The EV Sector - too much too soon?
Discussion
It can't have escaped anyone's notice that the sector is stalling. While people are still buying EVs the rate of growth has slowed to zero (less than that in the UK). The USA and Germany are already seeing big falls in predicted and current demand and it is not hard to see why.
EVs came from nowhere to become the new world solution to ICE vehicles and yet, in all the hype, no-one seemed to notice or care that they were a poorer solution than ICE (range, cold weather, fuelling, etc). Yes, they have their benefits but they also have considerable negatives too. They work well for some people but not for a great many others.
I can't help thinking that car manufacturers who were/are all loudly proclaiming they will be fully EV by 2027 etc are going to be backtracking into hybrids rapidly and at huge cost, thanks to such massive commitments to a propulsion system that is not a universal solution. Toyota seems to be the only one that was smart enough to hold off on a big/full EV commitment.
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset. I wonder how many car manufacturers will not be able to withstand the financial strain of this monumental error. Offering an EV only range would be suicide.
In the UK the people who bought EVs to begin with were company car owners who received big tax benefits, wealthy people who could afford to try it out and tech-types who bought them because they loved the technology. Once you get past those, the rest of the population is much harder to convince and this is why growth is static now.
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
EVs came from nowhere to become the new world solution to ICE vehicles and yet, in all the hype, no-one seemed to notice or care that they were a poorer solution than ICE (range, cold weather, fuelling, etc). Yes, they have their benefits but they also have considerable negatives too. They work well for some people but not for a great many others.
I can't help thinking that car manufacturers who were/are all loudly proclaiming they will be fully EV by 2027 etc are going to be backtracking into hybrids rapidly and at huge cost, thanks to such massive commitments to a propulsion system that is not a universal solution. Toyota seems to be the only one that was smart enough to hold off on a big/full EV commitment.
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset. I wonder how many car manufacturers will not be able to withstand the financial strain of this monumental error. Offering an EV only range would be suicide.
In the UK the people who bought EVs to begin with were company car owners who received big tax benefits, wealthy people who could afford to try it out and tech-types who bought them because they loved the technology. Once you get past those, the rest of the population is much harder to convince and this is why growth is static now.
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
Frimley111R said:
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
I'm not so sure, in the future I think we'll possibly have a new word to replace the one used to identify a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16). Perhaps BEVinthesand?
J__Wood said:
Frimley111R said:
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
I'm not so sure, in the future I think we'll possibly have a new word to replace the one used to identify a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16). Perhaps BEVinthesand?
I think the difference with the move from ICE to BEV is that it’s largely a sideways move, rather than true progress.
Historically, at least, most innovation doesn’t require persuasion, tax incentives and, ultimately , a ban on alternatives.
There are some benefits to EVs, but at a personal level it’s or groundbreaking - they are a bit smoother to drive and (assuming you charge at home) always ‘full’.
Otherwise they are exactly the same as the thing you had before. They get you from A to B.
Downsides are that they take longer to ‘fill up’ on a long journey and are more sensitive to external factors - headwinds, temperature, roof racks and bike carriers etc.
Compare that to things people have adopted either without incentive or at additional personal cost - smartphones, for example, and EVs are hardly game changing.
The market is constantly changing.
One reason for recent changes surely is the UK government's decision to extend the 2030 deadline to 2035.
(Presumably the hybrid deadline was also extended from 2035 to 2040 - but I'm not sure).
Any market will reach a temporary saturation point when a barrier is reached (physical or mental). LPG did something similar. Now EVs, because the infrastructure isn't improving rapidly enough, for example.
It will bounce back.
One reason for recent changes surely is the UK government's decision to extend the 2030 deadline to 2035.
(Presumably the hybrid deadline was also extended from 2035 to 2040 - but I'm not sure).
Any market will reach a temporary saturation point when a barrier is reached (physical or mental). LPG did something similar. Now EVs, because the infrastructure isn't improving rapidly enough, for example.
It will bounce back.
"EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
So now you've got an inefficient PHEV as an EV and an ICE.
Instead, we could.take advantage of the rapidly improving charging infrastructure and see more.cars like.the standard range Teslas that have moderate sized batteries, decent efficiency (and thus range) and good charging speeds. This is something Stellantis and others have failed.to achieve in their 50kWh cars.
So now you've got an inefficient PHEV as an EV and an ICE.
Instead, we could.take advantage of the rapidly improving charging infrastructure and see more.cars like.the standard range Teslas that have moderate sized batteries, decent efficiency (and thus range) and good charging speeds. This is something Stellantis and others have failed.to achieve in their 50kWh cars.
M4cruiser said:
One reason for recent changes surely is the UK government's decision to extend the 2030 deadline to 2035.
(Presumably the hybrid deadline was also extended from 2035 to 2040 - but I'm not sure).
Here we go again.(Presumably the hybrid deadline was also extended from 2035 to 2040 - but I'm not sure).
2030 was a ban was on non-hybrid ICEs.
When the government realised there won't be any non-hybrid ICEs on sale anyway by then, the stupidity of such a ban became clear (cheers Boris), and so they lifted if for political gain.
The 2035 ban is on all ICEs, it was always that date, still is, the date hasn't moved (yet).
Frimley111R said:
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
While this is obviously true, it's a pretty stupid point as those 10 hybrids then have 10 engines that are hardly being used.We're at an interesting point where we have the choice of pretty much all technologies, but they have wildly different suitability for different people, and can also have wildly different costs as well.
When it was a straight choice between petrol and diesel, either was pretty much liveable for most people. Very different with PHEVs and EVs where they could be either wildly unsuitable and cost a lot to run, or a perfect match and dirt cheap, mostly dependent on whether you have the ability to charge at home.
Frimley111R said:
It can't have escaped anyone's notice that the sector is stalling. While people are still buying EVs the rate of growth has slowed to zero (less than that in the UK). The USA and Germany are already seeing big falls in predicted and current demand and it is not hard to see why.
EVs came from nowhere to become the new world solution to ICE vehicles and yet, in all the hype, no-one seemed to notice or care that they were a poorer solution than ICE (range, cold weather, fuelling, etc). Yes, they have their benefits but they also have considerable negatives too. They work well for some people but not for a great many others.
I can't help thinking that car manufacturers who were/are all loudly proclaiming they will be fully EV by 2027 etc are going to be backtracking into hybrids rapidly and at huge cost, thanks to such massive commitments to a propulsion system that is not a universal solution. Toyota seems to be the only one that was smart enough to hold off on a big/full EV commitment.
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset. I wonder how many car manufacturers will not be able to withstand the financial strain of this monumental error. Offering an EV only range would be suicide.
In the UK the people who bought EVs to begin with were company car owners who received big tax benefits, wealthy people who could afford to try it out and tech-types who bought them because they loved the technology. Once you get past those, the rest of the population is much harder to convince and this is why growth is static now.
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
Really? EVs came from nowhere to become the new world solution to ICE vehicles and yet, in all the hype, no-one seemed to notice or care that they were a poorer solution than ICE (range, cold weather, fuelling, etc). Yes, they have their benefits but they also have considerable negatives too. They work well for some people but not for a great many others.
I can't help thinking that car manufacturers who were/are all loudly proclaiming they will be fully EV by 2027 etc are going to be backtracking into hybrids rapidly and at huge cost, thanks to such massive commitments to a propulsion system that is not a universal solution. Toyota seems to be the only one that was smart enough to hold off on a big/full EV commitment.
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset. I wonder how many car manufacturers will not be able to withstand the financial strain of this monumental error. Offering an EV only range would be suicide.
In the UK the people who bought EVs to begin with were company car owners who received big tax benefits, wealthy people who could afford to try it out and tech-types who bought them because they loved the technology. Once you get past those, the rest of the population is much harder to convince and this is why growth is static now.
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
"While myriad factors such as high energy prices, inflation and interest rates, charging anxiety and mixed messaging from government have restricted demand, 100,000 MORE BEVs will still reach the road in 2024 compared with last year, totalling some 414,000 units – more than one in five new cars. This volume would increase even further if a VAT reduction on EVs was introduced."
Source: https://www.smmt.co.uk/2024/02/uk-reaches-million-...
Rho Motion crunched the numbers and came up with a record breaking sales pace of 660,000 electric vehicles sold globally in January. That was 12 months ago, back in January 2023.
This year’s January EV sales blew past that mark by 69% for a total of more than 1 million.
“In the EU & EFTA & UK, EV sales have grown by 29% y-o-y, 41% in the USA & Canada, and almost doubled in China,” Rho Motion added, with EFTA referring to the European Free Trade Association.
Subsidy cuts in some jurisdictions had an impact on EV sales in January compared to December, but the impact did not offset the year-over-year gains.
“In Germany, EV sales halved m-o-m following the end of the subsidy. However, y-o-y sales increased by 40%,” Rho Motion noted. “Likewise in France, EV sales also halved m-o-m but saw a 20% increase y-o-y.”
“Europe in total increased sales by just shy of a third (29%) compared to January of last year demonstrating the demand for electric vehicles is well established now,” they concluded.
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/14/january-2024-...
G-wiz said:
Expect the government to again delay the 2035 target date for ban on sales on petrol/ diesel cars.
Depends on the results of this year's election, doesn it? "The Shadow Minister for Roads has confirmed that Labour will reinstate the 2030 target ban on gas-powered vehicle sales in the UK to encourage electric driving among consumers and instill confidence in the industry’s investors."
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1867632/...
Frimley111R said:
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset.
Why?It's perfectly possible for 80%+ of motorists to buy EVs. It's already happened in Norway (which incidentally happens to be a bit chilly from time to time).
Why wouldn't governments present people the choice of hanging onto their old petrol car or buying a new zero-emissions one? What's going to stop them from doing so?
Especially considering as the UK will almost certainly have a Labour government from 2025-29 which is generally more concerned with curtailing climate change.
Most drivers could perfectly well run a decent EV like an e-Niro today, and it'll only get easier in the future - longer range, quicker charging, more public chargers. Why would the government pass up this relatively easy chance to wind down transport related CO2 emissions?
raspy said:
Frimley111R said:
It can't have escaped anyone's notice that the sector is stalling. While people are still buying EVs the rate of growth has slowed to zero (less than that in the UK). The USA and Germany are already seeing big falls in predicted and current demand and it is not hard to see why.
EVs came from nowhere to become the new world solution to ICE vehicles and yet, in all the hype, no-one seemed to notice or care that they were a poorer solution than ICE (range, cold weather, fuelling, etc). Yes, they have their benefits but they also have considerable negatives too. They work well for some people but not for a great many others.
I can't help thinking that car manufacturers who were/are all loudly proclaiming they will be fully EV by 2027 etc are going to be backtracking into hybrids rapidly and at huge cost, thanks to such massive commitments to a propulsion system that is not a universal solution. Toyota seems to be the only one that was smart enough to hold off on a big/full EV commitment.
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset. I wonder how many car manufacturers will not be able to withstand the financial strain of this monumental error. Offering an EV only range would be suicide.
In the UK the people who bought EVs to begin with were company car owners who received big tax benefits, wealthy people who could afford to try it out and tech-types who bought them because they loved the technology. Once you get past those, the rest of the population is much harder to convince and this is why growth is static now.
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
Really? EVs came from nowhere to become the new world solution to ICE vehicles and yet, in all the hype, no-one seemed to notice or care that they were a poorer solution than ICE (range, cold weather, fuelling, etc). Yes, they have their benefits but they also have considerable negatives too. They work well for some people but not for a great many others.
I can't help thinking that car manufacturers who were/are all loudly proclaiming they will be fully EV by 2027 etc are going to be backtracking into hybrids rapidly and at huge cost, thanks to such massive commitments to a propulsion system that is not a universal solution. Toyota seems to be the only one that was smart enough to hold off on a big/full EV commitment.
EVs are not a universal solution but hybrids are, whilst still providing much lower/zero street-level emissions levels. As an independent consultant at Toyota said in Autocar - "EVs have huge batteries to overcome customers' range anxiety even though they only drive 10 miles a day. That means the batteries are barely being used. Cut one battery up and put it in 10 hybrids and the whole battery is then being used all the time."
I can't see any option for governments to do anything than revise this EV-only mindset. I wonder how many car manufacturers will not be able to withstand the financial strain of this monumental error. Offering an EV only range would be suicide.
In the UK the people who bought EVs to begin with were company car owners who received big tax benefits, wealthy people who could afford to try it out and tech-types who bought them because they loved the technology. Once you get past those, the rest of the population is much harder to convince and this is why growth is static now.
This is a fascinating topics and I can see it being analysed in depth in the future as how not to adopt new technology.
"While myriad factors such as high energy prices, inflation and interest rates, charging anxiety and mixed messaging from government have restricted demand, 100,000 MORE BEVs will still reach the road in 2024 compared with last year, totalling some 414,000 units – more than one in five new cars. This volume would increase even further if a VAT reduction on EVs was introduced."
Source: https://www.smmt.co.uk/2024/02/uk-reaches-million-...
Rho Motion crunched the numbers and came up with a record breaking sales pace of 660,000 electric vehicles sold globally in January. That was 12 months ago, back in January 2023.
This year’s January EV sales blew past that mark by 69% for a total of more than 1 million.
“In the EU & EFTA & UK, EV sales have grown by 29% y-o-y, 41% in the USA & Canada, and almost doubled in China,” Rho Motion added, with EFTA referring to the European Free Trade Association.
Subsidy cuts in some jurisdictions had an impact on EV sales in January compared to December, but the impact did not offset the year-over-year gains.
“In Germany, EV sales halved m-o-m following the end of the subsidy. However, y-o-y sales increased by 40%,” Rho Motion noted. “Likewise in France, EV sales also halved m-o-m but saw a 20% increase y-o-y.”
“Europe in total increased sales by just shy of a third (29%) compared to January of last year demonstrating the demand for electric vehicles is well established now,” they concluded.
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/14/january-2024-...
Also seem to be using some convenient metrics. Looking at YoY and MoM change will always result in a big percentage increase as sales numbers are coming from a low base.
A better indicator is market share increase - for example, for the UK:
Bev sales 2024 vs 2023 - Jan YoY increase is 21%.
However, it’s against a backdrop of 8.2% growth across the board, so it’s not like ALL of that increase is people choosing BEV over other ICE options. Plug in hybrid grew by over 31% in the same period. So if we just use percentages then PHEVs are clearly the answer
Overall market share is probably a better indicator. In Jan 2024 BEV represented 14.7% of new cars registered in Jan 2023, only mildly up on the 13.1% it was in Jan 2023 and way below the target for 2024 which is 22%.
In fact, each month where EV is below 22% market share increase the percentage required of eaxh subsequent month. So either manufacturers will have to withdraw / reduce the sales of ICE, discount their EV models or pay fines / buy credits to offset the lack of BEV demand .
Hopefully some bargains coming up. And that’s ignoring the large number of pre-reg EVs already struggling to find a buyer (20% of the 5 year and younger used EV market). Wonder if that’ll increase when the ‘24’ plates hit the market.
Edited by survivalist on Monday 19th February 21:04
Not unusual that things don't go up in a straight line. We've had recession (probably stil in it).
There's also a gap between tax efficient company cars making expensive evs affordable and private buyers being faced with still moderately expensive newish technology with unclear long term depreciation and high finance rates.
Evs make sense for a lot of people and are generally much better than ice white goods cars. They will continue to increase market share
There's also a gap between tax efficient company cars making expensive evs affordable and private buyers being faced with still moderately expensive newish technology with unclear long term depreciation and high finance rates.
Evs make sense for a lot of people and are generally much better than ice white goods cars. They will continue to increase market share
survivalist said:
Historically, at least, most innovation doesn’t require persuasion, tax incentives and, ultimately , a ban on alternatives.
Is that true for cars?Take seatbelts, unleaded petrol, catalytic converters.
Seatbelts; mandatory equipment in new cars in 1965. I suppose there is someone out there who will dispute their necessity. I grew up in the 1970s, and no one I recall ever wore them voluntarily in a car. Prior to 1965, what percentage of cars had a seatbelt fitted aftermarket? We had a decade of Jimmy Saville and his Clunk-Click campaign. Then people started wearing them when it became compulsory in 1983. Then what about rear seatbelts; compulsory equipment from 1986, and fitment in 1991. But even then, I remember people moaning about that, and I suspect a high degree of non-compliance even now (eg in mini cabs etc). The benefits of wearing a seatbelt are pretty cut and dry; 60% reduction in injury. In the end, compulsion was needed.
Unleaded petrol: Introduced into the UK in 1986. Compulsory use in new cars from 1993, and leaded petrol phased out in 2000 (LRP went on a few years, but hardly any demand then). Unleaded petrol was about 2p a liter cheaper than 4-star (a 5% saving). In 1998, out of 23 million cars on the road, the government estimated there were 5 million using 4-star, and of those, 3 million could be converted. I suspect most of those 3 million were never converted. Interestingly, Chris Goffey in 1998 was making familiar complaints about the then announced forthcoming 4-star ban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/225275.stm
He used the same arguments as now about people being free to use cars, using 4 star, because it was better for the environment. Would such arguments wash now? Abandonment of 4-star by consumers with older cars needed alturistic motivation. Did 4-star really affect them?
Catalytic converters; compulsory equipment from 1992 (compulsory to leave fitted from 1993), but I certainly recall them being an expensive option on many cars before. 1991 Rover price list:
A catalytic converter was a £400. How many 1.1C buyers opted for a cat over 5-speed, a sunroof and a radio? Not many I suspect. Again, at the time, people were fearful of accidently putting in 4-star into a car with a catalytic converter. 30 years on, people still try to decat cars, and game the system ("can I decat my import?"). And there were unreasonable fears being spread about, based on what American catalytic converters were like 10-15 years earlier (they'll only last a few years and cost thousands to replace). Truth was, by 1990, the catalytic converters being factory fitted could last the lifetime of the car, subject to engine faults (after years of scraping through MOT tests on aftermarket cheap cats, my 30 year old MX5 flew through emissions with a 25 year old scrapyard factory cat).
Compulsion was needed because people aren't alturistic enough to pay extra for a cat, or to keep it on.
What no one is mentioning is that EV “sales” doesn’t necessarily equate to actual cars on the road - so many are pre registered by both dealers and manufacturers and then suddenly appear on Autotrader 12 months later with minimal mileage.
Also EV’s are predominantly either business owners or salary sacrifice with huge BIK tax benefits - a no brainer if you’re in that fortunate position.
Average Joe Public ain’t interested in EV as there’s no real carrot - simple really!
Also EV’s are predominantly either business owners or salary sacrifice with huge BIK tax benefits - a no brainer if you’re in that fortunate position.
Average Joe Public ain’t interested in EV as there’s no real carrot - simple really!
Easternlight said:
I've no idea of the numbers, but if the manufacturers are being fined more and more each year for not selling enough EV's how will they stand it?
Follow in BMW's footsteps?Already at 25%...
Which means essentially doing the opposite to what all the sages on PH has been saying BMW should be doing.
Boxster5 said:
What no one is mentioning is that EV “sales” doesn’t necessarily equate to actual cars on the road - so many are pre registered by both dealers and manufacturers and then suddenly appear on Autotrader 12 months later with minimal mileage.
Average Joe Public ain’t interested in EV as there’s no real carrot - simple really!
Pre-registered has been the same for ICE vehicles too for decades.Average Joe Public ain’t interested in EV as there’s no real carrot - simple really!
Just look on AT at the number of ‘Brand New’ registered cars - ICE far out weighs electric
-> Electric ; 3.200 cars
-> Petrol : 7,700 cars
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff