EVs... no one wants them!

And another one arrives,

A requirement to go from Birmingham to London twice a day is a random claim. Arguing that fueling at a petrol station is a better prospect than charging on your drive is a random claim.

EV's are not perfect. They don't offer a solution to all man, therefore a compromise is required. In return, there is a financial saving to be made in some cases.

ICE is not perfect. It doesn't offer a solution to all man, therefore a compromise is required. In return, there is a convenience saving to be made in some cases.

I have never claimed at EVs are suitable for all, indeed quite the contrary. What I do take umbrage against is the claim that EV as a concept is fundamentally flawed and doesn't work for anyone due to some random generalist reasons.

As posted above - if it doesn't work for you, unlucky. I'm not going to dispute that based on what you've said.

A significant proportion of the population would not find running an EV impractical from a charging or journey length point of view. Not sure which barrier you're thinking excludes 95% of the population?

Estimated to be < 800,000 caravans in regular use. 28 million households.

The conversation is about the UK.

You (and others) are continually using edge-case scenarios to try to support an argument that EVs are generally unsuitable in the UK. Others are pointing out that that simply isn't the case. If you have the ability to charge at home, having an EV today is easy for most people to fit into their lives. For those without home charging, options will continue to evolve and get easier/cheaper over the coming decade - there is no rush.

If you are in the very small minority of people who do REGULAR+LONG+UNINTERRUPTED journeys, EVs today are probably not yet suitable.

A few egregious edge-case examples:

- pretending that a GR86 is representative of the costs of owning a new ICE car (to claim that EVs cost more to own than ICE)
- comparing costs of a new EV versus an old cheap car
- inferring that driving 150 miles either end of a long day, at 90mph cruising speeds without any breaks, is representative of UK driving habits (a common kind of journey that makes an EV unviable for most people)
- ignoring the compromises inherent in an ICE car (because you are used to them) and not acknowledging that an EV's compromises are slightly different, but that doesn't mean worse overall.

How can you possibly make that claim? How can you possibly speak for the whole population? Or even a sizeable chunk of it?

Its the definition of a ridiculous statement, so prevalent in this thread.

I guess its this type of thinking that takes place at government level, that dictates policy, that then, unsurprisingly hasnt resulted in the expected outcome. Because it was never based on a rational assesment of human behaviour. Or even their own behaviour.

Less than 5% of cars are EV. The other 95% by definition are some form of ICE/hydrid. Those owners are not driving EV. Like my wife. We would be buying an EV if it made sense. It doesnt. Because too many barriers.

I fail to see how 5% is "significant". What do you define as significant?

I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be expecting something to have happened that nobody has tried to make happen. All that has occurred is that a target has been set for phase in of NEW vehicles being EV by 2035 with binding targets for the % of cars sold each year between now and then. Of course there aren't EVs for people running 5k used cars, why would there be? Nobody has tried to make users of 5k used cars buy a new EV. Nobody expects them to. 95% of cars are not EV because we have a large legacy fleet which will gradually be converted by natural wastage and an increasing proportion of the new sales being electric.

I would have thought a Vauxhall Ampera would suit all angles for you.

But otherwise, in some optics - yes, I have borrowed the money. In others, I have done what a person realistically should do in an emerging technological market; I have committed to only a partial investment for a depreciating asset.

I doesn't really make much difference to me if I'd paid the entire PCP up front and had £0/pcm for the next 48 months or so - I considered buying an entire vehicle, but didn't want to wake up one morning and find I'd lost £10k in equity. A finance company has decided to take on that risk for me, for a fee.


Fact of the matter is that by simply owning and needing to use a vehicle, you've already committed to a monthly payment in VED and fuel. In my case, there was a financial logic to proportioning some of that towards funding a better vehicle.

My point is, ridiculous sweeping statements about how suitable EV's are for lots or significant chunks of the population. If it were true, there would be a stampede for them. There isnt.

Less ridiculous statements would be good. More acknowledgement that low take up is becuase of the barriers to adoption.

Discussion around removing those barriers even better. Seems to be no hope of that. We must just believe harder.

You havent answered the question to your original statement, that there was a solution to my lack of £40k.

Is that becuase, it wasnt actually true?

Why does it even bother you? If you're the kind of person that always buys cheaper cars and you're wedded to ICE for whatever reason then if you're over say 45ish there's going to be a ready supply of ICE only vehicles in you're price range for the rest of your life, comfortably.

I agree that right now a £5k EV isn't going to be that great. I certainly wouldn't want a 60-70 mile range Leaf as my only car despite the fact it would still do nearly all the things I ask of a daily driver.