EVs... no one wants them!
Discussion
FiF said:
I think you need to consider the meaning of the word 'implicit.'
You're asking for an example of where someone states the view explicitly and arguing that you have never done that which is probably true, I accept that. Yet there are many who post on this subject whose input is clearly implicit that their choice is the correct one, and it's done from both sides. So yes, really.
If you don't accept that then maybe you're part of the problem.
And yet EV drivers are the ones being called bellends and knobheads. You're asking for an example of where someone states the view explicitly and arguing that you have never done that which is probably true, I accept that. Yet there are many who post on this subject whose input is clearly implicit that their choice is the correct one, and it's done from both sides. So yes, really.
If you don't accept that then maybe you're part of the problem.
CheesecakeRunner said:
You choice, like smoking, is damaging to the people around you. That’s why, like smoking, your choice is being taken away from you because you can’t be trusted to do it yourself, and forward thinking people don’t respect your choice.
Do you live off grid? If not. Give your head a wobble. What is it about EV owners that brings out the most pretentious garbage in humanity?
FiF said:
Dave200 said:
FiF said:
Wind in the also frequent " well this is the solution that fits me, my use case and financial circumstances or choices and therefore that's *the* right one for others, so there!" and one wonders how many pages of the thread could be removed without losing anything much of benefit.
Can you point to a single example of this?Seasonal Hero said:
FiF said:
I think you need to consider the meaning of the word 'implicit.'
You're asking for an example of where someone states the view explicitly and arguing that you have never done that which is probably true, I accept that. Yet there are many who post on this subject whose input is clearly implicit that their choice is the correct one, and it's done from both sides. So yes, really.
If you don't accept that then maybe you're part of the problem.
And yet EV drivers are the ones being called bellends and knobheads. You're asking for an example of where someone states the view explicitly and arguing that you have never done that which is probably true, I accept that. Yet there are many who post on this subject whose input is clearly implicit that their choice is the correct one, and it's done from both sides. So yes, really.
If you don't accept that then maybe you're part of the problem.
Equally I'm not going to defend calling people luddites, not forward thinkers or shouting at the clouds. Which are just a few from the recent pages. Or one liners about towing caravans for 600 miles up mountains in -20°C. Which aren't abusive but simply childish.
dmsims said:
CR said:
You choice, like smoking, is damaging to the people around you. That’s why, like smoking, your choice is being taken away from you because you can’t be trusted to do it yourself, and forward thinking people don’t respect your choice.
Likely he/she is a consumer. Enjoys products flown in from the far reaches of the globe. Uses air transportation, like F1, buys clothes from somewhere other than the local hemp farm.So don’t preach. Because it makes you look silly.
Dave200 said:
FiF said:
Dave200 said:
FiF said:
Wind in the also frequent " well this is the solution that fits me, my use case and financial circumstances or choices and therefore that's *the* right one for others, so there!" and one wonders how many pages of the thread could be removed without losing anything much of benefit.
Can you point to a single example of this?FiF said:
Dave200 said:
FiF said:
Dave200 said:
FiF said:
Wind in the also frequent " well this is the solution that fits me, my use case and financial circumstances or choices and therefore that's *the* right one for others, so there!" and one wonders how many pages of the thread could be removed without losing anything much of benefit.
Can you point to a single example of this?Browter said:
When ICE cars are gone the people who want to protect the environment will start targeting EVs for the damage they do. Are you going to be so 'forward thinking' then?
The 'damage' is predominantly linked to the extraction of minerals, the CO2 released during manufacture of the battery and tyre particulates during use.Even now the contribution of the usage phase to CO2 footprint is quite small (about 25-30 g/km for the UK), and is on a trajectory to single digits.
NOx per mile is currently about half the of petrol ICE and something like 10 times lower than diesel.
Crucially, the CO2/NOx footprint of an EV is almost independent of how fast the car is driven, completely the opposite to diesel.
Eliminating the argument in favour of reduced speed limits in the name of air quality.
Tyre wear is a tricky one, clearly mass reduction would help, but there is no evidence to say that it is linked linearly to kerb mass.
Driving style has an effect, the linearity and lack of discontinuity of the torque delivery has an effect, etc.
Probably one of the biggest sticks to beat EVs with, but in absence of banning cars, there aren't any other pathways that can address or better EVs regarding tyre particulates.
Mineral extraction is clearly something that is going to cause short to medium term impact, although I'd say that it's mostly localised and doesn't really create global or urban 'airborne' problems.
Covered before many times, the minerals are never lost or converted to something else, i.e. their integrity remains intact forever, and once sufficient volumes are in circulation, for a mature car population at least, the topping up of what is lost to waste during each recycle is likely to be low single digit %.
Battery production CO2 footprint is presently a reasonably sized stick to beat EVs with, the good news is that much of it comes from electricity consumption, so the passage of time will shrink that.
John87 said:
Is anyone trying to convert others in this thread?
It seems to be one set of people explaining how an old Micra or other tiny engined petrol supermini is the ideal car for everyone and if you like something comfortable or with power, you aren't a real enthusiast and must not enjoy driving.
On the other side most of the comments from EV owners are defending against the argument that they have bought the wrong car despite it working perfectly for their use case.
Of course EVs don't work for the person who has no on street parking and goes on caravan holidays at the opposite end of the country every weekend but they are perfect for the vast majority.
In my own experience, having 476bhp instantly available in a car with all the weight low down, ohlins adjustable suspension and brembo brakes can actually be great fun to drive. Especially when you wake up each day with a full "tank" and don't need to go out of your way to fill up. It's not a Caterham or Elise but no one is claiming that...
They are quite evidently not "perfect" for the "vast majority". If they were, said majority would own one, surely?It seems to be one set of people explaining how an old Micra or other tiny engined petrol supermini is the ideal car for everyone and if you like something comfortable or with power, you aren't a real enthusiast and must not enjoy driving.
On the other side most of the comments from EV owners are defending against the argument that they have bought the wrong car despite it working perfectly for their use case.
Of course EVs don't work for the person who has no on street parking and goes on caravan holidays at the opposite end of the country every weekend but they are perfect for the vast majority.
In my own experience, having 476bhp instantly available in a car with all the weight low down, ohlins adjustable suspension and brembo brakes can actually be great fun to drive. Especially when you wake up each day with a full "tank" and don't need to go out of your way to fill up. It's not a Caterham or Elise but no one is claiming that...
Your statement suggests the vast majority knowingly choose a worse option. Seems unlikely.........
anonymous-user said:
And yet the government are pushing everybody down this road with new ICE sales being banned in 2030. I suspect that the 2025 Euro 7 regulations are going to push manufacturers to go full EV before the 2030 ICE ban.
But are we getting to a situation where the early adopters, those excited by new tech and those rich enough to have one as a second car are starting to run out?
Tesla have lowered the price of their cars as I assume sales are starting to slow down. Ford have lowered the price of the Mach E because they claim they want to get as much as the market as possible.
Are we going to get in a situation in a year or two where manufacturers are building more EVs than they can sell and the crazy leases will start again?
I can't help but think that the government are pushing EVs like they did diesel and looking back in five or ten years we will realise that was a massive mistake.
Goalposts chanced again from what I can see. Ban on new Ice cars is out to 2035. But are we getting to a situation where the early adopters, those excited by new tech and those rich enough to have one as a second car are starting to run out?
Tesla have lowered the price of their cars as I assume sales are starting to slow down. Ford have lowered the price of the Mach E because they claim they want to get as much as the market as possible.
Are we going to get in a situation in a year or two where manufacturers are building more EVs than they can sell and the crazy leases will start again?
I can't help but think that the government are pushing EVs like they did diesel and looking back in five or ten years we will realise that was a massive mistake.
There is a possibility that they know EVs are currently not sustainable. The whole of the UKs electricity from the point of generation to the plug at home simply doesn't have the capacity to cope with the increasing number of EVs. There is little incentive for this privatised industry, owned by foreign companies and goverments to invest in generation plant, new lines, new transformers and digging up all our roads to upgrade underground cables to ensure they don't fail.
Long way to go.
Just my thoughts in the main but the capacity issue is without doubt a huge issue 40 years in that sector gives a unique insight.
monkfish1 said:
They are quite evidently not "perfect" for the "vast majority". If they were, said majority would own one, surely?
Your statement suggests the vast majority knowingly choose a worse option. Seems unlikely.........
How are you proposing that 1 million EVs are distributed amongst 20 million users?Your statement suggests the vast majority knowingly choose a worse option. Seems unlikely.........
Not a single factory in the world makes second hand cars, etc.
GT9 said:
monkfish1 said:
They are quite evidently not "perfect" for the "vast majority". If they were, said majority would own one, surely?
Your statement suggests the vast majority knowingly choose a worse option. Seems unlikely.........
How are you proposing that 1 million EVs are distributed amongst 20 million users?Your statement suggests the vast majority knowingly choose a worse option. Seems unlikely.........
Not a single factory in the world makes second hand cars, etc.
As ive said multiple times, when they are a better option, people will have them. Or as originally posted "perfect".
For clarity, better, includes cost, as well as other factors discussed here endlessly..
And as ive also said multiple times, remove the barriers to ownership. Do that, and ownership will increase. Its not rocket science!
Currently, quite evidently, they are not "perfect" for the "vast majority".
And again, as ive already said, when one is available that works for my wife, she will have one. Currently, whilst their are EV's that can achieve the use case, they are simply not remotely affordable. So not "perfect" by any stretch. When/if it is affordable, then why would we not have one?
steveti said:
anonymous-user said:
And yet the government are pushing everybody down this road with new ICE sales being banned in 2030. I suspect that the 2025 Euro 7 regulations are going to push manufacturers to go full EV before the 2030 ICE ban.
But are we getting to a situation where the early adopters, those excited by new tech and those rich enough to have one as a second car are starting to run out?
Tesla have lowered the price of their cars as I assume sales are starting to slow down. Ford have lowered the price of the Mach E because they claim they want to get as much as the market as possible.
Are we going to get in a situation in a year or two where manufacturers are building more EVs than they can sell and the crazy leases will start again?
I can't help but think that the government are pushing EVs like they did diesel and looking back in five or ten years we will realise that was a massive mistake.
Goalposts chanced again from what I can see. Ban on new Ice cars is out to 2035. But are we getting to a situation where the early adopters, those excited by new tech and those rich enough to have one as a second car are starting to run out?
Tesla have lowered the price of their cars as I assume sales are starting to slow down. Ford have lowered the price of the Mach E because they claim they want to get as much as the market as possible.
Are we going to get in a situation in a year or two where manufacturers are building more EVs than they can sell and the crazy leases will start again?
I can't help but think that the government are pushing EVs like they did diesel and looking back in five or ten years we will realise that was a massive mistake.
There is a possibility that they know EVs are currently not sustainable. The whole of the UKs electricity from the point of generation to the plug at home simply doesn't have the capacity to cope with the increasing number of EVs. There is little incentive for this privatised industry, owned by foreign companies and goverments to invest in generation plant, new lines, new transformers and digging up all our roads to upgrade underground cables to ensure they don't fail.
Long way to go.
Just my thoughts in the main but the capacity issue is without doubt a huge issue 40 years in that sector gives a unique insight.
The knowledge of how NOx forms and the effect of cylinder temperature and the combustion cycle goes back to before any of us were born, it wasn't something recently unearthed.
The argument in favour of a marginal reduction in CO2 won out over the NOx issue, unfortunately. Mainly because policy makers were having the ears bent out of shape about CO2, NOx simply didn't mean anything to them.
If there is something about EVs that we are making much worse by chasing lower lifetime carbon footprint, people who work with this technology already know about it, it isn't going to appear out of nowhere.
So unless someone can tell me specifically what the 'massive mistake' is, I'm going to file it under 'fear of the unknown that may or may not materialise'.
As for the grid not coping, this has been covered so many times before.
Using the metric that 1 million EVs increases demand on the UK grid by less than 1% (which is 100% correct) and way less than 1 million EVs are currently being added each year, do you think maybe this also falls under the category of 'fear of the unknown that may or may not materialise'?
GT9 said:
Three decades ago I knew diesels produced way more NOx than claimed, and so did many other people who work with engines/combustion and drivetrains.
The knowledge of how NOx forms and the effect of cylinder temperature and the combustion cycle goes back to before any of us were born, it wasn't something recently unearthed.
The argument in favour of a marginal reduction in CO2 won out over the NOx issue, unfortunately. Mainly because policy makers were having the ears bent out of shape about CO2, NOx simply didn't mean anything to them.
If there is something about EVs that we are making much worse by chasing lower lifetime carbon footprint, people who work with this technology already know about it, it isn't going to appear out of nowhere.
So unless someone can tell me specifically what the 'massive mistake' is, I'm going to file it under 'fear of the unknown that may or may not materialise'.
As for the grid not coping, this has been covered so many times before.
Using the metric that 1 million EVs increases demand on the UK grid by less than 1% (which is 100% correct) and way less than 1 million EVs are currently being added each year, do you think maybe this also falls under the category of 'fear of the unknown that may or may not materialise'?
The knowledge of how NOx forms and the effect of cylinder temperature and the combustion cycle goes back to before any of us were born, it wasn't something recently unearthed.
The argument in favour of a marginal reduction in CO2 won out over the NOx issue, unfortunately. Mainly because policy makers were having the ears bent out of shape about CO2, NOx simply didn't mean anything to them.
If there is something about EVs that we are making much worse by chasing lower lifetime carbon footprint, people who work with this technology already know about it, it isn't going to appear out of nowhere.
So unless someone can tell me specifically what the 'massive mistake' is, I'm going to file it under 'fear of the unknown that may or may not materialise'.
As for the grid not coping, this has been covered so many times before.
Using the metric that 1 million EVs increases demand on the UK grid by less than 1% (which is 100% correct) and way less than 1 million EVs are currently being added each year, do you think maybe this also falls under the category of 'fear of the unknown that may or may not materialise'?
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff