EVs... no one wants them!
Discussion
M4cruiser said:
The other day I made a perfectly reasonably assumption that a charge-point would be working, because zap-map said it was. It wasn't. Nor was the next one. Luckily the third one was working and unoccupied.
Sounds like the office trap dash the morning after boy's curry night. 
plfrench said:
Ankh87 said:
All this shows is that people seem to still be not sold by BEVs and have range anxiety issues as they seem to be buying PHEV instead.
Except that over twice as many BEVs were bought in June compared to PHEVs Edited by Ankh87 on Thursday 4th July 20:49
Given that we are supposed to be moving towards BEV the lack of growth in market share is the issue. In June both PHEV and HEV individually saw a larger YoY increase than BEV in terms of units registered and percentage increase.
The majority of lost diesel and petrol sales are shifting to a hybrid rather than BEV.
Monkeylegend said:
survivalist said:
Putting a tank of petrol in an ICE car isn’t a horrific chore and plunging in the EV isn’t a big issue either.
Depends where you plunge I suppose, deep water or a cliff could be a big problem.survivalist said:
plfrench said:
Ankh87 said:
All this shows is that people seem to still be not sold by BEVs and have range anxiety issues as they seem to be buying PHEV instead.
Except that over twice as many BEVs were bought in June compared to PHEVs Edited by Ankh87 on Thursday 4th July 20:49
Given that we are supposed to be moving towards BEV the lack of growth in market share is the issue. In June both PHEV and HEV individually saw a larger YoY increase than BEV in terms of units registered and percentage increase.
The majority of lost diesel and petrol sales are shifting to a hybrid rather than BEV.
At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio. For starters, a large chunk of those 20% of EV sales will be Tesla for whom ZEV is irrelevant. For example, if half the U.K. sales are Tesla's then that implies the others are nowhere near hitting their 22% requirements.
No wonder they're beginning to soil themselves at the prospect of having to dump thousands of EVs into the market on dirt cheap leases. Oh the humanity!!
. Thousands of British consumers being offered super cheap lease deals. DonkeyApple said:
The thing that would really curb new EV sales would be employers not offering so many employees a car. Manufacturers would then have to work particularly hard to attract private buyers to assist them with meeting their ZEV targets.
At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio.
It's been true for a few decades that the sales figures are distorted by "company cars".At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio.
Manufacturers don't care provided they sell what they need to.
DonkeyApple said:
The thing that would really curb new EV sales would be employers not offering so many employees a car. Manufacturers would then have to work particularly hard to attract private buyers to assist them with meeting their ZEV targets.
At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio. For starters, a large chunk of those 20% of EV sales will be Tesla for whom ZEV is irrelevant. For example, if half the U.K. sales are Tesla's then that implies the others are nowhere near hitting their 22% requirements.
No wonder they're beginning to soil themselves at the prospect of having to dump thousands of EVs into the market on dirt cheap leases. Oh the humanity!!. Thousands of British consumers being offered super cheap lease deals.
Exactly. There's more and more companies doing salary sacrifice these days, which means manufacturers aren't needing to put in the work for private buyers.At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio. For starters, a large chunk of those 20% of EV sales will be Tesla for whom ZEV is irrelevant. For example, if half the U.K. sales are Tesla's then that implies the others are nowhere near hitting their 22% requirements.
No wonder they're beginning to soil themselves at the prospect of having to dump thousands of EVs into the market on dirt cheap leases. Oh the humanity!!
. Thousands of British consumers being offered super cheap lease deals. Now no offence to these types of owners but they don't really look after cars that well because they know they'll be getting rid in a few years. I've got a few friends now who are on EV company cars and well they abuse the battery. Whereas another who's bought outright doesn't. Now maybe that's the people I know but seems a few people on here are similar. The I don't really care because it'll be going back in 3 years anyway.
We can only hope that prices will drop huge and we get the benefits. Msybe then home charger prices will drop as well.
M4cruiser said:
It's been true for a few decades that the sales figures are distorted by "company cars".
Manufacturers don't care provided they sell what they need to.
Indeed. Fleet cars were in decline though and the BIK/salary sacrifice has rekindled demand especially as income taxes went higher etc but it is a factor that's underpinning EV sales currently as manufacturers mark up their EVs to take those savings into their own book, as is always the way with subs and grants. Manufacturers don't care provided they sell what they need to.
What we really want is to reach the point where there are no subs or grants and manufacturers have to f
k each other over to try and win customers. The big hope with the ZEV Mandate is that it triggers that cannibalism and the manufacturers start to have to properly fight it out or leave a clear the path for more competitive entrants. I'm a huge fan of free markets and corporates having to slug it out. The car industry in the West is weak, fat and greedy and in desperate need of a war. Only through true competition do we arrive at true pricing.
I've been a proponent for years for banning car vendors from being able to sell finance as it only allows them to manipulate the market against consumers and today, with our advanced consumer lending market places there is absolutely no place or benefit in allowing retailers to dictate debt deals. Leave lenders to compete on lending and car vendors to compete in car prices.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 4th July 21:51
Ankh87 said:
DonkeyApple said:
The thing that would really curb new EV sales would be employers not offering so many employees a car. Manufacturers would then have to work particularly hard to attract private buyers to assist them with meeting their ZEV targets.
At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio. For starters, a large chunk of those 20% of EV sales will be Tesla for whom ZEV is irrelevant. For example, if half the U.K. sales are Tesla's then that implies the others are nowhere near hitting their 22% requirements.
No wonder they're beginning to soil themselves at the prospect of having to dump thousands of EVs into the market on dirt cheap leases. Oh the humanity!!. Thousands of British consumers being offered super cheap lease deals.
Exactly. There's more and more companies doing salary sacrifice these days, which means manufacturers aren't needing to put in the work for private buyers.At the moment it's all ticking along OK although it's worth noting that just because we the consumer are buying EVs at around 1 in 5 that doesn't mean the manufacturers are selling them anywhere near that ratio. For starters, a large chunk of those 20% of EV sales will be Tesla for whom ZEV is irrelevant. For example, if half the U.K. sales are Tesla's then that implies the others are nowhere near hitting their 22% requirements.
No wonder they're beginning to soil themselves at the prospect of having to dump thousands of EVs into the market on dirt cheap leases. Oh the humanity!!
. Thousands of British consumers being offered super cheap lease deals. Now no offence to these types of owners but they don't really look after cars that well because they know they'll be getting rid in a few years. I've got a few friends now who are on EV company cars and well they abuse the battery. Whereas another who's bought outright doesn't. Now maybe that's the people I know but seems a few people on here are similar. The I don't really care because it'll be going back in 3 years anyway.
We can only hope that prices will drop huge and we get the benefits. Msybe then home charger prices will drop as well.
Most now have pretty sophisticated battery management systems. After all, the manufacturers don’t want people claiming on the battery and drivetrain warranties that are typically much longer than those of ICE vehicles.
Most BEVs have significantly more actual capacity than useable capacity to help with this.
Someone recently did some battery degradation tests on a Tesla that had seen a pretty high percentage of fast charging and the degradation wasn’t much higher than average.
Given that most people will be charging at home most of the time due to the significantly lower costs, I don’t see that as a huge issue anyway.
What is less well known is the impact of age on battery degradation, as there just aren’t that many old EVs out in the wild yet. And hardly any with modern battery tech.
TheRainMaker said:
plfrench said:
I’ve remembered this time that this thread isn’t about no one wanting EVs, but June’s registration figures are out - steadily going upwards now - 19%, so very nearly 1 in every 5 cars sold were BEV. Pretty strong numbers.
The numbers are terrible. Year to date, we are at 16.6%, a massive 0.5% rise over last year.We have a Salary Sacrifice scheme at work, it didn't seem any cheaper than leasing privately.
The RRP prices they were claiming with savings was nonsense, you can search for the same lease (inc maintenance) and the cost was nowhere near the RRP.
Perhaps we just for a decent lease deal but when I looked it was about the same price and if I ever left the company during the contract, it would revert to the 'RRP' price was was massively inflated.
Just my experience, perhaps others got better deals.
The RRP prices they were claiming with savings was nonsense, you can search for the same lease (inc maintenance) and the cost was nowhere near the RRP.
Perhaps we just for a decent lease deal but when I looked it was about the same price and if I ever left the company during the contract, it would revert to the 'RRP' price was was massively inflated.
Just my experience, perhaps others got better deals.
Going to be interesting now with Labour back in seem as they have said it's going back to 2030 for hybrid or BEV only sales.
Was watching EVM yesterday and saying destination and just grazing is the way forward for mass adoption. I sort of agree as how many people would buy an BEV if they could charge up at work for a minimal cost if need be. I know 80% of people at my work would do. Even if it were only on a 3 pin they'd be more than happy.
Was watching EVM yesterday and saying destination and just grazing is the way forward for mass adoption. I sort of agree as how many people would buy an BEV if they could charge up at work for a minimal cost if need be. I know 80% of people at my work would do. Even if it were only on a 3 pin they'd be more than happy.
Wagonwheel555 said:
We have a Salary Sacrifice scheme at work, it didn't seem any cheaper than leasing privately.
The RRP prices they were claiming with savings was nonsense, you can search for the same lease (inc maintenance) and the cost was nowhere near the RRP.
Perhaps we just for a decent lease deal but when I looked it was about the same price and if I ever left the company during the contract, it would revert to the 'RRP' price was was massively inflated.
Just my experience, perhaps others got better deals.
You do generally get a much more prestigious sticker for the same spend. It's like getting a Vectra or Mondeo with every bit of exterior trim just like the senior management guys but for the same cost as a 1.6D with cloth seats. The RRP prices they were claiming with savings was nonsense, you can search for the same lease (inc maintenance) and the cost was nowhere near the RRP.
Perhaps we just for a decent lease deal but when I looked it was about the same price and if I ever left the company during the contract, it would revert to the 'RRP' price was was massively inflated.
Just my experience, perhaps others got better deals.
But yup it works by illusion. It's almost as if businesses everywhere always raise prices when a government offers a tax incentive to its people. It's as if these subs and grants precisely work by the consumer thinking they're getting a discount, some free money, a cash reward for being awesome while the government funnels taxpayer's money to subsidise corporates.
Of course, that's exactly how it works and that's fine if it achieves an important goal of creating a market demand years before the product can stand on its own two feet to compete or the industry being supported is local to the source of the taxpayer funds. But we don't manufacture cars in the U.K. We pay a few overseas firms money so that they will assemble some cars here from imported parts but all the BIK funds and other grants and subs for EVs are being paid overseas and what we can see from the base factory costs of these vehicles there really is no longer any need to be paying them money and we can now just turn the screw on them all to start discounting down towards fair value or lose market share to more competitive firms.
If we want a nice and sensible blend of used EVs within the U.K. fleet in ten years time, which of course we do as we don't want all these old EVs being skewed towards the larger, executive segment generally favoured by the 1970s pub landlord. We do need lots of smaller and cheaper cars in the mix which means either matching BIK with subs for private buyers or what would be more sensible would be to start removing BIK discounts starting at the higher price brackets.
These firms have to sell EVs, they have no choice so there is no need to be paying them any subsidies.
Wagonwheel555 said:
We have a Salary Sacrifice scheme at work, it didn't seem any cheaper than leasing privately.
...
Not all salary sacrifice schemes are equal. Many schemes are sold to employers as being "zero cost" with the added benefit that the employer also saves employer's NI on any amount 'sacrificed'. Those employers often don't check the detail and realise that the prices their staff are being offered for the cars are just not that competitive....
So much so that for my company, I decided to setup my own salary sacrifice scheme, which was easy to do. It means we have to handle a bit of administration, but the benefit is that staff then get to pick from the cheapest actual business lease prices available in the market, and they get those prices deduced from their gross salary (with only an adjustment needed for VAT). Doing in this way makes the pricing massively cheaper than private leasing.
otolith said:
MightyBadger said:
otolith said:
I'm sure you do. They burn fossil fuels. That produces carbon dioxide. They do not believe that continuing to do that is sustainable.
For every tonne of mined lithium, 15 tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the air......https://earth.org/lithium-and-cobalt-mining/#:~:te...
The question of how many cars is opaque, because people seem to quote very different numbers for the quantity of lithium in the battery. I suspect that the larger numbers are the mass of the lithium salt in the batteries (LiPF6), or in the extracted lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) used to make it and the smaller ones the actual mass of lithium.
Also, your 15 tonnes figure. Earth.org got it from climate.mit.edu who got it from a BBC article who got it from PR puff from Vulcan Zero Carbon Lithium who got it from the consultancy Minviro. It is 15 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of lithium hydroxide and that figure is for hard rock mining only. The figure they quote for brine extraction is 5 tonnes, and the figure for Vulcan's process is zero tonnes. It's not clear whether those figures are for anhydrous LiOH or the monohydrate LiOH.H2O.
Anyway, Vulcan's investor presentation does the maths, and puts the CO2 output for building an EV from lithium production at 675kg if it's hard rock mining (therefore 225kg if it's from brine). So that is the equivalent of 64 gallons of petrol for hard rock or 21 gallons for brine. Set that against being used for several hundred thousand miles of motoring on renewable energy in the first car, and then recycling for reuse in future cars.
https://www.investi.com.au/api/announcements/vul/b...
Ankh87 said:
All this shows is that people seem to still be not sold by BEVs and have range anxiety issues as they seem to be buying PHEV instead.
Until the public are educated more and have the real facts about EVs, not the usual............:Edited by Ankh87 on Thursday 4th July 20:49
1. Batteries are dead after 100,000miles
2. Tyres only last 7,000 miles
3. Brakes need replacing more often because of the weight of the vehicle?!!!!!!!
4. Charging away from home takes over an hour and most of the chargers don't work
5. Range isn't enough, I can do xxx miles in my 320D
6. etc etc
.....the uptake is going to be small. From speaking to friends about EVs, non of them are aware of........:
1. The minuscule running costs of charging at home plus
2. Savings in not having to get a £400 service every year (for Teslas at least).
3. Refinement of an electric motor as opposed to an N47 diesel engine
4. The performance of a supercar with the efficiency of an electric car
5. Reliability of an electric motor compared to an engine with multiple moving parts, sensors and filters etc
6. You don't actually need a range of 600miles when you only do 200 in a week
8. A 'long' trip may only involve one or two 10-20min charging stops
7. etc etc.
I know the above has been discussed many times here and I'm sure used EV values would be higher if the public had a better understanding of EVs?!
PS I was in the anti EV camp until I started following this thread!
survivalist said:
True in absolute numbers, but PHEV and HEV combined still outsold BEV by a significant margin. Relevant IMO because many PHEV never get plugged in - for company car users it's just a BIK reduction.
Not sure there are any stats to back that up, is there? I suspect your 'many' is a few thousand people out of hundreds of thousands, so maybe 5%-10% of PHEV owners? If people have a driveway (or charging at work) and a PHEV, why would people never plug their car in?
braddo said:
otolith said:
MightyBadger said:
otolith said:
I'm sure you do. They burn fossil fuels. That produces carbon dioxide. They do not believe that continuing to do that is sustainable.
For every tonne of mined lithium, 15 tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the air......https://earth.org/lithium-and-cobalt-mining/#:~:te...
The question of how many cars is opaque, because people seem to quote very different numbers for the quantity of lithium in the battery. I suspect that the larger numbers are the mass of the lithium salt in the batteries (LiPF6), or in the extracted lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) used to make it and the smaller ones the actual mass of lithium.
Also, your 15 tonnes figure. Earth.org got it from climate.mit.edu who got it from a BBC article who got it from PR puff from Vulcan Zero Carbon Lithium who got it from the consultancy Minviro. It is 15 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of lithium hydroxide and that figure is for hard rock mining only. The figure they quote for brine extraction is 5 tonnes, and the figure for Vulcan's process is zero tonnes. It's not clear whether those figures are for anhydrous LiOH or the monohydrate LiOH.H2O.
Anyway, Vulcan's investor presentation does the maths, and puts the CO2 output for building an EV from lithium production at 675kg if it's hard rock mining (therefore 225kg if it's from brine). So that is the equivalent of 64 gallons of petrol for hard rock or 21 gallons for brine. Set that against being used for several hundred thousand miles of motoring on renewable energy in the first car, and then recycling for reuse in future cars.
https://www.investi.com.au/api/announcements/vul/b...
A one line post requires a 12 line response, very close to 'an order of magnitude', as postulated by Alberto B.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff