Have we ever been in a worse car buying era I don't know where to turn next.

Spies

I like driving my EV more than the petrol Clio I had previously but I got extra creature comforts like heated seats, lane keep and radar cruise which aren't exclusive to EVs... my main issue is not the range (100-120mi), its about the crap-shoot when it comes to publicly charging, they're either really expensive or unreliable.

letom

motorguy said:

letom said:

WellKnownSid said:

letom said:

Petriix said:

There does seem to be a correlation between those with an irrational fear of EVs and those unable to construct grammatically correct sentences. While there are some genuine circumstances where EVs would be challenging at this point, most of the arguments amount to a kind of straw-clutching whataboutery rather than genuine concern around a real-world scenario. 

For most people (as in a little more than half of UK drivers) with access to cheap charging, an EV is a reasonable option and the current market is pretty favorable. For the other 40% or so, I wouldn't advise switching if you're going to be relying on expensive public charging. 

You must have come late to the thread, as quite a lot of arguments have been quite rational. Suggest you start at page 1 and work your way through.

I come back to my first point, EVs are an inferior product - evidence, none of the pro EV arguments are that EVs are better, your argument is that "they're sort of the same". One can only deduce that you all do not believe that EVs are actually better than ICE cars but at best they are similar. If I were trying to sell you the new iPhone 16 vs your old iPhone 8, my argument wouldn't be "it's a reasonable choice" (your words). My argument would be the iPhone 16 is better because of XYZ, the iPhone 16 is not similar to the iPhone 8, it is just better.

I'll make the point again, if EVs were better, the government would not be taxing ICE cars significantly more to make the financial difference so wide between an EV and an ICE car.

The public is resistant to EVs, not because they are irrational, but because they are very rational. It would be very irrational to want to move to an inferior mode of transport, ironically that appears to be your argument...

Which EVs have you actually driven?

Aside from being faster, smoother, quieter and less fatiguing over longer distances, I find the ability to just climb in on a morning when it’s minus 8 degrees and drive away much more 21st century.  Oh and they are cheaper - as in free car cheaper - if you can charge at home.

My wife was massively resistant to getting an EV. She knew from all the articles in the press that they can’t be driven in the rain and all EVs cost at least £60,000. Now she can’t be parted from hers 😄

None of those things are inherent to an EV that you can't find in an ICE car, so you haven't really stated why EVs as a product category is better, which as I said isn't your argument, it is that they are more or less the same as ICE cars.

The most fundamental value proposition of any mode of transport is getting you from A to B, it's the raisin d'etre of the product. Visit any EV car home page and the selling points are range and fast charging - ie car makers need to convince you that this mode of transport gets you from A to B - could you imagine a new form of plane where the airline talked about the range of the aircraft and how it could fast charge mid way and then get you to the destination... ICE car key selling points don't say range, because ICE cars deliver on the fundamental point of a mode of transport ie you have ample range in 1 tank, and if you need more, within 5 minutes you have ample range again.

As I say, at the core it's an inferior product. As with all inferior products, EVs would sell better if they were e.g. 40-50% the price of ICE cars, theres nothing wrong with EVs, but to pretend like moving to EVs ie having to figure out whether my car can take me from A to B is some step forward in quality of life and we're all too stupid and influenced by media to see this, is disingenuous. Just own it - quality of life will go down with EVs, but that's a cost to pay for reduced emissions.

Why does an EV have to be "better"?

A car fundamentally is a means of getting from A to B.  The average car journey length is 8 miles.  The average miles per year in a car is something like 5,000 to 8,000 miles.  Any EV will easily do that.  Many will do much much more.

EVs arent about being "better" than ICE.  They're about offering a replacement to burning the earths resources and pumping out the cancerous residuals of that practically in our faces in our towns and cities.  

People need to get their heads around not "needing" a range of 500+ miles but realising their day to day journies only amount to a matter of miles.  Its about thinking differently. 

EV advertising reemphasises the range and ease of charging as thats the two main concerns of potential buyers.

If someone has an EV with a range of 300 miles, they're only looking at charging it maybe once a fortnight.  For many, thats simply plugging it in overnight at their home or at their place of work.  There is no hardship in actually doing that.  Come out the following morning / leave work and the cars fully charged again.

To say quality of life will go down with owning an EV is frankly farcical.

Thanks you just reinforced my point.

"A car fundamentally is a means of getting from A to B"

Product A - gets you from A to B, range is no issue

Product B - here's 2 paragraphs about why range is fine for most, with caveats about distance and how long it needs to charge

Yet you're performing mental gymnastics about why product B is better.

EVs need to be better because they are priced the same or more expensive than the product that is inherently better - it's irrational for the market to adopt an inferior product at the same price as the superior product. That is why the market is resistant to change, there is ultimately limited demand for EVs at the current prices without significant government incentives, evidence being private registrations of EVs in November actually being less than the previous year. This perfectly proves my point of EVs needing to be 40-50% cheaper than ICE cars, which they are via company lease programs which is why adoption via this channel is growing but isn't with private registrations. When the inferior product is more appropriately priced, sales improve, which just simply aligns with basic economic principles.

letom

Petriix said:

@letom you've used a lot of words (which, to be fair, form reasonably intelligible sentences) but your argument doesn't really make sense. I don't recall anyone claiming that EVs are a better choice in all circumstances; that wouldn't be at all credible. There are, of course, pros and cons and myriad factors to consider.

There is no credible argument against rapidly transitioning away from burning fossil fuels so it's entirely reasonable for the government to tip the balance towards EVs where people (and 'the market') might otherwise be reluctant to change. While EVs are definitely not a panacea, they are objectively far less damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents.

While there are some factors which make EVs a worse choice for some, many of the arguments against them rely on overstating the perceived negatives. Examples include:

Expensive battery replacement (except almost no one ever actually has to replace an EV battery) 

Insufficient range (except most people don't actually drive beyond the range of a typical EV) 

Slow charging (except most people would be able charge while the car is parked for a prolonged period anyway so won't actually be waiting) 

Expensive and unreliable public charging (except most people will only occasionally require public charging) 

Fear of EV fires (except vehicles with combustion engines are between 30 and 60 times more likely to catch fire than pure EVs). 

The pros of EVs are well documented but, if you need a reminder, they are:

Vastly more efficient, faster, smoother and easier to drive, cleaner, greener, more reliable, cheaper to run and maintain, and (for many) more convenient to refuel. 

I have read the thread. I mostly don't bother entering into debates where the discussion has veered towards the irrational. However, my aim is not to change the minds of those who cling to their misguided beliefs, but to present some balance for those who aren't aware of the incredible amount of misinformation being shared. 

The most important pro of an ICE is that it takes you from A to B without any need to consider range, this is the fundamental point of a mode of transport. I suggest you read the post from Motorguy, he's quite elegantly shown why as a product category EVs are inferior.

Goudy

Spies said:

I like driving my EV more than the petrol Clio I had previously but I got extra creature comforts like heated seats, lane keep and radar cruise which aren't exclusive to EVs... my main issue is not the range (100-120mi), its about the crap-shoot when it comes to publicly charging, they're either really expensive or unreliable.

Do you have to depend solely on public charging?

As for competition making public charging cheaper, how exactly is that going to work.
Three of four different company sockets to each lamp post or three of four different company chargers in a car park?

Or will one company blanket an area and set a price. (then once the expensive of the info structure is in place, get bought up by larger companies that will set another price)

Perhaps you could drive your car to another area with cheaper rates.

We are without doubt going to end up with a two tiered system.
It's not a business model for a charging company to sell electricity on for no profit and even if they could, VAT on it is 15% higher anyway.

The general consensus is they are currently worth it if you can charge at home.
They "had" to be cheaper by charging at home is the most highlighted rationale to advise buying one in nearly every EV related post on this forum.
Now they don't have to be worth it anymore, so no one is ever going to get away with that as a reason to buy one anymore?

Well you would think they had to worth it if you can't charge at home to stand a chance of them shedding a lot of negativity. 

As things progress I would imagine that as the ability to drop the price of on street charging would be very limited, I can only think that the price of home charging will change. I wouldn't be surprised if the current government are already trying to work out how to even up the VAT difference.

Spies

Goudy said:

Spies said:

I like driving my EV more than the petrol Clio I had previously but I got extra creature comforts like heated seats, lane keep and radar cruise which aren't exclusive to EVs... my main issue is not the range (100-120mi), its about the crap-shoot when it comes to publicly charging, they're either really expensive or unreliable.

Do you have to depend solely on public charging?

As for competition making public charging cheaper, how exactly is that going to work.
Three of four different company sockets to each lamp post or three of four different company chargers in a car park?

No I only use pulic charging when I go beyond the range of my vehicle, typically rapid chargers as there aren't really that many destination charges in useful locations

WellKnownSid

Spies said:

Goudy said:

Spies said:

I like driving my EV more than the petrol Clio I had previously but I got extra creature comforts like heated seats, lane keep and radar cruise which aren't exclusive to EVs... my main issue is not the range (100-120mi), its about the crap-shoot when it comes to publicly charging, they're either really expensive or unreliable.

Do you have to depend solely on public charging?

As for competition making public charging cheaper, how exactly is that going to work.
Three of four different company sockets to each lamp post or three of four different company chargers in a car park?

No I only use pulic charging when I go beyond the range of my vehicle, typically rapid chargers as there aren't really that many destination charges in useful locations

Any public Tesla options along the route?  I see you're Cumbria, we generally do Scotland to London with a single stop at the superchargers at Trentham gardens because it's about half the price of motorway charging.  Cheap and reliable.

Arunmor

The reason the converts are so keen on EVs is they are not paying their fair share into the 53p/litre fuel duty pot.

If they were I wonder how keen they would be in overpriced EVs?

WellKnownSid

Arunmor said:

The reason the converts are so keen on EVs is they are not paying their fair share into the 53p/litre fuel duty pot.

If they were I wonder how keen they would be in overpriced EVs?

This is a money saving forum.  I’m happy paying 1.5 pence per mile plus saving a further £300 a month on electricity with my EV-only tariff. It pays for the EV. 

Yes one day this will all come to an end but I would be fiscally irresponsible / stupid if I didn’t take advantage of such an opportunity…

Iceweasel

Car_54 said:

letom said:

WellKnownSid said:

letom said:

Petriix said:

There does seem to be a correlation between those with an irrational fear of EVs and those unable to construct grammatically correct sentences. While there are some genuine circumstances where EVs would be challenging at this point, most of the arguments amount to a kind of straw-clutching whataboutery rather than genuine concern around a real-world scenario. 

For most people (as in a little more than half of UK drivers) with access to cheap charging, an EV is a reasonable option and the current market is pretty favorable. For the other 40% or so, I wouldn't advise switching if you're going to be relying on expensive public charging. 

You must have come late to the thread, as quite a lot of arguments have been quite rational. Suggest you start at page 1 and work your way through.

I come back to my first point, EVs are an inferior product - evidence, none of the pro EV arguments are that EVs are better, your argument is that "they're sort of the same". One can only deduce that you all do not believe that EVs are actually better than ICE cars but at best they are similar. If I were trying to sell you the new iPhone 16 vs your old iPhone 8, my argument wouldn't be "it's a reasonable choice" (your words). My argument would be the iPhone 16 is better because of XYZ, the iPhone 16 is not similar to the iPhone 8, it is just better.

I'll make the point again, if EVs were better, the government would not be taxing ICE cars significantly more to make the financial difference so wide between an EV and an ICE car.

The public is resistant to EVs, not because they are irrational, but because they are very rational. It would be very irrational to want to move to an inferior mode of transport, ironically that appears to be your argument...

Which EVs have you actually driven?

Aside from being faster, smoother, quieter and less fatiguing over longer distances, I find the ability to just climb in on a morning when it’s minus 8 degrees and drive away much more 21st century.  Oh and they are cheaper - as in free car cheaper - if you can charge at home.

My wife was massively resistant to getting an EV. She knew from all the articles in the press that they can’t be driven in the rain and all EVs cost at least £60,000. Now she can’t be parted from hers 😄

The most fundamental value proposition of any mode of transport is getting you from A to B, it's the raisin d'etre of the product. 

I know this thread has occasionally veered off-topic, but what has dried fruit got to do with it?

It's very much the currant topic.

Petriix

letom said:

Petriix said:

@letom you've used a lot of words (which, to be fair, form reasonably intelligible sentences) but your argument doesn't really make sense. I don't recall anyone claiming that EVs are a better choice in all circumstances; that wouldn't be at all credible. There are, of course, pros and cons and myriad factors to consider.

There is no credible argument against rapidly transitioning away from burning fossil fuels so it's entirely reasonable for the government to tip the balance towards EVs where people (and 'the market') might otherwise be reluctant to change. While EVs are definitely not a panacea, they are objectively far less damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents.

While there are some factors which make EVs a worse choice for some, many of the arguments against them rely on overstating the perceived negatives. Examples include:

Expensive battery replacement (except almost no one ever actually has to replace an EV battery) 

Insufficient range (except most people don't actually drive beyond the range of a typical EV) 

Slow charging (except most people would be able charge while the car is parked for a prolonged period anyway so won't actually be waiting) 

Expensive and unreliable public charging (except most people will only occasionally require public charging) 

Fear of EV fires (except vehicles with combustion engines are between 30 and 60 times more likely to catch fire than pure EVs). 

The pros of EVs are well documented but, if you need a reminder, they are:

Vastly more efficient, faster, smoother and easier to drive, cleaner, greener, more reliable, cheaper to run and maintain, and (for many) more convenient to refuel. 

I have read the thread. I mostly don't bother entering into debates where the discussion has veered towards the irrational. However, my aim is not to change the minds of those who cling to their misguided beliefs, but to present some balance for those who aren't aware of the incredible amount of misinformation being shared. 

The most important pro of an ICE is that it takes you from A to B without any need to consider range, this is the fundamental point of a mode of transport. I suggest you read the post from Motorguy, he's quite elegantly shown why as a product category EVs are inferior.

That's a, frankly, ridiculous conclusion. The overriding point is that 'range' is almost totally irrelevant in the vast majority of circumstances. But, even more importantly, a small amount of inconvenience pales into insignificance against the backdrop of catastrophic climate change.

There isn't a scenario in which the continued use of fossil fuels is sustainable so it really doesn't matter if some people on the Internet have an irrational fear of change. EVs are part of the solution and all efforts should be made to smooth the rapid transition to their use. Leaving it to the market is insanity.