Are new cars really as bad as they say?

Car_54

Herzlos said:

I've never heard of Trellis but it appears to be American and about the American market, who have a much stronger anti-EV misinformation thing going on. Some of it is valid particularly the lower power domestic electricity supply impacting home charging times. 

Is the US supply really lower power? It is certainly lower voltage, but that's a different thing.

WellKnownSid

Car_54 said:

Herzlos said:

I've never heard of Trellis but it appears to be American and about the American market, who have a much stronger anti-EV misinformation thing going on. Some of it is valid particularly the lower power domestic electricity supply impacting home charging times. 

Is the US supply really lower power? It is certainly lower voltage, but that's a different thing.

On a granny, then yes you'll get 120V so 1.2kW at 10A vs 2.3kW at 10A on 230V in the UK.

So people in the US get about 40% the rate you get in the UK once you account for OBC losses.

Obviously a Type 2 running at 240V is still an option because US homes have split phase supplies, with 240V available for high power devices - usually fixed appliances.

henry24

WellKnownSid said:

henry24 said:

Herzlos said:

henry24 said:

So the electric motor will stop it dead 

Are you missing the distinction between engine braking the physical braking?

An EV still has brakes that work when you hit the pedal, and will stop just as quickly as any other car. 

But what they also do is use regenerative braking; where the energy goes back into the motor so that when you're slowing down gradually (because you're leaving a suitable distance to the car in front) you both recharge the battery and don't wear the brakes. This regenerative breaking is so good that you can go a surprisingly long time without actually engaging the mechanical brakes, hence the problem being mentioned here that rust can build up due to lack of use. They'll still stop in an emergency though but will be noisy.

So it's an improved version of engine braking without the waste. Counter-intuitively it also means that EV's get better economy in stop-start traffic than on the open road. 

I was replying to the post say that you don't need to use the brake pedal to make an emergency stop 

That is true in all modern cars now, surely?

I wouldn't want to be in a car with you saying that a car can do a emergency stop without using the  brake pedal 

facade

henry24 said:

WellKnownSid said:

henry24 said:

Herzlos said:

henry24 said:

So the electric motor will stop it dead 

Are you missing the distinction between engine braking the physical braking?

An EV still has brakes that work when you hit the pedal, and will stop just as quickly as any other car. 

But what they also do is use regenerative braking; where the energy goes back into the motor so that when you're slowing down gradually (because you're leaving a suitable distance to the car in front) you both recharge the battery and don't wear the brakes. This regenerative breaking is so good that you can go a surprisingly long time without actually engaging the mechanical brakes, hence the problem being mentioned here that rust can build up due to lack of use. They'll still stop in an emergency though but will be noisy.

So it's an improved version of engine braking without the waste. Counter-intuitively it also means that EV's get better economy in stop-start traffic than on the open road. 

I was replying to the post say that you don't need to use the brake pedal to make an emergency stop 

That is true in all modern cars now, surely?

I wouldn't want to be in a car with you saying that a car can do a emergency stop without using the  brake pedal 

They certainly can,  some VW owners wish that they couldn't! (See the Tiguan thread)

henry24

Are you saying that all EVs come with a fault that they don't need a brake pedal 

WellKnownSid

henry24 said:

Are you saying that all EVs come with a fault that they don't need a brake pedal 

Newer cars have to be fitted with AEB.  My son has it on his 2012 car.

Herzlos

Arunmor said:

Well looks like the manufacturers in Europe and Japan would disagree with you.  There is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors going on in EV sales.

As for implying 7 cars spontaneously combusted is nonsense, most likely scenario is 1 did.  I very much doubt the transporter was engulfed or a hidden Range Rover diesel!

Can you post links rather than screenshots so we can read the details?

Also, it's more likely the tractor unit caught fire first or some external impact happened because batteries don't just combust. Once lit though, the EV's will have been harder to put out than ICE but the figures show EV's are significantly (7 times) less likely to start fires than ICE. 

seatbeltnoob

paul_c123 said:

I strongly believe it was the transporter which caught fire initially, but then because it was carrying EVs, these caught fire and are more problematic to put out.

on what basis?

Arunmor

Herzlos said:

Arunmor said:

Well looks like the manufacturers in Europe and Japan would disagree with you.  There is a huge amount of smoke and mirrors going on in EV sales.

As for implying 7 cars spontaneously combusted is nonsense, most likely scenario is 1 did.  I very much doubt the transporter was engulfed or a hidden Range Rover diesel!

Can you post links rather than screenshots so we can read the details?

I've given you all the information you need to search; source, date and headline.  Most people won't bother clicking links.

Goudy

DrEskimo said:

Exodi said:

I dare not engage with a thread like - I have seen the cesspit of Facebook comment sections on the topic.

IMO this stems from a human aversion to change. You see similar vacuous 'debates' between ICE vs EV as you do for Manual vs Auto, Cash vs Card, Meat vs Vegetarian, etc.

In my personal experience, the financial aspect of an EV is fantastic (e.g. cheap overnight tariff, BIK tax, etc), though it does have it's drawbacks - mainly infrastructure is still lacking (and if you do manage to get to a charging point, can expect to pay 10x what you would charging at home) and there was some backwards design choices (e.g. it takes multiple presses on the touch screen to change temperature, instead of one tactile knob).

On the other hand, most of the journeys I do are short-medium distance, so I generally never need to charge away from home except in very rare circumstances. This means I save the time compared to the bi-monthly trip the fuel pumps. There's also no competition on the cost per mile. The acceleration is fantastic and I haven't had any repair issues to date (though my EV is only a few years old).

However these debates are plagued with ridiculous examples like comparing drives between Portsmouth to Inverness or the suggestion that EV's are spontaneously setting on fire up and down the country on a daily basis.

It's why I don't like to engage in topics like this, they rarely feel like a debate in good faith, but more people with unalterable pre-existing views slinging extreme examples and anecdotes back and forth.

EDIT: sorry, noticed this started as New Vs Old, rather than EV vs ICE as I assumed as OP is clearly anti-EV.

I can't say my experience aligns with the idea that new cars are breaking down all the time, I would suggest an element of 'The Fox & the Grapes'.

My frustrations with these discussions is that you are suddenly labelled a 'EVangelist' through simply pushing back against outlandish claims, like all batteries need replacing in 7years. It's simply not true and incredibly unhelpful for those looking to understand if it's something they should consider.

I see the pro and cons of both EVs and ICE as modes of transports and TBH find the ownership of an EV a complete non-event. It's just a car that suits my needs that I enjoy driving, and have enjoyed driving for the last 7-yrs now. Like you say, the tribal response to them is very odd...

That works both ways though.
There are those that realise that an EV isn't suitable for everyone and they quickly get labelled "Anti EV".

By not suitable, I mean a range of criteria like as cheap to charge, as cheap to insure, depreciation concerns and so on.

These are not made up, there is a difference in cost between on street and home charging which is undeniable and problematic for some. 
Yes it's possible to charge at 8p or so at home but like for like "destination" charging on the street is anywhere up to 80p or so a KW.
Let's not forget around a quarter of the population live in flats and apartments (55% in the city I live in).

On that basis alone, it's obvious some of those car owners in this quarter of the population category aren't going to be overly happy with a move to EV's.


There is also something else to consider.
At the moment there is a choice where soon enough there won't be and that makes people react in different ways.

Some, with less problems to the change will obviously react differently to others that may have different problems with the change, that's not limited to EV's though.
Of course it's a non event for some but for others there are real problems and concerns and for others, well of course there are some that want to voice an opinion no matter if it's baseless or correct, these are best ignored.

Unfortunately labelling any camp on a subject like this is never going to be helpful in a discussion on a forum like this, it is after all a money saving forum.

The discussion should be if you have a choice, work out all the figures and take the cheaper option if it's suitable.
Anything else is just a waste of effort.