Would you have an electric car if you had the money for a new car and were in the market for one?

[Mr. Dazzle]

It's certainly a PR challenge for the manufacturers though.

EVs are just well...different...than ICE cars in a lot of ways. Much of "stuff everybody knows" is just different, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Range is a really obvious one. Everyone knows that cars get better economy "on a run". Except they don't. Piston engines get better economy on a run, it's a characteristic of that engine type, not cars in general.

And so on.

[Taipan]

I'm just surprised that with todays somewhat stringent consumer laws that such inaccuracies are allowed. But with range being the biggest draw back for most people I guess that's a bonus for the manufacturers.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It's not strictly inaccurate though and it's certainly not new. ICE is exactly the same. For a manufacturer to claim a range an EV will have to have actually demonstrated it can do that in real life.

The figures come from a standardised WLTP test, just like MPG figures do with ICE cars. All manufacturers have to do it and they have no say in the test parameters*.

Like Slenver said, it's not really anything to do with the builders and it's been this way for decades.

*Beyond the fact the WLTP was originally created in part by manufacturer input

[Slenver]

In reality of course, EV ranges are actually even lower... it's not recommended you charge to 100%, if you can help it, to increase the life of the battery. Our Audi defaults to 80% and you have to switch off the setting to charge more than that.

Plus, you also don't really want to go down below 10% if you can help it either, so overall you actually have a kind of working range that's 70% of the maximum.

[cheb]

All this talk of fuel consumption inaccuracies and no mention of VW diesels?

For me the best I'd hope for from stated fuel consumption or range figures would be reasonably accurate comparability between vehicles.

[MrLongbeard]

I'm just surprised that with todays somewhat stringent consumer laws that such inaccuracies are allowed. But with range being the biggest draw back for most people I guess that's a bonus for the manufacturers.

It's a benchmark, not a true figure, it allows you to compare 1 car against another not judge what you will actually achieve.
Has always been this way, hell if you want to know a cars true efficiency you always take off 15ish mpg from the official figures, same with EV's except yo're taking off 100 - 150 miles from the quoted range to get a ball park real world figure.

[Slenver]

same with EV's except yo're taking off 100 - 150 miles from the quoted range to get a ball park real world figure.

Definitely isn't quite that bad. Ours is supposed to be 314 I think, but we've managed around 270. That was when it was cold too, the efficiency has shot up recently, so 300 should be possible in the weeks between heating and aircon

Edit: Actually, the official range is 349. Still, that's about 80 over real world in winter, probably half that or less in summer.

[MrLongbeard]

Definitely isn't quite that bad.

Good.
That's my ball park figure that factors in some cutting edge fag packet maths to allow for losses in winter and degradation over time.
If you don't need to explore the near max range of a battery and or change cars every 3 - 5 years you would be able to reduce my figure by 50ish%.

[Noggin]

Was talking to some passengers today about the Geneva Motor Show (that didn't really seem noticeable this year ) and EVs. (The conversation actually started on manual verses auto cars )

The guy was really surprised that one of the local transfer companies is about 60 EVs now.

Over the conversation I realised that I'd LOVE and electric car and an electric bike for the power.

BUT - I'd miss the noises and the smells. A lot.

I think I need a TShirt that says something like "I like EVs but really I'm an ICE girl" (Sounded funnier in my head I think )

[Felix]

I take it if you take your driving test in an Electric Car you can only drive Automatics if you jump into a proper car.

[Mussels]

I'm just surprised that with todays somewhat stringent consumer laws that such inaccuracies are allowed. But with range being the biggest draw back for most people I guess that's a bonus for the manufacturers.

I think it's the official tests that are misleading as the manufacturers quote them and the European ones are biased towards town driving, the US tests are more realistic. Of course the manufacturers lobby the EU about what the test should be so they aren't blameless.
So the tests have been set up to show EVs* in a favourable light which led to early adopters being disappointed, it worked in the short term but I think it's backfiring now as there's a lot of mistrust. Kryton & his EV evangelist pals haven't helped, they are happy to stretch the truth to it's limits.

* Mainly unaerodynamic European EVs, Tesla looks much better if you compare them using US standards.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I'll give you one guess what the W in WLTP stands for

[cheb]

World? As in World Series?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Only this time is the Americans who don't take part in the world series.

TBF even the Yanks often use the WLTP test now...which is kinda the point of it. Same for everyone and all that.

[Horse]

they have invested a huge amount of money into this

How much?

@Mussels

All I saw was the price per vehicle. What else?

[MrLongbeard]

Back to the Ambo's.

Looks like the West Midlands ran a trial on E-ambo's for a couple of years and have decided against them https://www.expressandstar.com/news/hea ... ly-viable/ citing costs and their unsuitability for rural areas

[Mussels]

they have invested a huge amount of money into this

How much?

@Mussels

All I saw was the price per vehicle. What else?

I've seen several figures on the net about a few million being spent on ambulances in different areas but finding a total cost seems difficult.
This is probably a bit ott but it's in the realms of too big to fail. I can't see behind the paywall either so I'm going on the clickbait part.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... ionpounds/

[Taipan]

I'm just surprised that with todays somewhat stringent consumer laws that such inaccuracies are allowed. But with range being the biggest draw back for most people I guess that's a bonus for the manufacturers.

I think it's the official tests that are misleading as the manufacturers quote them and the European ones are biased towards town driving, the US tests are more realistic. Of course the manufacturers lobby the EU about what the test should be so they aren't blameless.
So the tests have been set up to show EVs* in a favourable light which led to early adopters being disappointed, it worked in the short term but I think it's backfiring now as there's a lot of mistrust. Kryton & his EV evangelist pals haven't helped, they are happy to stretch the truth to it's limits.

* Mainly unaerodynamic European EVs, Tesla looks much better if you compare them using US standards.

Yes! As usual, great, post.

[Horse]

How much?

@Mussels

All I saw was the price per vehicle. What else?

I've seen several figures on the net about a few million being spent on ambulances in different areas but finding a total cost seems difficult.
This is probably a bit ott but it's in the realms of too big to fail. I can't see behind the paywall either so I'm going on the clickbait part.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... ionpounds/

Did you see my post a couple of days ago? E-ambos (DT stated price) seem to have a lower purchase price than new ICEs (IIRC, LAS press info). That casts some doubt on their reporting of anything else related to London EV ambos.

It's unfortunate that the DT's 'analysis' is hidden. But, since LAS already has a substantial - presumably successful - electric fleet (see another earlier post), so a fair chunk of that investment has already been made. And the rest won't all be spent in one go.

Estimates (R4 Sliced Bread) I've heard suggested break-even for electric cars at 40-60,000 miles. Guessing lower in urban-only use.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I think it's the official tests that are misleading as the manufacturers quote them and the European ones are biased towards town driving, the US tests are more realistic. Of course the manufacturers lobby the EU about what the test should be so they aren't blameless.
So the tests have been set up to show EVs* in a favourable light

Yes! As usual, great, post.

Not really.

The WLTP standard whuch is used to quote figures was created to be more representative. The thinking behind it started in the late 1990s precisely because the powers that be, and the manufacturers, realised that the NEDC (which is what was used to generate MPGs before in the EU) was unrealistic for modern driving.

All vehicles - of any fuel type - now sold in the EU now use the WLTP test which is a much more globalised standard which includes high speed driving. Same goes for lots of other countries, hence the "W" for "worldwide". The groundwork behind this started before PayPal even existed, let alone Tesla*. Said groundwork was instigated precisely because of the shortcomings Mussels mentioned.

So "the tests have been set up to show EVs in a favourable light" is basically nonsense.

*For those who wonder why I said PayPal, Elon Musk made his initial money there