EVs... no one wants them!

[otolith]

Both my sports cars have sub-300 mile ranges. The RX-8 that used to be my daily driver did too. Could not care less.

[MightyBadger]

romft123 said:

We will.

What a character

Would of been nice to see you counter the two articles but I don't think you are up to it.

[Maracus]

Olivera said:

Maracus said:

Why are people so obsessed with range.

Obsessed? No, just making a reasonable comparison with ICE vehicles.

Some ICE cars (sports cars, those with larger capacity engines) have for decades been thoroughly criticised for only having a range of 2xx miles, but criticism of EVs with a similar (actually often worse) range is handwaved away as unreasonable or unrealistic

In the example you gave, you suggested the ICE car was a better proposition because it had a better range. In reality, the extra range of the ICE car is irrelevant as both cars will stop on their journey at some point. They are comparable.

Having lived with an EV for over 4 years with a summer range of 210 miles, I can only think of a couple of occasions when another 25% more range would be have beneficial.

[LowTread]

Olivera said:

otolith said:

200 miles on 85% to 10% is equivalent to 267 miles on 100% to 0%.

The poster themselves stated the would only drive until 10% left, so that (based on their figures) gives a range of 227 miles. I guess it's okay, but less than half of what can be achieved in an ICE car.

I'd happily (and have) let it get to 5% when i got home and that was fine. Equally i've had it at 100% before taking it on a 1300 mile 1 week tour of scotland.

Realistically i'm happy stopping every 140-150 miles on a long trip, which is about every 2.5-3 hrs. And all of my regular longer journeys are less than 200 miles, so i don't need public chargers.

So for me it works well.

Granted, AutoTrader will tell you a Long Range from 2019 will do 340 miles, which is completely wrong. Even the onboard computer when new would have said 300-310 miles from 100% to 0%.

Mine is on 70k now and the onboard computer says 285 ish on 100%, which i reckon i could hit on a warm day if i had a steady run, or was doing lots of slow speed stuff (EVs are silly efficient at low speeds). But day-to-day you don't charge to 100% unless you need to, and you leave a 10% (or so) margin when coming home, so you're only ever using 75% of the capacity. And that capacity doesn't buy you as many miles as the OBC says.

Having said all that, i wouldn't change it now. It's great for my usage. But i can understand why people feel short changed when they see 350 mile ranges in the stats and that's really more like 260 ish, and actually you never use all of that capacity in the real world.

And the main benefit i've found over ICE is you always set off with 200+ miles from home, and can arrive home at 0% if you wish (assuming home charging obvs)

Like i said, it works for me. Might not be for everyone.

Edited by LowTread on Tuesday 7th May 15:37

[braddo]

Olivera said:

... my Golf (not an efficient model) can achieve 370 miles in mixed driving, and ~490 miles on majority motorway runs.

Let's say you have a driveway and so you can plug your car in at home whenever you want. How many times a year would you need more than 200 out of that 370-490 mile range?

[Maracus]

LowTread said:

I'd happily (and have) let it get to 5% when i got home and that was fine. Equally i've had it at 100% before taking it on a 1300 mile 1 week tour of scotland.

Realistically i'm happy stopping every 140-150 miles on a long trip, which is about every 2.5-3 hrs. And all of my regular longer journeys are less than 200 miles, so i don't need public chargers.

So for me it works well.

Pretty much echoes my experience with a Model 3 SR.

I had a 1600 mile trip to Italy and back in September. Left a buffer of 5% for Supercharging, and drove 2 - 2.5 hours between stops.

[nickfrog]

MightyBadger said:

ChocolateFrog said:

I thought you'd popped off to enjoy the weather?

I'm just trying to help you hide your ignorance over a subject you so clearly know very little about.

Lol.

So ignore the Car Magazine survey and that court case and pretend they didn't happen. You better inform both of your knowledge. Ok Pastor Frog.

If you stop quoting me I wont post anymore

I appreciate you enjoy vexatious digs but try and focus on the salient fact that's as patiently explained to you, testing protocols are aimed at providing a stable and normalised benchmark for comparison purposes to establish economy performance across manufacturers. This applies to mpg ICE protocols too. They are compromised by definition. They correspond to one driving style, the one of the official cycle. They can't reflect anyone else's particular use so can't be used for absolute performance.

Is there anything above you don't understand or disagree with?

[otolith]

Olivera said:

The poster themselves stated the would only drive until 10% left, so that (based on their figures) gives a range of 227 miles. I guess it's okay, but less than half of what can be achieved in an ICE car.

That depends on whether you're like this guy.

Zerotonine said:

I am a very lot OCD when it comes to my fuel gauge, I get twitchy when the gauge hits half way point and then I am going nuts by the time it hits a quarter tank. I rarely if ever go under quarter of a tank, and if I do, the voices in my head will not shut up until I have got it over the half way point again. It is a curse, but I just cannot bring myself around to play Fuel Light Roulette.

(I'm sure I've seen other discussions on PH where people have admitted this peculiarity, but that was the first one Google found for me)

[MightyBadger]

nickfrog said:

I appreciate you enjoy vexatious digs but try and focus on the salient fact that's as patiently explained to you, testing protocols are aimed at providing a stable and normalised benchmark for comparison purposes to establish economy performance across manufacturers. This applies to mpg ICE protocols too. They are compromised by definition. They correspond to one driving style, the one of the official cycle. They can't reflect anyone else's particular use so can't be used for absolute performance.

Is there anything above you don't understand or disagree with?

I understand everything you have posted, does that make the article and court case complete rubbish and not worth posting?

[SWoll]

MightyBadger said:

I understand everything you have posted, does that make the article and court case complete rubbish and not worth posting?

The article and court case are complete rubbish yes. Worth posting though as always good to confirm just how stupid some people are.

The headline should have read

"Foolish man does no research before spending £50k on car, get's buyers remorse, and then brings a spurious court case against the manufacturer in an attempt to push them into giving him all of his money back on what he knows is a heavily depreciating asset"

What a numpty.

[BricktopST205]

braddo said:

Let's say you have a driveway and so you can plug your car in at home whenever you want. How many times a year would you need more than 200 out of that 370-490 mile range?

I pick up my mother every 3 months from the airport that is over 200 miles there and back. She can only really go to Stansted because of her location.

2 hours there. 5 minutes to stretch my legs at the drop and drive and straight back home.

It is very easy to rack up mileage when living out in the sticks as everything is far away.

[djc206]

Olivera said:

The poster themselves stated the would only drive until 10% left, so that (based on their figures) gives a range of 227 miles. I guess it's okay, but less than half of what can be achieved in an ICE car.

Comparable ICE cars? All the performance ICE cars I’ve owned have had realistic ranges around 250 miles. Funnily enough it was never an issue.

[greenarrow]

LowTread said:

I'd happily (and have) let it get to 5% when i got home and that was fine. Equally i've had it at 100% before taking it on a 1300 mile 1 week tour of scotland.

Realistically i'm happy stopping every 140-150 miles on a long trip, which is about every 2.5-3 hrs. And all of my regular longer journeys are less than 200 miles, so i don't need public chargers.

So for me it works well.

Granted, AutoTrader will tell you a Long Range from 2019 will do 340 miles, which is completely wrong. Even the onboard computer when new would have said 300-310 miles from 100% to 0%.

Mine is on 70k now and the onboard computer says 285 ish on 100%, which i reckon i could hit on a warm day if i had a steady run, or was doing lots of slow speed stuff (EVs are silly efficient at low speeds). But day-to-day you don't charge to 100% unless you need to, and you leave a 10% (or so) margin when coming home, so you're only ever using 75% of the capacity. And that capacity doesn't buy you as many miles as the OBC says.

Having said all that, i wouldn't change it now. It's great for my usage. But i can understand why people feel short changed when they see 350 mile ranges in the stats and that's really more like 260 ish, and actually you never use all of that capacity in the real world.

And the main benefit i've found over ICE is you always set off with 200+ miles from home, and can arrive home at 0% if you wish (assuming home charging obvs)

Like i said, it works for me. Might not be for everyone.

Edited by LowTread on Tuesday 7th May 15:37

On a thread plagued by people taking fairly strong pro or anti EV positions, I have to say this is one of the most reasonable and pragmatic posts yet by an EV owner. Fair play to you. The right answer surely has to be, it works for some people but not others and each to their own without judgement on either side.

I'll be honest for most of my motoring an EV would be brilliant. However once or twice a month I do a 520 mile trip to the office. Often, like Saturday morning, I leave early to avoid the holiday or weekend traffic and complete the entire 260 mile drive back home with nothing more than a run into the services for a quick convenience break. I like the fact that I don't have to faff about refuelling (or seeking out a charger). Hence I keep on with my old oil burner for now and kick the day I change down the road......for me and others who feel like me, I think once the battery tech evolves and a real world 300 miles on a charge becomes a reality, there will be a fairly big shift towards EVs....

[romft123]

MightyBadger said:

romft123 said:

We will.

What a character

Would of been nice to see you counter the two articles but I don't think you are up to it.

Pure pistonheads response. Meaningless.

Ev's or other non fossil fuels, are the future.

[DonkeyApple]

braddo said:

Olivera said:

... my Golf (not an efficient model) can achieve 370 miles in mixed driving, and ~490 miles on majority motorway runs.

Let's say you have a driveway and so you can plug your car in at home whenever you want. How many times a year would you need more than 200 out of that 370-490 mile range?

And then cut the trips where you ultimately just wouldn't be arsed to go as it's non essential and you don't want to fanny about with charging. Remove the trips where hiring an ICE might make more sense. And once you have that number, then consider that if you wait 15 years before buying an EV and that in that time almost every motorway exit will have charge points at retail car parks, the people you might need to visit may be dead and battery efficiency will be notably better and one might arrive at the answer that worrying about how other people might struggle to cope with a daily commute to the Orkneys is a futility.

Personally, I've decided that when it comes to generic EV transport I'm going stick with the 'not giving a st' solution. I'm not going to be giving a st between now and when switching to an EV means giving even less of a st. It strikes me as a more relaxing plan. My best guess is that the old shopping car will be the first vehicle where 'not giving a st' is easier with an EV. That seems likely to be followed by the other every day cars some time over the next 20 years and I suspect with the fun stuff I might never see the chance to give less of a st so the poor old things will have to slum it is stinky peasant petrols.

[nickfrog]

MightyBadger said:

nickfrog said:

I appreciate you enjoy vexatious digs but try and focus on the salient fact that's as patiently explained to you, testing protocols are aimed at providing a stable and normalised benchmark for comparison purposes to establish economy performance across manufacturers. This applies to mpg ICE protocols too. They are compromised by definition. They correspond to one driving style, the one of the official cycle. They can't reflect anyone else's particular use so can't be used for absolute performance.

Is there anything above you don't understand or disagree with?

I understand everything you have posted, does that make the article and court case complete rubbish and not worth posting?

Yes. But I have no doubt you have extensive experience of the FOS' consistency and reliability.

Maybe I should try it on as my MINI is even more than 38% worse than the official cycle's claim. And it's ICE.

The point remains this has nothing to do with the type of combustion but I understand it fits your narrative and bias.

Edited by nickfrog on Tuesday 7th May 17:06

[Fastlane]

DonkeyApple said:

Let's be fair though. The sort of person who saves up £50k is going to be the sort of person who just doesn't make those mistakes and is already aware that these numbers are extremely hopeful.

The trouble is you don't need to save up £50k - you can lease one for well under £400/month, which opens them up to people who may not be used to researching WLTP range, or much else. For example, here is an actual question from one of the UK Nissan Aryia Facebook groups:

"Are you able to sit in the car whilst it charges? If so, how do you do this?"

[DonkeyApple]

MightyBadger said:

Another related article - you probably will not read it because the newspaper isn't big enough or some other excuse.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/motoring/inves...

oooooh wait, it was conducted by What Car?

What is mildly amusing regarding that story is that up u til a few years ago Which were pitching EVs to their elderly readership. That on its own is absolutely fine until you realise that Which exists to do extensive consumer tests of the products they pitch and the fact they've only recently gotten around to conducting a rather important test several years after they changed their tune in EVs makes a bit of mockery of their credentials. One would have expected Which, if he self proclaimed protector of the people and world's leading tester of consumer goods for the elderly to have at least done this basic research last decade before promoting EVs back then.

It's as if they're a bunch of commercial arsed who just blow with the wind of their readership.

At least you can forgive them for aggressively punting diesels as they weren't to know about the cheat settings in the ECU bit you'd have thought they would have at least been arsed to check the spin cycle or how many freeview channels a electric utility transport has of whatever it is they do?

Or just spent 5 minutes on PH at some point over the last decade where actual users of EVs were publishing their data to help others decide if an EV will get them to Mogadishu and back.

That said, one would generally expect a typical Which reader to be getting pretty close to the manufacturer figures given that they'll just be cruising at 40 in the middle of the road everywhere but maybe the constant light flashing and Midsummer reruns on the car TV that canes the battery?

[GeniusOfLove]

To add some fact to this thrillingly unique and penetrating discussion on EVs...

There are a couple of ORA Funky Cats on BCA with a £16k Buy Now price, 3,053 miles on one and 4,430 on the other. Both six months old 48KWH First Edition models.

The press have pissed all over them (the same press who scoffed at Japanese cars in the 80s because they were "less interesting" than a Sierra) at their £32k+ RRP but that's comedy value for a 6 month old car.

[Fastlane]

DonkeyApple said:

What is mildly amusing regarding that story is that up u til a few years ago Which were pitching EVs to their elderly readership. That on its own is absolutely fine until you realise that Which exists to do extensive consumer tests of the products they pitch and the fact they've only recently gotten around to conducting a rather important test several years after they changed their tune in EVs makes a bit of mockery of their credentials. One would have expected Which, if he self proclaimed protector of the people and world's leading tester of consumer goods for the elderly to have at least done this basic research last decade before promoting EVs back then.

It's as if they're a bunch of commercial arsed who just blow with the wind of their readership.

At least you can forgive them for aggressively punting diesels as they weren't to know about the cheat settings in the ECU bit you'd have thought they would have at least been arsed to check the spin cycle or how many freeview channels a electric utility transport has of whatever it is they do?

Or just spent 5 minutes on PH at some point over the last decade where actual users of EVs were publishing their data to help others decide if an EV will get them to Mogadishu and back.

That said, one would generally expect a typical Which reader to be getting pretty close to the manufacturer figures given that they'll just be cruising at 40 in the middle of the road everywhere but maybe the constant light flashing and Midsummer reruns on the car TV that canes the battery?

I think you may be confusing Which? with What car?