Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

shinytop

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

ABrass said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0010ntb

Interesting article on batteries.  They also discuss EVs and the estimates for how much emissions we (the UK) will be saving by 2050 are a bit underwhelming at about 1% of the total.  The assumption is that 25% of miles will be EV by then.  Obviously that will go up afterwards.

 I know it has to happen but it seems like a lot of effort and cost for not a lot of gain. 

That doesn't sound right.

If we are banning new Petrol cars by 2035 (diesel will be dead well before that anyway) then we're supposed to believe that 75% of miles will be done in cars at least 15 years old?

But don't worry, the EV pain will be over by 2025. Then they will be cheaper to buy than petrol cars as well as cheaper to own. Everyone is happy.

The numbers included commercial vehicles, not just cars.

I'm not worrying, but EVs won't be cheaper to run in the long term than ICE cars.  There might be a short time when it is made such to encourage the switch. They are cheaper to run now because their 'fuel' is hugely subsidised compared to petrol and diesel.  That won't last.  And the biggest downward pressure on EV purchase prices is the fact that ICE cars are much cheaper.  Once ICE cars are gone then so is that competition.   

I can't follow any of that. Shirley the biggest downward pressure on EV's is the falling cost of batteries, and the economies of scale from ramping up production.

I can't see all the car companies in the World suddenly raising their prices when ICEV's go, you'd only need one to be cheaper and it would take the market. I don't think ICEV's are the competition for each manufacturer, I think the other manufacturers are the competition.

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

No of course they won't and I didn't say that but ICE cars are a benchmark for price and range that BEVs need to aim for currently.  Or rather, ICE price + whatever grant is available.   People who want to buy EVs compare them with ICE cars and if the difference is too much they won't buy them.    

If you want to continue the Model T analogy, some people might say that what we are doing now is replacing horses with donkeys    
 

Grumpy_chap

shinytop said:

People who want to buy EVs compare them with ICE cars and if the difference is too much they won't buy them. 

I said pretty much that a short while ago in this thread and was firmly rounded against.

Verdigris

Most people don't need the range of ICE cars, they just think they do. The range achieved by the current generation of BEVs is plenty for most purposes. People just don't like change.

Grumpy_chap

Verdigris said:

Most people don't need the range of ICE cars, they just think they do. The range achieved by the current generation of BEVs is plenty for most purposes. People just don't like change.

That could very much be a moot point.
Range is simply not an issue with ICE cars and current infrastructure for refuelling.

With EV cars, range is not just the absolute range for long journeys that is a factor.  It is the ability to do a round trip without adding inconvenience. 

Say and EV has a "book" range of 196 miles (the Lexus NX).   Official as per Lexus website.
The local dealer to me has a car on the forecourt emblazoned across the side "all the way to Manchester without stopping".
Google maps tells me that from the Dealership to Manchester Piccadilly Station is 212 miles, so at "book" range, you can get to somewhere in Manchester.

I'm guessing that real world range is likely something more around 150 miles.  (75%)
I am happy with that as real mpg for an ICE car never matches the "book" either.

You'd certainly have to be brave to take that Lexus and rely on the trip to Manchester without stopping.
BUT, actually, on a trip like that it is probably not an issue to stop and recharge on route.  Fast chargers will mean that the battery can be topped up without adding to the stop time that a driver will need for refreshment breaks.  

What is more of an impact on the range is if I go to visit my brother, just about 65 miles each way.  I would do the "there" trip and the "back" trip each without stopping.  A round trip of 130 miles.  My brother does not have EV charge point, and it would seem rude to turn up and ask to plug the car in.  I'd probably be pretty nervous trying to do the whole there and back without charging so, somewhere, this will mean a forced stop to add energy to the car and the result is to add time to the journey.

The pro-EV brigade only ever seem to comment on this in the context of "how often do you do over 150 miles, and if you are, you should be stopping for safety's-sake if nothing else".  I agree that stopping on journeys of over 150 miles is prudent and likely.  It is just that simply considering "straight-line" journeys is too simplistic an assessment.

shinytop

Grumpy_chap said:

shinytop said:

People who want to buy EVs compare them with ICE cars and if the difference is too much they won't buy them. 

I said pretty much that a short while ago in this thread and was firmly rounded against.

I think it's a case of "you are either with us, or with the ...." on this thread. 

They won't though.  While they have a choice, most people will not buy something that is more expensive and, in their eyes, inferior. They just won't.       

shinytop

Verdigris said:

Most people don't need the range of ICE cars, they just think they do. The range achieved by the current generation of BEVs is plenty for most purposes. People just don't like change.

I agree, but it's what people think that matters while they still have a choice.

QrizB

shinytop said:

Grumpy_chap said:

shinytop said:

People who want to buy EVs compare them with ICE cars and if the difference is too much they won't buy them. 

I said pretty much that a short while ago in this thread and was firmly rounded against.

I think it's a case of "you are either with us, or with the ...." on this thread. 

They won't though.  While they have a choice, most people will not buy something that is more expensive and, in their eyes, inferior. They just won't.       

I may be misremembering, but I think the discussion was around purchase price.

The cash price of a brand-new EV is much higher than the cash price of an equivalent ICE, but relatively few new-car buyers pay cash (this recent WhatCar article says 75% of new cars are bought on PCP). If you were to finance it on PCP, the vehicles we were comparing (Corsas, IIRC) cost a similar amount.

Grumpy_chap

shinytop said:

They won't though.  While they have a choice, most people will not buy something that is more expensive and, in their eyes, inferior. They just won't.       

You probably state reality as it simply is.

EV manufacturers are not necessarily helping themselves though.  

EV's really should be more reliable and lower cost to service than ICE vehicles, so simple measures that could be offered would be highly competitive all-inclusive service plans and outstanding warranties.

Service plans aren't always the easiest thing to find (for any type of car), but the best example of a market-disruptor leading with warranty was Daewoo and closely followed by Kia and Hyundai.  Actually, though, think back to the 70' / 80's and the big-disruption in the warranty offered by the new-entrants Datsun, Toyota compared to legacy-manufacturers.  Well-ahead at that time.

Order a TM3 today and the warranty is 4 year / 50k miles.  Battery & Drive Unit (whatever that means) warranty is 8 years / 120k miles.  Certainly not a level of warranty that shouts "reliability" to the average consumer.

EricMears

Martyn1981 said:

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

For those of us who don't remember events from 1908,  a more useful example might be colour TVs.  When first available in the 1960s, buying one would cost the average person several month's pay;  nowadays it's just a couple of days earnings.  

JKenH

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

For those of us who don't remember events from 1908,  a more useful example might be colour TVs.  When first available in the 1960s, buying one would cost the average person several month's pay;  nowadays it's just a couple of days earnings.  

So why does Tesla keep putting its prices up?