Clickbait or something more insidious?

[Scabutz]

It is a subject that definitely brings out the dogma in people. I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I'm getting an EV, largely because it's a company car and the tax is much more attractive, and as it will only most be used with in a 15 mile radius of home it makes sense to me.

You tell people you are getting one and more often than not you get the tropes about range, fires, the mining for metals etc.

[Nomme de Plum]

Gone fishing said:

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.

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.

You may think the video pointless but others including me do not and I would not be so arrogant as to suggest it is. Although I was not a particular fan of the Clarkson years of Top Gear I do not consider that programme pointless either.

I think you have summed up the weakness of just comparing official statistics with your comment on boot space. Although the video took a very tongue in cheek approach to boot usability it did highlight variations that a volume comparison alone does not do.

Now if you wish to ignore such other sources of information with whatever shortcomings that information may have that is entirely up to you. Some of us prefer take a broader approach, not just car related and for me it has worked extremely well in the real, private and business, world.

I suspect you have not watched the whole video as there were comments as to general build quality, functionality, rear leg room and comfort. IMO such subjective opinion can be useful.

[TheDeuce]

Scabutz said:

It is a subject that definitely brings out the dogma in people. I don't really have a strong opinion either way. I'm getting an EV, largely because it's a company car and the tax is much more attractive, and as it will only most be used with in a 15 mile radius of home it makes sense to me.

You tell people you are getting one and more often than not you get the tropes about range, fires, the mining for metals etc.

Yep, when I got my first EV I did do plenty of research and it was a total no-brainer, I considered all the 'issues' I had heard about applying some learning and some logic I soon realised 90% of the stuff I had heard was either utter bks or simply wouldn't apply to me because I would be home charging.

And yet... for at least the first year friends would make daft comments or look at me as if they were suspicious when I tried to explain how happy I was with the car and how convenient it had turned out to be. However, that was some years ago now and two of those friends now have an EV and I expect another to soon follow

[CLK-GTR]

740EVTORQUES said:

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?

If you saw what car I drive there's not much that wouldn't save me money

But nonetheless, an EV doesn't suit the usage I have so why would you try to tell me it's a better option? It's equally as bad as the anti EV lobby posting pictures of alleged battery fires.

[TheDeuce]

CLK-GTR said:

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.

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.

People shouldn't tell you you're wrong, but it is fair to debate what is best on a forum of course.

As to your question 'so why would I buy an EV'? Unless i've missed it you haven't actually posted your journey profile so it's impossible to answer that question! But as per my post that you quoted above, one reason would be that despite possibly costing more to buy, an EV could go on to save you thousands a year which can either justify an occasional inconvenience and/or be used to make other parts of life more convenient/comfier.

What is it about your journey profile that makes an EV particularly likely to be an unjustifiable inconvenience?

[CLK-GTR]

TheDeuce said:

People shouldn't tell you you're wrong, but it is fair to debate what is best on a forum of course.

As to your question 'so why would I buy an EV'? Unless i've missed it you haven't actually posted your journey profile so it's impossible to answer that question! But as per my post that you quoted above, one reason would be that despite possibly costing more to buy, an EV could go on to save you thousands a year which can either justify an occasional inconvenience and/or be used to make other parts of life more convenient/comfier.

What is it about your journey profile that makes an EV particularly likely to be an unjustifiable inconvenience?

I did say earlier but I have to occasionally do long journeys, often with a toddler in tow which means no hanging around service stations waiting for a car to charge. If they're happy you keep going. Convenience has a price thats different for everyone and even my thirsty petrol V8 will do 400 motorway miles on a single tank, with about 90 seconds to reset the dial to 0.

But I am looking for a second car for city driving that most likely will be an EV.

[TheDeuce]

CLK-GTR said:

TheDeuce said:

People shouldn't tell you you're wrong, but it is fair to debate what is best on a forum of course.

As to your question 'so why would I buy an EV'? Unless i've missed it you haven't actually posted your journey profile so it's impossible to answer that question! But as per my post that you quoted above, one reason would be that despite possibly costing more to buy, an EV could go on to save you thousands a year which can either justify an occasional inconvenience and/or be used to make other parts of life more convenient/comfier.

What is it about your journey profile that makes an EV particularly likely to be an unjustifiable inconvenience?

I did say earlier but I have to occasionally do long journeys, often with a toddler in tow which means no hanging around service stations waiting for a car to charge. If they're happy you keep going. Convenience has a price thats different for everyone and even my thirsty petrol V8 will do 400 motorway miles on a single tank, with about 90 seconds to reset the dial to 0.

But I am looking for a second car for city driving that most likely will be an EV.

I get the toddler thing, although given an EV can do a real world 300 miles I would question how convenient a journey can be in any car with a toddler if it's longer than that! Wouldn't you want a short break after 5 hours driving anyway? There are proven safety issues with driving for so long without a break.

It wouldn't stop me driving for 5 hours+ tbh, although if I was responsible for a toddler in the car, that might.

[CLK-GTR]

TheDeuce said:

I get the toddler thing, although given an EV can do a real world 300 miles I would question how convenient a journey can be in any car with a toddler if it's longer than that! Wouldn't you want a short break after 5 hours driving anyway? There are proven safety issues with driving for so long without a break.

It wouldn't stop me driving for 5 hours+ tbh, although if I was responsible for a toddler in the car, that might.

There aren't many EVs that can sit at 70-80mph for 300 miles.

The main putoff is that a long journey in an EV requires a bit of planning, whether its charging en route or making sure its full to begin with. If you're doing them often enough that becomes an annoyance.

[GT9]

CLK-GTR said:

If you saw what car I drive there's not much that wouldn't save me money

But nonetheless, an EV doesn't suit the usage I have so why would you try to tell me it's a better option? It's equally as bad as the anti EV lobby posting pictures of alleged battery fires.

Personally I would like to see more granularity in the government travel surveys.
We know average annual mileage, we know daily usage percentages, we also know average annual mileage is on a long-term downward trajectory.
What I want to know are the missing bits of the puzzle.

For example.
How many cars never (i.e. under 1% of the time) exceed 100 and 200 miles in a day?
Are 200 mile journeys confined to 1% of cars or does every one of the 33 millions cars on the road exceed 200 miles every 3 or 4 months.
Obviously the answer lies somewhere between those two extremes, but where?

Regarding the question in your post.

I suppose the answer is that it's actually quite hard to sift through the immense amount of conflicting information in all corners of the internet, unless you put quite a bit of time into it. To be fair, one also has to have some concept of how numbers work and the concept of time-based trajectories.

If someone is likely to be showing an interest in the technology, i.e. you are posting in this sub-forum, it naturally prompts the question as to what your usage pattern is and, by the way, here are some examples of how it can done, what the benefits might be, etc.

We've been pouring over the 'numbers' and the trajectories in this sub-forum for the best part of 10 years.

Combine that with the fact that the number of usage cases that EVs are likely to be able to cover are very gradually creeping upwards, but relentlessly so, it's therefore not surprising that the someone arriving to declare that EV's don't work for them at 12:30 pm on Saturday 15th June 2024 is going to have their assumptions challenged.


Here are some of the repetitive (and after a decade, understandably frustrating) default assumptions that still regularly appear:
Weight is the only thing that matters (whilst pathologically ignoring the tens of tons of petrol/diesel that the average person buys over the course of 10-15 years).
Electricity is fossil-fuel sourced.
Carbon footprints are the same in 2024 as they were in 2014 and will be the same in 2034 and forevermore the same.
EVs are expensive (instead of the obvious statement that new cars are expensive).
The charging infrastructure will never expand to cope.
The grid will never expand to cope.
Batteries cannot be recycled or redeployed in any manner whatsoever.
Batteries die after 3 years.
Batteries are either left at the side of the road or moved in the dead of night by nefarious characters into landfills.

Basically, it's a position of, 'I don't like change, I only see threat, not opportunity, and therefore I'm going with all the assumptions that put the technology in the worst light possible and that time categorically won't change anything'.

[TheDeuce]

CLK-GTR said:

TheDeuce said:

I get the toddler thing, although given an EV can do a real world 300 miles I would question how convenient a journey can be in any car with a toddler if it's longer than that! Wouldn't you want a short break after 5 hours driving anyway? There are proven safety issues with driving for so long without a break.

It wouldn't stop me driving for 5 hours+ tbh, although if I was responsible for a toddler in the car, that might.

There aren't many EVs that can sit at 70-80mph for 300 miles.

The main putoff is that a long journey in an EV requires a bit of planning, whether its charging en route or making sure its full to begin with. If you're doing them often enough that becomes an annoyance.

I don't spend any time planning longer journeys, other than plugging the car in the evening before, which takes about 3 seconds - or 1% of the time it would take to fill up at a petrol station. We plug the car in most evenings after the last drive of the day, it takes no thought and it's not because we need the charge, it's because the car might as well charge when most efficient and trigger additional cheap rate electric hours as it does.

Honestly, my time spent charging is overall less than I used to spend at or driving to petrol stations. I also don't stop any more often or any longer on long journeys than I used to in my ICE cars.

[Nomme de Plum]

TheDeuce said:

CLK-GTR said:

TheDeuce said:

I get the toddler thing, although given an EV can do a real world 300 miles I would question how convenient a journey can be in any car with a toddler if it's longer than that! Wouldn't you want a short break after 5 hours driving anyway? There are proven safety issues with driving for so long without a break.

It wouldn't stop me driving for 5 hours+ tbh, although if I was responsible for a toddler in the car, that might.

There aren't many EVs that can sit at 70-80mph for 300 miles.

The main putoff is that a long journey in an EV requires a bit of planning, whether its charging en route or making sure its full to begin with. If you're doing them often enough that becomes an annoyance.

I don't spend any time planning longer journeys, other than plugging the car in the evening before, which takes about 3 seconds - or 1% of the time it would take to fill up at a petrol station. We plug the car in most evenings after the last drive of the day, it takes no thought and it's not because we need the charge, it's because the car might as well charge when most efficient and trigger additional cheap rate electric hours as it does.

Honestly, my time spent charging is overall less than I used to spend at or driving to petrol stations. I also don't stop any more often or any longer on long journeys than I used to in my ICE cars.

I just returned from shopping and plugged mine in . Charger is in garage but car generally left outside so open garage door, plug lead in car, close garage door. Well less than 1 minute. Takes me longer to sort the groceries.

I haven't used a public charger for over 5 months and the next time maybe in September.

My go to local fuel station always had queues at the times i was requiring refuelling so that inconvenience has now been removed.

[GT9]

CLK-GTR said:

There aren't many EVs that can sit at 70-80mph for 300 miles.

The main putoff is that a long journey in an EV requires a bit of planning, whether its charging en route or making sure its full to begin with. If you're doing them often enough that becomes an annoyance.

300 miles at 70 mph is possibly just within the capability of a Model 3 LR under optimal ambient conditions.
Arriving on empty of course.
Increasing to 80 mph will increase the per mile energy demand by 15%, and you will need to recharge en-route.
You wouldn't get there any quicker of course, any time saved is used up by charging.
I have to ask though, 4.5 hours non-stop with your kids in the back, is that really something you are doing regularly?
If it is and its all good, stick with petrol.
Something to bear in mind is that your ability to drive 300 miles without a break, particularly at night, is going to decease at some point, as you get older.
I appreciate that there are some hard-arse 70 year olds on here doing it weekly.

[TheDeuce]

GT9 said:

CLK-GTR said:

There aren't many EVs that can sit at 70-80mph for 300 miles.

The main putoff is that a long journey in an EV requires a bit of planning, whether its charging en route or making sure its full to begin with. If you're doing them often enough that becomes an annoyance.

300 miles at 70 mph is possibly just within the capability of a Model 3 LR under optimal ambient conditions.
Arriving on empty of course.
Increasing to 80 mph will increase the per mile energy demand by 15%, and you will need to recharge en-route.
You wouldn't get there any quicker of course, any time saved is used up by charging.
I have to ask though, 4.5 hours non-stop with your kids in the back, is that really something you are doing regularly?
If it is and its all good, stick with petrol.
Something to bear in mind is that your ability to drive 300 miles without a break, particularly at night, is going to decease at some point, as you get older.
I appreciate that there are some hard-arse 70 year olds on here doing it weekly.

I'm a little surprised that the logical argument for not getting an EV is that there's a need to drive for 4-5 hours non stop, at or above the speed limit, with a young child in the car. That in itself is not logical, in as much as it's not particularly sensible.

Above all else, it certainly doesn't sound remotely 'convenient', if that's supposed to be a driving factor in decision making!

[Nomme de Plum]

GT9 said:

300 miles at 70 mph is possibly just within the capability of a Model 3 LR under optimal ambient conditions.
Arriving on empty of course.
Increasing to 80 mph will increase the per mile energy demand by 15%, and you will need to recharge en-route.
You wouldn't get there any quicker of course, any time saved is used up by charging.
I have to ask though, 4.5 hours non-stop with your kids in the back, is that really something you are doing regularly?
If it is and its all good, stick with petrol.
Something to bear in mind is that your ability to drive 300 miles without a break, particularly at night, is going to decease at some point, as you get older.
I appreciate that there are some hard-arse 70 year olds on here doing it weekly.

I think you made an accurate Freudian.

I would consider myself a pretty hard ass nearly 70 year old. 300 miles non stop at night without a pee. You're having laugh.

[dvs_dave]

300 miles non stop with a toddler/young kids in the car??? Sounds like someone who’s never actually done it. You’re stopping all the damn time with littleuns in the car. I’m hungry, I need a poo, I need a wee, (my nappy is full of it), I’m bored, I’m kicking off because I’ve been strapped into this seat for too long, etc.

Buying a vehicle to encompass 1% of your use case isn’t logical either, especially if it results in a compromised vehicle for the other 99%. Why would you do that?

Maybe we should go and ask all the giant 7-seat SUV and pickup truck owners how often they need more than 5 seats and/or the additional load carrying/towing capacity, see what they say.

[ShortBeardy]

EVs continue to evolve and are proving adequate for an ever increasing percentage of people and applications but one can always invent an extreme usage case would be more optimally addressed by another vehicle. If PHers agree on one thing it's that there is no single `right car'. Any truly dedicated petrolhead would justify an EV travel appliance/`white goods' merely to subsequently justify the acquisition of some extreme petrol powered toy.
What gets on my t*ts is that this occasional requirement becomes the basis for the justification of ICE over EV.

[TheDeuce]

ShortBeardy said:

EVs continue to evolve and are proving adequate for an ever increasing percentage of people and applications but one can always invent an extreme usage case would be more optimally addressed by another vehicle. If PHers agree on one thing it's that there is no single `right car'. Any truly dedicated petrolhead would justify an EV travel appliance/`white goods' merely to subsequently justify the acquisition of some extreme petrol powered toy.
What gets on my t*ts is that this occasional requirement becomes the basis for the justification of ICE over EV.

It's just human nature. Obviously there are endless reasons why an ICE car is less than perfect for any journey too... But everyone's used to those shortcomings and can accept them. EV is new, new things to think about = bad.

Although good luck to anyone that's struggling to accept EV's, which in practical terms represent nothing more than an update to what powers a car.. If you're struggling with that minor and logical change, you're going to be completely fked within the next decade as certain other technologies start to have a far greater effect on our lives, work, habits and social interactions.

Looking back at the EV thing in the future, it will be hard to explain to anyone why there was ever resistance or even anything particularly worth worrying about.

[cptsideways]

The WLTP figures are usually banded about by the marketing & sales teams rather to readily imho & they are less keen to give realistic real world figures. My experience suggests you'll get 2/3rds of it on average, with enough left to find a charger that's actually working (Scotland) If you bought a car with X boot space and found out your dog didn't fit because the boot was actually smaller than quoted you'd be miffed, it's no different.

[CLK-GTR]

GT9 said:

300 miles at 70 mph is possibly just within the capability of a Model 3 LR under optimal ambient conditions.
Arriving on empty of course.
Increasing to 80 mph will increase the per mile energy demand by 15%, and you will need to recharge en-route.
You wouldn't get there any quicker of course, any time saved is used up by charging.
I have to ask though, 4.5 hours non-stop with your kids in the back, is that really something you are doing regularly?
If it is and its all good, stick with petrol.
Something to bear in mind is that your ability to drive 300 miles without a break, particularly at night, is going to decease at some point, as you get older.
I appreciate that there are some hard-arse 70 year olds on here doing it weekly.

Sometimes I do, yes, from the South Coast to Manchester. If I wanted to I can walk outside and leave right now. I have no idea how much fuel is in my car because I don't need to know, if its near emtpy i can drive to the nearby Shell and fill it up, or fill it up on way. It's easy. If my only car was electric it would not be.

I am in no way surprised people dig their heels in about EVs when you see some of the attitudes in this thread (not yours). Electricity is just another fuel type like diesel or petrol and like those two it is better or worse at certain things.

[Nomme de Plum]

cptsideways said:

The WLTP figures are usually banded about by the marketing & sales teams rather to readily imho & they are less keen to give realistic real world figures. My experience suggests you'll get 2/3rds of it on average, with enough left to find a charger that's actually working (Scotland) If you bought a car with X boot space and found out your dog didn't fit because the boot was actually smaller than quoted you'd be miffed, it's no different.

Perhaps you could read up the thread a bit and see real world tests.

82 -94% is nearer the mark.