The EV fact thread

[markjay]

Yet 85% of buyers are choosing ICE or hybrid .

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

 

[clk320x]

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

Further fuelled by the constant misinformation and drivel spewed out by the anti-EV brigade.

 

[BTB 500]

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

No idea. But as mentioned if you exclude company cars the number of people actively choosing BEVs is pretty tiny considering all the hype / publicity / advertising over the last couple of years. As mentioned they would work ok for many people, so why aren't they buying them? Cost may be a factor - logically a BEV should be a fair bit cheaper than a PHEV (having a bigger battery surely costs less than including an ICE plus ancillaries, fuel tank, etc?), but I'm not sure if this is actually the case If PHEVs are similar money (or even cheaper) and offer some tax/ULEZ/etc. advantages along with no range anxiety on long runs plus cheap local trips on battery power alone then I can see why they might seem a more attractive option than a BEV.

 

[Dryce]

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

How much is just down to price?

 

[SmartAmg]

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

A lot!

 

[SmartAmg]

How much is just down to price?

Not a lot!

 

[baxlin]

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

Does the ‘why’ even matter? Currently (sorry, unintended pun), the wholesale acceptance of EVs is not happening. And neither using the carrot (incentives are very expensive to maintain indefinitely) or the stick (hardens resistance, also expensive, at least to the manufacturers) seem to be working.

I’m one of the many who is waiting a while longer, to see how things develop - which, to answer Markjay’s Q above, I believe is the real reason

 

[markjay]

How much is just down to price?

If it's down to price, then why is the article suggesting that we should stop subsidising EV - if price is still an issue, then shouldn't we be increasing the subsidies to ensure people can buy them?

 

[Dryce]

If it's down to price, then why is the article suggesting that we should stop subsidising EV - if price is still an issue, then shouldn't we be increasing the subsidies to ensure people can buy them?

I think the subsidies have created the unintended problem where over the last 10 years they have allowed a systemic value gap to be created between ICE and EV vehicles.

There is a view that if private buyers aren't persuaded to buy new cars that new cars bought by business users will trickle down through the market to private buyers. But if the volume of new cars sold isn't high in the first place then that limits the population of vehicles - and the number of vehicles subsequently percolating to the used market will be limited.

Without the subsidy structure the manufacturers would have had to attack the problem of selling even at 15% of market volume differently.

Instead we have had a lost decade where manufacturers have really just taken large Li-ion type battery packs and stuck them in heavy expensive subsidised vehicles which politicians have attempted to fix the market against ICEs through draconian policy on sales and city access. Yes there has been an uptake in EVs - but it's been driven by early adopters (and some fan boy equivalents) - and by subsidised ownership that has over-benefitted a few. In that mix there there are also individual buyers who are making considered choices - but far too few.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Delaying the date to 2035 didn't help.....people who might have bought EVs because of potential low values of ICE cars in 6 years now have 11 before they have to worry....so they might well go EV next time. Most of my friends in the trade were not at all happy with the delay...

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Delaying the date to 2035 didn't help.....people who might have bought EVs because of potential low values of ICE cars in 6 years now have 11 before they have to worry....so they might well go EV next time. Most of my friends in the trade were not at all happy with the delay...

Aye, but this shows how stupid car owners are. "Delaying the date to 2035" still means that 80% of all new cars in 2030 must be EV.

And those 20% that are still ICE in just six years time, are likely to be expensive, relatively unaffordable ICE, not cheapo Focuses and Fiestas

If we know anything about the EU Commission - who are driving this timeline - the thing we can be certain about is that the deadline will slide.

(Turkey applied to join the EU in 1987 and 37 years later it's still nowhere near joining)

If this EU timeline doesn't slide, "I'm a Dutchman / EU citizen * (*delete as appropriate)"

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Does the ‘why’ even matter? Currently (sorry, unintended pun), the wholesale acceptance of EVs is not happening.

But why did you think there would be "wholesale acceptance of EV's" by this still early stage?

No-one said that the whole two million vehicle a year industry would convert to EV at the drop of a hat, nor that the 34 million ICE vehicles would be put in the crusher in 2024 being replaced with 34 million EV's that have appeared out of nowhere.

We know that our towns and motorways are strewn with under utilised chargers, but that was always part of the implementation plan. We know that most EV users will be charging their vehicles overnight outside their homes from the domestic supply, so there's limited demand for commercial chargers anyway.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

How much of it is due to ICE superiority over EV, and how much due to force-of-habbit and resistance to change in general?

Typo? Didn't you mean "force of hobbit?"

Change comes slowly to The Shire.

 

[Bellow]

If it's down to price, then why is the article suggesting that we should stop subsidising EV - if price is still an issue, then shouldn't we be increasing the subsidies to ensure people can buy them?

No.
Someone in a position financially able to buy a new car should not be subsidised in that purchase. That subsidy will inevitably come from the pockets of those who cannot afford to buy new. Morally wrong and further fuel for those who would prefer to see the whole carbon reduction project skewered.
Selling advice I was given: Sell benefits. If you cannot sell your product at a price the customer regards as good value then the product is in some way flawed.

 

[markjay]

No.
Someone in a position financially able to buy a new car should not be subsidised in that purchase. That subsidy will inevitably come from the pockets of those who cannot afford to buy new. Morally wrong and further fuel for those who would prefer to see the whole carbon reduction project skewered.
Selling advice I was given: Sell benefits. If you cannot sell your product at a price the customer regards as good value then the product is in some way flawed.

I have to disagree, on two counts.

Firstly, as has been pointed-out on this thread before, a reduction in the price of new vehicles leads to an immediate reduction of the price of second-hand vehicles. If, say, Tesla dropped the price for their Model-Y by £20,000 tomorrow, then all second-hand Model-Y cars on dealers' fourscores and on Autotrader will also go down in price on the same day (though obviously not by the full £20,000), and any current owners of a Model-Y will have to adjust their expectation in respect of their cars' value. This is why a subsidy for new EV will benefit all EV buyers, old or new alike (though obviously not by the same amount). You could argue that people who do not own cars should not be participating in any subsidies given to any type of private motoring, but this is a different issue.

Then, a common argument against the government incentivising EV ownership is that the CO2 reduction attempts are pointless (because humans don't affect the planet's temperature, and/or because EVs do not produce less CO2 overall, and/or because nothing that we'll do in the UK will make any difference anyway because of America/China/India etc, and/or that saving the planet is important but not at an excessively high cost to the current generation, etc).

However, the CO2 argument ignores the totally-separate air quality issue. And the arguments here are much weaker (that when EU7 is introduced the toxic fumes will be minimal, and/or that there's no evidence that breathing car exhaust fumes causes health issues, that the cost for 'clean air' is too high, etc).

Regarding the air-quality issue, I do not personally think that using public money to incentivise the uptake of zero-exhaust-emissions vehicles for cleaner air in urban areas is unjustifiable. And, it benefits everyone.

 

[ALFAitalia]

And those 20% that are still ICE in just six years time, are likely to be expensive, relatively unaffordable ICE, not cheapo Focuses and Fiestas

I don't think you meant it to sound like that!!.....that's 80% of new cars sold in 2030 will/should be EV.......certainly a lot less than 80% of drivers will be in EV by then. Predictions currently are saying that no more than about 25% of drivers will be in EVs buy 2035.....its going to be a long slow changeover. Although I saw one wild one that said about 74% of drivers will be in EV by 2035.....Hmmm....cant see that myself!!

 

[ALFAitalia]

....EV ownership is that the CO2 reduction attempts are pointless (because humans don't affect the planet's temperature, and/or because EVs do not produce less CO2 overall, and/or because nothing that we'll do in the UK will make any difference anyway because of America/China/India etc, and/or that saving the planet is important but not at an excessively high cost to the current generation, etc).

All of which is nonsense of course.....but the anti EVs lobby don't let facts get in the way!
Air quality is a big bonus of course......but that's not the reason for the change at all and is rarely even mentioned .....its all for climate change and carbon output.

 

[Dryce]

Delaying the date to 2035 didn't help.....people who might have bought EVs because of potential low values of ICE cars in 6 years now have 11 before they have to worry....so they might well go EV next time. Most of my friends in the trade were not at all happy with the delay...

The date of 2030 was symptomatic of the problem.

If the only way to get the public into EVs was by waving the 2030 stick at them then that was the wrong way. Trouble is then backing off to 2035 just reinforces the lack of confidence.

My understanding is that 2030 didn't make anybody other than the didactic greens and over optimistic idealists happy.

Manufacturers are between a rock and a hard place on this. Investment in new ICE products is unattractive. But it looks like strategy with EVs has failed.

So the risk with sticking on 2030 was that the market deadlocks - customers holding off on new EVs - manufacturers unable to supply anything else. Relaxing to 2035 might give the opportunity to avoid that. Problem is that EV sales curve - it can't be allowed to continue stalling.

 

[markjay]

...Air quality is a big bonus of course......but that's not the reason for the change at all and is rarely even mentioned .....

Which is odd. We legislated against burning wood for heating. I am sure that there was a cost to retrofitting homes with gas boilers at the time. Does anyone remember if there was much resistance bases on cost?

 

[ALFAitalia]

Only in certain places.....lots around here have open fires and log burners....there is a showroom just along from my work.....