Anyone own a fully electric car?

strtdv

We used to do Vienna to Arnhem (just shy of 700 miles) in one go only stopping for food and loo breaks. Family of 4 plus luggage in an Opel Kadett.

roundthebend

strtdv said:

We used to do Vienna to Arnhem (just shy of 700 miles) in one go only stopping for food and loo breaks. Family of 4 plus luggage in an Opel Kadett.

I'm struggling to believe you can get enough fuel in the tank of an Open Kadett to survive 700 miles. You'd have to refuel, Shirley

strtdv

Obviously you'd get fuel at the same time as you had food/loo breaks. Fortunately there are a good number of service areas on the Autobahn, and the unrestricted sections meant progress was rapid enough that you could do it in about 12 hours including fuel/food/loo breaks.

Once the EV infrastructure is in place there's no reason why you couldn't do it in an EV, say 4 supercharges of about 15-20 minutes each should do it, and wouldn't add a significant length of time to your journey

Lebarque

djspecialist said:

Lebarque said:

djspecialist said:

Our 14y-old car failed its MOT a few weeks ago, and we decided it's time to replace with something newer. I'd love to go electric, but living in a terraced house in an area with practically no on-street charging infrastructure, I don't see how it can work. Which is particularly frustrating given that our typical usage (1-2 trips per week, almost always under 40 miles) would be perfect for an EV.

Is there _any_ benefit to using a hybrid which you never plug in?  I assume that the engine is able to run at peak efficiency when its just charging the battery as opposed to moving the car, but is that completely offset by the fact that (when it switches back to "traditional" mode with the ICE driving the wheels) it then has to lug all the weight of the battery and electric motor?

So I expect we'll end up with another ICE, and hope that by the next replacement (hopefully at least 5-7 years out), either there has been a significant shift towards fuel cells, or the charging infrastructure has got a whole lot better.

Given that you do so few miles, you'd only need to charge a decent EV weekly or fortnightly. Why not plug it in at the local supermarket while you do your weekly shop, or similar?

Our local supermarket is a 3 min walk from the house, so we do our (slightly more frequently than) weekly shop on foot, using a granny trolley.

The supermarket has recently installed four Pod Points which IIUC are free to use. So, we could instead drive round (likely would take longer than walking due to traffic, but hey) and plug in. However the chargers are 7kW so would take several hours to provide a full charge. I guess it's just about feasible, but it's starting to sound like a logistical headache compared to either filling the tank every few weeks, or plugging in on a driveway overnight.

It's slowly improving so the outlook might be different in a year or two, but from what I've heard, Cambridge council are being far from proactive

As someone who doesn't have a drive, if I had a supermarket charger three minutes walk away, I'd buy an EV tomorrow.

Haych

crunchman said:

That video is presenting a very one sided view of hydrogen.  If it's done on a large scale, the price of the hydogen will plummet.

They talk about the lack of hydrogen filling stations, but that will change - especially as hydrogen will be required for freight, unless we drastically reduce the distance we move our freight.

The energy density just isn't there with batteries to use them for freight.  A 2 tonne electric car has around half a tonne of batteries, and might get 300 miles out of that on a good day.  Based on that, a 40 tonne arctic lorry would need 10 tonnes of batteries - and a 300 mile range would be nowhere near enough for that kind of lorry.  Even if they double the energy density, you would still need the 10 tonnes of batteries to get the range you need.  Apart from the large reduction in freigth capacity, the charging times would be a massive problem.  If you can double the energy density, you are probably looking at 4MWh of capacity.  Even the really fast 350kW chargers someone mentioned above would take more than 10 hours to charge that.  You can play around with those numbers.  Maybe you go for shorter range and more regular charging, but fundamentally battery power will not work for freight.

Hydrogen filling stations will happen for freight, and hydrogen will get a lot cheaper.

There is also scope to electrolyse the water on site in the filling station and save on the costs of transporting the hydrogen around.  That might not be possible at all filling stations, but there is no reason to transport it hundreds of miles, which is the model that video seems to be suggesting.  That impoves effiency they are quoting for hydrogen.

The other thing to consider is that solar is now the cheapest form of electricity.  It's also cheap to maintain long term as it has no moving parts.  It's not available at the time of day most will want to charge their vehicles, so we will need massive battery storage capacity if we carry on down the EV route, which will cost a fortune, as the batteries will need regular replacement.  My phone gets hot when I charge it.  Charging and discharging the batteries, and cooling them in the process, will cause significant losses.  That needs to be factored into the efficiency of the battery powered vehicle, which they have overestimated.

If you generate from solar when there is a surplus, which solves the problem of storing solar, then the fact that solar is the cheapest form of electricity means that the lower efficiency isn't too big a problem.

Hydrogen is the right way to go, although I could see us ending up in a VHS/Betamax situation where we end up with a worse technology because one has all the impetus.  That's where governments need to step in and fund the development of hydrogen.

I have to agree that hydrogen could and probably should be the way forward.  

Unfortunately, money talks and BEVs are the quick win without spending lots on infrastructure.  At the moment BEVs are aimed at people who can comfortably charge at home so those who've endorsed the tech have cut a massive infrastructure investment corner there even though on street charging points are slowly happening.  

relic245

lapua65 said:

I've got the Polestar 2 and get around 190 miles on a charge so far but weather getting warmer. Build quality is the on par with the Audi and it is great to drive. Software problems on the infotainment still a pain. I had a play with every fully electric car I could find and to me the best value to me was the Peugeot. I didn't get it as it was a tad too small but the tech was up with the best. The Polestar is a hatchback so more practical for me. I would only consider a Tesla if distance per charge were the only factor. 

Test drove the polestar today. Awesome car! I think it's overtaken  the eTron as Mrs Relic's favourite.

Current delivery time is quoted as September. Interesting there is another option available then as well. Single motor front wheel drive.

It's not as rapid, about 7 seconds to 60 but it's quoted as about an extra 70 miles on a charge which would be useful.

We have the Tesla to drive in about 3 weeks but I honestly think the model 3 won't be big enough and model X is way above budget.

wibble

The model 3 is actually a few inches longer than the polestar, it also has more storage capacity although the rear boot opening isn't as convenient as the sportback/hatchback of the polestar.

Snap

goldtop said:

Snap said:

Was fortunate enough to have been able to take a few days holiday in Devon last week. It's a 550 mile round trip. Once down there, there was absolutely nowhere we could have charged up either, not within easy reach of where we were staying. At all. Besides, when you are on holiday, do you really want to be faffing about trying to get a spot on a charger in one of the very few places there is one? No. I'd rather be doing what I am hoping to do on holiday. That in itself is enough to put me off an EV. I was seriously considering it, but until charging becomes easier and range gets over 500 miles, I can't see it working for us. On some of these EVs, the range is so poor I don't think I'd get a run around the Peak District, not fully. 

OK, but that's a classic case of 'outlier usage' dictating a bigger decision outcome.

As mentioned above, you could have used an EV for about 95% of the year, and hired an ICE car for those few days.

Not really. Not yet. We regularly do many reasonably substantial journeys, Back to see my family is a round trip of 150 miles, over lots of countryside. a trip to the coast is a 220 round trip - not many chargin points on the journey either, or at the destination. We do this a lot.

My point is, EVs are very compromised until the network improves and battery charge improves, a lot. And they are ridiculously expensive to buy. So, what you are suggesting is that on top of the premium of buying an EV, I then have to factor in a wedge for hiring a car whenever I want to go anywhere of any meaty distance? And then factor in the fanny of picking it up, returning it (all of which are miles from where we live),

It's all fine saying that when out and about in the Peaks, there are charging points - but there aren't enough to sustain evenly vaguely moderate numbers of EVs. What you don't want on your day out, is the arse of having to queue up to get charged. That could mean a large chunk of your day is eaten up doing naff all. You don't want the worry of having to find somewhere to charge up at your destination, just to make sure you have enough juice to get home. 

Hybrids are a total waste of effort too IMO. I had a BM hybrid for a few days and thought it was pointless. The battery lasted about 15 miles from fully charged, in city driving. Slight recharge from the car, but nothing worth bothering about. 

EricTheWeary

I keep watching random things about e cars. Charging on a standard socket can be 18 hours although I suppose not often you’ve let it go that flat. 

Interesting about the projected Tesla baby due in a couple of years: lighter battery technology and potentially the cheapest ‘proper’ car on the market ( so putting aside things like the Citroen Ami which are a lot more limited in use). I guess it reinforces the idea that if you buy outright now your EV may be worth buttons in a few years. 

goldtop

Snap said:

goldtop said:

Snap said:

Was fortunate enough to have been able to take a few days holiday in Devon last week. It's a 550 mile round trip. Once down there, there was absolutely nowhere we could have charged up either, not within easy reach of where we were staying. At all. Besides, when you are on holiday, do you really want to be faffing about trying to get a spot on a charger in one of the very few places there is one? No. I'd rather be doing what I am hoping to do on holiday. That in itself is enough to put me off an EV. I was seriously considering it, but until charging becomes easier and range gets over 500 miles, I can't see it working for us. On some of these EVs, the range is so poor I don't think I'd get a run around the Peak District, not fully. 

OK, but that's a classic case of 'outlier usage' dictating a bigger decision outcome.

As mentioned above, you could have used an EV for about 95% of the year, and hired an ICE car for those few days.

Not really. Not yet. We regularly do many reasonably substantial journeys, Back to see my family is a round trip of 150 miles, over lots of countryside. a trip to the coast is a 220 round trip - not many chargin points on the journey either, or at the destination. We do this a lot.

My point is, EVs are very compromised until the network improves and battery charge improves, a lot. And they are ridiculously expensive to buy. So, what you are suggesting is that on top of the premium of buying an EV, I then have to factor in a wedge for hiring a car whenever I want to go anywhere of any meaty distance? And then factor in the fanny of picking it up, returning it (all of which are miles from where we live),

It's all fine saying that when out and about in the Peaks, there are charging points - but there aren't enough to sustain evenly vaguely moderate numbers of EVs. What you don't want on your day out, is the arse of having to queue up to get charged. That could mean a large chunk of your day is eaten up doing naff all. You don't want the worry of having to find somewhere to charge up at your destination, just to make sure you have enough juice to get home. 

Hybrids are a total waste of effort too IMO. I had a BM hybrid for a few days and thought it was pointless. The battery lasted about 15 miles from fully charged, in city driving. Slight recharge from the car, but nothing worth bothering about. 

Well, if you are going to remember lots of other frequent long journeys, then yes. Although it's unusual to have so many that today's 350+ mile range EVs aren't suitable. I'm not blind to the shortcomings. Mine's a 180-mile range EV and I chose it knowing that.

As for "ridiculously expensive to buy", prices of decent ones here are at about BMW 3 series levels. In China there are EVs at £10k. It's a new tech that's in the very early stages of mass production and marketing. Thousands more people each day find that there is a range/price that suits their needs. That's all. 

roundthebend

Along with other factors, I think the rise of EV availability is going to change the shape of motoring. Today we are still very much in the world of ownership, albeit with personal and business leasing being a large slice. We're also in the mindset of "filling up then driving to empty". EVs can change that, and require us to change that. Other technology, like autonomous control, and then cultural changes like mobile phone apps, subscription finance models, and grocery deliveries will play a part. Rather than owning a car to do everything you might ever need, we will have smaller, cheap vehicles that do 90% of what we need, and then an array of options to fill the gaps. Those of us who do long drives frequently, will become more and more the exception.

I'm expecting to get use of an EV through work soon. If not, I might buy a very cheap, second-hand, low range one.

monquixote

If they can get autopilot working properly owning a car won't make sense.

You will just get a "Toyota" or "BMW" subscription and hit a button on an app for a charged up EV to appear at your doorstep when you need it. The right car for the right job.

goldtop

monquixote said:

If they can get autopilot working properly owning a car won't make sense.

You will just get a "Toyota" or "BMW" subscription and hit a button on an app for a charged up EV to appear at your doorstep when you need it. The right car for the right job.

Good question. Whether the shareholders of VAG, JLR, AM, Ferrari, etc are happy selling a fraction of the cars that they currently do...? These people are experts at lobbying.

The Other Half's brother works for a European consultancy on EV car sharing and subscription. He believes in it, but my experience of ZipCar car sharing via app was dire. I'd rather own.

monquixote

goldtop said:

monquixote said:

If they can get autopilot working properly owning a car won't make sense.

You will just get a "Toyota" or "BMW" subscription and hit a button on an app for a charged up EV to appear at your doorstep when you need it. The right car for the right job.

Good question. Whether the shareholders of VAG, JLR, AM, Ferrari, etc are happy selling a fraction of the cars that they currently do...? These people are experts at lobbying.

The Other Half's brother works for a European consultancy on EV car sharing and subscription. He believes in it, but my experience of ZipCar car sharing via app was dire. I'd rather own.

They would absolutely love it.

Companies love recurring revenue and SaaS type models it's nice predictable revenue.

This is why they love PCP, service contracts and all that crap.

People like me who drop £20k cash on a car and then don't buy another one for 10 years are not what they want.

It will be huge for the environment as well as it will be in their interest to make things that last.

goldtop

If they sell fewer cars, you will have to pay more for them, whether it's via rental, leasing, SaaS or community ownership. I'd love to believe that they want to shrink their businesses by a huge proportion in order to create a sustainable personal transport system, but it's idealistic in the extreme.

This idyll of yours also relies on everyone who shares the cars being as honest and caring as the ideal owner. And, from my experience of ZipCar membership, I can tell you that they are not.

roundthebend

goldtop said:

If they sell fewer cars, you will have to pay more for them, whether it's via rental, leasing, SaaS or community ownership. I'd love to believe that they want to shrink their businesses by a huge proportion in order to create a sustainable personal transport system, but it's idealistic in the extreme.

This idyll of yours also relies on everyone who shares the cars being as honest and caring as the ideal owner. And, from my experience of ZipCar membership, I can tell you that they are not.

I think you first paragraph is an outdated view - I kind of side with you but my teenage kids teach me otherwise. They don't care how much a mobile phone costs, they only care about whether they can afford the monthly subscription. That's the cultural shift in the world that is already present in young adults who will soon be parents of a new generation who know nothing else but that.

Your second paragraph needs more explanation. What do you mean by "honest and caring". If you don't own a car, but rather you summon one from an app, then you won't care about it in the same way. But I think I'm missing your point, so I am keen to understand it better.

roundthebend

Also, early adopter startup businesses like ZipCar are not really trying to make money from the field they play in. They are running experiments to understand where the issues will come from, insured by venture capitalists who gamble on the Intellectual Property becoming valuable enough to sell. You know, Google didn't create Waze or Google Maps from scratch, they let other startups break new ground then they buy them up when the timing is right.

So, to conclude that ZipCar is the end result and it doesn't fit with our needs is a naive viewpoint, I believe. The fact that we're seeing the pitfalls means the experiments are doing a good job of exposing them, you can bet your bottom dollar that the companies themselves aren't missing that.

Jeff Bezos was asked about the Amazon Fire Phone being a complete disaster. He replied, "yep, and I should think we're currently working on bigger disasters right now." That's how innovation and progress happen.

monquixote

goldtop said:

If they sell fewer cars, you will have to pay more for them, whether it's via rental, leasing, SaaS or community ownership. I'd love to believe that they want to shrink their businesses by a huge proportion in order to create a sustainable personal transport system, but it's idealistic in the extreme.

This idyll of yours also relies on everyone who shares the cars being as honest and caring as the ideal owner. And, from my experience of ZipCar membership, I can tell you that they are not.

They don't give a shit how many cars they produce, they care about money!

Hooking up people to a monthly subscription fee where they can charge you £200 a month for access to a car, but contention ratios mean they only need one car per 3 people (a number pulled out of my hat) means shit tons of money and all of the servicing, spares, cleaning, insurance brought in house while having to spend less on making cars.

Everything predictable and manageable no more forecourts filled with cars they can't sell, etc, etc.

The drive it like you stole it issue is a problem, but I'm pretty sure they will have trackers fitted that prevent you from driving like a dick.

strtdv

Full level 4/5 autonomy is a decade away if not more, so I wouldn't worry about it in choosing my next car

goldtop

The problem with car-sharing schemes that allow for short-term car hire periods is that, when you rent the car, you are responsible for it during your rental. Like a normal car rental, right, but what does that mean in practice...

Well, the first thing you definitely don't do when the car arrives, or when you get to the pick-up point, is get in and drive it to where you want to go. What you immediately do with the car, is go through the list of pre-existing damage and wear that previous renters have already logged. Yes, there's a log 'book' for shared cars that must be kept up to date.

The car's not owned by each renter, so they care less about it. They're not driving a £25,000 thing around - they're driving a £100 (eg) thing around. They won't necessarily have trashed it, but the kids eat crisps and the debris is left all over the rear seats. Or when parking an unfamiliar car, they have kerbed an alloy, or picked up a stone chip on the bonnet. It gets car park dings and scuffs. Unlike your own car, where you take care to avoid getting these or just put up with them as 'patina', now you're on the hook. For damage you cause, as well as all damage by others that you fail to spot.

So you have to go through the logs to find what's newly damaged (i.e. if the process works as the car sharing scheme operator claims it does - this must logically be damage done during the last renter's slot - your job is to dob him in, so you don't bear the cost). Whereas a conventional car hire outlet has actual people that do this, it's now the your responsibility. So having read the log of prior damage, you must go all around the car and find any unrecorded issues - scuffed alloys, scratches, missing cargo covers, marks on the interior, etc. You must then log these. Some will be serious enough - depending on policy - that you can't start using the car until you speak to customer services. All this before you drive off.

If it was raining or dark when you take responsibility for the car? Too bad, you've still got to do the above. If you fail to log any new damage, it will be attributed to you. You've already agreed to this in the app's small print - that Ts & Cs link you skipped over. You most definitely cannot drive away and log the damage later. Unless you are happy to be charged for it. 

That's what I meant by 'honest and caring'. If your fellow renters are like you, then no problem. But unfortunately, they are not. The system's fairness relies on both honesty and proper diligence. I managed three hires under ZipCar (since rebranded) before this nonsense made me ditch the subscription.

As for this generation of young people being happy to subscribe to everything, I'm not convinced this will extend to car use. And if you can find any evidence that car manufacturers are keen to move to car subscription models, I'd love to see some links. (Genuinely - I'll read it with an open mind.) For sure, they love the leasing model, because it shifts more metal.

BTW, you can subscribe to EV ownership now: https://on.to/ - £559/month for a Hyundai Kona.