RE: First official look at new Range Rover Electric
Discussion
Familymad said:
That
With EV insurance already double ICE, this added to the RR insurance tax will make it for super rich only. I do think it will de value by half quicker than an ICE one so maybe 1st and 2nd year bargains…
Will be bought by company directors via limited companies to get the tax brakes on EV.With EV insurance already double ICE, this added to the RR insurance tax will make it for super rich only. I do think it will de value by half quicker than an ICE one so maybe 1st and 2nd year bargains…
It’s a no brainier and will sell by bucket load.
Familymad said:
That
With EV insurance already double ICE, this added to the RR insurance tax will make it for super rich only. I do think it will de value by half quicker than an ICE one so maybe 1st and 2nd year bargains…
Double?With EV insurance already double ICE, this added to the RR insurance tax will make it for super rich only. I do think it will de value by half quicker than an ICE one so maybe 1st and 2nd year bargains…
Using my details:
2022 Volvo XC40 R-design petrol, best quote £380
2022 Volvo XC40 EV Pro-Recharge, best quote £426
About 10% higher for the EV, but it's also a more expensive and faster car, which probably accounts for that.
How about a JLR product:
2024 Jaguar E-pace R-dynamic S petrol, best quote £409
2024 Jaguar I-pace R-dynamic S EV, best quote £482
so about 20% higher, but again for a more expensive and faster model which probably accounts for the difference.
murphyaj said:
Familymad said:
That
With EV insurance already double ICE, this added to the RR insurance tax will make it for super rich only. I do think it will de value by half quicker than an ICE one so maybe 1st and 2nd year bargains…
Double?With EV insurance already double ICE, this added to the RR insurance tax will make it for super rich only. I do think it will de value by half quicker than an ICE one so maybe 1st and 2nd year bargains…
Using my details:
2022 Volvo XC40 R-design petrol, best quote £380
2022 Volvo XC40 EV Pro-Recharge, best quote £426
About 10% higher for the EV, but it's also a more expensive and faster car, which probably accounts for that.
How about a JLR product:
2024 Jaguar E-pace R-dynamic S petrol, best quote £409
2024 Jaguar I-pace R-dynamic S EV, best quote £482
so about 20% higher, but again for a more expensive and faster model which probably accounts for the difference.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Its Just Adz said:
I could be wrong but I can't see this selling in boat loads.
I would imagine that the average Range Rover drivers generally don't care about the fuel cost and won't want the range anxiety from an ev.
I think the opposite. Whilst people think they’re buying RRs to cross continents having adventures, the vast majority of them tool around cities driving their kids to school and the dog to the park. A EV one is perfect, especially when put through the company for the tax breaks. I would imagine that the average Range Rover drivers generally don't care about the fuel cost and won't want the range anxiety from an ev.
The definition of luxury is to not experience any inconvenience (beyond traffic and roadworks). I just can't see an owner hanging around a Midlands motorway services for an hour to put a real world 250 miles of range in it. When they could have bought the diesel and put 450 miles of range into it's tank in 10 mins.
5 years of depreciation could make it a stonking car to schlep around the local area though!
Sulphur Man said:
I'm with Just Adz. People buy these cars with the perception that there is no limitation in what it does, or how far it can go. Yes, RR drivers do tool around towns and local parks a lot, but they still buy the cars when a Yaris Cross would do the same job.
The definition of luxury is to not experience any inconvenience (beyond traffic and roadworks). I just can't see an owner hanging around a Midlands motorway services for an hour to put a real world 250 miles of range in it. When they could have bought the diesel and put 450 miles of range into it's tank in 10 mins.
5 years of depreciation could make it a stonking car to schlep around the local area though!
