EV Discussion thread

Martyn1981

Nice to see Ford maintaining their position and ambitions towards cleaner, greener, cheaper transportation.

Ford Sides With EVs, Tells UK Prime Minister Not To Fear The Strong Headwinds

Automakers have designated billions of dollars in order to electrify their fleets in time for the 2030 deadline, with the thought that demand for EVs would skyrocket once the ICE ban was implemented. The certainty that the ICE ban would begin in 2030 drove many automakers’ decisions, as these companies plan out half a dozen years or more to develop new vehicles, invest in updated factories, train workers, and produce vehicles.

Ford UK chair Lisa Brankin issued a statement condemning the prime minister’s decision to slow the transition to zero emission vehicles.

“Three years ago the government announced the UK’s transition to electric new car and van sales from 2030. The auto industry is investing to meet that challenge. Ford has announced a global $50 billion commitment to electrification, launching 9 electric vehicles by 2025. The range is supported by £430 million invested in Ford’s UK development and manufacturing facilities, with further funding planned for the 2030 timeframe.”

“This is the biggest industry transformation in over a century, and the UK 2030 target is a vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future. Our business needs 3 things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all 3. We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong: infrastructure remains immature, tariffs loom and cost-of-living is high.”

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

Nice to see Ford maintaining their position and ambitions towards cleaner, greener, cheaper transportation.

Ford Sides With EVs, Tells UK Prime Minister Not To Fear The Strong Headwinds

Automakers have designated billions of dollars in order to electrify their fleets in time for the 2030 deadline, with the thought that demand for EVs would skyrocket once the ICE ban was implemented. The certainty that the ICE ban would begin in 2030 drove many automakers’ decisions, as these companies plan out half a dozen years or more to develop new vehicles, invest in updated factories, train workers, and produce vehicles.

Ford UK chair Lisa Brankin issued a statement condemning the prime minister’s decision to slow the transition to zero emission vehicles.

“Three years ago the government announced the UK’s transition to electric new car and van sales from 2030. The auto industry is investing to meet that challenge. Ford has announced a global $50 billion commitment to electrification, launching 9 electric vehicles by 2025. The range is supported by £430 million invested in Ford’s UK development and manufacturing facilities, with further funding planned for the 2030 timeframe.”

“This is the biggest industry transformation in over a century, and the UK 2030 target is a vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future. Our business needs 3 things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all 3. We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong: infrastructure remains immature, tariffs loom and cost-of-living is high.”

Is that the Ford who no longer manufacture cars in the UK but want to sell them here?

noitsnotme

JKenH said:

And, in the round, has buying an EV actually saved you money over your old car? (This is a money saving forum so that’s a fair question to ask even if you bought an EV purely for ethical reasons.) I am not interested in what CleanTechnica or Transport and Environment say about how much cheaper it is to run an EV compared to the equivalent new ICE car, I am looking at our experience as individuals, largely switching from ICEvs bought secondhand.

Please be honest and not just cherrypick the figures. 

It hasn’t saved us money.  We have always had older 2nd hand cars, the most I ever spent was £5k on a Vauxhall Zafira.  I’ve had a couple of ‘fun’ cars (Impreza WRX being the favourite) but never spent much on them.  We’ve now leased a Tesla through our small business.  But even with the 50% VAT reclaimed, corporation tax savings, cheaper ‘fuel’, etc, it’s still costing us around £150 a month more over the next 3 years than it would have done replacing our previous ICE car.

Getting this EV wasn’t about the environment, or even about cost saving (no matter how much I tried to manipulate the calculations 😆).  We felt it was time to be more extravagant and enjoy some of the fruits of our labour.  I was also fed up of crawling under old cars to save money on mechanic bills.  I’m enjoying every aspect of EV ownership and don’t see me going back to ICE again.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

I always think twice about using an ICE car for a short trip because of the wear and tear on and the increased fuel cost of a cold engine. With an EV even a trip to the letter box that I could walk would make sense. 

I can't give accurate figures but, observationally, the energy per mile is far higher on a short trip in the EV than a long trip. 
I suspect it is to do with the fact that the car is "conditioning" the cabin environment and bringing the battery to optimum temperature.  On a short trip, all of that time is doing a lot of "conditioning".  On a longer trip, the amount of "conditioning" is proportionately less as once everything is at desired state it takes a lot less to keep it there.
For me, as well, short trips tend to be a lot of slow stop-start traffic where energy is lost through accelerating / braking cycles (even if using regen braking) but longer trips are cruising under steady or slowly varying state.
I might try to find a way to log this for a bit to see real comparisons between short and long trips.

JKenH said:

Do our EVs actually cost us more than our old ICE cars to run?

in a lot of cases it’s man (or girl) maths in operation. 

I think there is a lot of man-maths. 

I even wrote previously in this thread when I was looking at brand new Lexus ES versus TM3.  In the time I dilly-dallied, the price of the Lexus went up a lot and stayed up.  The price of the TM3 went up a lot and then fell back somewhat.

I sold my non-ULEZ Fiesta back at Easter and, in the week I needed to actually get a new car in motion, I boiled down to a £16k Jag XE from Cazoo or a new TM3.  A few things aligned for the TM3 right at that point plus the fact I have my own Ltd Co so can take advantage of the tax breaks which is a big help at closing the cost gap.  

I certainly never considered the cost or hassle of getting a home charging point installed.  At least I benefitted from the free wall box incentive when buying the car.

I am keeping a full spreadsheet of costs (ignoring the tax breaks) so will be able to come out with some kind of overall figure.  I won't, of course, have a control group of an ICE car doing the exact same duty so, the best I'll be able to do is an assessment of whether the total costs per mile (including or excluding depreciation) are higher, lower, or about the same.

JKenH said:

The consequence of this is that we may use our EVs more (and some articles I have seen do suggest that EVs do higher average mileages than ICE cars). 

I would assume that no-one does an extra journey by car just because (unless they are @Netexporter whom I hope was being tongue-in-cheek).

I also assume that it is reasonable that EV's doing higher mileage that ICE's if the comparison is on a "whole fleet" basis.
The higher your mileage, the easier it is to justify the capital spend in return for the lower expected running costs per mile.
Newer cars tend to do more mileage per year than older cars and EV fleet is on average newer.
Two reasons why those articles could be correct but not indicative of choosing to do extra mileage for the sake of it.  It seems the headline may mask an obvious reality.

Martyn1981 said:

Nice to see Ford maintaining their position and ambitions towards cleaner, greener, cheaper transportation.

I am confused by the comments from Ford given how far behind the curve they seem to be - perhaps it is just greenwashing speak because talk is cheap.
Other than the over-priced and limited desire Mach-E, when will we actually see mass EV output from Ford?

Martyn1981 said:

The idea is simply that for normal daily driving, 80% is fine, but if you need more range, then charge higher. Going to 100% isn't a problem, it's just a way to minimise any battery degaradtion over the long term, but that degradation will be small anyway

Just a semi-silly point, but there's also re-gen to think of,

I have set my charge level to 80%.
It will suffice for normal use and, if it may help battery life, what do I risk?

EDIT:  I knew there was a point I'd forgotten to include.
It was about not charging the battery to 100% so that there is always room for regen energy to be recovered.
I understand that philosophy when it comes to a hybrid - I previously had a Toyota Auris Hybrid - as the car could recover regen energy that originated from the ICE.
However, I do not think the same can apply for an EV.  Having said that, I've seen the comment elsewhere so maybe @Martyn1981 is correct?
My reason why the same cannot apply for an EV is that the EV starts a journey with X% battery charge and consumes energy (from the battery) to get motive.  When the car slows, there is some recovery of energy but the recovery cannot be back to above the starting point. AIUI, it's physics as there are losses from friction and other inefficiencies that can't be recovered.
At the very edge cases, there could be some people who live at the very top of a hill and can therefore get motive and recover energy for the start of the journey above the initial charge level, but that is going to be very unusual.  Even in that case, I'd expect that some battery energy is consumed in the initial "getting motive" step so that the rate of gaining pace is appropriate given consideration of other traffic, rather than wholly allowing the EV to set off under gravity only.
I'd be pleased to have it explained if there are (realistic / common) scenarios where the regen can bring the energy above the journey start charge level.

Netexporter

I would assume that no-one does an extra journey by car just because (unless they are @Netexporter whom I hope was being tongue-in-cheek).

There is a concept called having fun. It's priceless!

And if you are effectively getting paid to have that fun, so much the better. Filling the car up, having an extra long shower, putting the washing machine on, etc, whilst prices are negative lowers my average cost per kWh over the month.My last bill averaged at 2p/kWh higher than previous ones because there were no plunge days but on the other hand, I used less electricity because I didn't go for a blat round the mountains.

Petriix

Real maths:

In 2020 I chose between buying a three year old diesel Golf estate for £13k and the MG5 I ultimately bought for £23k new. Equivalent used versions of each model respectively sell for £9k and £15k today so I have measurably lost £4k more in depreciation on the EV.

Realistically the 30k miles I've covered (about half urban) would have cost around £5k in diesel. In total I've paid about £500 to charge my EV though I accept that there are some factors which have made it cheaper for me than it would be for others.

Insurance was much higher this year at ~ £360 compared to £180 for the first two years. Services cost £36, £120 and £80 with zero other maintenance except some screenwash. First MOT is due in December and VED has been zero. Roadside cover is included with the services/warranty.

For the Golf I'd have been looking at £200 per year for servicing and MOTs assuming that nothing broke or wore out plus £30 VED. Roadside cover would be another £50 or so. With good luck, the Golf would have been about £500 more than the EV in maintenence but this could have been far higher if any of a number of things needed replacing (clutch, exhaust, cam belt, brakes etc.).

It's probably reasonable to say that I've driven the EV more than I would have driven the Golf. It's impossible to measure this, but it could eat into the savings. Finally I did borrow £20k to buy the MG whereas I'd only have borrowed £10k for the Golf. Interest is fixed at 1.84% so the MG has also cost an additional £552.

In all it looks pretty close to breaking even in the worst case with the EV coming out significantly cheaper in the more likely maintenance scenario. Then there's the CO2 and particulate emissions and the very real comfort and convenience of driving an EV compared to diesel. People often laugh when I say that but I genuinely think I waste less time charging than I would driving to the petrol station, queuing, filling, paying and driving home again. 

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

I always think twice about using an ICE car for a short trip because of the wear and tear on and the increased fuel cost of a cold engine. With an EV even a trip to the letter box that I could walk would make sense. 

I can't give accurate figures but, observationally, the energy per mile is far higher on a short trip in the EV than a long trip. 
I suspect it is to do with the fact that the car is "conditioning" the cabin environment and bringing the battery to optimum temperature.  On a short trip, all of that time is doing a lot of "conditioning".  On a longer trip, the amount of "conditioning" is proportionately less as once everything is at desired state it takes a lot less to keep it there.
For me, as well, short trips tend to be a lot of slow stop-start traffic where energy is lost through accelerating / braking cycles (even if using regen braking) but longer trips are cruising under steady or slowly varying state.
I might try to find a way to log this for a bit to see real comparisons between short and long trips.

JKenH said:

Do our EVs actually cost us more than our old ICE cars to run?

in a lot of cases it’s man (or girl) maths in operation. 

I think there is a lot of man-maths. 

I even wrote previously in this thread when I was looking at brand new Lexus ES versus TM3.  In the time I dilly-dallied, the price of the Lexus went up a lot and stayed up.  The price of the TM3 went up a lot and then fell back somewhat.

I sold my non-ULEZ Fiesta back at Easter and, in the week I needed to actually get a new car in motion, I boiled down to a £16k Jag XE from Cazoo or a new TM3.  A few things aligned for the TM3 right at that point plus the fact I have my own Ltd Co so can take advantage of the tax breaks which is a big help at closing the cost gap.  

I certainly never considered the cost or hassle of getting a home charging point installed.  At least I benefitted from the free wall box incentive when buying the car.

I am keeping a full spreadsheet of costs (ignoring the tax breaks) so will be able to come out with some kind of overall figure.  I won't, of course, have a control group of an ICE car doing the exact same duty so, the best I'll be able to do is an assessment of whether the total costs per mile (including or excluding depreciation) are higher, lower, or about the same.

JKenH said:

The consequence of this is that we may use our EVs more (and some articles I have seen do suggest that EVs do higher average mileages than ICE cars). 

I would assume that no-one does an extra journey by car just because (unless they are @Netexporter whom I hope was being tongue-in-cheek).

I also assume that it is reasonable that EV's doing higher mileage that ICE's if the comparison is on a "whole fleet" basis.
The higher your mileage, the easier it is to justify the capital spend in return for the lower expected running costs per mile.
Newer cars tend to do more mileage per year than older cars and EV fleet is on average newer.
Two reasons why those articles could be correct but not indicative of choosing to do extra mileage for the sake of it.  It seems the headline may mask an obvious reality.

Martyn1981 said:

Nice to see Ford maintaining their position and ambitions towards cleaner, greener, cheaper transportation.

