EV Discussion thread

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

Another Telegraph article on EV insurance. I am, though, primarily posting this for these survey figures among Telegraph readers.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/ev-electric-car-insurance-premiums-peugeot-tesla/

Telegraph readers may not be representative of the population as a whole, being more conservative, bit they are (probably on average) more likely to be able to afford an EV and live somewhere where they have off road parking. (I’ve no evidence of that but just throw it in to balance the inevitable comments that they don’t care about the environment or climate change).

It is one of the lowest survey results I have seen recently and while it is only a small subset, it is a large number of respondents and shows there is still along way to go to win over the population as a whole. 

For the record, I did vote Yes. 

I was also one of the 'Yes' votes.

The comments sections are populated by the offspring of Ned Ludd & it's hard to believe that these are supposedly educated people from reading some of the replies. 

But if >96% of people actually buying a new car with their own money (or borrowing it) are still choosing a car with some form of ICE propulsion it does suggest that the car buying public as a whole are not yet convinced about EVs (for whatever reason). EV sales, not just in the UK but everywhere, are being driven by government policies, be it carrot or stick or a combination of the two. The supposed advantages of EVs themselves are not driving sales much past the early adopter stage. The much talked about “S curve” of disruption with comparisons to the motor car replacing horses, digital cameras replacing film, CDs replacing LPs etc isn’t playing out as expected because the EV essentially doesn’t do anything much better than an ICE car, at least not so far as the private buyer is concerned. Most people buy a car to get themselves and their family from A to B in comfort and the ICE car does that just as well as an EV. Unless you really want an EV, there just aren’t sufficient compelling reasons to switch for most private buyers. What savings there are can be eaten up by costs elsewhere. 

 EV adoption is being driven by policy responses to climate concerns

As mentioned several times, the current company car driver benefits to EV also specifically harm private EV buyers as they effectively inflate new prices and depress used prices.

Interesting thought but how do company car driver benefits inflate EV prices? Tesla, whose cars are I believe popular with company car drivers, have been dropping their prices and most other manufacturers have been discounting their prices heavily. 

Edit: and how do they depress used prices?

michaels

Back to A level economics

The govt offers a £10k subsidy to purchase an EV.  This means the price paid by the consumer is 10k less than the price received by the producer.  Lets assume this is split 50:50, producer increases the price 5k above what it would have been but still finds buyers because consumer pays 5k less than it would have been. This is obviously great for those eligible for the subsidy but those who are not (private buyers in this case) see the higher pre subsidy price ad think - that is too expensive.

Later when it comes time to sell, second hand prices relate to the effective price paid for the new vehicle - ie the 5k discount price so the private buyer not only pays 5k extra to buy but then suffers a second hand sell price based on the average effective purchase price that was 10k less than they paid.

1961Nick

JKenH said:

As I said I just published the survey results - which at 16% in fact suggests more Telegraph readers will buy a car than the wider general public; in fact about 4 x as many. It probably is a good job the Telegraph exists so people can vent their spleen on it but so doing doesn’t address the fundamental problem that last month less than 4% of new cars sold to private buyers were BEVs. The percentage of private buyers opting for BEVs has dropped significantly this year when one would expect it to be going up. It isn’t the fault of the Telegraph or Daily Mail that 96% of private buyers still choose cars with some means of ICE propulsion. But rather than discuss why, the response is to try and belittle those newspapers and their readers.

I find it sad that some people feel it necessary to try and belittle publications that they disagree with by referring to them by anything other than their real titles - Daily Fail and Tory Graph spring to mind. Great if you are keen to wear your politics on your sleeve but not so great if you want to be taken seriously. Has anyone noticed that it is generally the right leaning newspapers that receive such treatment? One detects almost a sense of superiority (of opinion or morals) amongst those knocking right of centre views.

There is of course bias in most publications but the bias is generally only perceived if the views expressed differ from one’s own. Of late there has been a lot of criticism of the press in general being anti EV but the views expressed in the press coincide with the majority view. EV owners tend to have a very one sided view of the EV/ICE debate. Talking about pathological hatred, one only has to read the specialist EV and RE press and see the comments there about ICE drivers. 

We can all have our opinions and share them respectfully without taking the stance that anyone who doesn’t see the world like us is in some way backward or inferior. 

We've been through a period where a considerable amount of new cars were bought using a car allowance thus inflating the 'private' element of the sales figures when these are really business vehicles. This has now swung the other way with the car allowance being given up in exchange for a company EV. Add to that number the employees not entitled to a car allowance or company car but taking advantage of a salsac scheme, and the 'company' element of the figures gets inflated instead.

As far as the DT is concerned, the articles written about EVs are the worst examples of lazy journalism & usually factually incorrect. The headlines are prime examples of click bait & I'd expect more from what used to be a serious publication. 

JKenH

michaels said:

Back to A level economics

The govt offers a £10k subsidy to purchase an EV.  This means the price paid by the consumer is 10k less than the price received by the producer.  Lets assume this is split 50:50, producer increases the price 5k above what it would have been but still finds buyers because consumer pays 5k less than it would have been. This is obviously great for those eligible for the subsidy but those who are not (private buyers in this case) see the higher pre subsidy price ad think - that is too expensive.

Later when it comes time to sell, second hand prices relate to the effective price paid for the new vehicle - ie the 5k discount price so the private buyer not only pays 5k extra to buy but then suffers a second hand sell price based on the average effective purchase price that was 10k less than they paid.

But there are no subsidies, only tax benefits for those leasing cars or company car drivers.

Edit: before someone points it out, I am aware there are 100% tax write downs in year 1 for businesses compared to 18% pa for non-EVs but the price paid for the car is not altered.

michaels

JKenH said:

michaels said:

Back to A level economics

The govt offers a £10k subsidy to purchase an EV.  This means the price paid by the consumer is 10k less than the price received by the producer.  Lets assume this is split 50:50, producer increases the price 5k above what it would have been but still finds buyers because consumer pays 5k less than it would have been. This is obviously great for those eligible for the subsidy but those who are not (private buyers in this case) see the higher pre subsidy price ad think - that is too expensive.

Later when it comes time to sell, second hand prices relate to the effective price paid for the new vehicle - ie the 5k discount price so the private buyer not only pays 5k extra to buy but then suffers a second hand sell price based on the average effective purchase price that was 10k less than they paid.

But there are no subsidies, only tax benefits for those leasing cars or company car drivers.

Edit: before someone points it out, I am aware there are 100% tax write downs in year 1 for businesses compared to 18% pa for non-EVs but the price paid for the car is not altered.

Whether you call it a subsidy or a tax break the economic consequences are the same, the buyer effectively pays less for the vehicle and the manufacturer knowing this increases their prices

Netexporter

It's like the massive tax breaks given to oil companies aren't subsidies.

JKenH

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

As I said I just published the survey results - which at 16% in fact suggests more Telegraph readers will buy a car than the wider general public; in fact about 4 x as many. It probably is a good job the Telegraph exists so people can vent their spleen on it but so doing doesn’t address the fundamental problem that last month less than 4% of new cars sold to private buyers were BEVs. The percentage of private buyers opting for BEVs has dropped significantly this year when one would expect it to be going up. It isn’t the fault of the Telegraph or Daily Mail that 96% of private buyers still choose cars with some means of ICE propulsion. But rather than discuss why, the response is to try and belittle those newspapers and their readers.

I find it sad that some people feel it necessary to try and belittle publications that they disagree with by referring to them by anything other than their real titles - Daily Fail and Tory Graph spring to mind. Great if you are keen to wear your politics on your sleeve but not so great if you want to be taken seriously. Has anyone noticed that it is generally the right leaning newspapers that receive such treatment? One detects almost a sense of superiority (of opinion or morals) amongst those knocking right of centre views.

There is of course bias in most publications but the bias is generally only perceived if the views expressed differ from one’s own. Of late there has been a lot of criticism of the press in general being anti EV but the views expressed in the press coincide with the majority view. EV owners tend to have a very one sided view of the EV/ICE debate. Talking about pathological hatred, one only has to read the specialist EV and RE press and see the comments there about ICE drivers. 

We can all have our opinions and share them respectfully without taking the stance that anyone who doesn’t see the world like us is in some way backward or inferior. 

We've been through a period where a considerable amount of new cars were bought using a car allowance thus inflating the 'private' element of the sales figures when these are really business vehicles. This has now swung the other way with the car allowance being given up in exchange for a company EV. Add to that number the employees not entitled to a car allowance or company car but taking advantage of a salsac scheme, and the 'company' element of the figures gets inflated instead.

As far as the DT is concerned, the articles written about EVs are the worst examples of lazy journalism & usually factually incorrect. The headlines are prime examples of click bait & I'd expect more from what used to be a serious publication. 

That theory would suggest that fleet sales would have grown as a % of overall sales so I looked at the split between fleet and private sales in September 2019 (before COVID and the BIK incentives were introduced) and compared them to this year. There isn’t a great deal of difference in the private/fleet split -around 45% (ytd) private in both 2019 and 2023 but look at the 2022 figures and private sales were around 52%. The existing BIK rules were in place in 2022 so one would expect similar private/fleet not a big fall off in private sales in 2023. Supply to fleets may have been an issue in 2022 inflating the private% but comparing pre covid/BIK situation represented by 2019 to the current situation the split hasn’t really changed. Private EV purchases have just tanked - I saw a figure for earlier this year of 24%(IIRC) which equates to 37,000 BEVs sold (but that was down from 41,800 in the first 6months of 2022) but a fall to below 10% going to private buyers in a new registration month is cause for concern. 

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

Back to A level economics

The govt offers a £10k subsidy to purchase an EV.  This means the price paid by the consumer is 10k less than the price received by the producer.  Lets assume this is split 50:50, producer increases the price 5k above what it would have been but still finds buyers because consumer pays 5k less than it would have been. This is obviously great for those eligible for the subsidy but those who are not (private buyers in this case) see the higher pre subsidy price ad think - that is too expensive.

Later when it comes time to sell, second hand prices relate to the effective price paid for the new vehicle - ie the 5k discount price so the private buyer not only pays 5k extra to buy but then suffers a second hand sell price based on the average effective purchase price that was 10k less than they paid.

But there are no subsidies, only tax benefits for those leasing cars or company car drivers.

Edit: before someone points it out, I am aware there are 100% tax write downs in year 1 for businesses compared to 18% pa for non-EVs but the price paid for the car is not altered.

Whether you call it a subsidy or a tax break the economic consequences are the same, the buyer effectively pays less for the vehicle and the manufacturer knowing this increases their prices

Well, if you want to believe that is the reason EV sales to private buyers have fallen that’s  fine by me, but that is simply burying your head in the sand. The tax situation hasn’t changed since April 2021 but, this year, private EV purchases in the first 6 months were down on last year, although still 24% of EV sales. In September that figure fell below 10% despite massive discounts being offered by manufacturers on EVs. In 2022 buyers were paying list price for EVs but that didn’t deter them, Now with discounts of up to 30% on EVs they are buying ICE cars instead. 

Whatever reason (excuse) anyone comes up with it doesn’t alter the fact that private EV sales have for the last 12 months been in decline and it is only the fleet purchases incentivised by tax breaks for the users that are keeping EV sales at anywhere near last years figures. Meanwhile sales of ICE cars to private buyers have been increasing. If private ICE car purchases had fallen you could blame it on the economy or interest rates. Some might blame it on increased electricity prices but we are constantly being reminded that you can charge an EV for 7.5p/kWh so the cost might have gone up from 2p to 3p per mile but that’s still a lot cheaper than petrol. 

The bottom line is that 96% of private buyers last month thought it was a better bet to buy a new car with some form of ICE propulsion than an EV. 

It is possible that many EV buyers opted for used, instead, given the substantial fall in used EV prices. We will have to wait for the quarterly SMMT statistics for used cars to see if that is the case. It wouldn’t surprise me. However, the government’s EV mandate dictates that next year 22% of all new cars must be zero emissions, a figure rising to 80% by 2030. To achieve these targets private buyers need to buy EVs in substantial numbers.  Even if fleets go 100% electric by 2030, it will still need private buyers to choose EVs over ICE cars in a ratio something like 60/40 - not the 4/96  we are at now. 

JKenH

Netexporter said:

It's like the massive tax breaks given to oil companies aren't subsidies.

But if you are going to count those you also need to look at the huge amount of fuel duty and VED paid by ICE drivers. I can’t see, though, what relevance this has to explaining why EV sales to private motorists have fallen. I suspect that abolition of both the tax breaks to oil companies and the taxes on fuel/VED  would make ICE cars relatively more attractive. 

1961Nick

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

Back to A level economics

The govt offers a £10k subsidy to purchase an EV.  This means the price paid by the consumer is 10k less than the price received by the producer.  Lets assume this is split 50:50, producer increases the price 5k above what it would have been but still finds buyers because consumer pays 5k less than it would have been. This is obviously great for those eligible for the subsidy but those who are not (private buyers in this case) see the higher pre subsidy price ad think - that is too expensive.

Later when it comes time to sell, second hand prices relate to the effective price paid for the new vehicle - ie the 5k discount price so the private buyer not only pays 5k extra to buy but then suffers a second hand sell price based on the average effective purchase price that was 10k less than they paid.

But there are no subsidies, only tax benefits for those leasing cars or company car drivers.

Edit: before someone points it out, I am aware there are 100% tax write downs in year 1 for businesses compared to 18% pa for non-EVs but the price paid for the car is not altered.

Whether you call it a subsidy or a tax break the economic consequences are the same, the buyer effectively pays less for the vehicle and the manufacturer knowing this increases their prices

Well, if you want to believe that is the reason EV sales to private buyers have fallen that’s  fine by me, but that is simply burying your head in the sand. The tax situation hasn’t changed since April 2021 but, this year, private EV purchases in the first 6 months were down on last year, although still 24% of EV sales. In September that figure fell below 10% despite massive discounts being offered by manufacturers on EVs. In 2022 buyers were paying list price for EVs but that didn’t deter them, Now with discounts of up to 30% on EVs they are buying ICE cars instead. 

Whatever reason (excuse) anyone comes up with it doesn’t alter the fact that private EV sales have for the last 12 months been in decline and it is only the fleet purchases incentivised by tax breaks for the users that are keeping EV sales at anywhere near last years figures. Meanwhile sales of ICE cars to private buyers have been increasing. If private ICE car purchases had fallen you could blame it on the economy or interest rates. Some might blame it on increased electricity prices but we are constantly being reminded that you can charge an EV for 7.5p/kWh so the cost might have gone up from 2p to 3p per mile but that’s still a lot cheaper than petrol. 

The bottom line is that 96% of private buyers last month thought it was a better bet to buy a new car with some form of ICE propulsion than an EV. 

It is possible that many EV buyers opted for used, instead, given the substantial fall in used EV prices. We will have to wait for the quarterly SMMT statistics for used cars to see if that is the case. It wouldn’t surprise me. However, the government’s EV mandate dictates that next year 22% of all new cars must be zero emissions, a figure rising to 80% by 2030. To achieve these targets private buyers need to buy EVs in substantial numbers.  Even if fleets go 100% electric by 2030, it will still need private buyers to choose EVs over ICE cars in a ratio something like 60/40 - not the 4/96  we are at now. 

I doubt anyone other than HMRC knows the number of SalSac vehicles on company fleets & even then some of them will be instead of a company car rather than simply using the BIK system for the tax break. Below is a link to the Lloyds Bank SalSac scheme which gives an indication of the potential numbers. SalSac is becoming the go-to method of vehicle finance & it's become widely available to the demographic that previously bought new cars on balloon finance. 

https://tuskercars.com/knowledge-hub/tusker-enjoys-record-six-months-adding-240-new-accounts-and-8500-cars-to-its-fleet/