EV Discussion thread

Netexporter

Occam's razor.

silvercar

JKenH said:

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

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.

That is rather a naive view in my opinion, given how certain sectors of the press try and lead opinion and indeed publish a lot of inaccurate and misleading information about EVs. Most of us who own EVs have had to correct misconceptions from the people we talk to on the subject. My profoundly deaf neighbour who lives in social housing was the most recent, with his comments (not quite the most accurate noun..) being about range. Trying to communicate that I needed a comfort visit before a charge was quite amusing..

As one of the few here, I reckon, who are private buyers of an EV I still reckon the bottom line is cost. I've probably bored some of you with pointing out more than once that my first EV(new) cost 5 times (more than 5 times actually) more than I'd ever paid for a car before. Savings, low outgoings particularly with Covid, pension income, and better late than never contributed to my purchase, beyond the desire for one of course. But financial stability and economic confidence is not particularly prevalent at the moment, so non-company /subsidised purchasers are likely thin on theground.

If I were buying now I'd be going second hand, given the selection now available three years on. I'm not alone as the post about second hand values above illustrates. As people experience EVs on a more direct and day to day basis I think opinions are changing. A Daily Telegraph poll, given their demographic and attitudes is probably not a very good representation of wider opinion or experience.

You dismiss the DT poll as being unrepresentative but it may well be that DT readers are over represented when it comes to EV ownership (all the ingredients seem to be in place to fit the EV buyer profile* probably reasonably well off, better educated, own home with off street parking etc). It doesn’t matter though what people say in a poll, it’s what they do or don’t do that matters and at the moment it seems they aren’t buying new EVs. 

*https://www.hurstmediacompany.co.uk/the-daily-telegraph-profile/

Maybe middle England are feeling the financial squeeze & can't afford a new EV? That would to some extent explain why there's so much antipathy towards those that have bought one. if you spent any time in the comments section, you'd think that most EV erupt into fireballs & those that don't will need a new battery after 5 years. 

So they are buying ICE cars instead. 

I was very keen to buy a new EV in 2020, having dipped a toe in the water with a secondhand Leaf a few months earlier. When I got my 40kWh Leaf I was delighted with it and went everywhere in it. I didn’t want an ICE car any more. I think the years around 2020/2021 were the golden time to buy  an EV - if you could get your hands on one. Although the myriad charging apps required were a pain, public chargers generally were available, lots were free and even the rapids were cheaper to use than filling up with petrol. There was a genuine spirit of being pioneers with everyone at chargers happy to chat while charging and be helpful. Enthusiastic early adopters were prepared to wait up to a year for an EV to be delivered knowing that with a shortage of supply the value of their cars would hold up well. Meanwhile the specialist EV and RE press were predicting the collapse of the ICE car market and anyone foolish enough to buy one would see its value plummet. An EV was a safe place to park your money, You might even make a profit! 

Then in 2021 the tax rules changed and people started getting them on SalSac and as company cars, and the mentality of EV drivers, I think, changed. They weren’t buying them because they wanted to join the EV community, they got them to save tax - not because they were the best car for their needs. People were now getting EVs for work who couldn’t charge at home putting more pressure on the charging network. As EV adoption increased, the charging infrastructure didn’t keep up. People found themselves queueing at chargers and that made the headlines. People at chargers were much more selfish and even aggressive and a new phenomenon of charger rage arrived (again making the news) Then came the energy crisis and many people without home chargers (whether because they didn’t have off street parking or because they didn’t have a smart meter) were finding it was costing as much, if not more to charge their car than put petrol in. The free charging at supermarkets and other destinations was no longer free. 

Those who had been considering buying a used EV to save money realised that with the higher cost of EVs the savings just weren’t there and demand for used EVs fell just as significant numbers of EVs were being de-fleeted leading to a sudden and dramatic collapse in used values. (My Leaf fell in value over 6 months from £20,650 to under £10,000). Meanwhile used ICE car values were holding up well. With the collapse in used values buying a new EV had gone from almost being an investment in 2020/2021 to burning £50 notes in 2023. People were dropping £15k in a year on their Teslas if they wanted to sell them. That must have made many people who might be buying an EV with their own money to think twice. With residual values falling the balance to finance on a PCP went up just as interest rates were stating to rise. 

Then to top it all in the last couple of months, people suddenly found that insurance prices for EVs were rising and many insurers (something like £78% compared to rises of 29% for ICE cars. Insurers were pulling out the market. People were going to the newspapers (not just the DT and DM) with stories of being asked to pay £5k to insure their EVs (although they did also usually report that by shopping around you could find somewhere to insure it for about 50% more than the previous year). 

Many, like @silverwhistle said, if buying an EV now would choose to go down the used EV route and not buy new. That’s fine)but at some stage we have to get people to buy new EVs again to meet the targets set by the government. That could be a long way away. 

Totally agree.

To add to what was said, people weren’t changing their car during covid as frequently as they might, due to lower usage from restrictions and WFH. Post-covid the cost of living put people off at the same time as the tax incentives on EV salsac/ company cars combined with decent values on second hands meant that selling your second hand and taking a lease car suddenly made a lot of sense.

JKenH

Here's How Motor Trend's Tesla Model 3 Highland 70 MPH Range Test Went

With the battery charged at 95 percent, the single-motor Model 3 RWD covered 211 miles and the dual-motor Model 3 Long Range 250 miles.

Let's start with arguably the most important stuff: range. Motor Trend drove the new Model 3s with the batteries at 95 percent state of charge at a constant 70 mph. The Model 3 RWD covered 211 miles, while the Model 3 Long Range returned 250 miles. Expect significantly higher EPA figures as cars reach a maximum of 60 mph on the agency's test cycle.

Mind you, MT also tested the old Model 3 Long Range, which did 258 miles on the same cycle. However, the old car rode on smaller wheels than the new one, so it wasn't exactly a fair comparison. That said, this doesn't suggest a big range improvement from the new model, but who knows what tweaks Tesla might do when the car goes on sale in the U.S. or what the final EPA numbers will be. 

https://insideevs.com/news/692404/here-how-motor-trend-tesla-model-3-highland-70-mph-range-test-went/

JKenH

American EV range/consumption tests at 70mph. Porsche wins on actual against EPA range test but isn’t very efficient.  2020 Hyundai Kona,  Lucid and Tesla are way out ahead on efficiency but what happened to more recent Hyundai models? I have seen complaints on social media that the Kia Niro EV is nowhere near as efficient as the old e-Niro and it seems Hyundai Kia have taken a step backwards. 

What's The Real World Highway Range Of Today's Electric Cars? We Test To Find Out

InsideEVs tests EVs at 70 miles per hour to find out their real-world highway range.

https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Motor Trend drove the new Model 3s with the batteries at 95 percent state of charge at a constant 70 mph. The Model 3 RWD covered 211 miles, while the Model 3 Long Range returned 250 miles. 

Is that a test at constant 70 mph from 95% charge to run out stopped at the side of the road?

It is just, the figures seem far from amazing.
My LR was charged last weekend to 80%
During the week I covered 244 miles, majority motorway, to arriving home on Friday at 8% when I plugged in and charged again.
I accept there is a big difference between my "majority motorway" and the test "constant 70 mph" but, pro-rata, my mileage would be 321 miles from 95% to nil.  (Calculation 244 miles / 72% = 3.38 * 95% = 321 miles).
321 miles is a lot more than 250 miles.

1961Nick

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

Motor Trend drove the new Model 3s with the batteries at 95 percent state of charge at a constant 70 mph. The Model 3 RWD covered 211 miles, while the Model 3 Long Range returned 250 miles. 

Is that a test at constant 70 mph from 95% charge to run out stopped at the side of the road?

It is just, the figures seem far from amazing.
My LR was charged last weekend to 80%
During the week I covered 244 miles, majority motorway, to arriving home on Friday at 8% when I plugged in and charged again.
I accept there is a big difference between my "majority motorway" and the test "constant 70 mph" but, pro-rata, my mileage would be 321 miles from 95% to nil.  (Calculation 244 miles / 72% = 3.38 * 95% = 321 miles).
321 miles is a lot more than 250 miles.

The InsideEV's test on a 2019 Model 3 LR (Pre heat pump) produced a result of 290 miles which looks to be far more accurate. With the heat pump you should easily clear 300 miles... I can nearly get there with 20" wheels on the performance. I find it hard to believe that the Highland has gone backwards in the economy stakes.

Petriix

I don't have a problem with people stating that EVs don't work for them at present; as long as their reasoning is based in reality. Many people fall into one of the following categories, in which I would certainly advise avoiding EVs for now:

1. No access to affordable charging.
2. Unable to afford the purchase price. 
3. Incompatible driving pattern. 

1 can be for a number of reasons including no off-street parking, no reliable smart meter data or just having so much unavoidable peak electricity usage that an EV tariff wouldn't be ideal.

2 is often viewed without factoring in the full savings from lower ongoing costs and the value floor due to the inherent worth of the battery but EVs are definitely unaffordable for many. 

3 is more subjective because, arguably, it's easy to adjust to work around the limitations of EV range; many scenarios are perfectly suitable with minor changes in attitude such as adding a 20 minute stop or (heaven forbid) driving a little slower. But I'll accept that lots of people have usage patterns which would make an EV impractical.

What we call 'Anti EV' is all the other made up stuff...

• Fires: EVs are something like 25 times less likely to catch fire than those which rely on combustion of volatile fuel.
• Battery degradation: so much nonsense about needing replacement after 5 years when most evidence points to batteries typically retaining > 80% capacity after 10 years.
• Environmental impact: either outright denying climate change or pretending that EVs are really bad for the planet when it's clear that the overall lifetime emissions are significantly lower.
• Hydrogen is better: just no. Anyone who understands basic physics and chemistry knows why.

In many ways it's not really important that EVs are right for everyone immediately, just that there is sufficient progress made in addressing the barriers. Fine if most new EV sales are fleet as they all feed the second hand market.

We've seen various incentives for buying and running EVs but it's probably time we started phasing in penalties for selling polluting vehicles to help balance the market.

JKenH

Petriix said:

I don't have a problem with people stating that EVs don't work for them at present; as long as their reasoning is based in reality. Many people fall into one of the following categories, in which I would certainly advise avoiding EVs for now:

1. No access to affordable charging.
2. Unable to afford the purchase price. 
3. Incompatible driving pattern. 

1 can be for a number of reasons including no off-street parking, no reliable smart meter data or just having so much unavoidable peak electricity usage that an EV tariff wouldn't be ideal.

2 is often viewed without factoring in the full savings from lower ongoing costs and the value floor due to the inherent worth of the battery but EVs are definitely unaffordable for many. 

3 is more subjective because, arguably, it's easy to adjust to work around the limitations of EV range; many scenarios are perfectly suitable with minor changes in attitude such as adding a 20 minute stop or (heaven forbid) driving a little slower. But I'll accept that lots of people have usage patterns which would make an EV impractical.

What we call 'Anti EV' is all the other made up stuff...

• Fires: EVs are something like 25 times less likely to catch fire than those which rely on combustion of volatile fuel.
• Battery degradation: so much nonsense about needing replacement after 5 years when most evidence points to batteries typically retaining > 80% capacity after 10 years.
• Environmental impact: either outright denying climate change or pretending that EVs are really bad for the planet when it's clear that the overall lifetime emissions are significantly lower.
• Hydrogen is better: just no. Anyone who understands basic physics and chemistry knows why.

In many ways it's not really important that EVs are right for everyone immediately, just that there is sufficient progress made in addressing the barriers. Fine if most new EV sales are fleet as they all feed the second hand market..

That all sounds fair to me (except the last paragraph which I may respond to later when I have more time).

The one comment I would make, now, relates to batteries. I accept the statistical evidence that fires in EVs are far less likely to occur than in  ICE vehicles but when they do occur lithium battery fires are far more difficult to control*. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why EV fires get so much publicity and cause such alarm within the non EV owning public. (Perhaps it is a matter of perception, just as some of us perceive there is a risk of dying when we step on an airplane but don’t consider the risk of being killed when we get in a car.)

I don’t think we can just dismiss concerns about EV batteries and fire risks out of hand. The insurance industry research centre at Thatcham has issued some strong warnings about the hazards of dealing with EVs that have been involved in accidents because of the risk of fire. Their recommendations that damaged EVs be stored several metres away from other cars is made for a reason. Similarly, fire brigades advise the only way of extinguishing an EV battery fire is to submerge the whole vehicle in a a container of water. These recommendations are not made purely because Thatcham and fire brigades are anti EV. There are some practical issues of concern but these are always dismissed on the basis that statistically EVs catch fire less often than ICE cars. EVS are new technology so more newsworthy so perhaps it is no surprise that these developments get reported on. 

*Of course I say this just after a fire that started in a diesel Range Rover destroyed 1400 vehicles and a car park at Luton airport so I know I am walking into the lion’s (no pun intended) den by making this observation. There were numerous suggestions on social media that the fire must have started in an EV but in fairness to the mainstream press I didn’t see it reported that way there and the only mention of the source of the fire in every news report I read was that it was in a diesel vehicle.

JKenH

Petriix said:

We've seen various incentives for buying and running EVs but it's probably time we started phasing in penalties for selling polluting vehicles to help balance the market.

I think we need to be clear just what our objectives are. Is it to reduce carbon emissions, is it to reduce pollution or is it to put the legacy car manufacturers out of business? It may be wrapped up as the former but may end up just being the latter and end up aggravating both pollution and CO2 emissions. 

The government, sadly (bear with me), are already thinking along the lines you propose. The sale of non BEVs which is the government plan starting next year (22% of all cars sold here in 2024 have to be EVs rising to 80% in 2030). At the moment fleets account for somewhere in the region of half of all new car sales so technically with the increasing move to EVs the 2024 target is attainable but to reach the 80% target will require about 60% of private new car purchases to be EVs. Given the current take up, that isn’t going to happen and prices would need to rise a lot to to make reluctant private motorists make the switch from ICEs to EVs. That impact will be most probably be felt by home manufacturers like Toyota who are only progressing very slowly to EVs (and unlikely to be manufacturing them in the UK). Why would they want to invest here if they can’t sell what they manufacture here? Great, you may say, we don’t like Toyota anyway (but that is a perspective unique to EV owners). 

The bigger problem, though, in attempting to achieve your objective by this route,  is if you stifle the market for new ICE cars by making them more expensive people just hold onto their old ones longer and we lose the trickle down effect of newer cleaner ICE cars coming on to the market. As the general public do seem reluctant to buy new EVs, I don’t see a mass migration to used EVs nearing the end of their battery warranty. The result is a shortage of 8to 15 year old cars for the lower end of the market and ICE cars that are currently 15 years old and due to be taken off the road as new cleaner ICE cars come on to it will get an extension of their life. They will become more valuable and worth repairing and last longer. If you think modern diesels are dirty then you aren’t going to improve things by extending their lives for another 5-10 years. It will be just like Cuba. By 2040 instead of virtually all the old ICE cars being Euro 6  (or 7 if it happens) we will still have a significant number of Euro 3, 4 and 5 cars on the road emitting more pollution and CO2 than if a more tolerant regime of transition were implemented. 

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

The one comment I would make, now, relates to batteries. I accept the statistical evidence that fires in EVs are far less likely to occur than in  ICE vehicles but when they do occur lithium battery fires are far more difficult to control*. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why EV fires get so much publicity and cause such alarm within the non EV owning public. (Perhaps it is a matter of perception, just as some of us perceive there is a risk of dying when we step on an airplane but don’t consider the risk of being killed when we get in a car.)

I don’t think we can just dismiss concerns about EV batteries and fire risks out of hand. The insurance industry research centre at Thatcham has issued some strong warnings about the hazards of dealing with EVs that have been involved in accidents because of the risk of fire. Their recommendations that damaged EVs be stored several metres away from other cars is made for a reason. Similarly, fire brigades advise the only way of extinguishing an EV battery fire is to submerge the whole vehicle in a a container of water. These recommendations are not made purely because Thatcham and fire brigades are anti EV. There are some practical issues of concern but these are always dismissed on the basis that statistically EVs catch fire less often than ICE cars. 

On the subject to EV's and fire risk, I recently attended a presentation by Veolia who have rolled out a wholly EV fleet for waste collection vehicles in central London:
https://www.veolia.co.uk/press-releases/westminster-council-and-veolia-unveil-uks-largest-electric-waste-collection-fleet

I have tried to find a public release giving more detail but there does not seem to be one, so the link above is as good as it gets.  Anyway, in the presentation I attended, Veolia mentioned how they had researched and set about to include fire-breaks so that the unfortunate event of one dustcart on fire would not spread to adjacent vehicles.  Veolia contacted a high number of external agencies for information and advice, only to conclude there was no standard and no advice available.  Veolia had to set about designing fire break and fire inhibition from first principles.  Amongst other control measures, I am sure the presenter said that they ended up with fire proof walls between every other vehicle (so spread of fire could only be from first vehicle to second adjacent vehicle) - that is not obvious from the photo in the linked article (maybe library pictures?)

One of the bodies that Veolia stated they had spoken to was London Fire Brigade who apparently said they simply had no advice, though after the new station was built were impressed and said they would take those measures as implemented as the recommendation for future multi-EV stations.