vinny41

2 minutes ago, Pib said:

No doubt this happens on some models but assuming a person has an EV with a range of say at least 400Km and they let the charge get down to only 12Km (which was probably only about 3% charge remaining), well, they probably deserve to "run out of juice" on the road. 

 

 

It happens when someone aims to use a charging station and then finds on arrival charging station is out of order and the next available charging station battery stated sufficient number of km to get to the next charging station but then readings become unstable or unreliable

Wet and Cold in the UK

How far can electric cars REALLY go?? – we drive 12 until they DIE! Tesla, BYD & more | What Car?

Lexus did travel a further 21 miles or 33km when the battery was showing zero

40 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

ok well answer the question.

 

distance to home - 78km.

battery distance to empty - 90km

typical drive time is 1hr.

road flooded drive time is 2.5hrs.

 

would I have got home or would I have been stranded with no battery.

 

I have seen reports in the EV facebook groups  of batteries being unstable or unreliable once the battery drops below 20% some EV owners reporting range drops from 12km to 0km in less than 30 seconds

9 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Indeed, so you can insure the full battery as you do now, or you can pay a reduced rate, and only insure the battery on a sliding scale.

I don't think the new policy is designed that way

I would assume anyone that has purchased their vehicle on finance will be required to purchase the additional battery coverage to 100% so in the event of an accident there is funding to replace the battery

What we don't know yet if you purchase  additional battery coverage to 100% does that mean the battery will be replaced irrespective of the total capital insured amount

Everything published so far doesn't mention reduced  insurance premiums all it states is reduced battery coverage

Thailand's first "EV car insurance", expensive premium based on vehicle price, conditions, co-payment rate if the driver's name doesn't match!

https://www.thairath.co.th/money/personal_finance/insurance/2752308

7 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Yes, I understand that, there will be a cheaper option of insurance if you decide not to cover the battery for the full 100%.

I don't think the OIC mentioned cheaper option they  realized in 2023 that EV repair costs were 30% more expensive than their ICE counterparts and EV insurance premiums would need to increase to cover that shortfall    and in the 2023 policies there wasn't a mandate for ev owner's to have a share in the proceeds of damaged batteries

Car owners and insurance companies will own the remains of electric vehicle batteries in the same proportion as the basis for compensation. When damaged batteries are sold insurance company The money must be divided among the car owners according to this proportion.

There will be discounts for named drivers that have made no claims 

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

I don’t read it that way, the full battery coverage that we get now is going to continue, or there will be a cheaper option to cover the battery on a sliding scale.

 

Covering the full battery will cost more than not covering it.

It does read the only battery coverage that is going to continue as is , is any car that uses battery modular

As the table only applies to non-battery modular so no change for MG ZS EV and MG EP+

Battery protection that changes according to lifespan 

From this new EV car insurance criteria, it will directly affect the coverage of High-Voltage batteries of EV cars. From 100% coverage, there will be less and less coverage. According to the lifespan of the EV vehicle *This criterion is used in the case of replacing the entire set of High Voltage batteries with the following conditions:

https://www.amarintv.com/spotlight/business-marketing/detail/56923

39 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Or, if you pay the normal premium instead of having the reduced premium for less battery coverage

That doesn't appear to be an option it stated in the article

"Importantly, if the car owner does not want to use the criteria in the table above. You can purchase additional battery coverage or Battery Replacement so that the insurance company will cover the battery 100%."

https://www.amarintv.com/spotlight/business-marketing/detail/56923

4 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

Cmon Vinny, surely you can do better than that ?

I didn’t include anything that an ev also requires.

When I stated that my 20 year old Toyota didn't need any parts I was referring to component parts that would be covered by Toyota 

car consumables have never been covered by Toyota or any brand  with the exception if your 12v battery failed in the 1st 12 months

3 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

They said that about Tesla, however, now there are lots of little companies in America that are repairing the batteries, I’m sure exactly the same will happen here.

 

Well, it depends how you look at it, another way of looking at it is you can have cheaper insurance if you accept those conditions, or you can pay the full price and have the battery covered as well, just like now.

Only if you pay an additional premium for additional battery coverage so that the insurance company will cover the battery 100%.

1 minute ago, HighPriority said:

Fuel and oil filters, engine oil… 🙄

Have you sat in you garage lately with your engine running ?

Fuel and Oil filters I accept engine oil I don't consider a part neither do I consider anti-freeze as a part

7 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I agree, and don't think anyone suggested they could.  The world of everything is intertwined.

 

One has 2000 ish parts, and fuel used to operate them, degrade many of those parts, and they need replacing.  An industry in itself, and why (the profits) they've been the dominant transport now, and for the next couple decades, or at least 1.

 

A machine made to malfunction for profits vs the alterative; batteries & electric motors that will probably outlast the rest of the vehicle.  Easy choice for some.

There plenty of 100 year old ICE vehicles on the road, I owned a 20 year old Toyota never needed any parts replacing other than wiper blades tires and 12V battery

you will have to wait a very long time to see if there are 100 year old EV's on road with their original parts

8 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

I wonder if this will translate to cheaper replacement costs for batteries, if required.

 

It’s a shame that cobalt is still being used in the refining of gasoline and diesel for ICEVs. Maybe @ExpatOilWorker can tell us why this is necessary and how the oil companies ensure no child labour in their industry.

The majority of ev's parts are made from petrochemicals

On 3/20/2024 at 12:16 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

And in 8 years worth  ????

 

The issue with EV's is not their performance, range or any practicality etc - its that as soon as their warranty ends (particularly the battery warranty), the value will drop off a cliff. 

 

This is going to be the same for all EV's until they have modular batteries which can be interchanged, or extended manufacturer warranties. 

 

 

The other issue for older EV's is insurance

If you unlucky and the battery needs replacing due to an accident new insurance rules kick in from January 2024

Battery life not exceeding 4 years, 70% of the battery price will be paid from the vendor.

Battery life up to 5 years, 60% of the battery price will be paid from the vendor.

Battery life exceeding 5 years will pay a 50% battery compensation charge against the battery price from the vendor.

https://www.amarintv.com/spotlight/business-marketing/detail/56923

So if EV is over 5 years old insurance will pay  50% battery compensation charge the owner has to stump up the other 50% 

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

 

You were being an idiot, so I thought i would give you some company.

I think your the only idiot on this thread lots of changes have happen within the thai economy since the previous government announced those planned target numbers for 2025 2030 2035

Hence why I said slippage will happen to those target numbers 

3 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Thank you for the lesson in growth.

 

If we apply the same percentage growth this year and next year as last year (and I am rounding down to 600%) 76,314 in 2023 becomes 534,000 in 2024 and 3,700,000 in 2025.  We could be on target to overachieve by a factor of ten.

 

However, if we accept that growth is accelerating, as it has done over the last 3 years.. that's a whole other ballgame

 

BTW, do you always believe journo's?

Your living in a fantasy world if you believe that 457,884 EV's will be sold in 2024

and what the journalist wrote about EV sales in 2023 compared to ICE sales in 2023 was completely correct market share of EV's in Thailand is still small compared to ICE sales in 2023 and totally number of vehicles on the road

7 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Here is her statement...

Furthermore, notwithstanding the government efforts towards promoting EV vehicles, the adoption rate has been low, and the customers still favour ICE vehicles in Thailand. Between January to September 2023, Thailand’s total vehicle sales were 500,942 units, wherein the EV share was 10.05%. While the number depicted a major growth from 9,729 EVs sold in the same period last year, the market share compared to ICE vehicles remains quite low. Moreover, the price gap between even the cheapest EV car model and the cheapest ICE car model is massive. The cheapest EV car model costs about $22,800 (post-subsidy), while ICE car models are available starting from about $9,000.

 

I don't think it's valid to say the adoption rate has been low when it increased over 600%, but the kicker is the prices she quoted, the cheapest EV post subsidy is not $22,800.

 

If that isn't biased then I don't know what is.

 

Any think tank saying that the government will miss it's targets is nothing more than theory and fluff until the evidence is clear, an increase in one year of over 600% adoption is evidence contra to her statements.

 

If it were to continue growing at 600% then the timescale would be a lot shorter than 2035.

 

The author doesn't work for a think tank she is a financial journalist

https://stocknews.com/authors/?author=namrata-senchanda&pg=2

When people talked about % is does depend on the starting base line

If I was to offer you a return of 600% based on an investment of Baht 1 that means the return of your investment would be Baht 6 plus your initial investment of Baht 1 totaling 7 baht

In 2020 1,056 Ev's were sold in 2021 1,935 ev's were sold in 2022 9,729 EV's were sold and in 2023 76,314 were sold total number for the period 2020-2023 total 89,034

In March 2021 the Government publish target figures for 2025 2030 and 2035

For 2025 the target figure for EV's cars/pickup trucks  in use is 402,000 target figure for BEV motorcycles is  622,000 and for buses and trucks 31,000

They also published target figures for local production of all of the above EV's types of vehicles

If we assume the 2025 2030 2035 are all December dates 

If we look at the December 2025 Target figures for cars/pickup trucks of 402,000 in use than means during the 2024-2025 period a total of 312,966 need to be sold

if we look at the total number of sales for 2023 of 76,314 and if double that number were sold in 2024 152,628 than means to reach the target of 402,000 that the number of ev's sold in 2025 would need to be 160,338

Problem is since those target figures were published multiple things have changed that will result in those targets unlikely to be met and will result in slippage on those target numbers

https://www.thaiauto.or.th/2020/news/?news_id=4981

25 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

You claimed "Almost all EV manufacturers are losing money on EVs and are backtracking." and none of your links support anything like that.

Wrong I never posted anything that your quoting

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

 

The links you provded do not support what you said. Mercedes is still ramping up their EV production and plans to sell half of their cars as EVs in a few years. Apple cancelled the project not because it is an EV but because they tried to build an autonomous vehicle and realized AI isn't there yet - by a long shot.

CEO Ola Kaellenius cautioned towards the end of last year that even in Europe, sales would likely not be all-electric by 2030, with battery-powered cars currently making up just 11% of total sales, and 19% including hybrids.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/mercedes-benz-hits-cars-returns-forecast-inflation-supply-chain-costs-bite-2024-02-22/

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I hate this habit of quoting prices as 4xx,000

 

What it says to the consumer is I can’t be trusted because I’m hiding the price from you.

I think they are waiting for all their competitors to announce their prices before release their prices

They have been offering discounts in China with the entry model (155km range) starting at 5,250 USD (B189,052)

https://carnewschina.com/2024/03/01/now-one-of-chinas-cheapest-cars-the-changan-lumin-gets-a-discount-and-6-1-seconds-acceleration/

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

That article was also biased, they incorrectly gave the price of the chiefest EV versus the price of the cheapest ICE vehicle.

 

Everyone, including the author of that article is entitled to their opinion, but in my opinion, they are wrong and biased.

And in my opinion its you that is wrong  and you should  provide evidence to support your claim that the author is biased just you posting on this forum is not  evidence  that she is biased

you don't seem to understand 2035 is a target date not set it stone and can be changed if required just like when the UK pushed back from 2030 to 2035 for Petrol and Diesel while Hybrid remains unchanged at the moment as that was always 2035

2030 dates were set before Covid if there are further key worldwide components shortages that will push back the 2035 dates

The plan to ban new diesel and petrol cars was initially set to begin in 2040 by the then environmental secretary. The initiative was later brought forward to 2030, and then ultimately delayed to 2035.

Sales of hybrid vehicles will also be banned from this date.

https://pod-point.com/guides/2035-diesel-and-petrol-car-ban-in-the-uk-everything-you-need-to-know#:~:text=The plan to ban new,be banned from this date.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thats what I'm also thinking...   

 

.... either the NZ guy is a complete lunatic and because he's insane attacked the policeman because he didn't like being chased and charged. 

OR... 

.... the Policeman drew the gun and NZ guy thought the Policeman was going to shoot him, perhaps a miss-fire had already occurred which made NZ guy even more concerned that the Policeman was going to shoot them so he decided to 'fight for his life' and subdue the Policeman and make the gun safe. 

 

I'n the video I don't see the NZ guy attacking the policeman.... I see him getting control of the gun and making it safe. 

 

 

 

How much of a reason would he have needed ??   Angry because the NZ guys wouldn't stop ?? is that enough of a reason to pull a gun ?

 

 

Never (first hand), but I've read of plenty of stories on here of Policemen shooting at people in car and bike chases etc..  

 

 

On certain routes it's well known that trucks or cars full to the brim with drugs will attempt to evade or ignore checkpoints and make a run for it normally shootouts will take place

27 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

There is no evidence to suggest Thailand will miss its target of 100% EV sales by 2035.

 

We are 11 years away and we were around 10% last year, I think we will be between 15% and 20% this year.

 

I am very concerned that other countries like UK, EU and the Former Colonies are doing exactly the wrong thing with Chinese EV’s to accelerate EV uptake.

 

I think they will protect their local auto manufacturers who would like nothing more than to back pedal on EV production.

it was clearly stated in the article by this guy 

 we believe that the Thai government will most likely miss its 1.123 million zero-emission vehicles target by 2030,” says Hirotaka Uchida, Head of Arthur D. Little Thailand, Automotive and Manufacturing in Southeast Asia Pacific.

Normally as a rule Most Government's incurred slippage when they try to enforce a target that the majority of the public are not signed up to

Every country adopts measures to protect their own  local auto manufacturing base hence any country that wants to export cars to Thailand with the exception of China is subject to import tariffs on between 40-80%

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think the 30@30 policy is about right to achieve domestic sales to be 100% EV’s by 2035 which is also their policy, the two policies are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary they are complementary.

 

Thailand accounts for 72% of all EV sales in ASEAN countries, so it’s only to be expected that ICE vehicles will continue to be exported and EV exports will lag behind.

I think that wouldn't happen as well as cars Thailand is a major manufacturer of trucks and other commercial vehicles

Most countries now have a local content requirement for imports 

If they don't achieve the 40% local content will be very difficult to export EV's

According to a local newspaper, the Thai National Shippers’ Council (TNSC) supports the government’s stance towards a buoyant ICE automotive industry. TNSC chairman Chaichan Chareonsuk said that the value addition of EVs to local manufacturers is only 34%, while for ICE vehicles the value addition of 53%.

But, to reach its 30@30 goals, Thailand still has a long way to go. “Based on the current market situation and expected future movements, we believe that the Thai government will most likely miss its 1.123 million zero-emission vehicles target by 2030,” says Hirotaka Uchida, Head of Arthur D. Little Thailand, Automotive and Manufacturing in Southeast Asia Pacific.

https://asiafundmanagers.com/us/policy-focus-on-ice-vehicles-to-slowdown-thailands-ev-adoption/

1 minute ago, bizboi said:

Maybe they can ask to serve their time in a police hospital then have their sentences reduced to a year then be let out after 6 months to run the country. 
 

If the truth was known what’s the betting the Thai police didn’t behave as police in other countries do?

In the USA they would both be dead , In Dirty Harry films you would never see Harry standing around while he sees a fellow police officer beaten up by a couple of Punks

he more likely to  point his magnum 44 at the guy standing and advise him that he should tell his friend to release the police officer hence the posts of a 2nd police officer just filming is pure fantasy