The Problem With EVs

[josephbloggs]

2 minutes ago, Homburg said:

Those who need their EV for work are entitled to suffer from range anxiety.  In the real world one is not always able to find a working charger when one gets home after work and then the boss calls first thing to tell you to travel 300km to an important client meeting to cover for someone who has called in sick.  You are correct about chargers needing a phone signal, but no network has 100% coverage and the signal used by the charger may not be on the same network that your cell-phone uses, and your point about installing chargers only where there is a phone signal also explains why it is more challenging to use an EV outside of an urban environment - because there are very few chargers.  By comparison my ICE vehicle can travel 1000km between refuelling stops and so, until I retire from work, I am reluctant to switch to an EV.  

Guess what, if you have a job where your boss can call you on a whim to drive 300kms straight to a meeting then an EV is probably not right for you. No one is saying they are perfect for everyone. Personally I'd consider a new job but that's just me.

How often does that happen by the way? Is it about as often as a motorway being unexpectedly closed and you being diverted tens of kilometres through deserted forests? Or does it happen more frequently than never?

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Here's a video of an EV being smashed up. And then you see the battery is removed in perfect condition, placed in another car, and it works perfectly.  

If the previous driver of the rental had smashed the car badly enough to damage the battery I am pretty sure the rental company would notice it. Do you think these batteries are on the outside of the car and made of cheese?

Surprised you (or any of the others) haven't trotted out the "but what if it rains and the road floods" yet. Come on, you're missing a trick!

What a completely bullsh!t test. Two side impacts, when the battery is stored in the front or rear of the vehicle?

Have you bought any bridges in Sydney lately?

[josephbloggs]

5 minutes ago, Lee65 said:

 

That video was supplied by EV maker BYD!  I kinda doubt they'd upload an unsuccessful crash test.

Ah, so they faked it. You really have an extremely closed mind.

Here's the Euro NCAP video of their test. Is this staged too?

 

 

[JBChiangRai]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

What a completely bullsh!t test. Two side impacts, when the battery is stored in the front or rear of the vehicle?

Have you bought any bridges in Sydney lately?

 

Actually, the battery is stored in the middle of the vehicle, below the passenger compartment.

[josephbloggs]

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

What a completely bullsh!t test. Two side impacts, when the battery is stored in the front or rear of the vehicle?

Have you bought any bridges in Sydney lately?

See my post above. Thank you, and you're welcome.

[Lacessit]

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

 

Actually, the battery is stored in the middle of the vehicle, below the passenger compartment.

Is that true of every EV on the market?

[Lee65]

5 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah, so they faked it. You really have an extremely closed mind.

 

I have a functioning mind.

[Homburg]

3 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Hilarious. You accuse the Guardian of being superficial and deceptive then you go on to come up with most extreme examples of things that could maybe possibly happy.The Guardian was talking about general real-world ownership and typical usage.

Unfortunately "typical usage" does not cover the unplanned long-distance journeys that most of us have to undertake occasionally, and the Guardian is viewing "real-world ownership" from the POV of owners who have guaranteed access to overnight charging either at home or somewhere where the public chargers never get vandalised, which does not happen in the "real world", so yes, the Guardian's article IS superficial and deceptive.

[JBChiangRai]

25 minutes ago, Lee65 said:

 

Never know what the previous driver of an EV rental did with the car.  

 

You mean...he drove it?  I'm shocked.

18 minutes ago, Lee65 said:

 

Maybe ideal for urban driving; urban refueling not so much ...

 

 

Most people refuel at home overnight, but there are charging stations in every city.

 

14 minutes ago, Homburg said:

Those who need their EV for work are entitled to suffer from range anxiety.  In the real world one is not always able to find a working charger when one gets home after work and then the boss calls first thing to tell you to travel 300km to an important client meeting to cover for someone who has called in sick.  You are correct about chargers needing a phone signal, but no network has 100% coverage and the signal used by the charger may not be on the same network that your cell-phone uses, and your point about installing chargers only where there is a phone signal also explains why it is more challenging to use an EV outside of an urban environment - because there are very few chargers.  By comparison my ICE vehicle can travel 1000km between refuelling stops and so, until I retire from work, I am reluctant to switch to an EV.  

 

In the UK, most EV's are purchased by companies with a massive cost saving to both the company and the driver in terms of benefit-in-kind.

 

I would suggest you are clutching at straws.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

See my post above. Thank you, and you're welcome.

I am pretty sure even a battery stored in the middle of the vehicle would survive that kind of impact, it's not severe enough. I've seen vehicles almost cut in half by side impacts in real life collisions.

It's reminding me of how Volkswagen fudged the diesel emission figures.

[JBChiangRai]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Is that true of every EV on the market?

 

I think there are a few legacy models that the manufacturer has modded to make them EV, but mostly they are designed from the ground up to only be EV.

 

GWM/Haval are built on the LEMON platform, I throw that because I thought you would find it amusing.

[Lacessit]

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

 

I think there are a few legacy models that the manufacturer has modded to make them EV, but mostly they are designed from the ground up to only be EV.

 

GWM/Haval are built on the LEMON platform, I throw that because I thought you would find it amusing.

I appreciate the irony. No doubt Citroen felt the same.

IIRC GWM got itself in regulatory hot water in Australia when a dealer refused to honor a 5 year warranty, when the vehicle had structural rust after 18 months. ICE vehicle, though.

I am wondering if an EV manufacturer will come up with a new twist - stray current corrosion.

[JBChiangRai]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I appreciate the irony. No doubt Citroen felt the same.

IIRC GWM got itself in regulatory hot water in Australia when a dealer refused to honor a 5 year warranty, when the vehicle had structural rust after 18 months. ICE vehicle, though.

I am wondering if an EV manufacturer will come up with a new twist - stray current corrosion.

 

Or maybe LEMON platform vehicle owners will lose their zest for EV's when they are squeezed by the dealers because they have run out of juice? Taking the Pisps and leave them feeling sour?

[Lee65]

On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

I thought they were pretty well balanced and fair. Would be keen to hear feedback from any open minded anti-EV posters.

 

I thought they were ridiculous and exemplified the bias and low-level rationality/"science" to be expected from The Guardian.

 

I'm not "anti-EV" but rather an EV skeptic/realist.

 

On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

(Yeah yeah, the Guardian, lefty liberal, pushing the woke agenda, blah blah)

 

Your attempt to preempt reader's complaints about The Guardian betray your own lack of open-mindedness.

 

Hope we're even now.

[Mr Meeseeks]

On 12/10/2023 at 2:07 PM, Photoguy21 said:

Apparently production of EV creates 4x more pollution than ICE vehicles. There are a number of articles from reliable sources if you look on the internet. I would not have an EV for the following reasons:

1. Range anxiety - Tesla have been shown to exaggerate the range of their vehicles and it appears there is legal action in the USA as a result of this.

2. The cost is prohibitive compared to an ICE vehicle

3. There is no assurance that charging points are available for a long distance drive. There may be point but are they functional? Plus the frustration if you are on a long drive with young children.

4. Trade in value will be minimal

 

1. New EVs have range in the 600 km region, exceeding the range of many ICE vehicles.

2. Costs are comparative, but when it comes to performance and equipment, EVs present a very good case for their value (see the new BYD Seal as an example).

3. More and more charging points are being installed everywhere around the country. Nearly all PTT stations have a couple of charging bays now.

4. Trade in value will exceed that of ICE vehicles. Aside from the obvious such as less wear on EV components (they have no engine, gearbox etc), the Thai government is encouraging EV adoption, so it that trend continues as expected, EVs will hold their value more than tradition ICE vehicles.

[JBChiangRai]

It's a fact that the anti EV people don't have EV's

 

Those with EV's tend to love them.

 

One group is largely ignorant, the other tempered by experience.

[Lee65]

3 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

One group is largely ignorant, the other tempered by experience.

 

Exactly!  

[josephbloggs]

48 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am pretty sure even a battery stored in the middle of the vehicle would survive that kind of impact, it's not severe enough. I've seen vehicles almost cut in half by side impacts in real life collisions.

It's reminding me of how Volkswagen fudged the diesel emission figures.

My point was that if a car has been smashed enough to damage the battery the rental company would not be handing it out to the next driver as the car would be so severely damaged as to be unusable. So your argument that EVs are bad because you might rent one and you don't know what the previous renter did to the battery is just nonsensical. You are inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios each time.

[Digitalbanana]

On 12/10/2023 at 2:26 PM, JBChiangRai said:

Regarding trade in value, I lost 10% on my EV after two years, pretty good I think

Pretty unbelievable I would think - assuming you didn't buy second hand to start with. Most EV's lose 10-15% year one alone and another 10% by end of year two.

[Chris Daley]

If you're still doing ''roadtrips'' than maybe EV is not for you.  When you pass puberty come back and have a fresh look.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

My point was that if a car has been smashed enough to damage the battery the rental company would not be handing it out to the next driver as the car would be so severely damaged as to be unusable. So your argument that EVs are bad because you might rent one and you don't know what the previous renter did to the battery is just nonsensical. You are inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios each time.

Excuse me, you need to stop frothing at the mouth. I am not the poster who got into an argument with you about renting EV's.

In point of fact, I may rent one when I am in Oz, just for the experience.

[JBChiangRai]

1 hour ago, Digitalbanana said:

Pretty unbelievable I would think - assuming you didn't buy second hand to start with. Most EV's lose 10-15% year one alone and another 10% by end of year two.

If I sold it in the first year I could have sold it at a profit.

 

Waiting list was 12-18 months at the time.

[novacova]

On 12/10/2023 at 1:57 PM, josephbloggs said:

The Problem With EVs

…is the when out deep in the boonies and when the electric grid goes out you’re left with a useless heap of junk. 

[billd766]

11 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Range/Fuel Anxiety is an issue for all new owners too, until they make a long journey and start noticing all the charging stations, then it's a non-issue.

Which is fine, until your journey takes you off the main highways and you can't find a charging station within 50 km, and then it becomes a big issue.

[In the jungle]

46 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

If I sold it in the first year I could have sold it at a profit.

 

Waiting list was 12-18 months at the time.

 

A secondhand Porsche with a 12-18 months waiting list for a new car is hardly a typical EV.

 

It is unreasonable to imply that the depreciation you experienced on that is what you can expect with a more mainstream EV. 

[HighPriority]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Excuse me, you need to stop frothing at the mouth. I am not the poster who got into an argument with you about renting EV's.

In point of fact, I may rent one when I am in Oz, just for the experience.

Let me know when, I love toasted marshmallows… 👍🏼

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, HighPriority said:

Let me know when, I love toasted marshmallows… 👍🏼

I'll pay that one.

[Lee65]

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

My point was that if a car has been smashed enough to damage the battery the rental company would not be handing it out to the next driver as the car would be so severely damaged as to be unusable. So your argument that EVs are bad because you might rent one and you don't know what the previous renter did to the battery is just nonsensical. You are inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios each time.

 

That was me inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios, not Lacessit (who was polite not to take credit).

 

Damage to the bottom of vehicle - where the battery pack is - would almost certainly be missed by the rental car company.  Ever bottomed out a vehicle on a back road strewn with large, embedded rocks?  I have - as might have a previous rental driver.  

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Lee65

[josephbloggs]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Excuse me, you need to stop frothing at the mouth. I am not the poster who got into an argument with you about renting EV's.

In point of fact, I may rent one when I am in Oz, just for the experience.

I was hardly frothing at the mouth, but apologies if I mixed up my replies.

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, Lee65 said:

 

That was me inventing ridiculously far fetched scenarios, not Lacessit (who was polite not to take credit).

 

Damage to the bottom of vehicle - where the battery pack is - would almost certainly be missed by the rental car company.  Ever bottomed out a vehicle on a back road strewn with large, embedded rocks?  I have - as might have a previous rental driver.  

 

 

 

 

I think that given that the battery pack is approx 65%-75% total cost of the vehicle if you include removal of battery pack costs, replacement battery cost's and re-installation of battery pack both the rental agency and the renter should be taking pictures of the battery pack before rental and end of rental

if a rental agency driver slightly damaged the battery pack would they

A) withdraw the vehicle from their stock

B) advised potential renter that the battery pack has sustained minor damage but the damage doesn't affect the vehicle as far as driving or performance

C) doesn't advise potential renter that the battery pack has sustained minor damage but checks and points out to the driver on their return of the vehicle that they will need to submit a claim on their insurance