are not directly related, one will have an influence on the other (which again is my point).
If you remove 20% or 30% of a certain model of car after a certain age and replace them with new cars then it will keep the average age of the vehicles on the road artificially low....
It could be that those particular models were unusually unreliable or it could be they were designed that way or just taken off the roads to facilitate pcp schemes (keeping 2nd hand residuals higher by reducing numbers) but either way once you see patterns in certain types of vehicles its hard to believe in coincidences or a lot of models for a range of marques all had that friday afternoon build scenario going on.



You cant extrapolate or interpret averages, they are just a guide to point you to further in depth research. So when the UK average life of a car on the road is at least a year younger than its nearest EU country (pretty much same models of car) you might think to assign that to being left hand drive but when its still younger than cars on Irish roads you have to look at why there is such an anomaly and its a big anomaly.

When you start looking at the reasons why the number is staying low when the average lifetime of a car should be approaching twice by now that it could just be as simple as the UK has more accidents.. but if it doesnt... etc etc.


Its not as simple as taking made up or average figures and putting them all together.


For example, compare certain types of cars and dips in their registered numbers after the scrappage scheme, then see the drop off after the scheme in the ones that are left. In some cases you can see they werent the usual "off to the breakers yard" as they would have supplied spare parts to keep other cars on the road. Not all of them obviously. but when the curves dip more than other marques with similar numbers that werent hit as bad, its certainly one conclusion (or could have been a bad year in the factory or a fault which only manifested itself after x years or x miles)


Looking at the EU stats you can see the richer countries have fleets with average ages lower than the EU average (got to stop using averages ;-)). Well that sort of makes sense but only from an economic view. Obviously richer countries are going to get more newer cars and dump older ones, the countries with car manufacturing will also be younger as they lobby for more 'green' rules to take older more polluting cars off the road and put newer less polluting ones on.

That of course means nothing in terms of being green if its a continual cycle of replacing perfectly good cars due to made up green rules when they arent being run long enough to offset production costs or offset what extending their life as in other eu countries (or us) would mean.
As Ive mentioned in other posts, if they were truly green they would force manufacturers to do their best to ensure the current fleet of cars last long enough so that the next ones will be EV (and not ipad technology reliant EVs either, dont want the same 'upgrade' problem in 5 years with them too)



It goes back to your point about lifetimes. Forget lifetimes averages or whatever, if you bought a new car today you would expect it with reasonable servicing and maintenance to run for say 100,000 miles. So if we use your averages that should be 12-13 years from now.

But if the law changed 8 years from now to condemn your car to mot failure and make it uneconomic then the lifetime of your car is 8 years so any calculation you do now on its estimated lifetime is pointless. Its why Diesel sales are through the floor, nobody wants to buy now and in 3 years time not be allowed to drive in any UK city. Buying one now could mean the estimated max lifetime of 5 years (2025 and all that) regardless of mileage and previously published stats.



If you think that couldnt happen, ask the people with 8 year old diesels who now cant drive them into London or again bringing it back to MOT find no matter what they do their car is a scrapper and they have to pay to get it dumped.


The length of time a car spends on the road in the UK is governed by economics and politics, not theoretical available mileage.
Ive posted on the battery forum that from my discussions in the summer sodium batteries arent a goer in the forseeable but if they do become the go to source in 5 years we can probably say goodbye to lithium and of course to keep the car manufacturers happy we get a trade in allowance to trade our old planet harming, alto plano water stealing lithium batteries for nice new green sodium ones.

Martyn1981

But Joe, again, your whole argument seems to be based on economically viable ICE cars being scrapped to allow BEV's onto the market.

I've asked you for some evidence of this, and now you are saying that it could happen in the future.

Was this whole discussion based on any facts, ever?

And again, whilst I appreciate that we can't use averages to state a given mileage, we can use them to 'assume' an average.

I'm 100% content to say that with average mileages of 7-8k pa, and an average age of 6-7yrs, and an average lifetime of 13-14yrs, that a guesstimate of ~100k miles is going to be far closer to reality than the 50k you were shocked at when you calculated it.

Apologies if this seems like pedantry, and I completely appreciate your tone, and hope you realise I am chatting, this is interesting, not arguing, but I think what you think is happening, isn't. In which case we can relax a bit hopefully about the BEV rollout, though personally I'd like to see it being a far higher percentage of the new car sales.

pile-o-stone

Quick question, do other electric cars have the same restriction as the Nissan Leaf, where they only allow one rapid charge per journey? Apparently this is to safeguard the battery life of the car.