I am confused by the comments from Ford given how far behind the curve they seem to be - perhaps it is just greenwashing speak because talk is cheap.
Other than the over-priced and limited desire Mach-E, when will we actually see mass EV output from Ford?

Martyn1981 said:

The idea is simply that for normal daily driving, 80% is fine, but if you need more range, then charge higher. Going to 100% isn't a problem, it's just a way to minimise any battery degaradtion over the long term, but that degradation will be small anyway

Just a semi-silly point, but there's also re-gen to think of,

I have set my charge level to 80%.
It will suffice for normal use and, if it may help battery life, what do I risk?

EDIT:  I knew there was a point I'd forgotten to include.
It was about not charging the battery to 100% so that there is always room for regen energy to be recovered.
I understand that philosophy when it comes to a hybrid - I previously had a Toyota Auris Hybrid - as the car could recover regen energy that originated from the ICE.
However, I do not think the same can apply for an EV.  Having said that, I've seen the comment elsewhere so maybe @Martyn1981 is correct?
My reason why the same cannot apply for an EV is that the EV starts a journey with X% battery charge and consumes energy (from the battery) to get motive.  When the car slows, there is some recovery of energy but the recovery cannot be back to above the starting point. AIUI, it's physics as there are losses from friction and other inefficiencies that can't be recovered.
At the very edge cases, there could be some people who live at the very top of a hill and can therefore get motive and recover energy for the start of the journey above the initial charge level, but that is going to be very unusual.  Even in that case, I'd expect that some battery energy is consumed in the initial "getting motive" step so that the rate of gaining pace is appropriate given consideration of other traffic, rather than wholly allowing the EV to set off under gravity only.
I'd be pleased to have it explained if there are (realistic / common) scenarios where the regen can bring the energy above the journey start charge level.

Thanks for your input on costs. I can see an EV does have tax advantages for the business user compared to an ICEV. On the forums I am surprised just how many people who own EVs are able to take advantage of the tax breaks. I am wondering whether your purchase would appear in the SMMT stats as a private or business buyer. 

On the issue of regen, my Leaf would not slow down so well at 100% battery. I believe the reason for that is the level of charge that the BMS will allow is far less when the battery is near full than the 10s of kW that regen can produce. The Leaf has displays which show the level of recharge when driving and also the level of recharge that is permissible. The first photo below shows the battery at 84% and all the blue bars (2) are visible. When regen occurs a number of the blue bars light up - the higher the regen, the more blue bars. The second photo shows the battery at a higher state of charge and less blue bars are visible, indicating full regen is not available. On the central display in the car (photo 3) the power gauge is annotated with kW. 

On your second point about regen; yes, the level of battery charge can increase going downhill. 

Martyn1981

Grumpy_chap said:

EDIT:  I knew there was a point I'd forgotten to include.
It was about not charging the battery to 100% so that there is always room for regen energy to be recovered.
I understand that philosophy when it comes to a hybrid - I previously had a Toyota Auris Hybrid - as the car could recover regen energy that originated from the ICE.
However, I do not think the same can apply for an EV.  Having said that, I've seen the comment elsewhere so maybe @Martyn1981 is correct?
My reason why the same cannot apply for an EV is that the EV starts a journey with X% battery charge and consumes energy (from the battery) to get motive.  When the car slows, there is some recovery of energy but the recovery cannot be back to above the starting point. AIUI, it's physics as there are losses from friction and other inefficiencies that can't be recovered.
At the very edge cases, there could be some people who live at the very top of a hill and can therefore get motive and recover energy for the start of the journey above the initial charge level, but that is going to be very unusual.  Even in that case, I'd expect that some battery energy is consumed in the initial "getting motive" step so that the rate of gaining pace is appropriate given consideration of other traffic, rather than wholly allowing the EV to set off under gravity only.
I'd be pleased to have it explained if there are (realistic / common) scenarios where the regen can bring the energy above the journey start charge level.

Hiys GC, as I said, it's a semi-silly point as it won't apply in more than a tiny number of edge cases, so I really wouldn't worry about it.

But for examples, in our case our road is pretty steep, so when we had an ICEV we'd back out, then start off in 2nd gear, and use engine braking all the way down the hill, till we reach the 'flat' road. In BEV's now, we do similar, back out, switch to drive and re-gen down the road. In fact, the IONIQ, having only a small battery (28kWh) isn't able to apply enough regen. It can hold the speed for the first half, but the second half is a little steeper, and the speed starts to build up, and braking is needed to slow the vehicle before the junction.

This 'fun' fact was, as I explained, first brought to my attention, when driving the Leaf for the first time at 100% charge, since we rolled down, gaining speed with no regen at all, which surprised me, but of course makes complete sense.

Also worth pointing out that regen will be less when the batts are near full, as it's harder to squeeze those last few percent in, as seen with charging rates that drop also, as you get closer to full.

Not exactly the same, but when heading off in very cold weather, even the Tesla may struggle to slow the car on regen alone on our hill, since regen rates are reduced when the pack is cold, and hasn't yet warmed up. But tbf to Tesla, the screen will be telling you that the regen rates are reduced until the pack has warmed up.

I've also heard of 'hilltop start' charge settings, possibly Chevy Bolt, not sure. Again this is for those edge cases where you start your journey higher up, so can benefit both from regen for energy, and also regen for slowing the vehicle, at journey's start.

Personally, I was recently chatting with a friend who I visited at his home, the other side of Swansea. He has a BEV, and asked me what energy the TMY had used getting there. I explained that it had been a surprising 230Wh/mile*, for the first 50 miles, till the turning off the road that followed the coast/sea, but, the last ~4miles had lifted it to ~245Wh as it was all uphill. He said that he doesn't charge to 100% because of that, and when I left, I reached that ~4mile point with a negative 70Wh/mile, despite the car having heated up in sunny weather and having to cool down (A/C).

Another example, I may have mentioned a year or so ago, was a cruise around the Brecon Beacons with other Tesla owners. A friend of mine joined me for the drive, and (having plotted with his wife) I'd added him to the insurance so he could drive. I took the first leg, and the stop was atop a mountain, where we all got to see the view including wind farms and a PV farm. My friend drove the next leg, quite spirited, and when we stopped 10 miles later at the bottom of a valley (and gin refinery) his trip clocked in at about -20Wh/mile, so much joking about how much better of a driver he was than I.

But please believe me, these really are exceptional cases, and won't apply to many folk, hence why I somewhat jokingly added it.

*230Wh confused me, way too low, for a motorway trip at about 65-70mph, but driving home, the consumption was about 270Wh/mile on the motorway, so I suspect it was down to wind (not mine), providing a tailwind on the way, and a headwind on the way back.

noitsnotme

I can't give accurate figures but, observationally, the energy per mile is far higher on a short trip in the EV than a long trip. 
I suspect it is to do with the fact that the car is "conditioning" the cabin environment and bringing the battery to optimum temperature.  On a short trip, all of that time is doing a lot of "conditioning".  On a longer trip, the amount of "conditioning" is proportionately less as once everything is at desired state it takes a lot less to keep it there.
For me, as well, short trips tend to be a lot of slow stop-start traffic where energy is lost through accelerating / braking cycles (even if using regen braking) but longer trips are cruising under steady or slowly varying state.
I might try to find a way to log this for a bit to see real comparisons between short and long trips.

Anecdotal, but I can regularly keep my Model Y at around 200 Wh/mi between charges and just short local trips (school run, work, shops etc).  That’s almost never touching the brake pedal.  I find stop start traffic helps a lot to keep the figure down as long I always use the regen and barely touch the brake.

The last time I did a motorway journey I’m pretty sure it was showing around 270 Wh/mi at 70mph but I didn’t pay attention to the overall rate for the whole journey.  The Model Y has a big fat face so wind resistance at higher speeds is a big factor.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

I can see an EV does have tax advantages for the business user compared to an ICEV. On the forums I am surprised just how many people who own EVs are able to take advantage of the tax breaks.  I am wondering whether your purchase would appear in the SMMT stats as a private or business buyer. 

I suspect the latter.
To be eligible for the tax incentives, the invoice had to be made out in the name of the Ltd Co.  My Accountant was very clear on that point.
Government reporting of these things tends to be very binary - either business or personal, no interim position.

Martyn1981 said:

But for examples, in our case our road is pretty steep, so when we had an ICEV we'd back out, then start off in 2nd gear, and use engine braking all the way down the hill, till we reach the 'flat' road. In BEV's now, we do similar, back out, switch to drive and re-gen down the road. In fact, the IONIQ, having only a small battery (28kWh) isn't able to apply enough regen. It can hold the speed for the first half, but the second half is a little steeper, and the speed starts to build up, and braking is needed to slow the vehicle before the junction.

You seem to be the living the edge-case scenario.