EVs... no one wants them!

[Fastlane]

DonkeyApple said:

The charger is an interesting aspect. Now the ZEV Mandate is starting if I were at the point where I wished to switch to an EV and I was going to lease a new one, the first thing I'd be doing is asking the salesman when he was going to pay for my charger install to allow his deal to go ahead.

The Mandate is a golden ticket for consumers to hold vendors to ransom but sadly consumers very rarely exercise their opportunities.

But the market itself will evolve. Vendors will have to start throwing packages together to start fking each other over to ensure they get the EV sale that saves them from a tax reaming and allows them to sell 4 ICE units.

Every EV sale a competitor takes is 3 to 4 ICE sales lost.

Give me a fair lease price, pay for the charger and why not cover a chunk of my energy bill and I'll let you sell those 3 ICE cars you need to shift. As the EV consumer I'm absolutely essential to them being able to sell any ICE cars.

They're going to have to innovate to attract the non BIK buyers and they're going to have to fight each other for them.

Or, of course as we're stoopid Brits, they'll just increase the price 20% and offer a 5% cashback and we'll be in like Flynn for our savvy bargain.

Interestingly the deals on Motability for EVs are pretty simular to what you are suggesting.

My brother in law, who is terminally ill, was looking at buying a second hand EV for family duties as he has 2 youngish children and has off-street parking. He is a car enthusiast but has never had a brand new car in his life, and it was looking unlikely he would ever get one.

I was talking to him earlier this week and mentioned the Motability scheme. As you may know, people who are in receipt of certain benefits can put a proportion of these towards a brand new lease car, optionaly paying an upfront payment if they want a more expensive car. The lease includes 20k miles per year, insurance for up to 3 people, servicing, MOT, road tax and even tyres. For the increasing number of EVs on the Motability list, they will also install a free charger at your house and preferential pricing for various charge networks, making the whole switch to an EV rather attractive.

To cut a long story short, by Thursday he had ordered a brand new Hyundai Ioniq 5 which he is collecting next week. The whole family is extremely excited.

The salesman said they sell quite a few cars this way and don't really make any money but it does go towards their sales targets.

I know Hyundai have been actively targetting Motability with some fantastic Ioniq 5 deals, no doubt to help them to meet the ZEV mandate.

[Evanivitch]

Fastlane said:

I was talking to him earlier this week and mentioned the Motability scheme. As you may know, people who are in receipt of certain benefits can put a proportion of these towards a brand new lease car, optionaly paying an upfront payment if they want a more expensive car. The lease includes 20k miles per year, insurance for up to 3 people, servicing, MOT, road tax and even tyres. For the increasing number of EVs on the Motability list, they will also install a free charger at your house and preferential pricing for various charge networks, making the whole switch to an EV rather attractive.
.

Octopus' Salary Sacrifice scheme is the same. They work with Small and Medium businesses quite well. The prices we're okay when I was looking, but not enough to tempt me on a lease.

[riskyj]

DonkeyApple said:

I keep borrowing EVs to test this but while it's been doable for a few years it's still not doable my way.

Definitely, for local pottering it's a done deal, when the current car for that finally goes in the bin it would be mad to not replace with an EV but not yet for the car that gets used for the 200 mile round trips. Needs a few more years, if only for more destination chargers to go in.

Personally, if someone can home charge then in the U.K. I think we're at the point that anyone can switch but it's just now about which type of vehicle is most convenient.

The 200 mile trips are easily doable in an EV. We’re now an entirely EV family but if the occasion ever came up that the EV might not be well suited to, I’d simply rent an ICE for that single trip, but I’m struggling to think of what that might be. A road trip to somewhere remote with poor charging infrastructure I guess, but my kids are relatively young and the less time spent in a car the better.

[Sheepshanks]

Fastlane said:

Interestingly the deals on Motability for EVs are pretty simular to what you are suggesting.

My brother in law, who is terminally ill, was looking at buying a second hand EV for family duties as he has 2 youngish children and has off-street parking. He is a car enthusiast but has never had a brand new car in his life, and it was looking unlikely he would ever get one.

I was talking to him earlier this week and mentioned the Motability scheme. As you may know, people who are in receipt of certain benefits can put a proportion of these towards a brand new lease car, optionaly paying an upfront payment if they want a more expensive car. The lease includes 20k miles per year, insurance for up to 3 people, servicing, MOT, road tax and even tyres. For the increasing number of EVs on the Motability list, they will also install a free charger at your house and preferential pricing for various charge networks, making the whole switch to an EV rather attractive.

To cut a long story short, by Thursday he had ordered a brand new Hyundai Ioniq 5 which he is collecting next week. The whole family is extremely excited.

The salesman said they sell quite a few cars this way and don't really make any money but it does go towards their sales targets.

I know Hyundai have been actively targetting Motability with some fantastic Ioniq 5 deals, no doubt to help them to meet the ZEV mandate.

I’ve mentioned the Motability EV deals before - not having a pop at Motability customers, but as an example of the kind of pricing that’s possible. I don’t think there’s any VAT on Motability cars but even if you added that it’s still amazing for the overall package, especially with 20K/yr mileage. I noticed a Honda dealer even offering cash back to Motability customers for the eNy1 that many got excited about on here with a “cheap” pcp deal.

[Sheepshanks]

Evanivitch said:

Octopus' Salary Sacrifice scheme is the same. They work with Small and Medium businesses quite well. The prices we're okay when I was looking, but not enough to tempt me on a lease.

I think it’s fair enough to grab what you can while you can but SS deals look like a rip off when you look at the gross cost - the firms involved are making fortunes, basically taking tax that should be going to public services etc and pocketing it for themselves. Have a look at Tusker’s accounts.

[griffter]

number2 said:

It explains a calculation, how can it be unhelpful?

The comparison depends on the cost of energy - electricity or petrol/diesel, and the efficiency of a car - that's quite obvious. Anyone can update it and test sensitivities if it's important to them.

The argument you mention that isn't settled is one I'm not part of. I'm here for the maths, I'm not confused in the slightest about EVs .

Sorry, I meant comparing mpg (which is independent of the cost of fuel for a ICE) with a calculated mpg “equivalent” involving the cost of electricity for a BEV is an unhelpful methodology because, as some one else queried, it leads to a result dependent on the cost of electricity: 25mpg or 240mpg in the extreme. Hence the methodology is unhelpful and leads to confusion. I was taking issue with the methodology, not your post.

[John87]

Sheepshanks said:

I think it’s fair enough to grab what you can while you can but SS deals look like a rip off when you look at the gross cost - the firms involved are making fortunes, basically taking tax that should be going to public services etc and pocketing it for themselves. Have a look at Tusker’s accounts.

I agree with this- my car is £992 gross with the price set while interest rates were 1.5% yet I could get a personal lease today for £630 for the newer model year in similar spec. It works out cheaper for me with the tax saving and there is insurance to take into account but the gross amount could easily be £300 less and the lease company would still make comparable profit to a normal retail contract.

[740EVTORQUES]

And as a private salary sacrifice buyer the real savings are in buying a 2 year ex lease EV I imagine if you have that option?

[NDA]

An article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that EV tyres only last 7,500 miles and they're significantly more expensive to replace. The comments full of "EV fanatics ignore science" etc.

It's like running in treacle sometimes, so much misinformation being peddled by supposedly serious news outlets.

[Dave200]

moktabe said:

You make some good points.

However, I just think it's sad that anyone feels the need for justification of anything they either buy or do in life.

Just get on with it, enjoy the choices made and bks to what anyone else thinks.

Some insecure people wear their choice of car like a badge of pride.

[Dave200]

braddo said:

The other thing the anti-EV crowd keep forgetting is that the discussion is about mass adoption by the UK over the next 20-30 years.

It is not about forcing every single edge case PHer into an EV by next year.

The fact is that even today, EVs are suitable for millions and millions of UK households - this isn't about affordability, but suitability, i.e. many of those households might not get an EV until 10-20 years from now, but an EV would fit into their daily lives quite easily TODAY.

That won't stop insecure people from inventing reasons why they don't want one.

[Turtle Shed]

NDA said:

An article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that EV tyres only last 7,500 miles and they're significantly more expensive to replace. The comments full of "EV fanatics ignore science" etc.

It's like running in treacle sometimes, so much misinformation being peddled by supposedly serious news outlets.

Had my Leaf for just under a decade. It's on 76k miles. £70 per corner for Michelin tyres last time. Fronts last around 22k, rears about 30k.

[DonkeyApple]

NDA said:

An article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that EV tyres only last 7,500 miles and they're significantly more expensive to replace. The comments full of "EV fanatics ignore science" etc.

It's like running in treacle sometimes, so much misinformation being peddled by supposedly serious news outlets.

Anyone getting more than a few thousand miles from their tyres in any car is a 'woke, pussy, libtard who want to bum your your dog while speaking in foreign tongues to you' so how is the Telegraph squaring this with the whole EVs are for 'woke, pussy, libtards who want to bum your your dog while speaking in foreign tongues to you' when they've just written an article about how manly, powerful and wile agenda destroying they are?

And who reads the Telegraph in this century? Pretentious DailyMail readers who don't need the pictures of very young girls anymore because their tackle has stopped working?

Tyre wear is going to be greater due to the larger tyres and their heavier cars. That's not a great scientific breakthrough. All cars have been getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier as more consumers have been able and willing to borrow more money in order to fuel the insatiable human desire for bigger and better. And almost all national economic policies around the world have favoured the increasing of this spending.

There is also another amusing reason as to why tyre particulate quantities have recently appeared on the radar of the human consciousness which is that humans aren't very good at comprehending how percentages work. The percentage of tyre dust being measured in road side samples has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. This is horrifying and every one is going to die. Numbers going up like that are really bad. Or might it be that other numbers have been going down? . Road side sampling shows that the levels of iron oxide in the waste has dumped over the last two decades. Brake dust has fallen due to tech advances and now the slow migration in urban environments to EV. Exhaust particulates have fallen as engines were made more efficient in their burning and this reduction has sped up since 2015 when people ended their insatiable demand for diesel.

And here is the real kicker, there has been no credible or extensive research, to date, on the impact of tyre related pm2.5 on mammalian lungs. We've been studying combustion particulates and flyashes since the 60s. Same with toxic gasses but just like with the airborne pm of the Tube network there hasn't been the research and so we don't actually know the issue. With the Tube we already appreciate that the bulk of the pm2.5 is pollen and humans which the lungs can process quite harmlessly. We know that airborne tyre particulates are not a good shape for the alveolar and due to being a manufactured product there will be atoms of things that aren't good to have in the bloodstream above certain levels on their surface but we don't actually even know how much of the tyre wear becomes airborne even. Some really basic stuff that no one has yet collected the data on but we find ourselves with agenda driven media not letting that stand in the way.

The research that has been done so far is tyre wear content in soils and waterways. And we are starting to understand that tyres are a primary source of micro plastic pollution. We are also seeing the data that this is the bulk of tyre pollution, it's not airborne but heavy and goes straight into the system that ends up in waterways and soils.

As with most of these man made consumer pollution issues there is only one sane answer which is for people to consume less. We have people covering fewer miles per car but a large pet of this decline is a result of households increasing the number of cars that they have. Still doing a household annual mileage of 20k but it's now spread over 2-3 cars instead of 1-2. And by allowing unfettered lending against cars we have facilitated and empowered the human need for their objects to be ever larger. The most popular cars among those who cannot borrow money is the small car. The most popular car among those who can borrow money is the largest car the bank will allow them to have.

So there is only one solution to particulate pollution and that is to get consumers to produce fewer particles which means they must use smaller things so there are fewer particles to come off them and less mass to drive the creation of those particles. There is literally only one solution and that's to stop fuelling that basic and core human desire for consumption and bigger and better by disarming all the people doing so. Give a toddler a loaded gun and invariably things that are bad for society are going to happen. Chose to not weaponise toddlers and they aren't.

Deleverage the car market and the size and weight of the U.K. fleet will start to drop. The value of that fleet will also drop and with fewer high price vehicles involved in accidents then insurance costs will weaken. Smaller cars mean less congestion so faster journey times.

The true insanity of the lending is that almost all the borrowed money goes overseas. U.K. consumers are borrowing their future income and just hurling it into the sea in some drug crazed, mass lunacy. If these maniacs so want to go to a bank and pay huge sums to borrow their next year's income and then go and buy something they simply don't need then at least let's have these total nutters not throw that money into the sea but at the island they live on.

There's almost no downside to naturally reversing the size trend of cars in the U.K. and a raft of obvious positives.

Sadly, there will be a thicko Telegraph reader who has had to borrow £100k to have a massive foreign tank on their driveway because they aren't smart enough to earn the money to just buy it who has had it confirmed to them that Mrs Miggins next door down with her electric Korean thing is the problem.

Where's the downside to putting a non income related cap on debt secured against cars? It's easy enough to do and people would just naturally switch to less polluting options without any need to fanny about with taxes and subsidies.

[Fastlane]

NDA said:

An article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that EV tyres only last 7,500 miles and they're significantly more expensive to replace. The comments full of "EV fanatics ignore science" etc.

It's like running in treacle sometimes, so much misinformation being peddled by supposedly serious news outlets.

I just had the 2 rear Michelins replaced on my Model 3 Long Range. They did 19k miles, on a car that can do 60 in just over 4 seconds. If I get 5k miles out of my Atom, I'm happy!

When I went to pay, the owner of the tyre place told me that EV tyres don't last as long, but didn't even bother to ask how many miles my tyres had done. He then proceeded to tell me that he read about 16 Teslas being frozen in Austria and running out of charge and having to be towed. I reckon he meant an article on GB News about Teslas freezing in America.

He probably watches Geoff buys cars too...

[NDA]

DonkeyApple said:

Tyre wear is going to be greater due to the larger tyres and their heavier cars.

Perhaps it is on some - my experience is that my 3LR tyres lasted just over 30,000 miles, longer than on most ICE cars I've owned. They cost the same to replace as 'normal' tyres too.

[Dave200]

NDA said:

DonkeyApple said:

Tyre wear is going to be greater due to the larger tyres and their heavier cars.

Perhaps it is on some - my experience is that my 3LR tyres lasted just over 30,000 miles, longer than on most ICE cars I've owned. They cost the same to replace as 'normal' tyres too.

It's waffle. I got a comfortable 20k+ miles out of my first set on the model 3, and they are smaller and cheaper than the equivalent set on the M340i. I'd be willing to bet they don't last as long on the BMW either.

[FiF]

DonkeyApple said:

NDA said:

An article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that EV tyres only last 7,500 miles and they're significantly more expensive to replace. The comments full of "EV fanatics ignore science" etc.

It's like running in treacle sometimes, so much misinformation being peddled by supposedly serious news outlets.

Anyone getting more than a few thousand miles from their tyres in any car is a 'woke, pussy, libtard who want to bum your your dog while speaking in foreign tongues to you' so how is the Telegraph squaring this with the whole EVs are for 'woke, pussy, libtards who want to bum your your dog while speaking in foreign tongues to you' when they've just written an article about how manly, powerful and wile agenda destroying they are?

And who reads the Telegraph in this century? Pretentious DailyMail readers who don't need the pictures of very young girls anymore because their tackle has stopped working?

Tyre wear is going to be greater due to the larger tyres and their heavier cars. That's not a great scientific breakthrough. All cars have been getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier as more consumers have been able and willing to borrow more money in order to fuel the insatiable human desire for bigger and better. And almost all national economic policies around the world have favoured the increasing of this spending.

There is also another amusing reason as to why tyre particulate quantities have recently appeared on the radar of the human consciousness which is that humans aren't very good at comprehending how percentages work. The percentage of tyre dust being measured in road side samples has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. This is horrifying and every one is going to die. Numbers going up like that are really bad. Or might it be that other numbers have been going down? . Road side sampling shows that the levels of iron oxide in the waste has dumped over the last two decades. Brake dust has fallen due to tech advances and now the slow migration in urban environments to EV. Exhaust particulates have fallen as engines were made more efficient in their burning and this reduction has sped up since 2015 when people ended their insatiable demand for diesel.

And here is the real kicker, there has been no credible or extensive research, to date, on the impact of tyre related pm2.5 on mammalian lungs. We've been studying combustion particulates and flyashes since the 60s. Same with toxic gasses but just like with the airborne pm of the Tube network there hasn't been the research and so we don't actually know the issue. With the Tube we already appreciate that the bulk of the pm2.5 is pollen and humans which the lungs can process quite harmlessly. We know that airborne tyre particulates are not a good shape for the alveolar and due to being a manufactured product there will be atoms of things that aren't good to have in the bloodstream above certain levels on their surface but we don't actually even know how much of the tyre wear becomes airborne even. Some really basic stuff that no one has yet collected the data on but we find ourselves with agenda driven media not letting that stand in the way.

The research that has been done so far is tyre wear content in soils and waterways. And we are starting to understand that tyres are a primary source of micro plastic pollution. We are also seeing the data that this is the bulk of tyre pollution, it's not airborne but heavy and goes straight into the system that ends up in waterways and soils.

As with most of these man made consumer pollution issues there is only one sane answer which is for people to consume less. We have people covering fewer miles per car but a large pet of this decline is a result of households increasing the number of cars that they have. Still doing a household annual mileage of 20k but it's now spread over 2-3 cars instead of 1-2. And by allowing unfettered lending against cars we have facilitated and empowered the human need for their objects to be ever larger. The most popular cars among those who cannot borrow money is the small car. The most popular car among those who can borrow money is the largest car the bank will allow them to have.

So there is only one solution to particulate pollution and that is to get consumers to produce fewer particles which means they must use smaller things so there are fewer particles to come off them and less mass to drive the creation of those particles. There is literally only one solution and that's to stop fuelling that basic and core human desire for consumption and bigger and better by disarming all the people doing so. Give a toddler a loaded gun and invariably things that are bad for society are going to happen. Chose to not weaponise toddlers and they aren't.

Deleverage the car market and the size and weight of the U.K. fleet will start to drop. The value of that fleet will also drop and with fewer high price vehicles involved in accidents then insurance costs will weaken. Smaller cars mean less congestion so faster journey times.

The true insanity of the lending is that almost all the borrowed money goes overseas. U.K. consumers are borrowing their future income and just hurling it into the sea in some drug crazed, mass lunacy. If these maniacs so want to go to a bank and pay huge sums to borrow their next year's income and then go and buy something they simply don't need then at least let's have these total nutters not throw that money into the sea but at the island they live on.

There's almost no downside to naturally reversing the size trend of cars in the U.K. and a raft of obvious positives.

Sadly, there will be a thicko Telegraph reader who has had to borrow £100k to have a massive foreign tank on their driveway because they aren't smart enough to earn the money to just buy it who has had it confirmed to them that Mrs Miggins next door down with her electric Korean thing is the problem.

Where's the downside to putting a non income related cap on debt secured against cars? It's easy enough to do and people would just naturally switch to less polluting options without any need to fanny about with taxes and subsidies.

Classic DA rant.

[romft123]

FiF said:

DonkeyApple said:

NDA said:

An article in the Telegraph this morning suggesting that EV tyres only last 7,500 miles and they're significantly more expensive to replace. The comments full of "EV fanatics ignore science" etc.

It's like running in treacle sometimes, so much misinformation being peddled by supposedly serious news outlets.

Anyone getting more than a few thousand miles from their tyres in any car is a 'woke, pussy, libtard who want to bum your your dog while speaking in foreign tongues to you' so how is the Telegraph squaring this with the whole EVs are for 'woke, pussy, libtards who want to bum your your dog while speaking in foreign tongues to you' when they've just written an article about how manly, powerful and wile agenda destroying they are?

And who reads the Telegraph in this century? Pretentious DailyMail readers who don't need the pictures of very young girls anymore because their tackle has stopped working?

Tyre wear is going to be greater due to the larger tyres and their heavier cars. That's not a great scientific breakthrough. All cars have been getting larger and larger and heavier and heavier as more consumers have been able and willing to borrow more money in order to fuel the insatiable human desire for bigger and better. And almost all national economic policies around the world have favoured the increasing of this spending.

There is also another amusing reason as to why tyre particulate quantities have recently appeared on the radar of the human consciousness which is that humans aren't very good at comprehending how percentages work. The percentage of tyre dust being measured in road side samples has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. This is horrifying and every one is going to die. Numbers going up like that are really bad. Or might it be that other numbers have been going down? . Road side sampling shows that the levels of iron oxide in the waste has dumped over the last two decades. Brake dust has fallen due to tech advances and now the slow migration in urban environments to EV. Exhaust particulates have fallen as engines were made more efficient in their burning and this reduction has sped up since 2015 when people ended their insatiable demand for diesel.

And here is the real kicker, there has been no credible or extensive research, to date, on the impact of tyre related pm2.5 on mammalian lungs. We've been studying combustion particulates and flyashes since the 60s. Same with toxic gasses but just like with the airborne pm of the Tube network there hasn't been the research and so we don't actually know the issue. With the Tube we already appreciate that the bulk of the pm2.5 is pollen and humans which the lungs can process quite harmlessly. We know that airborne tyre particulates are not a good shape for the alveolar and due to being a manufactured product there will be atoms of things that aren't good to have in the bloodstream above certain levels on their surface but we don't actually even know how much of the tyre wear becomes airborne even. Some really basic stuff that no one has yet collected the data on but we find ourselves with agenda driven media not letting that stand in the way.

The research that has been done so far is tyre wear content in soils and waterways. And we are starting to understand that tyres are a primary source of micro plastic pollution. We are also seeing the data that this is the bulk of tyre pollution, it's not airborne but heavy and goes straight into the system that ends up in waterways and soils.

As with most of these man made consumer pollution issues there is only one sane answer which is for people to consume less. We have people covering fewer miles per car but a large pet of this decline is a result of households increasing the number of cars that they have. Still doing a household annual mileage of 20k but it's now spread over 2-3 cars instead of 1-2. And by allowing unfettered lending against cars we have facilitated and empowered the human need for their objects to be ever larger. The most popular cars among those who cannot borrow money is the small car. The most popular car among those who can borrow money is the largest car the bank will allow them to have.

So there is only one solution to particulate pollution and that is to get consumers to produce fewer particles which means they must use smaller things so there are fewer particles to come off them and less mass to drive the creation of those particles. There is literally only one solution and that's to stop fuelling that basic and core human desire for consumption and bigger and better by disarming all the people doing so. Give a toddler a loaded gun and invariably things that are bad for society are going to happen. Chose to not weaponise toddlers and they aren't.

Deleverage the car market and the size and weight of the U.K. fleet will start to drop. The value of that fleet will also drop and with fewer high price vehicles involved in accidents then insurance costs will weaken. Smaller cars mean less congestion so faster journey times.

The true insanity of the lending is that almost all the borrowed money goes overseas. U.K. consumers are borrowing their future income and just hurling it into the sea in some drug crazed, mass lunacy. If these maniacs so want to go to a bank and pay huge sums to borrow their next year's income and then go and buy something they simply don't need then at least let's have these total nutters not throw that money into the sea but at the island they live on.

There's almost no downside to naturally reversing the size trend of cars in the U.K. and a raft of obvious positives.

Sadly, there will be a thicko Telegraph reader who has had to borrow £100k to have a massive foreign tank on their driveway because they aren't smart enough to earn the money to just buy it who has had it confirmed to them that Mrs Miggins next door down with her electric Korean thing is the problem.

Where's the downside to putting a non income related cap on debt secured against cars? It's easy enough to do and people would just naturally switch to less polluting options without any need to fanny about with taxes and subsidies.

Classic DA rant.

Its to sell papers or clickbait, or to get the online edition. Papers lie, twist and will do anything to sell their products....anything.

[Saweep]

Anyone know how the sales of the RR Spectre have gone?

A year or so ago, I'm sure they were apparently all sold out for years, but brand new ones keep appearing on AT and dealer websites.

This indicates to me that the completed purchases haven't materialised by some way...Ferrari would rather burn any new unsold cars than advertise their availability to the proles.

Bentley delaying their EV coupe, again, makes me think that the RR hasn't been the success initially hoped for.

[DonkeyApple]

Saweep said:

Anyone know how the sales of the RR Spectre have gone?

A year or so ago, I'm sure they were apparently all sold out for years, but brand new ones keep appearing on AT and dealer websites.

This indicates to me that the completed purchases haven't materialised by some way...Ferrari would rather burn any new unsold cars than advertise their availability to the proles.

Bentley delaying their EV coupe, again, makes me think that the RR hasn't been the success initially hoped for.

I'd imagine that a chunk of sales were supposed to come from China but they're having a bit of a consumer crunch at the moment which probably doesn't help. With petrol still being cheap in the US and ME then it might be a slow sell at the very top end?