EVs... no one wants them!
Discussion
BricktopST205 said:
Muzzer79 said:
So why the vitriol for EVs?
Why not just accept that they work for some people, but not you?
I wouldn't buy a Caterham 7 as my daily driver - there's not enough seats or boot for my needs, I'd get wet and it would be too noisy.
But I don't go on car forums saying how useless Caterhams are or how they're doomed to fail. I just accept that they don't suit my needs.
The thread title is "EVs... no one wants them!" That is why I am in this thread. Why not just accept that they work for some people, but not you?
I wouldn't buy a Caterham 7 as my daily driver - there's not enough seats or boot for my needs, I'd get wet and it would be too noisy.
But I don't go on car forums saying how useless Caterhams are or how they're doomed to fail. I just accept that they don't suit my needs.
The reality is "not everyone wants them!" rather than no one, currently around 85% of new car buyers don't want them and the vast majority of the 15% that do are being incentivised to want them, if the government were serious about making everyone want them (they should be) they would offer the same incentives to everyone (in equivalence)
Why as an example is there not a pension sacrifice scheme just like salary sacrifice, there should be the opportunity for taxable income to be offset against the purchase of an EV and to allow draw downs from your pension pot to buy a new EV without paying tax.
740EVTORQUES said:
ICE cars start off with a low ish carbon footprint and then it gets worse through use, increasingly so as they get old and less efficient.
An EV starts off with a higher footprint and it gets comparatively better as the in use emissions are far lower than an ICE car.
So the lifetime Carbon footprint per mile of an ICE car gets worse the more you use it while that of an EV gets better.
An ICE car never ‘pays off’ its carbon footprint as you describe
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried
(I’m assuming that you are mistaken rather than trolling mind? I’m actually not sure which I’d find more disturbing, that someone could be so simplistic or that they would bother to troll in this way
)
Yes you are 100% correct but who keeps their EV for 10+ years until it starts making sense from a green perspective compared to running their old ICE car for another ten years.An EV starts off with a higher footprint and it gets comparatively better as the in use emissions are far lower than an ICE car.
So the lifetime Carbon footprint per mile of an ICE car gets worse the more you use it while that of an EV gets better.
An ICE car never ‘pays off’ its carbon footprint as you describe
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried
(I’m assuming that you are mistaken rather than trolling mind? I’m actually not sure which I’d find more disturbing, that someone could be so simplistic or that they would bother to troll in this way
)Edited by 740EVTORQUES on Tuesday 30th April 15:04
My point isn't about EV's being green over a period of time but more people giving the facade as being green but chopping their car in every 3 years. Regardless if it is ICE or EV.
BricktopST205 said:
Yes you are 100% correct but who keeps their EV for 10+ years until it starts making sense from a green perspective compared to running their old ICE car for another ten years.
My point isn't about EV's being green over a period of time but more people giving the facade as being green but chopping their car in every 3 years. Regardless if it is ICE or EV.
Can you actually read?My point isn't about EV's being green over a period of time but more people giving the facade as being green but chopping their car in every 3 years. Regardless if it is ICE or EV.
Dave200 said:
740EVTORQUES said:
I’m assuming that you are mistaken rather than trolling mind you
Real mix of both in this thread to date.Did you know about 10% of the electricity generated in this country is lost in transmission to the consumer? That means only about 54% comes from renewables. Remove 100 smug points.
BricktopST205 said:
Yes you are 100% correct but who keeps their EV for 10+ years until it starts making sense from a green perspective compared to running their old ICE car for another ten years.
My point isn't about EV's being green over a period of time but more people giving the facade as being green but chopping their car in every 3 years. Regardless if it is ICE or EV.
Just in case you’re not trolling:My point isn't about EV's being green over a period of time but more people giving the facade as being green but chopping their car in every 3 years. Regardless if it is ICE or EV.
What matters is the lifetime experience of the car not of the user.
An EV can have 1 or 100 owners, the environmental impact is the same.
Its a common theme amongst people sceptical about environmental issues to centre the discussion around themselves, but it’s mistaken in both cases.
KingGary said:
Dave200 said:
740EVTORQUES said:
I’m assuming that you are mistaken rather than trolling mind you
Real mix of both in this thread to date.Did you know about 10% of the electricity generated in this country is lost in transmission to the consumer? That means only about 54% comes from renewables. Remove 100 smug points.
Wills2 said:
The reality is "not everyone wants them!" rather than no one
Amen to that.Wills2 said:
currently around 85% of new car buyers don't want them and the vast majority of the 15% that do are being incentivised to want them, if the government were serious about making everyone want them (they should be) they would offer the same incentives to everyone (in equivalence)
But those rubbishing EVs on this thread are not doing so for the lack of financial incentives.We're being told that it's to do with range, speed of charging, lack of suitability for their lifestyle.
Logic therefore dictates that they would always argue that EVs aren't suitable, no matter the incentives.
Muzzer79 said:
Wills2 said:
The reality is "not everyone wants them!" rather than no one
Amen to that.Wills2 said:
currently around 85% of new car buyers don't want them and the vast majority of the 15% that do are being incentivised to want them, if the government were serious about making everyone want them (they should be) they would offer the same incentives to everyone (in equivalence)
But those rubbishing EVs on this thread are not doing so for the lack of financial incentives.We're being told that it's to do with range, speed of charging, lack of suitability for their lifestyle.
Logic therefore dictates that they would always argue that EVs aren't suitable, no matter the incentives.
Numerous people, including myself, have posted how they would be happy to replace an ICE vehicle with an EV but they don't want to pay tens of thousands or sign up to a monthly lease to do that. The single thing that will dramatically change the landscape is the availability of second hand EVs that are priced at a level that makes giving up the old reliable ICE vehicle a no brainer.
Whilst depreciation on EVs will help, that supply is going to be limited if the new cars are perceived to be too expensive and have have too many shortcomings. 15% filtering down isn't going to lead to replacement. There won't be enough cars to replace the old ICE vehicles which if anything will help to maintain values.
What would transform the market and turbocharge uptake is the availability of cheap EVS and if the cars aren't that cheap, take all the incentives away from the wealthier segment of society and spread it around the lowest levels.
BricktopST205 said:
Tindersticks said:
You don’t know that yet though.
Nissan must because they only warrant the battery for 5 years/60000 miles. BricktopST205 said:
Nissan must because they only warrant the battery for 5 years/60000 miles and Tesla removed their unlimited mileage one 4 years ago.
Wait.Are you saying that a car's expected lifespan is the same as its warranty.
Because that would be nuts.
Warranty provisions are based on an expectation of low single digit % failures throughout a product fleet.
If they weren't the purchase price would be double.
Or maybe it only applies to every single consumer device anywhere in the world, except EV batteries...
BricktopST205 said:
Nissan must because they only warrant the battery for 5 years/60000 miles and Tesla removed their unlimited mileage one 4 years ago.
Almost all of the ICE manufacturers only warranty the entire car, including engine, for what? 3 years. No one throws away a car just because the manufacturer's warranty has expired.Also, Nissan & Renault should never be used as any archetype for the platform. They make gen 1 EVs that have never really made any effort to last a long time. They tried to circumnavigate it with the battery-rental model but people didn't take to it.
GT9 said:
Wait.
Are you saying that a car's expected lifespan is the same as its warranty.
Because that would be nuts.
Warranty provisions are based on an expectation of low single digit % failures throughout a product fleet.
If they weren't the purchase price would be double.
Or maybe it only applies to every single consumer device anywhere in the world, except EV batteries...
No I am not but when the warranty is vastly less for the battery then it does. Also especially when they only warrant for "state of health". Are you saying that a car's expected lifespan is the same as its warranty.
Because that would be nuts.
Warranty provisions are based on an expectation of low single digit % failures throughout a product fleet.
If they weren't the purchase price would be double.
Or maybe it only applies to every single consumer device anywhere in the world, except EV batteries...
Edited by BricktopST205 on Tuesday 30th April 16:47
Muzzer79 said:
But those rubbishing EVs on this thread are not doing so for the lack of financial incentives.
We're being told that it's to do with range, speed of charging, lack of suitability for their lifestyle.
Logic therefore dictates that they would always argue that EVs aren't suitable, no matter the incentives.
I would totally have an EV for local use in addition to my current ICE *IF* it was cheaper to run two cars rather than one. It's not unless we get down to really cheap EV's (which tbf I'm hopeful of) rather than a 12 year old Leaf being so stupidly expensive that it'll never pay for itself. We're being told that it's to do with range, speed of charging, lack of suitability for their lifestyle.
Logic therefore dictates that they would always argue that EVs aren't suitable, no matter the incentives.
If it has to replace the (old) ICE Estate then it has to do everything that does for around the same costs. Which means not only daily short use, "work" use but holidays, towing, day trips with family etc and not spending hours sat around waiting for chargers. If it's going to be more awkward then it needs to be (much) cheaper.
While arguably I could drop the requirement for towing and holidays by renting something more suitable for those (admittedly few and far between) occasions...that then eats into any "fuel" savings and makes it more expensive than keeping the existing car.
So currently it's the case that to replace a cheap old ICE Estate means "buying"[1] something that is best part of 100k[2] and so ends up much more expensive. Which may be justifiable by man maths if I desired anything anyone currently makes[3] but without that desire then it really is purely a "sensible" decision.
As I'm not doing massive daily mileage, there are no BIK savings to be had or Salary Sacrifice and I'm not on the PCP escalator there are no savings there.
I'm not fundamentally against EV's, I'd like one for daily use, it just doesn't really offer any advantage over what I have now *without* spending a heap more money.
I freely admit I'm massively awkward in what I want though.
[1] "Buying" because almost certainly lease or pcp etc for something like that.
[2] To have the best charging rate and best range (not to mention being able to tow) it needs to be the latest and greatest and the more expensive end of the market.
[3] I intensely dislike SUVs, I'd never willingly buy one and would prefer an Estate. There are last time I checked however two[4] EV estates, one of which is the Porsche and tiny, the other is the MG which falls flat on many metrics.
[4] With a third soon (the ID7) and
Fastdruid said:
I would totally have an EV for local use in addition to my current ICE *IF* it was cheaper to run two cars rather than one. It's not unless we get down to really cheap EV's (which tbf I'm hopeful of) rather than a 12 year old Leaf being so stupidly expensive that it'll never pay for itself.
Don't know if it helps but a few years back a mate bought a 2 yr old Nissan Leaf for £10k, kept it 3 yrs / 36k miles then sold it for for £8.4k. That 36k required no fuel and effectively no servicing. It also meant the 36k miles wasn't put on his other cars.
I don't know if similar reliable Leafs or EVs can be had for £1600 over 3 years.
heebeegeetee said:
Fastdruid said:
I would totally have an EV for local use in addition to my current ICE *IF* it was cheaper to run two cars rather than one. It's not unless we get down to really cheap EV's (which tbf I'm hopeful of) rather than a 12 year old Leaf being so stupidly expensive that it'll never pay for itself.
Don't know if it helps but a few years back a mate bought a 2 yr old Nissan Leaf for £10k, kept it 3 yrs / 36k miles then sold it for for £8.4k. That 36k required no fuel and effectively no servicing. It also meant the 36k miles wasn't put on his other cars.
I don't know if similar reliable Leafs or EVs can be had for £1600 over 3 years.
Roughly 26p/mile in depreciation alone and I'd only be saving 27p/mi in fuel. Add the 3p/mile (assuming 10p/kWh and 3.3 Mi/kWh) and it's costing 29p to save 27p.
Obviously then have all the other costs of running a second vehicle (mot & insurance).
Edited by Fastdruid on Tuesday 30th April 17:15
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff