EV Owners … Real life experience & help thread

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

MG updated their website 1st October

https://www.mgcars.com/th/promotions/12

It's called marketing ... good luck finding one.

 

LAZ advertises 'free shipping' also, out of 100-150 orders, might have got free shipping once  ...

... marketing 

 

MG ZS EV gets 403 kms per charge ... marketing again.

 

Edited October 20 by KhunLA

[Andrew Dwyer]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

There are a couple of negatives...   but they are not show stoppers.

 

 

1) There is the need for numerous different EV charging Apps ( I think about 8 in total )

... some of which requires money pre-loaded into in-app wallets.

 

2) When 'charging' at a shopping mall.

- its great if you can get a slower Type 2 AC charger that will gently top up the charge over a few hours (2-3-4 hrs etc)

- But, if you get a CCS2 DC charger that will top up the car in 20-30mins, then you have to go back and exit the charging bay and park elsewhere (which of course adds a further element of inconvenience).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) I don’t see the fact that there are plenty of apps for charging EV’s as a negative, on the contrary. While I have downloaded a few app I only use 2 in nearly a year, 1 has no money loaded and the other does have money loaded into a wallet but it doesn’t have a minimum and I can transfer the minimum amount to it shortly before charging if necessary.

Where is the negative ?

 

2) Now it appears that charging too fast is a negative ?, just choose the AC option .

[jacob29]

10 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Chinese EV's are sold in China at a realistic price, nobody thinks they are dumping product there, yet their cars are much cheaper there than Thailand which IMHO should be harmonised to that price structure.  There is no valid reason they should cost so much more here.

The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland, if it's not dumping it's still unsustainable.

[JBChiangRai]

4 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland, if it's not dumping it's still unsustainable.

 

I would prefer to see some evidence of that....

[vinny41]

16 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I think there is an issue with how we consider depreciation of EV's.

 

A car (to take Vinny's example) that used to cost 1,189k and now costs 599k by comparing to a purchase cost of 1,189k will have depreciated massively.  But if we compare it to the new cost of 599k then it hasn't depreciated so much.

 

I think the moment a manufacturer slashes the price of their cars, all used examples take an extra hit of depreciation.

 

Is it fair to say EV's depreciate rapidly because of that?  aren't we taking an extraordinary event to make a generalised  conclusion?

 

I think manufacturers are finding their feet regarding pricing of EV's.  Particularly the Chinese who aren't slashing their prices to survive, they are simply adjusting them to what they should be, and especially with the price of batteries falling.

 

Chinese EV's are sold in China at a realistic price, nobody thinks they are dumping product there, yet their cars are much cheaper there than Thailand which IMHO should be harmonised to that price structure.  There is no valid reason they should cost so much more here.

 

I think they entered the Thai market thinking they could make a quick killing and now that they have competition, ( mostly from each other) they are stabilising to real price and real value.

 

The big issue I think, is if China can build and sell quality EV's in China to a price, why can't the rest of the world even get remotely close to that?

 

Competition is great for the consumer, it pushes price down and quality up.

For anyone that bought a MG ZS EV in 2022 and paid the after subsidy price of B949,000

their car value is approx B485K although most MG ZS EV are being advertised for around B469K now if there was no price reductions and alllowing an annual depreciation rate of 10% per year their car should be valued at B769K

The Chinese EV Brands are reducing their prices to sell and they have a huge overstock but at the same time the price of parts are not reducing at the same level that is taking place with the price reductions on cars

For the Chinese EV manufacturers that signed up to EV 3.0 subsidy in 2022 the conditions are for every car they imported in 2022 and 2023 they are required to build on a 1 to 1 ratio in 2024 there is an allowance that states if you don't build your quota in 2024 you can carry over that quota into 2025 but the ratio changes to 1.5 Thai builds for every 1 vehicle imported if you don't hit the quota and the end of 2025 they have to repay the subsidy + fines + import duties I have seen reports where the fines range from B550K to B750K

The easiest solution would be if they were allowed for the 2023,2024 imports to be allowed to delay some of the local build into 2025/2026 on the same ratio as 2024 1 to 1 ratio

Even with B450K price reductions that is still cheaper than paying back the subsidy y + fines + import duties

Chinese EV industry in Thailand faces a crisis. It is demanding an urgent hearing from the government on its promotions

https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2024/10/09/chinese-ev-industry-in-thailand-faces-crisis-it-is-demanding-an-urgent-hearing-from-the-government/

[vinny41]

40 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

What practical difference does it make whether it's 700% or 900%?  It's a number massively higher than 100%, which is the point being made. It's my poor math converting 8x to 900% when it should have been 700%.

 

If there are lots of links showing 100% increases in premiums, maybe you should post those instead of an article that talks about the volume of claims.

It makes a huge difference also important to show the baseline number

if I sold one product in 2022 and then I said I increased sales by 1000% in 2023 that would mean I sold 10 products in 2023 selling 10 products not as impressive as saying sales increased by 1000%

[jacob29]

45 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I would prefer to see some evidence of that....

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3275699/chinese-ev-makers-losses-mount-rising-sales-fail-offset-steep-discounts

[richard_smith237]

50 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

1) I don’t see the fact that there are plenty of apps for charging EV’s as a negative, on the contrary. While I have downloaded a few app I only use 2 in nearly a year, 1 has no money loaded and the other does have money loaded into a wallet but it doesn’t have a minimum and I can transfer the minimum amount to it shortly before charging if necessary.

Where is the negative ?

 

2) Now it appears that charging too fast is a negative ?, just choose the AC option .

 

Fair point - lots of apps but we can get used to that easily enough.

 

On the second point - having to go back to the car to move it is an inconvenience.

CCS2 chargers are great… but not at the shops etc (the one I just used didn't have a Type 2 AC charger).

 

Just highlighting that EV usage / charging etc not quite the perfect world.

 

Just pulled into a PTT station with KFC - so we could charge & grab a snack…

CCS2 chargers in use.

 

Another point - scanning all those QR codes on my phone  (QR stickers on the charge machines)…. that’s a massive security risk…. Lots of warnings going about alerting to the risk of scanning ‘fraudulent’ QR codes that gives scammers access to the phone. 
 

 

 

 

 

[jacob29]

22 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

It makes a huge difference also important to show the baseline number

It's not a huge difference compared to 100%, which is the reason I  converted to percent (incorrectly) in the first place. 700% vs 100%, compared to 900% vs 100%. The point remains, that there is nothing unusual about a dramatic increase in the number of claims, considering the explosive growth in sales.

 

Baseline number is practically irrelevant, since it applies in equal measure to the number of insurance claims made (e.g. also makes your 100% increase in claim 'look impressive')

 

 

Edited October 20 by jacob29

[motdaeng]

41 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3275699/chinese-ev-makers-losses-mount-rising-sales-fail-offset-steep-discounts

 

i'm not a finance expert or a business expert...

but isn't it normal for every new car company to face years of losses before making profits?

the investment costs for a startup can easily reach a few billions of dollars...

 

tesla took about 15 years to produce at a profit, and now no one talks about that as a bad business

decision ... is there a different to the chinese ev car markers?

[KhunLA]

So ... any " Real Life Experiences " to add to the thread since I posted an update on my experience with the ZS, over 5 hrs ago 

 

PEACE OUT

 

 

 

 

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3275699/chinese-ev-makers-losses-mount-rising-sales-fail-offset-steep-discounts

 

That doesn't help your point as none of those automakers are in the general Thailand yet.  By far the largest Chinese automaker sold here is BYD who are profitable.

 

My point stands that prices here in Thailand should not be substantially different from China.  Chinese automakers are not dumping their cars in China and if they are being sold elsewhere for more than that, then they are not dumping there either.

 

1 hour ago, motdaeng said:

 

i'm not a finance expert or a business expert...

but isn't it normal for every new car company to face years of losses before making profits?

the investment costs for a startup can easily reach a few billions of dollars...

 

tesla took about 15 years to produce at a profit, and now no one talks about that as a bad business

decision ... is there a different to the chinese ev car markers?

 

Yes, it's perfectly normal.  Costs are taken upfront and profits are taken as they are made.

[jacob29]

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

That doesn't help your point as none of those automakers are in the general Thailand yet.

 

Which part of my comment related to Thailand? What I stated, and what you responded to asking for evidence, was

 

The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland

 

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

My point stands that prices here in Thailand should not be substantially different from China.

 

That wasn't your point, your point was that prices in China were fair/reasonable. When close to the entire industry is selling at a loss, thats clearly not sustainable.

 

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Chinese automakers are not dumping their cars in China and if they are being sold elsewhere for more than that, then they are not dumping there either.

 

They could give them away for free and you wouldn't call it dumping, so let's ignore that term entirely since it's a red herring.

 

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Yes, it's perfectly normal.  Costs are taken upfront and profits are taken as they are made.

Even if it was 'perfectly normal', that doesn't imply that it's a fair market price. It can (and often does) mean below market (not normal) rate in order to capture market share. The company may well not be able to sustain those losses in multiple markets, especially as tariff risks increase if they're too aggressive slashing prices. Even China friendly nations like Brazil are introducing EV tariffs.

[jacob29]

7 hours ago, motdaeng said:

 

i'm not a finance expert or a business expert...

but isn't it normal for every new car company to face years of losses before making profits?

the investment costs for a startup can easily reach a few billions of dollars...

 

Some losses sure (until scale achieved), but these are pretty mature companies in some cases, and I'm not sure how else we can evaluate a fair market price for vehicles. BYD at a scale that matches the giants - is turning a profit of around $1000-$2000 per vehicle which is peanuts. So even the well established company with sales out the wazoo is on razor thin margins. Combine that with BEV steeply undercutting ICE cars on price, and the picture that emerges is not one of sustainable market prices.

[JBChiangRai]

18 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Chinese EV's are sold in China at a realistic price, nobody thinks they are dumping product there, yet their cars are much cheaper there than Thailand which IMHO should be harmonised to that price structure.  There is no valid reason they should cost so much more here.

 

 

8 hours ago, jacob29 said:

 

Which part of my comment related to Thailand? What I stated, and what you responded to asking for evidence, was

 

The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland

 

 

That wasn't your point, your point was that prices in China were fair/reasonable. When close to the entire industry is selling at a loss, thats clearly not sustainable.

 

 

They could give them away for free and you wouldn't call it dumping, so let's ignore that term entirely since it's a red herring.

 

Even if it was 'perfectly normal', that doesn't imply that it's a fair market price. It can (and often does) mean below market (not normal) rate in order to capture market share. The company may well not be able to sustain those losses in multiple markets, especially as tariff risks increase if they're too aggressive slashing prices. Even China friendly nations like Brazil are introducing EV tariffs.

 

Let's not lose context or twist my post, your post was in response to mine (above).

 

Whether some manufacturers haven't reached their anticipated profitability yet doesn't mean they are dumping or that it's unsustainable.  All new models are sold at a loss until development costs are recouped.  They need either substantial cash reserves or financial support until they hit that point.

 

Unsustainability only occurs if they run out of finance before that point. That can be down to many factors.  If a Chinese manufacturer can make and sell cars at a profit (eg BYD) than that means it's a sensible price for that segment.  It's up to the competition to compete.  It's not right to say the price is wrong and unsustainable as one manufacturer has already demonstrated it's ok.  If the competition is selling for less than that, it could well be unsustainable.

[jacob29]

6 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Let's not lose context or twist my post, your post was in response to mine (above).

I clarified the context explicitly, stating I was talking about the mainland. Don't blame your reading comprehension issues on me.

 

6 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Whether some manufacturers haven't reached their anticipated profitability yet doesn't mean they are dumping or that it's unsustainable. 

 

It's not some manufacturers not reaching profitability, it's nearly all of them, and even the profitable ones are on razor slim margins.

6 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

All new models are sold at a loss until development costs are recouped.  They need either substantial cash reserves or financial support until they hit that point.

So don't ask me for evidence they're running at a loss - since you knew they all would be already. What are you even arguing at this point? You come to a different conclusion from the same data, but why this song and dance to arrive at that conclusion?

[JBChiangRai]

11 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

I clarified the context explicitly, stating I was talking about the mainland. Don't blame your reading comprehension issues on me.

 

 

It's not some manufacturers not reaching profitability, it's nearly all of them, and even the profitable ones are on razor slim margins.

So don't ask me for evidence they're running at a loss - since you knew they all would be already. What are you even arguing at this point? You come to a different conclusion from the same data, but why this song and dance to arrive at that conclusion?

Were not going to agree, I appreciate your point of view even though I disagree with it.

[KhunLA]

Renewed ins. w/Roojai

TTL loss value ฿560k @ ฿13,434

 

Not much difference that what many ins. carriers charge for ICE version of MG ZS

 

Y'all want to spit ball the depreciations %

... mythical ฿599k - almost none

... Purchase price ฿949k = ~41% (~14% (3 yo) or ~20 (2 yo)

... New sales price ฿829K = ~32%

... or 11% per year, this time next year (3 yo), or 16% now per year.

 

Irrelevant for us, as stated, will never sell, and worth much more repurposed to the solar system, in hopefully 10-15-20 yrs, if ever.   When ICE version of most cars will be worth -0-, the BEV battery pack will still be worth one to a few ฿100k 

 

Don't forget the ฿40-฿50k save with every 20k kms driven, depending if buying electrons from PEA, or FREE from solar.

 

Times 10 - 20 years ... yea, why would anyone buy a BEV  

 

[KhunLA]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:47 PM, KhunLA said:

 

On 9/14/2024 at 5:47 PM, KhunLA said:

Did another battery equalization, from 18% to 100%

Slow charging @ 7.4kWh

 

But, for some reason, stop charging @ 40% for about an hour, 

as I didn't notice.  Going to guess that affected slightly in a

negative way, if at all.   

 

Results were, according to the car,  ranges when

new @ 100% & now,  Along with what the pea meter

finished & started at, kWh used...

 

At the 14 month period & equalization, was only 0.6%, so considerably more, or one or both, were a bit flawed.  But, ballpark enough for me.

 

So end of battery warranty, 8 yrs, maybe about 10% degradation +/-

 

May Equalize it again in another 7 months, as CATL does recommend a couple times a year.  We've only done it twice.

 

NOTE:  ... WLTP range rating is 320, car in ECO mode is 360

Did another 'equalization', today, 6 weeks after the 'quoted' one above.  

 

As should be done (BYD info) when <10%, instead of 18%, and last time, it was interrupted.  So took the MG ZS down to 6%, and nothing changed.

 

Took 43.5kW to get back to 100%, and strangely, the same 6kW discrepancy, from what the car got, and what the grid provided.

 

So no need for the MG ZS to be taken down below 10%, (not a fan of) as same results as below 20%.

Edited October 27 by KhunLA

[UWEB]

9 hours ago, KhunLA said:

 

Did another 'equalization', today, 6 weeks after the 'quoted' one above.  

 

As should be done (BYD info) when <10%, instead of 18%, and last time, it was interrupted.  So took the MG ZS down to 6%, and nothing changed.

 

Took 43.5kW to get back to 100%, and strangely, the same 6kW discrepancy, from what the car got, and what the grid provided.

 

So no need for the MG ZS to be taken down below 10%, (not a fan of) as same results as below 20%.

Looks to me the usual 15% charging losses.

[KhunLA]

 

[JBChiangRai]

29 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

 

I'm not sure what this guy's qualifications are, but he's completely wrong.

 

He's wrong about deterioration vs. capacity, and he's wrong about active vs. passive balancing.

 

Tests have shown that LFP batteries cycled between low% and 25% ultimately give more power over their longer lifetime than batteries cycled (say) 75% to 100% or 50% to 100% etc.  The EE video posted elsewhere covers this in detail.

 

Most automakers use active balancers in their battery packs and I'm fairly certain BYD do for example, and I'm sure all NMC battery types do.  It's more expensive but more efficient and better.  MG use cheaper passive balancing (in LFP batteries)  which burns off the energy as heat in higher voltage cells until it matches the lowest voltage cell.  This typically only happens above 90%.  Active balancing occurs during all charging & discharging.

 

I have done a google search and cannot find a single article agreeing with what this guy says, all of them disagree with him.

 

 

 

AI says

The main difference between active and passive balancers is how they manage energy in a battery pack: 

Active balancers

Redistribute energy between cells during charging and discharging, which can improve efficiency and increase run-time. Active balancers can adjust cell voltages faster than passive balancers. 

Passive balancers

Dissipate excess energy from higher voltage cells during the charge cycle. Passive balancers are low cost and have a simple circuit design. However, they can only be used during the charge cycle, and they waste 100% of the balanced power as heat. 

Here are some other differences between active and passive balancers: 

Energy efficiency: Active balancers are more efficient than passive balancers because they don't waste energy as heat. 

Cell life: Active balancers can improve the life expectancy of cells. 

Balancing time: Active balancers can adjust cell voltages faster than passive balancers. 

Balancing conditions: Active balancers can work 24 hours a day until the pressure difference between cells is less than a set value. 

 

Cell Saviours Active Balancing vs Passive Balancing Differences - Cell Saviors

says

Active balancing redistributes charge among the cells in a battery pack to ensure that they all have the same state of charge with a dedicated circuit, which monitors the voltage of each cell and adjusts the charging and discharging current accordingly. Active balancing is more accurate and faster than passive balancing. On the other hand, passive balancing relies on Ohm’s Law and the natural cell and balance resistor characteristics to bring cells to the same state of charge. Passive balancing is generally less accurate and slower than active balancing and may take longer to achieve the desired result. 

 

EEPower Active and Passive Battery Pack Balancing Methods - Technical Articles

says

Active Cell Balancing

The active cell balancing technique uses inductive charge shuttling or capacitive charge shuttling to transfer the charge between the cells. This technique is proven to be an efficient approach as it transfers energy to where the energy is needed instead of wasting it. However, this demands additional components to be added to the system which in turn translates to increased cost.

 

Passive Cell Balancing

The passive cell balancing technique uses the idea of discharging the cells through a bypass route that is mostly dissipative in nature. It is simple and easier to implement than active balancing techniques as the bypass can either be external or be integrated — keeping the system more cost-effective either way. However, since all the excess energy is dissipated as heat, battery run time is adversely impacted and is less likely to be used during discharge.

 

Maxkgo Active vs Passive Balancing: Which is Best for Your Lithium Battery? | MAXKGO News blog

says...

·Is active balancing better for electric vehicles?

The answer is yes. Active balancing is generally better suited for electric vehicles (EVs). It provides a more efficient and power-saving balancing method.

Active balancing is different from passive balancing. Passive balancing releases energy as heat, while active balancing moves energy between cells.

This process does not generate much heat. Therefore, it can save more power. This energy-saving method is great for large battery packs in electric vehicles (EVs). The main goal for EVs is to keep the batteries healthy and extend driving time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by JBChiangRai
Spellong