EVs and Motorways

[SWoll]

gangzoom said:

SWoll said:

When we first got our Tesla I did fairly regularly pop to our local Waitrose late in the evening for an hour whilst the wife was watching some rubbish on the TV in order to get a free charge on their 50kW Polar unit and some peace and quiet. Mug of tea, packet of biscuits, an hour of Netfix.

The bloody thing broke down in Jan 2020 2 months after we got the car and they've not bothered to repair or replace it.

With 'Free for life' Supercharging on our Tesla, I could go and charge it up at the Fosse park shopping center weekly, rather than charging up at home. Its a 15 minute drive to the charger, 1hr charging up to add about 65-70kWh, 15 minutes back home. At the new more expensive off peak electricity of 19p/kWh, that's a potential saving of £12.35 in exchange of 90 minutes of my time.

I don't mind stopping every 2-3hrs or so when driving a long road trip with the family, especially when everyone needs a break anyways. But interms of viewing it as work hours, £8/hr that's below minimum wage isn't it? I think easy to loss perspective when it comes to anything that is offered 'free'.

The primary motivation was some uninterrupted peace to catch up with my Netflix shows. The free charging was just a bonus/excuse.

Anyone with teenagers will know where I'm coming from I'm sure.

stargazer30 said:

One thing I noticed going ice to ev. You don’t get free heat from the engine. It’s a bit weird 10miles in getting cold hands. EVs have heat pumps but that heat comes at a cost in power and range.

I thought everyone just remotely conditioned their EV's in the colder months so you never get into a cold car? It's what I've done for the past 3 years anyway, far superior to ICE and donlt remember a cold steering wheel.

Edited by SWoll on Thursday 17th March 21:38

[plfrench]

ingenieur said:

Which model? Mine has the 9-speed gearbox and should get 55mpg. From an 80 litre tank that works out at about 950 miles.

How carefully are you driving to get 55mpg?!! You must be cruising about 60mph to get that at about 1100rpm in 9th. I've averaged in mine 31.4mpg over the last 170 miles (2020 E350d estate).

[anonymous-user]

I think it just shows how wedded to old tech we are, because it's rasther silly complaining that an EV has one case where it has higher consumption by comparison to an ICE which has higher consumption at all times..........


;-)

[DMZ]

You mean like the one case where you actually go driving?

I’m incidentally in the midst of a longer journey right now and I took one of my petrol cars. Which has meant zero planning, can stay wherever I want, can drive at whatever speed I want, can stop whenever I want and wherever I want if and when I need a break. I’m in charge of the driving, not an app. I could probably have done this in an EV too (and I have one so not a theory) but I will note that I overtook a few Teslas on the way that were crawling along and I’m not really a crawling along kind of driver tbh. That part of long distance EV driving does my head in. The price difference in marginal too once you start hitting public chargers or certainly not big enough to justify the hassle.

[jason61c]

as someone who really didn't want a Tesla. with that profile, you need a model 3. with the charging network.

the newer cars seem fairly well built and there's never any issue with chargers. its as painless as it can be in an EV.

[Flying machine]

I had a Tesla M3 performance for 2 years and now have a Taycan Turbo. I would estimate 2/3 of my mileage is motorway and find it interesting how the two cars seem to behave differently. Both are excellent and comfortable motorway cruisers, particularly the Taycan. The Taycan coasts and seems to be more efficient on the motorway whereas the Tesla seems to be constantly using power, although I don't pretend to know what is actually happening underneath!
That said, something I have noticed is that the Taycan is very accurate at predicting range, even slightly pessimistic, and the Tesla is ludicrously optimistic. 300 miles? I don't think so, 220 more like.

[SWoll]

jason61c said:

as someone who really didn't want a Tesla. with that profile, you need a model 3. with the charging network.

the newer cars seem fairly well built and there's never any issue with chargers. its as painless as it can be in an EV.

Never any issues with chargers? I think you're rather overplaying the benefits of Tesla for a change Jason.

With Model 3/Y sales still growing there are definitely challenges at some locations with queues + as locations get busier charge speeds can significantly suffer.

Definitely better than relying on third party chargers but far from perfect IME.

Flying machine said:

I had a Tesla M3 performance for 2 years and now have a Taycan Turbo. I would estimate 2/3 of my mileage is motorway and find it interesting how the two cars seem to behave differently. Both are excellent and comfortable motorway cruisers, particularly the Taycan. The Taycan coasts and seems to be more efficient on the motorway whereas the Tesla seems to be constantly using power, although I don't pretend to know what is actually happening underneath!
That said, something I have noticed is that the Taycan is very accurate at predicting range, even slightly pessimistic, and the Tesla is ludicrously optimistic. 300 miles? I don't think so, 220 more like.

The Taycan has a 2 speed gearbox and as you mention is far better at coasting so is considerably better suited to motorway speeds. I agree on the mileage prediction, I always worked based on % rather than miles for that very reason when we had our M3P.

Edited by SWoll on Friday 18th March 09:58

[DonkeyApple]

X owners travelling to Cornwall last summer were getting annoyed by all the oiks in Model 3s taking up their charging spaces.

On a serious note, it's not really an issue to fit anomalous use in but if your regular use doesn't fit conveniently then the cash savings need to be considerable to compensate.

We can already see that the group for whom am EV can genuinely be a better option is sizeable and only growing but it would be a bit daft to buy an EV while your personal usage doesn't yet logically fit.

[SWoll]

DonkeyApple said:

X owners travelling to Cornwall last summer were getting annoyed by all the oiks in Model 3s taking up their charging spaces.

On a serious note, it's not really an issue to fit anomalous use in but if your regular use doesn't fit conveniently then the cash savings need to be considerable to compensate.

We can already see that the group for whom am EV can genuinely be a better option is sizeable and only growing but it would be a bit daft to buy an EV while your personal usage doesn't yet logically fit.

The issue I'd suggest is the number of business users covering large mileages who are being pushed towards EV via salary sacrifice deals and low BIK. They're also starting to realize that based on current ppm payments they are essentially out of pocket for charging costs in some cases.

[Mr E]

GT9 said:

Referring to sufficient amounts of power when talking about drag needs a bit of care.

I very much appreciate the correction. It’s been a long time since I did this.

For thing to go speedier, much more effort needed.

[DonkeyApple]

SWoll said:

The issue I'd suggest is the number of business users covering large mileages who are being pushed towards EV via salary sacrifice deals and low BIK. They're also starting to realize that based on current ppm payments they are essentially out of pocket for charging costs in some cases.

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

[SWoll]

Mr E said:

GT9 said:

Referring to sufficient amounts of power when talking about drag needs a bit of care.

I very much appreciate the correction. It’s been a long time since I did this.

For thing to go speedier, much more effort needed.

[SWoll]

DonkeyApple said:

SWoll said:

The issue I'd suggest is the number of business users covering large mileages who are being pushed towards EV via salary sacrifice deals and low BIK. They're also starting to realize that based on current ppm payments they are essentially out of pocket for charging costs in some cases.

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

Some perhaps, the vast majority not though I would suggest.

[plfrench]

DonkeyApple said:

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

Sensible approach (the last part) - it is madness the amount of resource wasted (time, money, energy) by businesses having their staff spend large amounts of time driving around the country (or sitting in traffic jams!) not to mention the health impact on the employees being expected to do this too. The era of significant numbers of people doing 20/30/40+k business miles per year must surely be coming to an end.

Stating that electric vehicles aren't suited to this task of high business mileages is missing the point. The consumption of any form of energy continuing this habit is too high - ICE vehicles enabling it masks the root problem.

[DonkeyApple]

SWoll said:

The issue I'd suggest is the number of business users covering large mileages who are being pushed towards EV via salary sacrifice deals and low BIK. They're also starting to realize that based on current ppm payments they are essentially out of pocket for charging costs in some cases.

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

[SWoll]

plfrench said:

DonkeyApple said:

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

Sensible approach (the last part) - it is madness the amount of resource wasted (time, money, energy) by businesses having their staff spend large amounts of time driving around the country (or sitting in traffic jams!) not to mention the health impact on the employees being expected to do this too. The era of significant numbers of people doing 20/30/40+k business miles per year must surely be coming to an end.

Stating that electric vehicles aren't suited to this task of high business mileages is missing the point. The consumption of any form of energy continuing this habit is too high - ICE vehicles enabling it masks the root problem.

I had certainly hoped that would be the case but based on conversations with some of my old colleagues things are already getting back to how they used to be pre-pandemic.

If the government really gave a st about the environment they'd be pushing for less cars on the road during busy periods, not the same amount just differently powered.

[DonkeyApple]

SWoll said:

Some perhaps, the vast majority not though I would suggest.

Not at the moment but ESG is so strong now that everyone is going to have to ensure solutions or lose out to competitors.

[DonkeyApple]

SWoll said:

plfrench said:

DonkeyApple said:

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

Sensible approach (the last part) - it is madness the amount of resource wasted (time, money, energy) by businesses having their staff spend large amounts of time driving around the country (or sitting in traffic jams!) not to mention the health impact on the employees being expected to do this too. The era of significant numbers of people doing 20/30/40+k business miles per year must surely be coming to an end.

Stating that electric vehicles aren't suited to this task of high business mileages is missing the point. The consumption of any form of energy continuing this habit is too high - ICE vehicles enabling it masks the root problem.

I had certainly hoped that would be the case but based on conversations with some of my old colleagues things are already getting back to how they used to be pre-pandemic.

If the government really gave a st about the environment they'd be pushing for less cars on the road during busy periods, not the same amount just differently powered.

It may be something that is industry specific.

There has been a monumental shift in not just attitude but understanding after two years of WFH.

Companies have seen which parts of their business need physical staff centralisation, which don't and which roles need physical movement of staff to achieve best results.

No well run firm wants its staff on trains, planes or automobiles during work hours if that employee isn't able to be productive.

Being able to use WFH to hire cheaper but just as high quality and more efficient labour out in the regions and save huge London salary premiums, huge lost commuting hours and travel costs/time has and is changing how many businesses in the SE work.

While some businesses cannot change that much others have been able to change for years and Covid forced the management's hand and overcame their fears.

Plenty of City hires at the moment are going to people not located in the South East. No deal cost, much lower salaries and no lost hours.

I'm not a great believer in Govt intervention and what we can see at the moment is that free market competition is inspiring firms to migrate their employee base away from having to physically congregate at singular geographical locations.

[SWoll]

DonkeyApple said:

SWoll said:

plfrench said:

DonkeyApple said:

This is the area where employers are beginning to supply solutions. They desire the benefit of having employees using EVs but have been realising that they have to invest in private infrastructure and role changes in order to facilitate this.

Certain major employers have been creating private charging networks so that commuting staff can fuel at work but also travelling employees between branches and corporate clients can refuel on site. Other employers are evolving employee roles so that where travel doesn't fit within the working remit of the EV on offer ie, they're reducing the size of regions as well as widening their geographical employment via WFH capabilities.

Sensible approach (the last part) - it is madness the amount of resource wasted (time, money, energy) by businesses having their staff spend large amounts of time driving around the country (or sitting in traffic jams!) not to mention the health impact on the employees being expected to do this too. The era of significant numbers of people doing 20/30/40+k business miles per year must surely be coming to an end.

Stating that electric vehicles aren't suited to this task of high business mileages is missing the point. The consumption of any form of energy continuing this habit is too high - ICE vehicles enabling it masks the root problem.

I had certainly hoped that would be the case but based on conversations with some of my old colleagues things are already getting back to how they used to be pre-pandemic.

If the government really gave a st about the environment they'd be pushing for less cars on the road during busy periods, not the same amount just differently powered.

It may be something that is industry specific.

There has been a monumental shift in not just attitude but understanding after two years of WFH.

Companies have seen which parts of their business need physical staff centralisation, which don't and which roles need physical movement of staff to achieve best results.

No well run firm wants its staff on trains, planes or automobiles during work hours if that employee isn't able to be productive.

Being able to use WFH to hire cheaper but just as high quality and more efficient labour out in the regions and save huge London salary premiums, huge lost commuting hours and travel costs/time has and is changing how many businesses in the SE work.

While some businesses cannot change that much others have been able to change for years and Covid forced the management's hand and overcame their fears.

Plenty of City hires at the moment are going to people not located in the South East. No deal cost, much lower salaries and no lost hours.

I'm not a great believer in Govt intervention and what we can see at the moment is that free market competition is inspiring firms to migrate their employee base away from having to physically congregate at singular geographical locations.

I hope you are right. I've worked in the IT industry for 25+ years and have recently gone freelance as don't plan to ever waste my time driving around the country again. Been fully remote for 2 years now and only plan to take on roles where that is maintained.

[DonkeyApple]

SWoll said:

I hope you are right. I've worked in the IT industry for 25+ years and have recently gone freelance as don't plan to ever waste my time driving around the country again. Been fully remote for 2 years now and only plan to take on roles where that is maintained.

I think you're safe. Ask anyone if they want their IT staff to WFH and its a resounding 'yes'.

If anything, from what I see the IT sector is one most at risk from true remote working. Why pay £200k for a chap who has chosen to make his home in the South East of England when you can pay his competitor overseas £50k?

The moment you don't need to bring expensive staff in to the physical office the next step is to realise that the whole world has become your recruitment pool rather than being massively restricted to the limited pool of people who happen to be based within 2 hours commuting distance?

I look at my particular industry and it hasn't needed to be based in the City for years. The firms can source the bulk of their labour in pretty much any U.K. town while just retaining a much smaller office in the City for the roles that specifically need to be there.

Personally, I think Covid has been the catalyst to speed up the inevitable which became plausible years ago but was retarded by older staff and as you get workers come in to replace them so the attitude changes strongly.

Likewise, U.K. companies that send hundreds of staff out in cars to the corners of the country, fly hundreds of staff all over the world are all reviewing the need to still be doing that when your entire staff pool now understands how to work electronically, you've learned how to weed out those who can't and can make use of educated local labour in those places. The need to meet ESG expectations is a strong driver for this.