EVs... no one wants them!

[Tindersticks]

MightyBadger said:

Never would of thought evangelists ignore facts.

Would *have*.

[MightyBadger]

ChocolateFrog said:

I couldn't care less who buys what I just like to pop in here to laugh at the mis information from those who feel so threatened about a cars source of propulsion.

That's exactly what I'm doing, posting two articles that highlight milage claim and shortfalls - clearing up misinformation by posting facts

I don't care what anyone drives or buys either, just enjoy it and have fun.

Just don't keep writing off actual facts as mis-information, that's silly.

[otolith]

MightyBadger said:

otolith said:

Sorry, have you only just heard that the standard, mandatory WLTP test is optimistic? I thought everyone and his dog knew that. It's optimistic for petrol cars too, though less so than the NEDC test it replaced in Europe.

No, only just found out really. I thought they had to be fairly near the claims (like ice cars) but not as far off with their range as What Car are suggesting - seems very misleading for the manufacturers to make such range claims

They have to exactly follow the protocol laid out in the test and report the results. The protocol doesn't actually represent the way people use cars in the real world, and as a result the outputs it generates don't match what people get in reality. If you did exactly follow the specified drive cycle, you'd get the promised results, but nobody does. It's been a longstanding bugbear of standard emissions/consumption testing. The WLTP was designed to be more representative than the tests it replaced, but it's still not right. And if you think about it, given how differently people use their cars, can you really condense that into a single number that does anything really beyond allowing you to guess one car is probably more efficient than another?

One of the reasons that it's more of a problem when quoted for EVs is that it is used to calculate range. Range tends to be a concern - unless you are an Uber driver - for longer, higher speed journeys. Because they don't suffer the inefficiency ICEs do in urban use, the urban part of the test drags up the average figure, whereas for ICEs it drags it down. You'll never beat the WLTP figure for your petrol car driving round town, in an electric car you should be able to substantially exceed it in mild weather. Flipside is that on a long high speed journey an ICE should get close to or even beat its WLTP consumption figure, and an EV just won't.

It would be much more useful for buyers to just go back to requiring the figures they used to have to quote before NEDC came along, which were constant 100 km/h (56mph), constant 120 km/h (75mph), and urban cycle.

[DonkeyApple]

MightyBadger said:

How are absolute facts clickbait?

I would be pretty miffed if I had saved up and paid 51k for an ID7 Pro thinking it could do the mileage VW claim (383 miles) and it only manages to do 252 from brand new in real world situation - would call that misselling.

I would agree with calling these clickbait links but they contain cold hard facts - ignore them all and say its made up for all I care but these are real stats in the two links I have posted. Food for thought for anyone who isnt an EV crusader.

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.

[tamore]

another 'gotcha' merchant. oh good.

everyone sensible knows the current shortcomings of EVs and that in the real world against most use cases, it makes sod all difference.

these shortcomings are being knocked over one by one. my main worry is about the residual values of EVs made up to now as they will be old hat soon. they will still do a job for someone baring in mind the uptake until now.

[MightyBadger]

otolith said:

And if you think about it, given how differently people use their cars, can you really condense that into a single number that does anything really beyond allowing you to guess one car is probably more efficient than another?

The thing is that number is what a lot of people will base their buying on, why mislead customers?

[ChocolateFrog]

One thing I don't understand is that based on my experience our local Costco fuel station has every single pump (12 I think) in constant use for atleast 90% of the time it's open. I've certainly never seen it not have a queue.

So the majority of motorists are obviously extremely value driven. It's clearly worth the up to 20 min wait to save 5-8ppl.

That level of inconvenience to save 2 or 3 quid a week is perfectly acceptable.

The anti-EV lobby has done a great job. Just yesterday my FIL got in mine for the first time, literally the first thing he said was will it make it home?

If I was the Chinese government I'd be advertising extensive free extended test drives. They could put 1000's of cars into a pool fleet, chuck a granny charger in the back of each one and say bring it back in a week.

I think a light bulb would go on for most. But I'm just a EV evangelist with a V8 TVR and a V4 motorbike.

[DonkeyApple]

otolith said:

They have to exactly follow the protocol laid out in the test and report the results. The protocol doesn't actually represent the way people use cars in the real world, and as a result the outputs it generates don't match what people get in reality. If you did exactly follow the specified drive cycle, you'd get the promised results, but nobody does. It's been a longstanding bugbear of standard emissions/consumption testing. The WLTP was designed to be more representative than the tests it replaced, but it's still not right. And if you think about it, given how differently people use their cars, can you really condense that into a single number that does anything really beyond allowing you to guess one car is probably more efficient than another?

One of the reasons that it's more of a problem when quoted for EVs is that it is used to calculate range. Range tends to be a concern - unless you are an Uber driver - for longer, higher speed journeys. Because they don't suffer the inefficiency ICEs do in urban use, the urban part of the test drags up the average figure, whereas for ICEs it drags it down. You'll never beat the WLTP figure for your petrol car driving round town, in an electric car you should be able to substantially exceed it in mild weather. Flipside is that on a long high speed journey an ICE should get close to or even beat its WLTP consumption figure, and an EV just won't.

It would be much more useful for buyers to just go back to requiring the figures they used to have to quote before NEDC came along, which were constant 100 km/h (56mph), constant 120 km/h (75mph), and urban cycle.

It is something with an easy cure. The cars on the road collect all the real world data already. That data is already in the hands of the manufacturers. All they need to do is publish the real world average alongside the laboratory figure. Just needs a U.K. regulator to make the instruction to publish and update regularly for all U.K. consumers to view.

You'd think PH or Bobby LL would be smart enough to ask its users to publish their data and to create their own figures which then draw in lots of eyeballs.

[raspy]

MightyBadger said:

How are absolute facts clickbait?

I would be pretty miffed if I had saved up and paid 51k for an ID7 Pro thinking it could do the mileage VW claim (383 miles) and it only manages to do 252 from brand new in real world situation - would call that misselling.

I would agree with calling these clickbait links but they contain cold hard facts - ignore them all and say its made up for all I care but these are real stats in the two links I have posted. Food for thought for anyone who isnt an EV crusader.

Caveat Emptor - Not every case that goes to the Ombudsman about range being lower than expected in the real world will lead to the consumer having their complaint upheld, see this case for example;

"The complaint

Mr E has complained about the mileage range he’s achieving with a car he financed through Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited, trading as Audi Financial Services (‘AFS’).

What happened

Mr E entered into a finance agreement with AFS, for a new car. However, he’s unhappy with the mileage range, when the car is fully charged. Mr E has explained that a representative at the dealership said the car would lose up to 20% of the maximum battery in winter, but that he could expect 160 miles at 100% charge.

He’s explained this was specifically discussed, and that Audi’s website stated the car would get up to 200 miles. The hire agreement has now been settled and Mr E accepted an offer of £39,000 for the car. But he feels this should have been the full value of the car - £47,910 - given he never got the battery range he expected.

One of our investigators looked into what happened. She said that Audi had inspected the mileage is dependent on a large number of factors, including: usage of air-conditioning, heating, the radio, driving style, driving profile, traffic conditions, accessories fitted and the load weight. Electric cars are tested in lab conditions where they aren’t subject to aerodynamic drag or rolling resistance, the ambient temperature is regulated, and no other functions are used during the test. These tests measure the maximum range a car can reach in optimal conditions.

She didn’t feel Mr E had provided enough evidence that the car wasn’t performing as it should, even though the mileage per charge was less than the optimal. She also looked at whether there had been a misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact that induces a person to enter into the agreement. Mr E had explained that he was told he should only need to stop once to charge the car on a specified journey. But in fact had to stop three.

She was satisfied this had been an opinion given, rather than a fact. The range on Audi’s website is in lab conditions which cannot be replicated on the road. Further, this trip was just one of many Mr E would make, so it couldn’t reasonably be concluded that he’d entered into the contract based on this information.

The complaint'

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I agree with the investigator’s findings. In particular, I agree that test conditions can’t replicate an individual’s driving conditions. And, the car had no manufacturing faults. A dealership’s opinion here, I don’t consider to be sufficient to be a statement of fact, or that it were sufficient to induce Mr E to enter into the contract, given he used the car for other journeys.

My final decision

For the reasons given above, it’s my final decision not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr E to accept or reject my decision before 14 February 2024.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...

[Mikehig]

DonkeyApple said:

ZX10R NIN said:

There's two ways they'll do it, either they'll be an across the board duty on electricity or we'll have pay per mile & fuel duty is going nowhere.

The former is easier & cheaper to implement, where as pay per mile will be more expensive for the end user as it's more expensive to implement & police.

Yup. Just tiered taxation on energy consumption. Utility services are the cheapest and most efficient form of tax collection and it would take 5 minutes to change the VAT billing to collect different levels for different consumption and it all easily fits an eco narrative while being progressive so few could logically complain.

The problem with ppm isn't just that it's more expensive to implement it is also politically toxic as it involves tracking etc but it's also regressive as a tax as it penalises the poorest motorist statistically.

Meanwhile, the brilliant thing about EVs isn't that no one wants them as that's not remotely relevant in the grand scheme of things, they're coming and that's that but the benefit is that many people can't yet use them so the pool of used buyers is smaller than it is for ICE so used values are actually pretty good for those who can use them but don't want new. Used ones make great shopping and commute wagons for folks with driveways and who don't need a new car every week but happy to just buy something second hand and keep it until it's ready for the bin.

FT sub-headline (article paywalled):
"Governments slap taxes on EVs as $110bn fuel duty shortfall looms
New levies and fees worldwide add cost to electric-car buyers as sales growth cools"

PPM doesn't have to involve tracking, aiui. All that's needed is for the car to report its mileage - unless differential charging is planned for, say, urban vs rural areas.

[LowTread]

"Evangelists". God i hate that phrase. If an EV works for you then great. If it doesn't then don't buy one.

The media have certainly done a great job of identifying a target audience of EV-sceptics and is dropping little stories in here and there to get their blood boiling.

My dad is convinced that my Model 3 is about to catch fire at any moment, or any journey longer than the next village is going to leave me stranded.

Chap i was speaking to at my swimming pool was laughing when i said i'd got an EV. "But they catch fire? Look what happened at Luton Airport!". He wasn't convinced when i told him it was a diesel range rover at fault.

It's just endless bullst.

Yes, the range isn't always what's claimed, but neither was the range in my SEAT Leon TDI, or my Yeti TDI, or my M135i, or pretty much 95% of the ICE cars i've owned.

My Model 3 says it'll do about 285 miles on 100%, but that's nonsense because a) i don't charge it that high all the time because i don't need that range, and b) to get that i'd have to ecomile like i would to get the extra-urban figure of an ICE car and i can't be bothered. More realistic is about 200 miles from 85% to about 10% while enjoying the acceleration.

Granted, if i'd bought it with a 250+ mile round trip in mind i wouldn't be pleased. But for me it works fine so i own one. If it didn't i probably wouldn't.

Make your own mind up and stop trying to persuade people one way or another. I'm just presenting facts. You can decide whether it works for you or not.

But to say "nobody wants them" is just bks.

[romft123]

MightyBadger said:

otolith said:

And if you think about it, given how differently people use their cars, can you really condense that into a single number that does anything really beyond allowing you to guess one car is probably more efficient than another?

The thing is that number is what a lot of people will base their buying on, why mislead customers?

A "lot" of people buy cars believing the mpg figures given by manufacturers etc..............Oh Ok.

[ChocolateFrog]

MightyBadger said:

otolith said:

And if you think about it, given how differently people use their cars, can you really condense that into a single number that does anything really beyond allowing you to guess one car is probably more efficient than another?

The thing is that number is what a lot of people will base their buying on, why mislead customers?

Yes that's sensible over let's say, 10 seconds of googling or reading a single review.

[Olivera]

Mikehig said:

FT sub-headline (article paywalled):
"Governments slap taxes on EVs as $110bn fuel duty shortfall looms
New levies and fees worldwide add cost to electric-car buyers as sales growth cools"

PPM doesn't have to involve tracking, aiui. All that's needed is for the car to report its mileage - unless differential charging is planned for, say, urban vs rural areas.

The EV subsidy junkie status was inevitably going to end. Will be interesting to see what happens to residuals when the tax playing field is somewhat levelled.

[otolith]

MightyBadger said:

otolith said:

And if you think about it, given how differently people use their cars, can you really condense that into a single number that does anything really beyond allowing you to guess one car is probably more efficient than another?

The thing is that number is what a lot of people will base their buying on, why mislead customers?

Because that is what they are required to do.

https://www.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/fu...

[MightyBadger]

Proves you can't post facts as people get very salty

Edited by MightyBadger on Tuesday 7th May 12:27

[otolith]

DonkeyApple said:

It is something with an easy cure. The cars on the road collect all the real world data already. That data is already in the hands of the manufacturers. All they need to do is publish the real world average alongside the laboratory figure. Just needs a U.K. regulator to make the instruction to publish and update regularly for all U.K. consumers to view.

You'd think PH or Bobby LL would be smart enough to ask its users to publish their data and to create their own figures which then draw in lots of eyeballs.

Even that wouldn't be terribly useful, though, to the people who want to know how far they can drive on the motorway before it needs a charge. If the bulk of real world EV mileage is low speed urban and suburban stuff, it might come in even further from the realistic motorway range than the WLTP figure.

[Unreal]

DonkeyApple said:

All that will have happened by 2034-39 is that a few million more of the households with driveways, smart meters and the ability to use an EV will have switched and hopefully all the subsidies will have ended years earlier.

I suspect the only real visible change may be in the brands being bought new in the U.K. as there are bound to be some departures and some new entrants between now and then.

Meanwhile, the majority will still be using ICE but giving a little more thought to when it might be best for them personally to switch.

One in two will get cancer so it's unlikely everyone reading this will be around to celebrate or laugh at today's predictions.

I'll put mine down as the landscape will look as different in 2034 as it did in 2008.

Edited by Unreal on Tuesday 7th May 11:04

[MightyBadger]

LowTread said:

"Evangelists"..

It seemed pretty fitting in this thread tbh, I only posted two articles and both contained facts (neither were a windup or made up) and all I got was *****. Keep singing those praises, ignore things people post, be horrible to anyone who posts anything you think brings down the image of EVs or might even contain truth.

Sorry I even posted in this thread.

Suns out, have a fantastic day

[clockworks]

I don't get the "range anxiety" thing for the average motorist. If it wasn't constantly being touted as an issue by the media/social media posters. would the majority even worry about it?

Fact is, many car drivers have no idea about what mog or range their ICE vehicle does, or even how many miles the drive per week/month/year. They just stick £20/£30/£40 in the tank once a week/fortnight/month. They take no account of the price of fuel, just get upset when their £20s worth doesn't last until payday.

If you ask them how economical their car is, they'l just say "it's great, £20 lasts me a week". No explanation of how many miles they do, how often they drive, or what the road conditions are. "£20 a week/between visits to the petrol station" is all they care about.

If they stopped and thought about it, they'd realise that £20 a week in their 1.2 Corsa was about what they'd get from a single charge in the electric version, and it would only cost them £3 on a decent tariff.
In reality, a BEV would probably suit them perfectly. They are just not savvy enough to work it out.