The conventional wisdom is that RR buyers insist their car can tow a horse box up Ben Nevis or cruise from London to the Italian Lakes in time for dinner, and that Land Rover must make it capable of that even though 99% will never go further off road than a grass car park or visit anywhere more exotic than Milton Keynes. I've never been entirely convinced by that argument though.The definition of luxury is to not experience any inconvenience (beyond traffic and roadworks). I just can't see an owner hanging around a Midlands motorway services for an hour to put a real world 250 miles of range in it. When they could have bought the diesel and put 450 miles of range into it's tank in 10 mins.
5 years of depreciation could make it a stonking car to schlep around the local area though!
One thing we have learned over the last 20 years is that old notions of what car buyers want are often totally wrong. Lamborghini's best selling model is an SUV, Ford have stopped making the Fiesta and will soon stop making the Focus, last year Porsche sold twice as many electric saloon cars than Boxster and Cayman models combined. Maybe the idea that Range Rover buyers will turn their noses up at a model just because it can't do something they will never do needs to be put to the test.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Bladedancer said:
Two decades ago you'd drive something well under 2 tonnes and now it'll be well over 3 or perhaps even over 4. Anyone calculated impact of that many more HGVs (yes, that's what you're driving, a lorry) driving on roads, especially local lanes? Or increased tyre and brake usage due to sheer weight? Course not.
Two decades ago a Range Rover weighed over 2 tonnes. And with regenerative braking an EV one will use the brakes less than an ICE one. Tyre wear is also less as torque is delivered in a much smoother fashion.
This is one car where you won’t even notice it’s an EV, least of all through its weight.
As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
Bladedancer said:
That's great then, just 50% weight increase on an already heavy car.
As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
I missed the bit where trucks are travelling on maglev.As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
The damage done by existing buses and trucks is about the same that 1 billion EVs would cause.
We've currently got 1 million EVs, best not hold your breath.
The mass of the battery in an EV adds about 5-15% to the car's overall energy consumption, depending on drive cycle.
Average is about 8%, is it really something worth getting all hot under the collar about?
As for tyre wear, there aren't any fleet operators in the UK reporting higher wear on their EV cars compared to the equivalent ICE, so that argument is looking f
ked as well.Stack em up though, l love knocking them down.
GT9 said:
Bladedancer said:
That's great then, just 50% weight increase on an already heavy car.
As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
I missed the bit where trucks are travelling on maglev.As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
The damage done by existing buses and trucks is about the same that 1 billion EVs would cause.
We've currently got 1 million EVs, best not hold your breath.
The mass of the battery in an EV adds about 5-15% to the car's overall energy consumption, depending on drive cycle.
Average is about 8%, is it really something worth getting all hot under the collar about?
As for tyre wear, there aren't any fleet operators in the UK reporting higher wear on their EV cars compared to the equivalent ICE, so that argument is looking f
ked as well.Stack em up though, l love knocking them down.
Got to say I was pretty impressed for a cheap/basic car (MG5) this guy clocking up 120,000 miles in 2 years 3 months, still on original brake pads and tyre life 50k(?) on cheap tyres, lots of fast charging...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSrKtJb8Aso
Edited by J__Wood on Monday 29th April 19:18
J__Wood said:
GT9 said:
Bladedancer said:
That's great then, just 50% weight increase on an already heavy car.
As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
I missed the bit where trucks are travelling on maglev.As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
The damage done by existing buses and trucks is about the same that 1 billion EVs would cause.
We've currently got 1 million EVs, best not hold your breath.
The mass of the battery in an EV adds about 5-15% to the car's overall energy consumption, depending on drive cycle.
Average is about 8%, is it really something worth getting all hot under the collar about?
As for tyre wear, there aren't any fleet operators in the UK reporting higher wear on their EV cars compared to the equivalent ICE, so that argument is looking f
ked as well.Stack em up though, l love knocking them down.
Got to say I was pretty impressed for a cheap/basic car (MG5) this guy clocking up 120,000 miles in 2 years 3 months, still on original brake pads and tyre life 50k(?) on cheap tyres, lots of fast charging...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSrKtJb8Aso
Edited by J__Wood on Monday 29th April 19:18
t town, not some posh Costwolds.Bladedancer said:
I don't see any T6 with families but pass a boatload of Range Rovers and Land Rovers every day. In fact I walk the kids to school every day. It's 1.5 miles. I once counted all Land Rover / Range Rover PARKED, not ones passing me, and it went up to well almost 30. And I live in a st town, not some posh Costwolds.
I can appreciate the frustration with the excessive consumption the this sort of thing indicates. Unless we give it up, the second best option is to replace those cars when they've done their time with ones that have a fraction of the energy/carbon footprint. t town, not some posh Costwolds.Confusingly, this means cars with a bit of mass added. Mother Nature playing tricks on us I guess.
On the subject of road damage, if I said that a large contributor to the state of our roads is climate change, where does the conversation then go...
GT9 said:
Bladedancer said:
That's great then, just 50% weight increase on an already heavy car.
As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
I missed the bit where trucks are travelling on maglev.As for brakes and tyres - as ICE cars become cleaner other particulates start to matter more and more. You can see articles even from places like Guardian about it. Also, the heavier the car the quicker the tyre wears. I also don't have much hope for regenerative braking making the difference in the UK bearing in mind how people drive...
And we've still not addressed the impact on roads that have not really been designed to handle steady flow of 3+ tonne vehicles day-in day-out.
The damage done by existing buses and trucks is about the same that 1 billion EVs would cause.
We've currently got 1 million EVs, best not hold your breath.
The mass of the battery in an EV adds about 5-15% to the car's overall energy consumption, depending on drive cycle.
Average is about 8%, is it really something worth getting all hot under the collar about?
As for tyre wear, there aren't any fleet operators in the UK reporting higher wear on their EV cars compared to the equivalent ICE, so that argument is looking f
ked as well.Stack em up though, l love knocking them down.
You are really going to tell me that doubling the weight of vehicles is not an issue? You seem to assume, for whatever reason, that trucks and buses use all the roads in the land. That, I'm sorry to inform you, is not the case. Also, buses go once in a while, say once in 30 minutes, trucks don't keep going back and forth on all roads all the time either.
Car traffic on the other hand is often constant, even on roads that have no HGV/Buses. There is a road like that not far from where I live (which is just outside M25 so not middle of nowhere). No buses/HGVs due to a weak bridge. That road sees constant traffic throughout the day because it allows Mway access while bypassing high street, which has pretty much solid traffic all day long (now made worse by 20 zone and bijillion of traffic lights and speed humps). To give you an idea of its importance a few years back they council closed this road for 6 months and entire town ground to a halt with my then commute going up by 50%, all of that increase spent in those last few miles I had to de-tour the closed road. This small road is constantly effed quality-wise, with potholes and cracking tarmac. You seriously gonna tell me that it won't get any worse when most cars on that road are 3+ tonnes? And this is just one example so don't get fixated on it.
Yeah, we've got 1 million EVs. Out of 33 million cars. Aim is to have 100% electric apparently. We're now a 3%. I'd say the real effects are ahead of us still.
When it comes to fleets - https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/latest-fleet-news...
At least for ATS the jury is out on whether tyres wear slower or quicker on EVs. And I'm not surprised as fleet EVs are a relatively new thing. One thing pointed out in the article is interesting and that's driver training and how the driver style affects tyre performance. And again, looking how people in the UK drive, I'm not hopeful.
Just to clarify - while EVs seem like prime suspects here (with 700 worth of battery it's kinda difficult not to be), I think ICE cars getting to 3 tonnes is equally ridiculous. So I don't care if your RR is ICE or electric - it's too heavy one way or another. I mean the diesel is like 3.1 tonnes now.
As for "trucks being blamed" - you ever noticed the difference between the shape of tarmac on the inside and outside land of an Mway that hasn't been resurfaced in a while?
When most cars are 3+ tons....
Seriously.
A Tesla Model 3 is well under 2 tons.
Early adopter EVs have gone after a particular market.
By virtue of the expanding range of EVs available and ever improving battery energy density, the average mass, when we get to tens of millions of EVs will be far lower than 3 tons.
I doubt we will see much, if any, overall increase over the entire ICE fleet mass, especially now that hybrids are part of that equation.
The killer hole in your argument though, that you've even alluded to, is that existing EVs can't be the cause of the existing state of our roads.
That's due to something else, did you see my previous post about the contribution of climate change?
The increasing dependency on home delivery is also a factor.
Road damage is a well researched topic, the rule of thumb to assess any particular vehicle's contribution is axle mass to the power of 4.
To solve our conundrum of how to keep people mobile but drastically reduce the environmental impact is clearly not a simple topic.
Anyone trying to simplify it to one line of 'weight=bad' is going about it completely the wrong way.
If you totally ignore energy efficiency and fixate on mass, you just end up exactly where we are now.
Either that, or car usage and average speeds will have to be majorly curtailed.
EVs are the only technology where there is little or no relationship between the car's annual mileage and the average speed it travels at vs its environmental and air quality impact.
Take a moment to ponder what that should mean to a car enthusiast.
Seriously.
A Tesla Model 3 is well under 2 tons.
Early adopter EVs have gone after a particular market.
By virtue of the expanding range of EVs available and ever improving battery energy density, the average mass, when we get to tens of millions of EVs will be far lower than 3 tons.
I doubt we will see much, if any, overall increase over the entire ICE fleet mass, especially now that hybrids are part of that equation.
The killer hole in your argument though, that you've even alluded to, is that existing EVs can't be the cause of the existing state of our roads.
That's due to something else, did you see my previous post about the contribution of climate change?
The increasing dependency on home delivery is also a factor.
Road damage is a well researched topic, the rule of thumb to assess any particular vehicle's contribution is axle mass to the power of 4.
To solve our conundrum of how to keep people mobile but drastically reduce the environmental impact is clearly not a simple topic.
Anyone trying to simplify it to one line of 'weight=bad' is going about it completely the wrong way.
If you totally ignore energy efficiency and fixate on mass, you just end up exactly where we are now.
Either that, or car usage and average speeds will have to be majorly curtailed.
EVs are the only technology where there is little or no relationship between the car's annual mileage and the average speed it travels at vs its environmental and air quality impact.
Take a moment to ponder what that should mean to a car enthusiast.
It’s not jus the ‘weight’ it’s how that load is spread across the tarmac. A 2 tonne car on bicycle width tyres would be more damaging than 3 tonnes on 345’s say. Lorry’s have very strict rules on axle weights, when I did heavy haulage we ran at 100 tonnes but had 34 wheels/ tyres to spread the load to the ground so actually less weight through each contact patch than a normal truck with tri axle trailer and 6x2 unit running at max 44 tonne.
Bladedancer said:
You are really going to tell me that doubling the weight of vehicles is not an issue?
It's not doubleMG ZS
1.5 petrol: 1239kg
EV: 1534kg
EV = 23% heavier
Porsche:
Panamera 3.0 V6 petrol: 1870kg
Taycan 89 kWh 4S: 2170kg
EV = 16% heavier
Kia Niro
Petrol hybrid 1474kg
Electric: 1739kg
EV = 17% heavier
They are heavier, and it's perfectly valid to bring up road wear as a result. But if we're going to argue about this stuff can we at least get the facts right that we are arguing about?
murphyaj said:
Bladedancer said:
You are really going to tell me that doubling the weight of vehicles is not an issue?
It's not doubleMG ZS
1.5 petrol: 1239kg
EV: 1534kg
EV = 23% heavier
Porsche:
Panamera 3.0 V6 petrol: 1870kg
Taycan 89 kWh 4S: 2170kg
EV = 16% heavier
Kia Niro
Petrol hybrid 1474kg
Electric: 1739kg
EV = 17% heavier
They are heavier, and it's perfectly valid to bring up road wear as a result. But if we're going to argue about this stuff can we at least get the facts right that we are arguing about?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff