Human-nature?: One of EV’s unanswered questions:

[OldDuffer]

The vast majority of you are NOT going put a new battery in an 8YO car, and if you say you will - [some definitely will], yet the vast majority are bloody liars. And here’s why…

I’m sorry, human-nature is human-nature, the bulk of us drive the cars we do, because we can. Not because we need to. Most would get by with a 15YO Mondeo, yet we don’t? There’s far more going on.. Status is the big unwritten force. Nope, 90% of us drive cars, and worse, do this on finance because we can’t afford to flop the cash down at the dealership. We do this because we have a greater desire to impress people we don’t like.

An EV purchase is slightly different. It asks us to capitalise fuel-cost upfront in its battery, such that day-to-day costs are lower. It was bought on finance and impresses the neighbours, OK, the neighbours can’t afford their car either, but that’s all fine. What we’re getting is cars that dependent on who you listen to, have significant range reduction in 4-8 years. The ICE equivalent of requiring a replacement engine in any 4-8YO ICE vehicle. Thing is, few put a new engine in a 4-8YO ICE car. The existing EV set wouldn’t be seen dead in a 8YO car, and certainly won’t put a new battery in one. Its cost is only viable if they’re happy to drive what will become a 9-10-11-12…. 15-16YO car? Worse, those that currently buy 8YO ICE cars don’t put new engines in them either. If we’re students of human-nature, most of us buy a car on finance we can’t afford. Even if, ahem, even if… the battery is half the price and offers twice the range, we’re not going continue our drive to impress people that don’t like us running a 10YO car with a replacement battery that cost us say £8,000 or a helluva lot more?

If we’re amongst the 90% that buy cars on finance - clearly we can only afford the ‘payments’ not the car - it won’t be us that replaces batteries anymore than it's us that replaces ICE engines now. And as said, if you say you will, unless you’re the sorts with engine-cranes in your garage, you’re vying in idealism for a place as a Miss World contestant, or an ‘ocean-going’ bloody liar.

Which begs the question, who will?

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 09:01

[OldDuffer]

OK, then, whatever that period is, I wrote "dependent on who you listen to" (pick your number) my mistake in the question might be to give numbers ranging 4-8 years, the question remains.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 09:25

[OldDuffer]

SWoll said:

Human nature changes as the word does. The fact we don't do something today doesn't mean we won't do it in 10 years time.

If you'd told many of us in 2011 we'd be plugging our cars in via a 3-pin plug overnight for 'fuel' rather than visiting a petrol station weekly I'm sure most would have laughed. Yet here we are?

That's the first attempt to answer the question. And perhaps you're right. Yet, self-interest may motivate different behaviour, yet people don't really change. They say 'sex sells', status is the bigger driver, it sells more.

As for the rest... Whatever an EV (pick a number, but 'think' quite a bit shorter) life-cycle is, clearly EVs are here to stay. My broad question, who will volunteer significant amounts on an otherwise very serviceable old car at (pick a number) years remains unanswered. The fact it may do 300K (few people run that many miles in the battery life-cycle) circumvents the root question.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 09:59

[OldDuffer]

TheDeuce said:

OP basically boils down to:

"People that can afford a shiny new car won't replace the engine or batteries... That will be left to those that can only afford it when it's older and cheaper"

And what's is weird about that exactly?

Because that's misquoted or misunderstood the question.

"People that can afford a shiny new car won't replace the engine or batteries... That will be left to those that can only afford it when it's older and cheaper" Only (pick a number) otherwise servicaeable cars with iffy ICE engines are worth £300 and head for the car-breakers. Why will an iffy battery be different? My question has again been circumvented.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 10:12

[OldDuffer]

TheDeuce said:

Also many of us actually prefer the driver experience and convenience of electric over ICE. There are tangible positives to EV beyond the image and tax breaks.

Image definitely matters to me if I'm honest.. but also I love a nice car as a driver.

You've reinforced my point, you're driving for now. You'll pass the problem on. But the question needs to be answered, and at some point, you can avoid it.

[OldDuffer]

Mr E said:

And even when they have 50% capacity, there’s useful second life as energy storage for the home.
10kWh of cheap storage in the house could be very useful.

And you've still not understood or avoided the root of the question. When at 50% capacity, are you offering to put a new battery in what will be an unfashionable car? If it were an ICE car it'd still be good. By your answer it doesn't sound like it.

[OldDuffer]

SHutchinson said:

The folk that currently buy 10yo 7 series BMW's or S8 Audis will be the folk that buy 10yo EV's.

They'll have the same aggro with a 10yo EV that they currently have with their 10yo exec barge that they could never have afforded to buy outright when it was new.

But, some folk like that sort of aggro. They must, otherwise they'd never buy a 10yo exec barge, they'd buy a car they could "afford".
.....

I think that is a thoughtful and sensible answer, it understands the root question. It's true many do exactly that. I think we can safely predict, that is something we will see.

[OldDuffer]

SWoll said:

Even assuming 60-70% battery life on a 10 year old car I guarantee you'll have less to worry about on an EV than a 10 year old 150k mile ICE car.

This also side-steps the question. 10 years is a number a little too, er... convenient. Not all but the majority of ICE cars hit the ragged-edge of the breaker-pile at 15-17YO. With a will, £500 of old ICE car can usually be made to limp on to 20 years. There's many 2005 cars on our streets. Where the ragged-edge for an EV sits, depends on who you hear, (pick a number) but it's a lot less, and the bill to get it to limp on to 15-17 years will not be a lesser worry.

I call side-step.

[OldDuffer]

kambites said:

Citation for the bit in bold? I would expect an EV to be easier to run to 20 years old than an ICE vehicle, albeit with reduced range.

If fact, EVs are viable at 20 years on the ex-factory battery, your case is won - this thread has no reason to exist.

I see many quote this thread as 'odd'. That may be true, instead of perpetuating the standard tropes, it forces a car-buying question many pay not to answer. Some of you clearly don't understand the question at root, or its perspective as cars drop down the food-chain. If you're able to pass the problem on, I don't suppose you'll ever need to.

I suppose the question could be rephrased, how will Bangernomics work with a 15YO EV?

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 11:39

[OldDuffer]

kambites said:

Indeed, and I haven't really seen any evidence either way in the automotive market (EVs are just too new) but I work with Lithium Ion batteries and I see no reason to believe they wont last that well if looked after properly.

I've never managed to get decent Yuasa 12V batteries from Halfrods last much over 5 years, then again, that might be me.

[OldDuffer]

TheDeuce said:

....keeping an old banger on the road in some attempt to prove you can have a 'real car' as opposed to the car you actually afford is quite selfish.

But is it? Be clear I don't know the answer to this. I'm a high-mile user never doing less than 15K, until lock-down, often 25-26K a year. I bought my 1998 car at 2 years old. Most of you have owned 4-5 cars in that time. Me? With galactic miles, one shed. And i do own a engine-crane. Had I bought 4-5 odd cars most would be scrap by now. Which is greener? I can't answer.

4-5 x Prius etc or 1 x 1998 Eurobox?

I suspect the four extra most of you have owned made for worse than the one I still run.

And i could be wrong.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 12:27

[OldDuffer]

I'm not so sure of the argument the other way. The foot-print to make 4-5 cars is vast because that's the complete picture. What might tip things is my miles. Had I not 'driven' mine and done more average miles, I'm pretty sure my route wins. But yes, just over 500K on two engines and that's far from green, thus I suspect I'm not looking so good. And yes, I am the sort that WILL change batteries, only that's not the norm. Most woudl struggle to produce much more than a Halfrods comedy trolley-jack.

I would put big money on a 1950s Cadillac doing 12mpg still running as greener than the umpteen cars others bought to replace such things.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 13:01

[OldDuffer]

TheDeuce said:

Admit it... You're being silly aren't you?

Do you understand that your car, and definitely the 50's Cadillac have created far more CO2 from their use than their manufacture? If you had switched to a greener car mid point through your current cars life you would almost certainly be greener at this point - in fact, given your mileage, you definitely would be.

Am I? The manufacture of, in my case a car that does in mpg 60% of what it's modern ICE equiv. will do means a modern ICE's 40% advantage may not be enough to cover the fact that whereas everyone else has bought 3-4 cars more than me, they had to make the things. 3-4 cars is a lot of steel, plastics etc etc. OK I have no idea what the footprint for all that is, but I suspect the 40% improvement isn't enough. - this at average miles anyway. Making an EV consumes a different cocktail of nasties, I supsect not much less than an ICE car, and can't be good. The fuel used to move the thing in a more typical case is not as high relative to manufacture as we'd think.


"the 50's Cadillac have created far more CO2 from their use than their manufacture"

Are you sure? I read that even an EV needs 70K miles to match the energy requirement in manufacture, (but liek all this stuff the source has a bias) but if we take it at face, s the difference is not that marked, and in my case I didn't require 3-4 of the cars others did? Going your way, 3-4 EVs have some catching up to do over my route? And if we take our, Cadillac it represents 20-25 cars NOT manufactured? Let us not be in doubt, the EV wins in the finish, but is the differnece as marked as some would see it? I don't know. And the problem is, each side quotes a heap of rubbish to support their saintly position. Most of it utter dirge.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 15:05

[OldDuffer]

TheDeuce said:

Who knows.. but all that matters is the chart shows how much CO2 ICE cars are responsible for over and above manufacture - and it's a lot, and gets more extreme the older and higher mileage the car. It only ever gets worse with time.

Oh, be clear - I'm not claiming sainthood. If the figures are correct, and lifecycle adds up as the EV clique has it, the EV argument is won. It seems, right or wrong we're steaming in the EV direction anyway. And we're to be rid of gas in our homes too. Where this extra amperage for mass-market EV - as well asheating - comes from isn't clear.

My issue is that so much of the info comes from vested sources. I'm sure if I dig hard enough, I can find more tripe that appears to rubbish EV, and it'll look just as plausible. A fine example came from this thread, words to the effect that an EV will do 300K. Neglecting to say if this was over 12 months or 12 years - well it might - or selecting 10 years for an old ICE over 15. I can do much the same, pick the convenient fact, with range of an ICE etc. All this provided I neglect to mention the more salient.

We're on the road anyway, but with so much blind evangelical blood-letting in some quarters, I'm left to wonder. I suspect the only way we're going to see this thrashed out, is in about 7-8 years - when the tech has settled-in, and EV are on their third and fourth owners. It'll be then that we'll know if this a true solution or another diesel scandal.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 16:57

[OldDuffer]

TheDeuce said:

It's not just EV that's won - a ten years newer modern ICE equivalent of your 1998 car would win easily too. The argument for keeping a car beyond a certain lifespan, especially if efficiency gains have been made in that time, just doesn't stack up - unless the car is worth keeping as a future classic etc.

Agreed, provided you're paying - Outside of tax, insurance at £200, and fuel, I don't spend much over £3-500 a year on the thing, and most of that is tyres. How so? I've just bought a brand new radiator for £60. Which to do my miles, others ditch £3-500 a month. Don't get me wrong I'd have a £60K car tomorrow, but other things make me happier, and if it's my money, the gains in efficiency would need to be 5-6+ fold to stack, and they're not.

TheDeuce said:

Out of interest, what is this old car you have?

There's only 2-3 cars from that era capable of 'miles', and if you're looking it's those you see on our roads today. Old Beemers, and Volvos. Ask you MOT tester which car he last saw that was both MOTable, over 20 years old and with 300K+ on there, and it'll be one of those. You used to be able to say this of Mercs, but of that vintage, they're s**. VW and Jap stuff and Mercs 'would' do it but are long gone down to rot and/or daft parts prices.

Edited by OldDuffer on Thursday 2nd December 18:31

[OldDuffer]

off_again said:

I dont see this as the same as the diesel scandal and I do see that in general, EV's have proven themselves. We really only have data from one manufacturer and their fan base can skew it heavily, but the market prices old Model S's well and a 2014 model still holds up well from a value point of view. Compared to something similar in age and mileage, they are worth more (BMW or Mercedes for example). If they were truly disposable at a decade old, it would have near to zero value - but dont, so that says something!

With my i3, its going to be 5 years old in March and we are its 3rd owner. Seems to be holding up well and currently no reason to dispose of it! In fact, if things work out how we want, we might pass it to our daughter and buy a new EV next year! So I guess she's staring down a barrel of an unserviceable car that isnt worth it in a couple of years time? I guess we just throw it away now, because you know, the battery will die....

And I will consistently stick to what I have always said about EV's - they arent the answer to everything. Yes, some are interesting, fast or efficient. I find the market interesting and I cant wait to see what manufacturers are going to do over the next couple of years. But I fully understand and realize that it absolutely isnt the answer to everything. If we really want to reduce our emissions and impact, we need to think about a much more sustainable transport system - person transport cars parked in every drive that are stationary for 70% of their life is a really bad use of resources.... but hey, I want a car, so I guess I need to realize that I am going to pay for it.

Bottom line, EV's are here and the market is growing, but its far from decided and its still a niche market and will be for some time to come. And for a lot of buyers, ICE is still the way forward. And for a lot of owners today, they dont want to spend money on a depreciating asset - so guess what, DONT. Keep that older car that you love running. Drive what you want to drive. Have fun and enjoy it. Ignore the EV bigots who demand you have to buy a <insert brand here> car.... its your life, your money and your choice. No one is holding a gun to your head, so go with what you want. Last time I checked, its still a free country, right?

Hallejah, along with the Yank a few posts back, a sane balanced voice able to step thru' the bigotry and blind thinking. To answer the primary 'bangernomics' question, who will change-out batteries, if the bigots are correct, we won't need to. The batteries will die at the same pace as the value of the cars, much as engines in ICE vehicles do. Somehow I can't see the depreciation cycle working quite the same. But then none of us knows for sure.

All said, this thread is dying on it's arse, I'm done.