EV drawbacks

Is it April 1st???

EVs Fall Short of EPA Estimates by a Much Larger Margin Than Gas Cars in Our Real-World Highway Testing

KiwiShane said:

EVs Fall Short of EPA Estimates by a Much Larger Margin Than Gas Cars in Our Real-World Highway Testing

EVs Fall Short of EPA Estimates by a Much Larger Margin Than Gas Cars in Our Real-World Highway Testing

Gas-powered cars often match or exceed EPA highway fuel economy numbers. A new paper using data from C/D's highway tests shows EVs are far less likely to do so.

www.caranddriver.com

Click to expand...

You only have to speak to those who drive them a lot to know this is so.

And contrary to the article, same applies to the Germans cars.

In Denmark, EVs are very popular as taxis. Talk to ANY taxi driver and they’ll tell you the same: range is no where near the claims. And it deteriorates with use.

EV drawback .

Don't some Nortons do this ! ,

Fast Eddie said:

You only have to speak to those who drive them a lot to know this is so.

And contrary to the article, same applies to the Germans cars.

In Denmark, EVs are very popular as taxis. Talk to ANY taxi driver and they’ll tell you the same: range is no where near the claims. And it deteriorates with use.

Click to expand...

Some interesting comments at the foot of that article FE.

Fitting a roof rack reducing a Tesla 3‘s range by 25%? I’m guessing they don’t tell you that in the brochure!



Bike manufacturers have been manipulating specs for years through ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ weight and HP figures (rear wheel or crank) etc. Range is pretty fundamental to the operation of an EV though, noting how limited it often is and how lacking in infrastructure most host countries are at this stage.

Manufacturers should be obligated to provide accurate figures linked to climatic conditions and other variables. I guess that would mean standardisation across the industry. Easier said than done methinks.

Anyone on here considering getting an EV and Caravan? Or a trailer? A small trailer? Maybe just a roof box?

Stephen_Spencer said:

Some interesting comments at the foot of that article FE.

Fitting a roof rack reducing a Tesla 3‘s range by 25%? I’m guessing they don’t tell you that in the brochure!

View attachment 106237

Bike manufacturers have been manipulating specs for years through ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ weight and HP figures (rear wheel or crank) etc. Range is pretty fundamental to the operation of an EV though, noting how limited it often is and how lacking in infrastructure most host countries are at this stage.

Manufacturers should be obligated to provide accurate figures linked to climatic conditions and other variables. I guess that would mean standardisation across the industry. Easier said than done methinks.

Click to expand...

Yes, all manufacturers claims (car or bike, EV or ICE) are generally going to be the best case possible, driven in perfect circumstances by a perfect driver. But there are many cases where the disparity is much higher with EVs.

Just normal driving has a big impact, you have to drive in a certain way - minimise acceleration (kinda tough as this is one of their strengths), minimise braking in order to maximise regenerative charging etc and the difference between ideal, and normal, can be big.

Yes, lots of things we consider ‘normal’ have a huge detrimental impact on EVs vs ICE, even in cases where ICE is negatively affected, the affect is larger on the EV, ie:

Roof boxes and roof rails is one.

In winter the batteries are less efficient to begin with, and then using the heater, heated seats, heated screen, etc in cold climates really hits them.

In summer the batteries are better, but using AC really hits them.

And if you are thinking about towing anything, think again !

But with all this in mind, the biggest issue / difference, in my mind at least, is this: if you learn that your ICE has less range than expected, it’s a mild inconvenience / annoyance. If you learn it about your EV, it can undermine the entire value proposition of ownership.

Yep, there is doubtless a long way to go before EV’s represent a fully viable replacement for the ICE in all driving scenarios (and maybe never in some); most have their eyes-wide-open to that fact. But the transition is inevitable - as is the leap in battery technology and infrastructure that will undoubtedly follow.

Economic, logistical, environmental and legislative challenges notwithstanding, EV’s are the future. So buckle up! Your kids will be driving (and riding) them in the future, if they are’nt already. No amount of articles detailing single EV fires will change that. But hell, they’re certainly spectacular when they go off - unless it’s your balls that are getting roasted that is!!

Stephen_Spencer said:

Yep, there is doubtless a long way to go before EV’s represent a fully viable replacement for the ICE in all driving scenarios (and maybe never in some); most have their eyes-wide-open to that fact. But the transition is inevitable - as is the leap in battery technology and infrastructure that will undoubtedly follow.

Economic, logistical, environmental and legislative challenges not withstanding, EV’s are the future. So buckle up! Your kids will be driving (and riding) them in the future, if they are’nt already. No amount of articles detailing single EV fires will change that.

View attachment 106238

Click to expand...

No question that EVs are part of the future.

I say ‘part’ because, as I’ve said before, I think Toyota are onto something with their belief / strategy of a mixed offering of EV, hybrid and hydrogen for different uses.

I take mild umbrage at the car vs horse analogy in your pic… Horses were never BANNED in order to push the car agenda, laws were never pushed through to force car ownership, etc.

The car took over because IT WAS BETTER. And then it continued to get better, and better.

We would all be MUCH better served if the powers that be put more effort into making EVs BETTER rather than outlawing the superior competition… that is NOT the way society improves.

Stephen_Spencer said:

Yep, there is doubtless a long way to go before EV’s represent a fully viable replacement for the ICE in all driving scenarios (and maybe never in some); most have their eyes-wide-open to that fact. But the transition is inevitable - as is the leap in battery technology and infrastructure that will undoubtedly follow.

Economic, logistical, environmental and legislative challenges notwithstanding, EV’s are the future. So buckle up! Your kids will be driving (and riding) them in the future, if they are’nt already. No amount of articles detailing single EV fires will change that. But hell, they’re certainly spectacular when they go off - unless it’s your balls that are getting roasted that is!!

View attachment 106238

Click to expand...

Nope.

Fast Eddie said:

I take mild umbrage at the car vs horse analogy in your pic…

Click to expand...

Well it was a Four horse race

Petrol
Horse
Steam
Electric

As you say no bans, no subsidies and petrol won.

There was a lot of concern in London towards the end of the 18th Century about the horse on road deposits. They predicted that in the mid 19th Century unless something was done pedestrians would be up to their armpits in horse dung, but progress interfered and a solution was found. All those horse stables at the back of the posh houses got converted in to garages or mews as an added bonus.

What is A Mews House?​

Mews houses were originally intended to stable horses, with accommodation for servants above which is why mews houses had stables and a coach house on the ground floor and the first floor housed a hayloft and a couple of rooms where the coach driver and the ostlers would stay.

Fast Eddie said:

No question that EVs are part of the future.

I say ‘part’ because, as I’ve said before, I think Toyota are onto something with their belief / strategy of a mixed offering of EV, hybrid and hydrogen for different uses.

I take mild umbrage at the car vs horse analogy in your pic… Horses were never BANNED in order to push the car agenda, laws were never pushed through to force car ownership, etc.

The car took over because IT WAS BETTER. And then it continued to get better, and better.

We would all be MUCH better served if the powers that be put more effort into making EVs BETTER rather than outlawing the superior competition… that is NOT the way society improves.

Click to expand...

Agreed FE, but (for those who agree with the science - cannot believe I just wrote that) there is an environmental imperative. An imperative where science (not looking to start a fight) dictates that we don’t have endless summers to develop the technology fully and implement an orderly, 100% flawless transition.

Legislation will be required, some of which will be extremely unpopular. I know that’s not a popular view in this thread, but there’s no avoiding what happening as we speak - believer or not.

Makes for a bloody good discussion topic though - definitely a five pinter at least!

Shelby-Right said:

EV drawback .

Don't some Nortons do this ! ,

Click to expand...

By the time that thing was scraped of the road... the pollution created from its manufacture to the frizzled turd it become defeated its purpose

Stephen_Spencer said:

Agreed FE, but (for those who agree with the science - cannot believe I just wrote that) there is an environmental imperative. An imperative where science (not looking to start a fight) dictates that we don’t have endless summers to develop the technology fully and implement an orderly, 100% flawless transition.

Legislation will be required, some of which will be extremely unpopular. I know that’s not a popular view in this thread, but there’s no avoiding what happening as we speak - believer or not.

Makes for a bloody good discussion topic though - definitely a five pinter at least!

Click to expand...

The trouble here is you cannot legislate against scientific facts

Lets take another walk down memory lane....to a logistical nightmare

Stephen_Spencer said:

Agreed FE, but (for those who agree with the science - cannot believe I just wrote that) there is an environmental imperative. An imperative where science (not looking to start a fight) dictates that we don’t have endless summers to develop the technology fully and implement an orderly, 100% flawless transition.

Legislation will be required, some of which will be extremely unpopular. I know that’s not a popular view in this thread, but there’s no avoiding what happening as we speak - believer or not.

Makes for a bloody good discussion topic though - definitely a five pinter at least!

Click to expand...

You say you believe in science. But then you say we need laws to make the science find solutions for us faster. I translate that as a lack of trust or belief in science, or ‘merit based’ ideas / innovation.

You are assuming that the environmental need is greater than the pace of change possible.

And you are assuming that legislation will provide better / faster solutions that ‘real’ merit based solutions. The best ideas come from free minds. The fastest progress from healthy competition.

And you are ignoring the law of unintended consequence, of which there are many possibilities here, but the main one for me is this idea that these things are ‘either or’… We legislate or we all die… We can have economics or environment… Etc.

I fundamentally disagree.

I believe merit based ideas are exactly what’s required for us to create the technology that we need.

And I believe that to overlook economics (ie banning ICE and some other ideas will hold back the economic growth of millions… commit millions to poverty and starvation) will also hamper environmental progress. It’s well established that people’s interest in, and willingness to support, environmental issues (or indeed any issue that’s not a direct threat) is related to their basic wellbeing. First that needs to be secure, then they can / will worry about the other stuff.

You will never get a man with a starving family to stop using his diesel tractor. And if you force him, he will revolt.

If we are really serious about the environment, then changes have to be made WITH rather than INSTEAD of the well being of people and their lives.

We need holistic, not divisive / punitive, ways forward.

With respect FE, I know that these are your views as you’ve aired them before - I agree with the premise of most. Re-stating them with the word ‘you’ in each sentence may be a tad disingenuous though. I’m not sure that I’m solely responsible for what’s actually happening in the environmental space! But hey, this is ‘the pub’ and pretty much anything goes!

The core of the worlds environmental scientists say that there is a time imperative; that targets are required to negate/minimise serious environmental consequences. Global and domestic targets require planning. All plans eventually require a legislative framework, in a democracy that is. No doubt if certain plans/legislation fail at any juncture then they will be revised - no plan survives ‘first contact’. I don’t fear too much for your man with a diesel tractor just yet.

Some countries are well advanced in their actions, have successfully incentivised their populations to participate and poured resources into scientific research and implementation. If all countries had the opportunity (and will) to do the same, no doubt the pace of scientific change could /will meet the environmental need. Is it possible to achieve economic growth, concurrent with scientific development and environmental outcomes? We better hope so; no country is planning for these to be an either/or proposition.

As I see it, we have a limited opportunity to maximise outcomes when certain of the worlds most populous countries (and largest emitters) remain in poverty. Governments will not starve their populations to meet distant global environmental targets - a big problem of accountability (and action) for advanced countries that have already negatively impacted the environment to secure their own development.

Will we get it all right - of course not. We (humanity) will screw-up significant elements as we always do - hence the phrase to learn from ones mistakes. Will there be nefarious intent from some quarters to cheat, lie and profit from good environmental intentions - of course - again, part of who we are.

But the option to do nothing, to continue to slash, burn, extract, plunder and pollute seems impossible - to keep our fingers crossed and hope that the scientists are wrong, reckless at best. Especially if you have kids.

These are my thoughts - I have no intention of projecting them on others.

I could not agree more that doing nothing is not an option. I’m not aware of anyone who argues that position !?

Its how we do it that’s key.

Joined up, long term thinking is required. And generally speaking, is in short supply.

Targets are good when they prompt action. Arbitrary targets, aimed at little more than looking good in the headlines, are not.

When you have companies like Toyota, and even people like Elon Musk FFS, saying that banning ICEs at the moment is not the answer… we should at least hear their logic out…

My overall premise to you is twofold:

1. Generally speaking, science and technology will support society better if given good direction and funding… laws banning stuff is really unlikely to help and will almost definitely hinder.

2. Chasing environmental targets at the expense of human life and wellbeing is unnecessary and will hold everything back. Improving technology that supports the environment AND human well being is really the only sensible long term direction.

I am not going to buy an electric car, because in a minute there will be 'beam me up' facilities. The Germans did not build electric-powered Focke-Wulf 190 s durimg WW2 - they were not stupid. They would never have won the peace, if they had done that.

Fast Eddie said:

I could not agree more that doing nothing is not an option. I’m not aware of anyone who argues that position !?

Its how we do it that’s key.

Joined up, long term thinking is required. And generally speaking, is in short supply.

Targets are good when they prompt action. Arbitrary targets, aimed at little more than looking good in the headlines, are not.

When you have companies like Toyota, and even people like Elon Musk FFS, saying that banning ICEs at the moment is not the answer… we should at least hear their logic out…

My overall premise to you is twofold:

1. Generally speaking, science and technology will support society better if given good direction and funding… laws banning stuff is really unlikely to help and will almost definitely hinder.

2. Chasing environmental targets at the expense of human life and wellbeing is unnecessary and will hold everything back. Improving technology that supports the environment AND human well being is really the only sensible long term direction.

Click to expand...

In any given situation there are usually four major risk areas, which must be balanced and managed - quality, safety, environment and security. The primary are is 'quaklity of life'. Population growrh and consumerism are turning our world into a huge termite mound. The only factor which has ever reduced the rate of population growth was education. School teavhers hold the key to our future, however often the situation is 'the blind leading the blind'. University professors thrive on speculation, and 'self-praise is no recommendartion'. We need to make better use of free-to-air television. However school teachers can see thet if they put their lectures into videos, they might make themselves redundant. 'Information was made to be free' but much wealth is created by exploiting intellectual property. It all comes down to mindset - money-motivation is crap., but we all need money to live.