Clickbait or something more insidious?
Discussion
GT9 said:
CLK-GTR said:
Exactly. You buy your car for the most extreme use case you need.
And why is that right answer?On any given day, we have over 30 million cars that will not travel more than 50 miles.
I think we should be questioning if 'peace of mind at a cost' is the right answer.
In a similar vein me and Mrs Deuce used to have a car each, but for the last 5 years we've shared one. It is occasionally inconvenient but in reality paying for the odd taxi is vastly cheaper and more efficient than running a second car.
autumnsum said:
Carwow are always pretty EV positive, they posted a video today showing how EV ranges have improved in the last couple of years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz4qnwNKxt4
Most cars doing about 340-350miles in the real world now.
I think it was 290ish a couple of years ago.
400 by 2026?
By the time the ban comes around it'll be the same as an ICE car and all these silly videos will have to find some new clickbait.
However, I work with youtubers sometimes and the money to be made from a 'hit' video can be insane. There is a reason why they are willing to lie in the clickbait ones when chasing a trend.
They seem to be driving pretty slowly to get those numbers. The polestar was showing 44mph average speed after 3 hours of driving. Most cars doing about 340-350miles in the real world now.
I think it was 290ish a couple of years ago.
400 by 2026?
By the time the ban comes around it'll be the same as an ICE car and all these silly videos will have to find some new clickbait.
However, I work with youtubers sometimes and the money to be made from a 'hit' video can be insane. There is a reason why they are willing to lie in the clickbait ones when chasing a trend.
I also wouldn’t call driving until your car won’t let you accelerate properly a real world test.
Nomme de Plum said:
Reviews like that are actually a little stupid - when you think about it, what they’re really saying is ‘on our alternative test approach we got a different result compared to the official approach’. What makes them think they’re more accurate other than on that day they got those results?And this for me is part of the issue, everyone who’s had an EV for 5 mins, or journalists looking to pump out material playing of fears becomes an arm chair pundit and every anti EV person uses it all as cannon fodder. To don’t see people driving a BMW M4 and an Audi RS4 until they run out of petrol so doing so in an EV and trying to come up with some artificial score over how close the results on a test v WLTP are is madness
baxb said:
My father in law asked me how often I was changing my tyres as "they only last 6-7000 miles on electric cars" according to the Daily Fail or whatever other rag he was reading. Showed him my 18k old tyres with 5mm left on them...
I had a three year old 33k model 3 on its original tyres, MOT’d by a popular swift tyre garage the other day. With the only advisory the tyres are near needing changing.“These Tesla’s really eat through the tyres” The tester told me.
Gone fishing said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Reviews like that are actually a little stupid - when you think about it, what they’re really saying is ‘on our alternative test approach we got a different result compared to the official approach’. What makes them think they’re more accurate other than on that day they got those results?And this for me is part of the issue, everyone who’s had an EV for 5 mins, or journalists looking to pump out material playing of fears becomes an arm chair pundit and every anti EV person uses it all as cannon fodder. To don’t see people driving a BMW M4 and an Audi RS4 until they run out of petrol so doing so in an EV and trying to come up with some artificial score over how close the results on a test v WLTP are is madness
We have WLTP which is been around since 2017 and superseded NEDC. WLTP was much closer to real world consumption but much has been said since, that it was still not real world and people were rarely seeing MPG close to the published figures.
This actual real life road test is guide and should be taken as such.
I have to admit to running out of petrol once, in the 70s. Back then it was not uncommon for people to carry a can of petrol in the boot just in case. I've never run out since or now in my EV. That however is not the point. There is useful information to be gleaned from this test if one has a modicum of intelligence to put it in context.
Nomme de Plum said:
I disagree.
We have WLTP which is been around since 2017 and superseded NEDC. WLTP was much closer to real world consumption but much has been said since, that it was still not real world and people were rarely seeing MPG close to the published figures.
This actual real life road test is guide and should be taken as such.
I have to admit to running out of petrol once, in the 70s. Back then it was not uncommon for people to carry a can of petrol in the boot just in case. I've never run out since or now in my EV. That however is not the point. There is useful information to be gleaned from this test if one has a modicum of intelligence to put it in context.
And the relevance of it not quite matching WLTP? Watch a ICE review and they may typically just compare the WLTP figures because there’s a benchmark made in controlled circumstances or make a passing reference to their actual figures they achieved that day . I’ve had 4 Tesla’s and now an iX and I can drive them all in ways that would improve or worsen their efficiency whilst doing the same journey in the same time in the same traffic, eg keeping my foot down and then late braking rather than timing a junction and letting regen slow it down, beIng jerky on the accelerator, turn the heating up or air con down, so stick 2 different drivers in the same car on the same journey and you’ll get a different result - yet we’re supposed to trust the figures from unscientific tests and spend hours watching these comparisons fueling the ‘range anxiety’ claims when really we shouldn’t care about them at all. The average person who charges at home hardly ever needs to public charge now most cars can do 180+ miles on a charge, and on an economy rate the difference between 3.4 miles per kWh and 4.1 miles is something like 0.2p per mile, that’s £20 a year difference. We have WLTP which is been around since 2017 and superseded NEDC. WLTP was much closer to real world consumption but much has been said since, that it was still not real world and people were rarely seeing MPG close to the published figures.
This actual real life road test is guide and should be taken as such.
I have to admit to running out of petrol once, in the 70s. Back then it was not uncommon for people to carry a can of petrol in the boot just in case. I've never run out since or now in my EV. That however is not the point. There is useful information to be gleaned from this test if one has a modicum of intelligence to put it in context.
Gone fishing said:
Nomme de Plum said:
I disagree.
We have WLTP which is been around since 2017 and superseded NEDC. WLTP was much closer to real world consumption but much has been said since, that it was still not real world and people were rarely seeing MPG close to the published figures.
This actual real life road test is guide and should be taken as such.
I have to admit to running out of petrol once, in the 70s. Back then it was not uncommon for people to carry a can of petrol in the boot just in case. I've never run out since or now in my EV. That however is not the point. There is useful information to be gleaned from this test if one has a modicum of intelligence to put it in context.
And the relevance of it not quite matching WLTP? Watch a ICE review and they may typically just compare the WLTP figures because there’s a benchmark made in controlled circumstances or make a passing reference to their actual figures they achieved that day . I’ve had 4 Tesla’s and now an iX and I can drive them all in ways that would improve or worsen their efficiency whilst doing the same journey in the same time in the same traffic, eg keeping my foot down and then late braking rather than timing a junction and letting regen slow it down, beIng jerky on the accelerator, turn the heating up or air con down, so stick 2 different drivers in the same car on the same journey and you’ll get a different result - yet we’re supposed to trust the figures from unscientific tests and spend hours watching these comparisons fueling the ‘range anxiety’ claims when really we shouldn’t care about them at all. The average person who charges at home hardly ever needs to public charge now most cars can do 180+ miles on a charge, and on an economy rate the difference between 3.4 miles per kWh and 4.1 miles is something like 0.2p per mile, that’s £20 a year difference. We have WLTP which is been around since 2017 and superseded NEDC. WLTP was much closer to real world consumption but much has been said since, that it was still not real world and people were rarely seeing MPG close to the published figures.
This actual real life road test is guide and should be taken as such.
I have to admit to running out of petrol once, in the 70s. Back then it was not uncommon for people to carry a can of petrol in the boot just in case. I've never run out since or now in my EV. That however is not the point. There is useful information to be gleaned from this test if one has a modicum of intelligence to put it in context.
An individuals driving style will always impact consumption. That is true whatever the motive power.
Your last sentence indicates to me you do not understand the point I am making.
Nomme de Plum said:
Of course it is not scientific or controlled. That is not the point and if a person cannot take that on board they have a serious issue in understanding context.
An individuals driving style will always impact consumption. That is true whatever the motive power.
Your last sentence indicates to me you do not understand the point I am making.
Your whole argument indicates you don’t understand the point I’m making. Firstly, why listen to an unscientific test over a lab test to draw comparisons, and more importantly why does it even matter how these compare, they’re all good enough, An individuals driving style will always impact consumption. That is true whatever the motive power.
Your last sentence indicates to me you do not understand the point I am making.
TheDeuce said:
There's a lot to be said for questioning the logic of paying more for a car simply so it never inconveniences you. I the range of an EV is only occasionally exceeded then it probably makes sense to avoid the expense of one with longer range - just charge en-route.
In a similar vein me and Mrs Deuce used to have a car each, but for the last 5 years we've shared one. It is occasionally inconvenient but in reality paying for the odd taxi is vastly cheaper and more efficient than running a second car.
A car is a convenience item. If it isn't able to fill that brief for you its not a good purchase.In a similar vein me and Mrs Deuce used to have a car each, but for the last 5 years we've shared one. It is occasionally inconvenient but in reality paying for the odd taxi is vastly cheaper and more efficient than running a second car.
CLK-GTR said:
TheDeuce said:
There's a lot to be said for questioning the logic of paying more for a car simply so it never inconveniences you. I the range of an EV is only occasionally exceeded then it probably makes sense to avoid the expense of one with longer range - just charge en-route.
In a similar vein me and Mrs Deuce used to have a car each, but for the last 5 years we've shared one. It is occasionally inconvenient but in reality paying for the odd taxi is vastly cheaper and more efficient than running a second car.
A car is a convenience item. If it isn't able to fill that brief for you its not a good purchase.In a similar vein me and Mrs Deuce used to have a car each, but for the last 5 years we've shared one. It is occasionally inconvenient but in reality paying for the odd taxi is vastly cheaper and more efficient than running a second car.
Example: My car has a safe 200 miles of range at a minimum. Some trips are obviously longer than that, so I have to spend 15-20 mins charging along the way. If it were possible to spend £5k more and have the same car but with greater range to avoid the occasional charge, I wouldn't do it. I'd spend the 5k on two week holiday which would enhance my life and happiness level (and laziness level... ) way more than a couple of charging sessions a year detract from those things.
There comes a point at which the value proposition of having the 'ideal' car for all things, falls away.
And speaking of value and convenience, I'd rather drive an EV that needs occasional short public charging stops, than I would work an entire extra week every year to pay for the extra £2000 I'd be spending on fuel. The need to find and perform additional work would certainly not be convenient and clearly wouldn't be good value if it only saved me a tiny bit of convenience elsewhere..
CLK-GTR said:
A car is a convenience item. If it isn't able to fill that brief for you its not a good purchase.
You've mentioned "extreme use cases" and "isn't able to fill that brief" when neither are accurate. An average EV is more than capable of doing occasional long trips despite being less convenient due to public charging, but on the flip side with home charging will be more convenient than an ICE car the other 99% of the time IME. SWoll said:
CLK-GTR said:
A car is a convenience item. If it isn't able to fill that brief for you its not a good purchase.
You've mentioned "extreme use cases" and "isn't able to fill that brief" when neither are accurate. An average EV is more than capable of doing occasional long trips despite being less convenient due to public charging, but on the flip side with home charging will be more convenient than an ICE car the other 99% of the time IME. For me an EV is massively more convenient 98%j of the time and slightly less convenient 2% of the time compared to ICE, ergo it wins hands down (2% of my charging is public.)
survivalist said:
They seem to be driving pretty slowly to get those numbers. The polestar was showing 44mph average speed after 3 hours of driving.
I also wouldn’t call driving until your car won’t let you accelerate properly a real world test.
The trip meter in the polestar has the unfortunate behaviour of counting time for that calculation as the time you are sat in the driver's seat (as this is the on/off) switch. So drive at 60mph for an hour and sit parked talking to camera for 30 minutes and your average speed is now 40mph.. I also wouldn’t call driving until your car won’t let you accelerate properly a real world test.
We drove 260 miles from home (Cumbria) to Bicester, then back to Tesla superchargers in Banbury at M6 motorway speeds (average about 60) , had an indicated 100 miles and 25% range left, I really don't see range as an issue, and charging with a Tesla membership is equally so, its a different world than 2019, and my ipace days..
Gone fishing said:
Your whole argument indicates you don’t understand the point I’m making. Firstly, why listen to an unscientific test over a lab test to draw comparisons, and more importantly why does it even matter how these compare, they’re all good enough,
At no point have I prioritised the journalists review over official test figures. WLTP testing has some explanatory notes which is why I find test such as on the video interesting and informative:
"Even though the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) will provide a far more realistic representation of conditions encountered on the road than the old NEDC lab test (New European Driving Cycle), it will not cover all possible variations. Moreover, each individual driver will continue to have a different driving style: one driver might accelerate faster, take corners faster or brake more suddenly than another who might drive more conservatively.
Given that driving behaviour, traffic and weather conditions will continue to differ from one country to another, there will still be a difference between emissions measured in lab conditions and the real world. However, as there is no single real-world emission value, only values obtained by standardised laboratory tests allow us to directly compare the emissions and fuel consumption of different car models from different car manufacturers.
It is not for you or i to decide whether a product is good enough for any particular individual. "
It is not for any of us to decide if a product is good enough for a person/family.
51mes said:
survivalist said:
They seem to be driving pretty slowly to get those numbers. The polestar was showing 44mph average speed after 3 hours of driving.
I also wouldn’t call driving until your car won’t let you accelerate properly a real world test.
The trip meter in the polestar has the unfortunate behaviour of counting time for that calculation as the time you are sat in the driver's seat (as this is the on/off) switch. So drive at 60mph for an hour and sit parked talking to camera for 30 minutes and your average speed is now 40mph.. I also wouldn’t call driving until your car won’t let you accelerate properly a real world test.
We drove 260 miles from home (Cumbria) to Bicester, then back to Tesla superchargers in Banbury at M6 motorway speeds (average about 60) , had an indicated 100 miles and 25% range left, I really don't see range as an issue, and charging with a Tesla membership is equally so, its a different world than 2019, and my ipace days..
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Saturday 15th June 09:29
TheDeuce said:
Yes... but money is also a thing that makes lot's of other things easier and more convenient. The idea of paying significantly more for a car to make one or two trips a year mildly easier isn't necessarily the best use of that money in terms of making life overall easier.
Example: My car has a safe 200 miles of range at a minimum. Some trips are obviously longer than that, so I have to spend 15-20 mins charging along the way. If it were possible to spend £5k more and have the same car but with greater range to avoid the occasional charge, I wouldn't do it. I'd spend the 5k on two week holiday which would enhance my life and happiness level (and laziness level... ) way more than a couple of charging sessions a year detract from those things.
There comes a point at which the value proposition of having the 'ideal' car for all things, falls away.
And speaking of value and convenience, I'd rather drive an EV that needs occasional short public charging stops, than I would work an entire extra week every year to pay for the extra £2000 I'd be spending on fuel. The need to find and perform additional work would certainly not be convenient and clearly wouldn't be good value if it only saved me a tiny bit of convenience elsewhere..
A petrol car is not £5k more though, probably closer to £5k less. In my particular case it's cheaper and more convenient. So why would I buy an EV? As it happens I now need two cars and the second one is looking very likely to be electric because it's the most convenient option for what I need.Example: My car has a safe 200 miles of range at a minimum. Some trips are obviously longer than that, so I have to spend 15-20 mins charging along the way. If it were possible to spend £5k more and have the same car but with greater range to avoid the occasional charge, I wouldn't do it. I'd spend the 5k on two week holiday which would enhance my life and happiness level (and laziness level... ) way more than a couple of charging sessions a year detract from those things.
There comes a point at which the value proposition of having the 'ideal' car for all things, falls away.
And speaking of value and convenience, I'd rather drive an EV that needs occasional short public charging stops, than I would work an entire extra week every year to pay for the extra £2000 I'd be spending on fuel. The need to find and perform additional work would certainly not be convenient and clearly wouldn't be good value if it only saved me a tiny bit of convenience elsewhere..
I see already there are a couple of posts telling me I'm wrong. These are the absolutes the original poster was getting at I believe.
SWoll said:
, but on the flip side with home charging will be more convenient than an ICE car the other 99% of the time IME.
The petrol car has been sitting in the garage for 10 days because it has 7 litres of fuel in it and putting more in ‘is a faff’I will hand my PH card in at the door
CLK-GTR said:
A petrol car is not £5k more though, probably closer to £5k less. In my particular case it's cheaper and more convenient. So why would I buy an EV? As it happens I now need two cars and the second one is looking very likely to be electric because it's the most convenient option for what I need.
I see already there are a couple of posts telling me I'm wrong. These are the absolutes the original poster was getting at I believe.
Because even if it is cheaper, the EV will save you that and more in a short time, is nicer to drive and far less polluting?I see already there are a couple of posts telling me I'm wrong. These are the absolutes the original poster was getting at I believe.
Nomme de Plum said:
At no point have I prioritised the journalists review over official test figures.
WLTP testing has some explanatory notes which is why I find test such as on the video interesting and informative:
"Even though the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) will provide a far more realistic representation of conditions encountered on the road than the old NEDC lab test (New European Driving Cycle), it will not cover all possible variations. Moreover, each individual driver will continue to have a different driving style: one driver might accelerate faster, take corners faster or brake more suddenly than another who might drive more conservatively.
Given that driving behaviour, traffic and weather conditions will continue to differ from one country to another, there will still be a difference between emissions measured in lab conditions and the real world. However, as there is no single real-world emission value, only values obtained by standardised laboratory tests allow us to directly compare the emissions and fuel consumption of different car models from different car manufacturers.
It is not for you or i to decide whether a product is good enough for any particular individual. "
It is not for any of us to decide if a product is good enough for a person/family.
You posted a link to a relatively pointless video comparing range and efficiency - why unless you thought it offered something the WLTP figures don’t show, and that the artificial difference between this test and WLTP is somehow significant. I repeat my point, the mere fact people do these reviews and comparisons, and you think they’re important enough to repost, signals you think range and accuracy to WLTP IS an issue, and a car with a WLTP range of say 350 miles isn’t sufficient information as part of a buying decision. WLTP testing has some explanatory notes which is why I find test such as on the video interesting and informative:
"Even though the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) will provide a far more realistic representation of conditions encountered on the road than the old NEDC lab test (New European Driving Cycle), it will not cover all possible variations. Moreover, each individual driver will continue to have a different driving style: one driver might accelerate faster, take corners faster or brake more suddenly than another who might drive more conservatively.
Given that driving behaviour, traffic and weather conditions will continue to differ from one country to another, there will still be a difference between emissions measured in lab conditions and the real world. However, as there is no single real-world emission value, only values obtained by standardised laboratory tests allow us to directly compare the emissions and fuel consumption of different car models from different car manufacturers.
It is not for you or i to decide whether a product is good enough for any particular individual. "
It is not for any of us to decide if a product is good enough for a person/family.
It would serve the EV world more and start to shut up the anti EV lobby to ignore all this and treat the WLTP range in the same way as you look at boot space, or the number of seats - it’s good enough as a comparison metric without worrying on the detail of whether it’s 100% accurate when there is no such thing.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff