Electric car depreciation

[clk320x]

Who cares about “range?”

A guy proportion on MBClub it seems.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

A guy proportion on MBClub it seems.

No evidence to support that theory.

“A vocal uninformed minority who can’t get their heads around new technology” might be a better description.

Usually the same group who saw no reason to give up their slide rule for a calculator, or to get a mobile phone when they have “a perfectly good phone in the hall already.”

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

The 500e is too compromised to be an every-day every-purpose car for most families, and it definitely is for us. Blooming perfect for the majority of the journeys we do though, well those out of necessity rather than fun.

Would a BMW I3 cover your whole needs, Sir?

Here’s a nice little number that’s only done 25,000 miles a year.

(We “could” find you one with less than 100k on the clock, Sir)

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Would a BMW I3 cover your whole needs, Sir?

Here’s a nice little number that’s only done 25,000 miles a year.

(We “could” find you one with less than 100k on the clock, Sir)

View attachment 156130

Not a chance! I’d like to see that tow my twin axle caravan from Aberdeen to Morocco with 6 passengers, 2 dobermans, and 4 bikes, at an average speed of 85 mph and stopping only once for 5 minutes, and then not for fuel - or even a wee - but because I like to take a photo of the sun rising as we ascend the Pyrenees at day break.

This type of trip is completely standard practice - and the reason why EVs will never ever catch on, and why hydrogen is absolutely definitely the future - although we only do it three times every week now that I’ve retired.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Lots of people who don’t drive an EV do, or feel they are being oppressed by their employer’s EV company car policy …but on the basis that most journeys rarely exceed 90 miles, i don’t need to think about range because I’m lucky enough to be able to charge at home.

In a very long journey i won’t worry too much either, because I’ll just stop to recharge at the most appropriate points on the journey. I tend to stop every couple of hours anyway.

FTFM. Is Fixed That For Me a thing?

 

[markjay]

FTFM. Is Fixed That For Me a thing?

Their employer’s EV company car policy, is, in large part, what slaughters second hand values.

The lesson is: when buying a new car with your own money, never ever buy a 'fleet-favorite' model, or your future Px value will be competing against the prices that trade auction houses fetch* when they auction-off the fleet cars as they come off their business leased.

* Hint: they are very low

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Their employer’s EV company car policy, is, in large part, what slaughters second hand values.

The lesson is: when buying a new car with your own money, never ever buy a 'fleet-favorite' model, or your future Px value will be competing against the prices that trade auction houses fetch* when they auction-off the fleet cars as they come off their business leased.

* Hint: they are very low

Shush ! Mutter this kind of stuff too loud and people will start buying those fabulous James Bond spec Mondeos which have always been crazy bargains

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BTB 500]

In a very long journey i won’t worry too much either, because I’ll just stop to recharge at the most appropriate points on the journey. I tend to stop every couple of hours anyway.

Assuming your 500e is the 42 kWh one it has a best-case motorway range of 130 miles (23C ambient, no use of aircon, 70 mph), so from a full charge you wouldn't quite make a couple of hours (assuming you don't want to run it down to 0%).

The 24 kWh version has a motorway range of 75 miles, so probably not best suited to long runs.

 

[BTB 500]

Similar I’d say, but I probably prefer the 500e, although it’s been a few years since I drove a 500. Slightly bigger, slightly brisker, slightly quieter,, but it’s quite a lot more expensive,.

The petrol 500 is an old design of course - in production for 17 years now. It's going to be dropped shortly as it can't easily be made to meet some new EU regs., which is why they're looking at an ICE version of the much newer 500e to meet the continuing demand.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Assuming your 500e is the 42 kWh one it has a best-case motorway range of 130 miles (23C ambient, no use of aircon, 70 mph), so from a full charge you wouldn't quite make a couple of hours (assuming you don't want to run it down to 0%).

The 24 kWh version has a motorway range of 75 miles, so probably not best suited to long runs.

Case proven m’Lud

(Another one who thinks that he averages 70 mph, not 50mph, door to door on motorway journeys)

 

[st13phil]

It’s astonishing how stupid folks are.

140 Nations are committed to Net Zero, on the advice of the World’s scientists, yet still the uninformed public don’t understand that the Net Zero ambition is targeted at 26 years time: the year 2050.

Not 6 years’ time

Net Zero Coalition | United Nations

It's not the folks who are stupid for not understanding that the Net Zero ambition is targeted at 26 years time rather than 6 years time, it's our idiotic virtue-signalling politicians who are claiming that they will achieve it in the UK by 2030:

Labour wants to decarbonize UK power by 2030. Mission impossible?

Unions, business and green policy experts fear the ‘moon shot’ promise to hit net zero electricity by the end of the decade is doomed to fail.

www.politico.eu

 

[190]

It’s astonishing how stupid folks are.

140 Nations are committed to Net Zero, on the advice of the World’s scientists, yet still the uninformed public don’t understand that the Net Zero ambition is targeted at 26 years time: the year 2050.

Not 6 years’ time

Net Zero Coalition | United Nations

Whether it's achievable or not this on the face of it is a rational written statement by by the UN so why don't they communicate it as written instead of talking utter hyperbole every time a UN representative opens their mouth. The trouble is they talk crap about everything not just net zero which leaves them with zero credibility and what's worse doesn't inform or help the public understand.


The science shows clearly that in order to avert the worst impacts of climate change and preserve a livable planet, global temperature increase needs to be limited to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Currently, the Earth is already about 1.1°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s, and emissions continue to rise. To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C – as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

It's not the folks who are stupid for not understanding that the Net Zero ambition is targeted at 26 years time rather than 6 years time, it's our idiotic virtue-signalling politicians who are claiming that they will achieve it in the UK by 2030:

Labour wants to decarbonize UK power by 2030. Mission impossible?

Unions, business and green policy experts fear the ‘moon shot’ promise to hit net zero electricity by the end of the decade is doomed to fail.

www.politico.eu

I’m sorry but Labour’s headline seeking NetZero for £0.1 trillion worth of electricity production is NOT the same as NetZero for the whole £2.7 trillion Economy.

 

[st13phil]

I’m sorry but NetZero for £0.1 trillion worth of electricity production is NOT the same as NetZero for the whole £2.7 trillion Economy.

I didn't say it was, but it's that sort of unachievable idiocy that leads people to believe that 2030 is the date for the whole shebang.

The cynical in me says that the confusion is deliberate as a ploy to attract votes from the hard-of-thinking green-leaning idealists.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

I didn't say it was, but it's that sort of unachievable idiocy that leads people to believe that 2030 is the date for the whole shebang.

The cynical in me says that the confusion is deliberate as a ploy to attract votes from the hard-of-thinking green-leaning idealists.

No, it’s politics. Deliberately misleading people into thinking that one somewhat unlikely claim is actually a claim to deliver the much tougher headline claim.

Rather similar to to the idiots who think that buying an EV will reduce CO2 emissions, while they continue to fly “at the drop of a hat.”
(One long haul holiday for two being the equivalent CO2 of a year’s EV, rather than ICE, usage)

 

[BTB 500]

Case proven m’Lud

(Another one who thinks that he averages 70 mph, not 50mph, door to door on motorway journeys)

We're talking about the distance between charges on a long motorway run though, not a door to door trip. If you're on quiet roads with 120 or 130 kph limits (75/80 mph) it wouldn't be unreasonable to maintain close to 70 mph. But not if you have to keep stopping of course

Which raises another point to do with the average speeds that often get quoted. If you do 110 miles at 75 plus 15 miles each end at 30 then your average speed will be 57. But the consumption won't be the same as doing 140 miles at 57 - it will be a lot higher.

Coming back to the example of a car with a 130 mile range at 70. You'd presumably aim to do 10-80% rapid charges, so you'd be using 70% of the battery between stops. That would be 91 miles, or stopping to recharge every hour and a quarter (roughly). For many people that will be fine, but others might find it a bit tedious.

 

[markjay]

Decarbonising power production isn't a bad idea... we need more nuclear power stations.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

We're talking about the distance between charges on a long motorway run though, not a door to door trip. If you're on quiet roads with 120 or 130 kph limits (75/80 mph) it wouldn't be unreasonable to maintain close to 70 mph. But not if you have to keep stopping of course

Which raises another point to do with the average speeds that often get quoted. If you do 110 miles at 75 plus 15 miles each end at 30 then your average speed will be 57. But the consumption won't be the same as doing 140 miles at 57 - it will be a lot higher.

Coming back to the example of a car with a 130 mile range at 70. You'd presumably aim to do 10-80% rapid charges, so you'd be using 70% of the battery between stops. That would be 91 miles, or stopping to recharge every hour and a quarter (roughly). For many people that will be fine, but others might find it a bit tedious.

Case proven, My Lord !

There is absolutely no reason to own a mobile phone when one has a perfectly effective telephone in the hall. For everyone to use.

 

[markjay]

Case proven, My Lord !

There is absolutely no reason to own a mobile phone when one has a perfectly effective telephone in the hall. For everyone to use.

Blyme, you're posh people.... I use the red telephone box outside the pub.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Blyme, you're posh people.... I use the red telephone box outside the pub.

Did you ever see Adam Faith sat in the corner of Fortnum and Mason’s cafe?

Which he used as his “London Office” because it was next to a payphone on the wall?

Financial advisor to the Entertainment industry wealthy, it all worked well until Maggie got “defenestrated.”