Electric cars Depreciation

[ThePrisoner]

Yeah I always consult rich millionaires that work for car companies before looking at what works best for me.

Are you JustTheGent? Air fryers, Smart meters, octopus, EV's - dont think I've seen anyone else on here pick such a unique set of issues to be against.

Air fryer are small fan ovens, yes? Hardly worth the fuss. Classic commodity fetishisation.

4 million smart meters currently not working. People forced to accept usage estimates when energy prices are still extortionate,

EVs still toys for the rich. Look at other tech of yore, like VCRs, CD players etc. They come out initially at very high prices but show their utility benefits over earlier tech and gain mass adoption with corresponding fall in price. An EV has no significant improvement in utility over an ICE. Prices have remained high because there are few signs of mass adoption. Take up has been propped up by subsidies.

Function over form.

 

[Muttley]

Prices have remained high because there are few signs of mass adoption.

That doesn't make sense.

In a simple Keynesian economic model low demand forces prices down.

 

[SmallTown]

That doesn't make sense.

In a simple Keynesian economic model low demand forces prices down.

To be fair not many anti EV arguments make sense. I read the posts on this thread with mild bemusement now.
I get it, people are scared of change. They don’t understand the new technology and especially how it is refuelled. It is quite funny seeing some of the mental gymnastics that happens in their attempt to decry it though. At least they haven’t done the one about fires yet

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

Air fryer are small fan ovens, yes? Hardly worth the fuss. Classic commodity fetishisation.

4 million smart meters currently not working. People forced to accept usage estimates when energy prices are still extortionate,

EVs still toys for the rich. Look at other tech of yore, like VCRs, CD players etc. They come out initially at very high prices but show their utility benefits over earlier tech and gain mass adoption with corresponding fall in price. An EV has no significant improvement in utility over an ICE. Prices have remained high because there are few signs of mass adoption. Take up has been propped up by subsidies.

Function over form.

We've been here before but as you're repeating the same rubbish;

they are, but they save money; they're cheap to buy, cook food better and cook food 20% faster? What is the downside exactly that rankles you?

4 million smart meters not working - not true, they're metering, same as a trad meter, they're just not communicating for one reason or another. 21 million working fine. People can give meter readings manually at any time for an up to date bill. Or request a meter swap out. Where is the issue? 21 million homes could have saved a fortune last year by switching to a smart tariff, 4 million people need some work but can still see usage and readings via in home display so no huge inconvenience. Governents fault for rushing it through years ago, but no one has to rely on an estimated bill. Look at screen, type in readings to app, receive bill -5 seconds work. Vast majority of smart meter users have no issues.

EV's aren't toys for the rich; first post in this thread saying you can get a mokka suv for £15k, hardly a rolls Royce budget, and would suit vast majority of UK drivers mileage and distance usage.

charging my car tonight and getting paid 3p a unit for it. I'll be getting paid to have my lunch and do laundry tomorrow because of the weather thanks to smart meters.

No significant utility? Except that we can charge it at home and not have to go to petrol stations every few days. Other than that, it's a car. What ICE could we get that would cost us that much per mile and occasionally pay us to top it up?

 

[italianjob]

They started with hybrids when it was the right idea. Now they seem too deep down the path. Most manufacturers are struggling but none as bad as them

I think they haven't done an EV because they aren't 'ready', maybe they know something the other manufacturers don't ?

They make excellent hybrids and have been in that game for a long time.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

I think they haven't done an EV because they aren't 'ready', maybe they know something the other manufacturers don't ?

They make excellent hybrids and have been in that game for a long time.

Isnt this a toyota EV?

Toyota bZ4X | The All-Electric SUV | Toyota UK

Discover the All New Toyota electric SUV. Innovative & efficient, bZ4X delivers where it counts. Go beyond electric and experience a new type of adventure.

www.toyota.co.uk

 

[JustTheGent]

Of course, that rubbish company Toyota would never be able to go electric would they?

It's a strategic choice by Toyota. They simply do not believe EVs will get the market share that is predicted. Considering their track record, they are most probably worth listening to.

 

[italianjob]

Isnt this a toyota EV?

Toyota bZ4X | The All-Electric SUV | Toyota UK

Discover the All New Toyota electric SUV. Innovative & efficient, bZ4X delivers where it counts. Go beyond electric and experience a new type of adventure.

www.toyota.co.uk

Ah yes, just released?

 

[Laughing]

I must say I am intrigued as to why Toyota has not produced an EV. Do you really think they are less capable than other car makers? They seem to put their money into hybrids.

May has had a bunch of EVs. Currently rocking a Tesla apparently. As well as a hatful of ICEs of course.

They have sunk their money into hydrogen. They're don't really a belief that ev's were the way forward. They did have the first hybrid so were some way ahead of other manufacturers in that area.

I did several projects for Toyota when this was being discussed.

 

[Nano]

Toyota have gone the betamax Vs VHS route and plumped for the wrong option. Now they are telling everyone their option is the best and everyone else is wrong. It's the sort of business practice that puts a company out of business.

Toyota are a great company and they are massive in the US, who are slow to transition because the US is heavily influenced by the fossil fuel lobby. Toyota aren't right, they are just hoping that the fossil fuel lobby is strong enough in America. That would be a loss for everyone but that lobby don't care about the environment.

 

[Soutra]

I’m sorry but that’s patently untrue. Why is 400 miles the thing to aim for? When it was 300 miles three years ago apparently. Also I notice you’re now talking about bad weather and real world conditions. See how it works? You’ve ALREADY changed the goalposts now I’ve pointed out that 400 mile EV exist. It’s how it works. I’ve had enough anti EV conversations to know how this game plays out. You’ll ALWAYS invent scenarios that the EV can’t make. Until it can. Then you’ll adjust the parameters.
So I’ll ask again, why is 400 miles the aim?

No I haven't changed the goalposts.

Here is the calc. From Edinburgh I want to travel to Hertfordshire, distance is 392 miles, maybe 378 if I use the A697 instead of A1.

The range on my car when I set off was 290, the car was fully charged. As I went south, the range dropped to 278. I stopped at Woolley Edge to recharge after 236 miles. I recharged to 208 miles, which took 45 minutes after a short wait for the charger.

So I set off again with 172 miles to go. I drove into heavy rain, and then roadworks near Luton. The range had dropped from 208 miles to 197. By the time I arrived there was 25 miles left in the battery. With no charger at my destination I had to get up early to charge the car the next day - couldn't do it that evening. So that was about an hour to get it back to 80%.

Then on the way home I had to stop twice to recharge. 90 minutes, and the cost per mile was greater than diesel. There are no services north of Newcastle on the A1 or A697, just petrol station stations with chargers. Stopping there is ok but you can't really do anything but sit in the car.

So that's why I want a 400 mile EV. I'd be able to get there without charging, and then charge when it's convenient, and then go home again without charging.

Your calcs are English centric. Even in Britain people travel further than 250 miles. In the US or Canada or Germany or almost anywhere 400 miles is as much as you'd want to drive in a day, but people do it and don't want to be delayed by 40 minutes or more at a charger.

So, no I'm not moving goalposts. But given that charging at public chargers costs at least the same as ICE, and takes 10 times longer, stopping twice is just not going to cut it.

 

[Soutra]

Toyota have gone the betamax Vs VHS route and plumped for the wrong option. Now they are telling everyone their option is the best and everyone else is wrong. It's the sort of business practice that puts a company out of business.

Toyota are a great company and they are massive in the US, who are slow to transition because the US is heavily influenced by the fossil fuel lobby. Toyota aren't right, they are just hoping that the fossil fuel lobby is strong enough in America. That would be a loss for everyone but that lobby don't care about the environment.

There are incredible numbers of electric vehicles in some states - California, Florida, New York, Arizona et al. The US has really gone for it in spades where practical, but range is the key factor holding back acceptance in other states. 250 miles might not get you to the next town, let alone the next charger. 3 million out of 98 million cars are electric, and it is growing fast because charging is really cheap, either at home or public.

 

[SmallTown]

I think they haven't done an EV because they aren't 'ready', maybe they know something the other manufacturers don't ?

They make excellent hybrids and have been in that game for a long time.

They do. But I think they are in it too deep. Now EV just work, the more complex, worst of both worlds hybrids look like an evolutionary stepping stone. Soon to be finished now pure EV just work.

 

[SmallTown]

No I haven't changed the goalposts.

Here is the calc. From Edinburgh I want to travel to Hertfordshire, distance is 392 miles, maybe 378 if I use the A697 instead of A1.

The range on my car when I set off was 290, the car was fully charged. As I went south, the range dropped to 278. I stopped at Woolley Edge to recharge after 236 miles. I recharged to 208 miles, which took 45 minutes after a short wait for the charger.

So I set off again with 172 miles to go. I drove into heavy rain, and then roadworks near Luton. The range had dropped from 208 miles to 197. By the time I arrived there was 25 miles left in the battery. With no charger at my destination I had to get up early to charge the car the next day - couldn't do it that evening. So that was about an hour to get it back to 80%.

Then on the way home I had to stop twice to recharge. 90 minutes, and the cost per mile was greater than diesel. There are no services north of Newcastle on the A1 or A697, just petrol station stations with chargers. Stopping there is ok but you can't really do anything but sit in the car.

So that's why I want a 400 mile EV. I'd be able to get there without charging, and then charge when it's convenient, and then go home again without charging.

Your calcs are English centric. Even in Britain people travel further than 250 miles. In the US or Canada or Germany or almost anywhere 400 miles is as much as you'd want to drive in a day, but people do it and don't want to be delayed by 40 minutes or more at a charger.

So, no I'm not moving goalposts. But given that charging at public chargers costs at least the same as ICE, and takes 10 times longer, stopping twice is just not going to cut it.

I don't think I did any calcs. The simple point is 99% of journeys are under 100 miles. I ad.ire the desperation you've used to highlight your need for 400 miles of range but the single fact is it's such a rare need.

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

I don't think I did any calcs. The simple point is 99% of journeys are under 100 miles. I ad.ire the desperation you've used to highlight your need for 400 miles of range but the single fact is it's such a rare need.

Average UK journey length is 11 miles.

Aberage UK mileage 6,600 miles

I used to do 10-12k miles on my focus in the early 2010's, be shocked if I do 2k now. Girlfriend drives for work and does about 70 miles a day. Just been paid 0.56p/mile to charge it overnight.

 

[Laughing]

Toyota have gone the betamax Vs VHS route and plumped for the wrong option. Now they are telling everyone their option is the best and everyone else is wrong. It's the sort of business practice that puts a company out of business.

Toyota are a great company and they are massive in the US, who are slow to transition because the US is heavily influenced by the fossil fuel lobby. Toyota aren't right, they are just hoping that the fossil fuel lobby is strong enough in America. That would be a loss for everyone but that lobby don't care about the environment.

Nano that's a ridiculous take on Toyota.

It was Toyota who managed the hydrogen filling stations in california. They were the first to release a hybrid car. Neither of these things suggest that Toyota are making decisions in line with the fossil fuel lobby, quite the contrary.

What Toyota did 20 years ago was move from eV development to hydrogen because they saw that as the future for multiple reasons, primarily they didn't see ev's as sustainable. The batteries use a finite resource and we are just raping the planet in a different way.

Have they backed the right tech? I have no idea. However they have just piloted the first hydrogen fuel cell car to complete 1k km on a single tank. They have already solved the single biggest problem with hydrogen cars.

 

[SmallTown]

Average UK journey length is 11 miles.

Aberage UK mileage 6,600 miles

I used to do 10-12k miles on my focus in the early 2010's, be shocked if I do 2k now. Girlfriend drives for work and does about 70 miles a day. Just been paid 0.56p/mile to charge it overnight.

Exactly. Yet we need a car to do 400 miles everytime we drive it. I can’t make that make sense

 

[SmallTown]

Nano that's a ridiculous take on Toyota.

It was Toyota who managed the hydrogen filling stations in california. They were the first to release a hybrid car. Neither of these things suggest that Toyota are making decisions in line with the fossil fuel lobby, quite the contrary.

What Toyota did 20 years ago was move from eV development to hydrogen because they saw that as the future for multiple reasons, primarily they didn't see ev's as sustainable. The batteries use a finite resource and we are just raping the planet in a different way.

Have they backed the right tech? I have no idea. However they have just piloted the first hydrogen fuel cell car to complete 1k km on a single tank. They have already solved the single biggest problem with hydrogen cars.

I would say the single biggest problem with hydrogen cars is the fuel is so damaging to the environment to make and they are so inefficient compared to an EV. And the lithium in the batteries etc…

 

[Nano]

Nano that's a ridiculous take on Toyota.

It was Toyota who managed the hydrogen filling stations in california. They were the first to release a hybrid car. Neither of these things suggest that Toyota are making decisions in line with the fossil fuel lobby, quite the contrary.

What Toyota did 20 years ago was move from eV development to hydrogen because they saw that as the future for multiple reasons, primarily they didn't see ev's as sustainable. The batteries use a finite resource and we are just raping the planet in a different way.

Have they backed the right tech? I have no idea. However they have just piloted the first hydrogen fuel cell car to complete 1k km on a single tank. They have already solved the single biggest problem with hydrogen cars.

I'm not saying they are making the decisions with the fossil fuel lobby only that they are kind of betting that hydrogen wins and to do that they need someone to produce hydrogen and it is the fossil fuel companies that will do that. In the US especially because that's their biggest market.

The single biggest problem with hydrogen isn't using the hydrogen within cars but producing hydrogen in a large enough quantity (and cleanly).

 

[SmallTown]

I'm not saying they are making the decisions with the fossil fuel lobby only that they are kind of betting that hydrogen wins and to do that they need someone to produce hydrogen and it is the fossil fuel companies that will do that. In the US especially because that's their biggest market.

The single biggest problem with hydrogen isn't using the hydrogen within cars but producing hydrogen in a large enough quantity (and cleanly).

Totally agree with this. Hydrogen production is the main problem. Its kind of sad that people are trying. When EV just work right now. But ad you say the big oil companies will produce the hydrogen. They can commoditise it and ortoect their obscene profits. That's why they are pumping so much money into trying to derail EV take up