EVs... no one wants them!

[SWoll]

tamore said:

superior in what sense? handling on the raggedy edge? soul? aural pleasure? or doing less damage to the environment? cheaper to run? more relaxing? more convenient?

I'd imagine 99.9% of company car drivers are far more concerned with the latter than the former?

[Unreal]

tamore said:

Unreal said:

tamore said:

BricktopST205 said:

How much of them were doing it purely for tax reasons?

so people will take a distinctly inferior product as they can get a tax break on it?

You might equally ask why a distinctly superior product would need a tax break.

superior in what sense? handling on the raggedy edge? soul? aural pleasure? or doing less damage to the environment? cheaper to run? more relaxing? more convenient?

You tell me. I'm only going on what EV fans tell me. If all that's true, why they need a tax break as well?

[740EVTORQUES]

Unreal said:

You tell me. I'm only going on what EV fans tell me. If all that's true, why they need a tax break as well?

Because not everyone appreciates the advantages (yet)?

I bought mine without the benefit of any tax breaks, it is so much better than the petrol alternatives that I was happy to pay for that.

[tamore]

Unreal said:

tamore said:

Unreal said:

tamore said:

BricktopST205 said:

How much of them were doing it purely for tax reasons?

so people will take a distinctly inferior product as they can get a tax break on it?

You might equally ask why a distinctly superior product would need a tax break.

superior in what sense? handling on the raggedy edge? soul? aural pleasure? or doing less damage to the environment? cheaper to run? more relaxing? more convenient?

You tell me. I'm only going on what EV fans tell me. If all that's true, why they need a tax break as well?

deeply engrained habits can be difficult to break. and a person's subjective view of 'superiority' is important, if it's the former attributes, a shift to EV needs to be incentivised. if the latter, it's more of a shove against an open door.

[SWoll]

Unreal said:

You tell me. I'm only going on what EV fans tell me. If all that's true, why they need a tax break as well?

Because a significant change will often require an incentive in order to get people to give it a try.

The laughable thing is that most of the companies supplying company cars have just hiked their rates to pocket most of the benefit themselves, the end user is seeing very little of it at this point.

[confused_buyer]

Regardless of the other benefits or otherwise of EVs no one can deny the BIK tax advantages (and first year capital write downs) of EVs have had a huge effect. About 80-85% of EV new sales are fleet/finance where the BIK applies.

The challenge for EV manufacturers is to persuade private buyers and those who do not benefit in the same way tax wise (notably the used market) to buy them. Just at the moment the reality of the situation is they are not doing a very good job at it.

It is possible that a number of new, cheaper, smaller cars with more "private" appeal might help a bit later in the year.

[nunpuncher]

740EVTORQUES said:

You can't have an opinion about facts OP (unless your name is Donald Trump that is). Your thread title was 'EV's...no one wants them!' (the use of both ellipsis and exclamation being the full house bingo of deliberate bad faith discussion by the way.)

The fact is that lots of people do want EV's. Not as many as the Government might want, hence both carrot and stick incentives, but it's a plain fact that unless the 15.2% of UK new car buyers who bought Ev's in March were doing so against their will then lots of people DO want EV's.

That annoying guy that keeps doing the clickbait videos moaning about his Taycan made comment about someone at a charging station telling him they had actually ordered an ICE car but the dealer phoned, said their ordered had been cancelled and they could offer them the equivalent EV instead. I'm sure it was one of the Stellantis brands. Wouldn't surprise me if this is happening to avoid ZEV penalties.

[OutInTheShed]

nunpuncher said:

That annoying guy that keeps doing the clickbait videos moaning about his Taycan made comment about someone at a charging station telling him they had actually ordered an ICE car but the dealer phoned, said their ordered had been cancelled and they could offer them the equivalent EV instead. I'm sure it was one of the Stellantis brands. Wouldn't surprise me if this is happening to avoid ZEV penalties.

People can post any drivel on Youtube, they get paid for people like you watching it, whether it's truth, hearsay, urban folklore or just complete fiction.

Unless you get caught libelling someone who cares, or break a few laws about hate and incitement, you can post what you want on Youtube.

Stop watching 'that annoying guy' and find some rock videos or fluffy kittens or something.

[Rich Boy Spanner]

SWoll said:

Unreal said:

You tell me. I'm only going on what EV fans tell me. If all that's true, why they need a tax break as well?

Because a significant change will often require an incentive in order to get people to give it a try.

The laughable thing is that most of the companies supplying company cars have just hiked their rates to pocket most of the benefit themselves, the end user is seeing very little of it at this point.

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

[Ankh87]

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

[Dave200]

Ankh87 said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

Given that 99% of journeys in the UK are <100 miles, I'd suggest that less than 0.2% of journeys are more than 400 miles. The number of journeys that are done 400+ miles without stopping are so small you'd run out of zeros to measure the fraction of a percent they make up. Why do you keep on banging on about such a minuscule use-case as if it's some kind of barrier to mass adoption?

[Ankh87]

Dave200 said:

Ankh87 said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

Given that 99% of journeys in the UK are <100 miles, I'd suggest that less than 0.2% of journeys are more than 400 miles. The number of journeys that are done 400+ miles without stopping are so small you'd run out of zeros to measure the fraction of a percent they make up. Why do you keep on banging on about such a minuscule use-case as if it's some kind of barrier to mass adoption?

A car should be able to go from Newcastle to Dover without multiple stops shouldn't it? 400 miles is relatively nothing and a car should be able to go one end of England to the other. Otherwise it's a backwards step, might as well get a horse and cart.

Granted majority of people don't do that but still the freedom of getting to a port and not having to worry about stopping 2 or 3 times to charge up is surely a good thing? Otherwise, why did they build ICE which large fuel tanks that don't need them? Why does a family car like an Insignia have a 70L tank when it could do with a 20 or 30? In fact, why aren't we all going back to horse and cart seem as hte average jorney in the UK is less than 20 miles a day. Horse can easily do that.

[Unreal]

Ankh87 said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

Where does this idea come from that EVs have massive amounts of power? Of course some do, as do some ICE cars, but the majority don't. O-60 times for a base Kia EV or Nissan Leaf are 7.3 secs and 8 secs respectively. That's comparable with a standard ICE Focus. Sure, you can get 3.5 secs if you want to spend £60K plus - that's not the mass market that EVs need to dominate if they are to replace ICE.

You are right that the majority of drivers are not interested in ultimate power. These times preoccupy forum users and magazine readers. For the average driver they're irrelevant. They want cheap to buy, cheap to run, reliable and practical, as evidenced by the best selling models for decades. Of course, these drivers will be attracted by cheap charging equalling high mpg, but not at any price, or this would be reflected in sales.

[Muzzer79]

Dave200 said:

Ankh87 said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

Given that 99% of journeys in the UK are <100 miles, I'd suggest that less than 0.2% of journeys are more than 400 miles. The number of journeys that are done 400+ miles without stopping are so small you'd run out of zeros to measure the fraction of a percent they make up. Why do you keep on banging on about such a minuscule use-case as if it's some kind of barrier to mass adoption?

It's a psychological thing.

People don't need to do 400 miles in one go, but they get freaked out thinking that they might need to go somewhere and don't have a quick means to do so.
It's akin to feeling trapped.

If electric cars had a 400 mile range, people would say that they're not buying one because it's not 500. I guarantee it.

It's the time to 'refuel' that's the problem, not the range. If electric cars could be charged in 10 mins, then people would have one with a 200 mile range and it'd sell in droves.

[Muzzer79]

Ankh87 said:

A car should be able to go from Newcastle to Dover without multiple stops shouldn't it? 400 miles is relatively nothing and a car should be able to go one end of England to the other. Otherwise it's a backwards step, might as well get a horse and cart.

Granted majority of people don't do that but still the freedom of getting to a port and not having to worry about stopping 2 or 3 times to charge up is surely a good thing? Otherwise, why did they build ICE which large fuel tanks that don't need them? Why does a family car like an Insignia have a 70L tank when it could do with a 20 or 30? In fact, why aren't we all going back to horse and cart seem as hte average jorney in the UK is less than 20 miles a day. Horse can easily do that.

That's a strawman argument. The car has been adopted over the horse and cart for many reasons and you know it.

But why should a car need to be able to get from one end of the country to the other without multiple stops?

A colleague had an ICE Mercedes without the (optional) larger fuel tank. It had something like a 300 mile range, so would fail your (odd) test.

ICE cars have large fuel tanks for convenience, not necessity. The Insignia was designed for business drivers doing large mileage in a day, in the same way a Fiesta has a smaller tank for urban driving.

And what it boils down to is necessity. A car doesn't need a large range for 99% of the time. It's just a case of wrapping people's heads around it.

That doesn't mean it fails a usage case as a car.

[Unreal]

Muzzer79 said:

Dave200 said:

Ankh87 said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

Given that 99% of journeys in the UK are <100 miles, I'd suggest that less than 0.2% of journeys are more than 400 miles. The number of journeys that are done 400+ miles without stopping are so small you'd run out of zeros to measure the fraction of a percent they make up. Why do you keep on banging on about such a minuscule use-case as if it's some kind of barrier to mass adoption?

It's a psychological thing.

People don't need to do 400 miles in one go, but they get freaked out thinking that they might need to go somewhere and don't have a quick means to do so.
It's akin to feeling trapped.

If electric cars had a 400 mile range, people would say that they're not buying one because it's not 500. I guarantee it.

It's the time to 'refuel' that's the problem, not the range. If electric cars could be charged in 10 mins, then people would have one with a 200 mile range and it'd sell in droves.

And they could charge it on their drive or outside their house at a cheap rate whenever they wanted to. Not an issue for anyone with a drive. Massive issue for millions that don't.

[silentbrown]

Unreal said:

O-60 times for a base Kia EV or Nissan Leaf are 7.3 secs and 8 secs respectively. That's comparable with a standard ICE Focus.

Base Focus is 10.2 secs to 60. That's a significant difference.

[Dave200]

Ankh87 said:

Dave200 said:

Ankh87 said:

Rich Boy Spanner said:

With company cars money talks. I went from circa £3k a year BIK to £300 by changing a weedy 1.5 litre petrol Octavia for a Leaf. I save a lot of money and the car drives so much better that it makes the Octavia look like a horse and carriage.
Crap on long journeys though with the charging, but fortunately I don't have to make many.
Would I have bought the Leaf with my own money? No, because of the £32K list and the range issues. But as a thing to drive it is, like most EV's rather wonderful. Make it have a real world range of 400 miles and a price nearer to an ICE equivalent and Ill buy the EV.

This is the thing. If the cars had 400 miles even in the worst case (not flooring it everywhere) and the prices were just as cheap, then more people would buy them.

Not everyone wants massive amounts of power, some people just want comfy and steady driving. My partner has zero cares about how fast a car is, just wants it to go from A to B, be nice and easy to drive, without it costing a fortune.

Given that 99% of journeys in the UK are <100 miles, I'd suggest that less than 0.2% of journeys are more than 400 miles. The number of journeys that are done 400+ miles without stopping are so small you'd run out of zeros to measure the fraction of a percent they make up. Why do you keep on banging on about such a minuscule use-case as if it's some kind of barrier to mass adoption?

A car should be able to go from Newcastle to Dover without multiple stops shouldn't it? 400 miles is relatively nothing and a car should be able to go one end of England to the other. Otherwise it's a backwards step, might as well get a horse and cart.

Granted majority of people don't do that but still the freedom of getting to a port and not having to worry about stopping 2 or 3 times to charge up is surely a good thing? Otherwise, why did they build ICE which large fuel tanks that don't need them? Why does a family car like an Insignia have a 70L tank when it could do with a 20 or 30? In fact, why aren't we all going back to horse and cart seem as hte average jorney in the UK is less than 20 miles a day. Horse can easily do that.

Why do all cars need to be able to go from Newcastle to Dover without multiple stops? People simply aren't doing these journeys with anything like the kind of regularity that they are being mentioned (mostly by you) in this thread. They represent a proportion of annual journeys that are so minuscule that buying a car with that in mind would be completely ridiculous. It would be akin to buying a Transit van just because you might need to move house every few years.

All of this (and you) continues to ignores the facts that:
1. That's 6-7 hours of driving. Sensible people take stops to avoid fatigue on drives like that.
2. I could do that journey in my Tesla tomorrow with a total stopping time of about 10min.

[tamore]

i think pegging the psychological capability at 400 is a fair shout, even if people may never use it or extremely seldom if they do.

2 ways of addressing it. get people into EVs and see that it is just a psychological barrier. or put packs in that can do it. the latter is very expensive right now, but will be easy in a few years.

[Unreal]

silentbrown said:

Base Focus is 10.2 secs to 60. That's a significant difference.

Not to the type of mass market driver EVs need to appeal to. 0-60 times are utterly irrelevant to the majority of these users. They don't want a fast car as evidenced by what they buy at the moment. If you give them a faster car for the same money of course they'll take it, but it won't influence the decision to buy it in the first place.