Charge your EV from home

letom

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876026#Comment_81876026

Honest question then. If they are better why has no country been able to adopt EVs without significant government subsidies? Literally zero countries. Why does every car ICE manufacturer state that demand for ICE cars is high and demand for EVs is low, with manufacturers in the US now reversing investment in EVs. If EVs are better, then them being more expensive should not have much bearing on their weaker sales, in fact if they are better they should cost more. The iPhone 17 pro costs more than the Samsung A13, it is better and sells more.

I've said this before, EVs have less product market for than ICE vehicles. ICE cars deliver more of what actually matters to the consumer, hence why consumers continue to prefer them. Manufacturers compete on things consumers want. I don't remember them having ever competed on "the new Ford Puma, the car with the least vibrations", why? Because cars have reached a level of "vibrations" that no one cares about this. Use this for all the things you mentioned, and the same applies. One of the most important things a consumer cares about is getting from point A to B, as efficiently (as quickly) as possible. The problem with EVs is point A and B must be less than the range and if it's further, then expect a 30-60 min charge. Not every point A and B is going to be longer than an EVs range. But that is the point, the thing I care about the most an ICE delivers 100%, if an EV delivers 95% of this, then I don't care about these reduced vibrations. In the product world we call this less product market fit and hence why consumers do not adopt one product over another. Why one of the most prominent things marketed for EVs is the range, not vibrations. Consumers don't buy cars based on vibrations.

I don't dispute for some people EVs are better, however as I said ICE cars are better in the same way the iPhone 17 is better than the iPhone Air (which has sold poorly, because it turns out consumers care more about battery life, camera quality than having a thin phone).

But maybe you're right, all economic reasoning, sales figures and observable evidence are all wrong.

WellKnownSid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876366#Comment_81876366

Honest question then. If they are better why has no country been able to adopt EVs without significant government subsidies? Literally zero countries. 

Norway has reached 100%, without subsidies. They just increased the taxes on ICE cars and the change happened naturally. Ironic given they are an oil producer.

Because cars have reached a level of "vibrations" that no one cares about this. 

I must admit that NVH of modern cars are so good you don't really notice "vibrations". Yes, switching to an EV felt 'a bit quieter and a bit smoother'. However, the first time I covered over 700 miles on a long distance run in the Zoe - I was genuinely gobsmacked. The level of fatigue compared to an ICE car is just night and day.

The problem with EVs is point A and B must be less than the range and if it's further, then expect a 30-60 min charge.

The Zoe is the slowest charging EV on the market yet whenever we do Scotland to London we stop five times for wee breaks but only charge once. We have to have eat so it's not like we have to make a special stop - and in reality the car pings me to let me know it's ready way before we've finished the main course.

I've said this before, EVs have less product market for than ICE vehicles.

Product Market Fit or just terrible marketing? If I advertised a car which ran on a new type of fuel that could be produced safely at home for just £1 a gallon - and the only downside was that it only had a four gallon tank - people would be beating a path to my door. The fact is that EVs are marketed by companies with a vested interest in the status quo - having an engine that requires expensive fettling every 12 months or 12,000 miles is money for old rope.

letom

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876422#Comment_81876422

A quick Google search shows there were significant subsidies in Norway over the last couple of decades for EVs. Increasing taxes on ICE vehicles gets you to the same outcome. My point remains, if it is better why has no country been able to adopt EVs without government subsidies / taxing ICE cars more. Economic theory says subsidies are required where there is insufficient market demand at a given price point to match supply, therefore the price point needs to be lowered for supply to meet demand. Put simply, the public don't want EVs and must be given money to buy them. Economic theory says that products which consumers do not value enough require subsidises. You may be right and all economic theory may be wrong.

I'm glad you found the Zoe easy to drive, however global car companies, who have spent 100s of millions on market research, don't think this is a selling point that consumers care about so do not market this as a reason why you should choose EVs. You may be right and all this market research may be wrong.

My mobile phone's battery is a bit crappy but I have a charger with me at most times. It would be a bit odd to argue like for like if there was a similar phone that had a 5 day battery that my sub one day battery phone was better because by the time my tea is done my battery was full. The point is you have no choice but to wait, whether you decide to fill this time with a meal or not. Let's not pretend that no choice is better than having a choice. However, you may be right that no choice is better than having a choice.

I could be wrong, all conventional wisdom, evidence and economic reasoning could all be completely wrong and in fact, the general public across entire world have been brainwashed into believing it doesn't know what it likes.

Occam's razor. Why are EVs struggling to be adopted without subsidies. It's simple, they're just worse products.

WellKnownSid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876453#Comment_81876453

My mobile phone's battery is a bit crappy but I have a charger with me at most times. It would be a bit odd to argue like for like if there was a similar phone that had a 5 day battery that my sub one day battery phone was better because by the time my tea is done my battery was full. The point is you have no choice but to wait, whether you decide to fill this time with a meal or not. Let's not pretend that no choice is better than having a choice. However, you may be right that no choice is better than having a choice.

I have a choice. I can take my hybrid to London which has a 700 mile on a 700 mile journey - or I can take our EV which is both physically smaller and has only a theoretical 239 mile range. Strangely I've chosen the EV every time, and fitting the charging in whilst we eat a KFC is just sensible planning.

The 'fourth' car the Zoe replaced covered just 1,600 miles in the last year it was with us. We expected to cover perhaps a few thousand at a push but a combination of less fatigue and lower running costs have meant we'll hit around 15,000 in its third year with us. Perhaps you are right and we are genuinely making the 'wrong' choice by doing this but I don't think we're alone in buying an EV as a second / third or fourth car and finding it's become the primary mode of transport… by choice, rightly or wrongly.

If I'm honest, an EV is a bit like that new iPhone where Safari is a fraction faster. Not really noticeable until you go back to the old one. I remember my wife being given a new 330d for a couple of days and her hating how "it was so sluggish, nothing happened when she pushed the throttle" - yet she'd come from driving 5 / 6 cylinder automatics for years, just had forgotten how unresponsive an ICE is.

So, perhaps that's the point. You're overcoming the inertia of what people are used to. People don't want to have to think, they want the status quo, they don't want to learn something new.

letom

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876483#Comment_81876483

If you're doing a 600 mile a journey with an EV you have no choice but to wait for 30-60 mins to charge the vehicle, if you drive an ICE car you fill up in 5 and you're on your way. This is the point, you have no choice in an EV, whether your bladder can't hold or you're hungry, you have no choice. Your car cannot go further. It's odd to suggest the car with no choice is better than the car with choice, or that having no choice is the same as having choice. Having choice is objectively better. ICE vehicles have better product market fit than EVs.

An EV is not like a new iPhone, it's like the iPhone Air, which is selling poorly. It improves on things no one really cares about and is worse in areas people do care about. Inertia is always overcome by 'better'. Smartphones were rapidly adopted because they were better, the car was rapidly adopted because it was better than the horse and cart. EVs are not being rapidly adopted, because they are not better.

I am honestly open to being convinced why economic theory, conventional wisdom and observable evidence are all wrong in the case of EV adoption, but all I'm hearing is anecdotes.

Cornucopia

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876502#Comment_81876502

To be fair, this is a consumer issues forum, populated by consumers. We really only do anecdotes of one form or another. In a few areas, we have informed consumers - people who have gained useful experience and who are able to extemporise for the wider benefit.

We won't generally be referring to academic research, though. And it's questionable whether such research even exists or would be relevant to the question of EV adoption.

In its absence, I think other people's experiences are useful. I don't regard their reports as in any way unhelpful, even if they differ to mine. However, facts from the ether possibly aren't that useful in the face of actual accounts from actual users of the actual consumer products in question.

I've had an EV for over 4 years, and despite doing several long trips, I've never charged for "30-60 minutes" on a rapid charger. More sensible is the short hop technique where meal breaks, toilet breaks and rest breaks coincide with charging for 15-20 minutes.

The reality is that if a car has even a modest range of, say, 200 miles, that is 3.5 hours of driving without a break - not sensible and not recommended by the authorities. So, immediately that issue begins to focus on a much smaller group of car users with robust bladders and hot seat driver swaps, who brought sandwiches.

But such long trips are the exception for me - most trips are well within the car's range, and for local trips it doesn't matter whether the car has 25% or 65% charge - exactly as it is with petrol.

So not unsurprisingly, the suitability of the current crop of EVs comes down to personal usage model. There are only two groups for whom EV ownership is likely to be severely problematic - hypermile road warrior types (especially those travelling large distances on business), and people who do not have home charging options and live in areas with below average availability of public charging.

For everyone else, EVs will at least be viable. Whether they are "better" seems like a false distinction on which there will never be a consensus. I like mine, at that (ultimately) is what matters.

born_again

If you're doing a 600 mile a journey with an EV you have no choice but to wait for 30-60 mins to charge the vehicle, if you drive an ICE car you fill up in 5 and you're on your way. This is the point, you have no choice in an EV, whether your bladder can't hold or you're hungry, you have no choice. Your car cannot go further. It's odd to suggest the car with no choice is better than the car with choice, or that having no choice is the same as having choice. Having choice is objectively better. ICE vehicles have better product market fit than EVs.

Difference is with a EV charging you are using that time for a comfort break, with with your ICE is a extra to filling up for 5 mins.

So your stop can be the same time.

Take's me exactly the same time from home to usual holiday destination, in EV as it did in Hybrid. Just under 300 miles.

Not every ICE has the same range. My daughters old ICE had a range less than my current E-Niro.

It is also safer to take a break to refresh yourself, so you have greater concentration levels.

Yes, everyone has a choice. But you seem to buck the trend & expect everyone to follow your choice🤷‍♀️

Radical idea for you. Hire a EV for a week & have a holiday in UK. Then comeback & tell us how you got on.

Occam's razor. Why are EVs struggling to be adopted without subsidies. It's simple, they're just worse products.

To a group who are resistant to change. If they are so bad, then how is Norway just about 100%? Given it is a far larger country, with far colder weather (another anti EV fav reason)?

To people who have changed, they have found the reason that they are actually just another means of getting from A2B that suits their needs. Remember this is MSE which is about saving money. So 2p a mile or 12p that my old niro hybrid cost. On the MSE scale which is cheaper, ergo better???

daveyjp

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866808#Comment_81866808

If vehicles are only being charged once a week what is the point in having an EV? It can't be money saving as for 7,000 miles a year there are dozens of ICE cars which are cheaper to run than an EV.

Cornucopia

I know it's MSE heresy, but it isn't all about what is cheapest.

That model (of 30 mins @ 100kW) is just one example of how people could run an EV without home charging. I don't do that. I use mostly 7kW chargers for a longer charging period whilst I am doing something else. I usually get free parking, which complicates the cost calculation. That's cheaper (and is cheaper, like-for-like than petrol).

Baldytyke88

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81876770#Comment_81876770

I don't believe banning ICE cars was the right option, but perhaps it was required to help the car manufactuers.

People choose between electric and petrol for lawn mowers, chainsaws and various other pieces of equipment; you would think these petrol engines should be banned too, users most likely breathe in some fumes.