Forum menu
Just ordered an ID4 life pro performance WITH a tow bar (factory car that was available) and heat pump. Took a test drive in the Ioniq 5 before driving the id4 and I found the ride so wallowy I actually felt a bit motion sick which I never ever do? Don't know if the tire pressure was low or what the heck was going on but the deciding factor was there was no roof racks available and even if there were it would have to be a clamp style Yakima (only one seemingly available?). The boot internal height was also quite compromised due to the sloping rear window. I was nearly 100 certain I was going for the Ioniq before the test drive..cool car in many ways but the handling sucked and I'm no race driver, I pootle.
Now I'm a pauper.
I answered your direct question to me, Squirrelking, You quoted me then asked the following question:
What about EDF then?
EDF is French company which is 83.6% state owned so it's difficult to answer your question from anything other than a French perspective.
Don’t know if the tire pressure was low or what the heck was going
Interesting. I have been browsing for 2 years' time and I'd decided the Ioniq 5 was a better bet due to being much cheaper on PCH. We plan to do significantly fewer miles so there's a real chance we'd end up forking out for a 50k car that would sit on a driveway for weeks at a time.
Re handling, our Ioniq (un-numbered version) has very soft springs and big fat tyres, which is great really. The ride is really remarkably comfy on rough roads and the battery is so low that it doesn't feel like it rolls that much - and because there's so little weight up front it turns in really well and is quite driveable. It might be that they've tried to pull the same trick off in the 5 and missed the mark.
Only time it's not so good is on bumpy motorways. On the bit of M4 before the Severn Bridge with all the lumps it's quite entertainingly bouncy.
Doing the figures for an EV of my own. It seems they make twice the CO2 pollution to manufacture than a normal car and that takes quite a few years to claw back.
It seems to make a lot of sense to keep the car going that I have and only replace it when it is worn out completely ? To help save the environment wouldn’t that make a lot of sense ? It seems that the only reason for electric cars is to keep car sales and the economy going nothing else hmmm
When the oil industry controls the charging market you can be sure you pay a lot for electricity once you leave home
Most, if not all, companies want to turn a profit and will charge what the market is willing to pay… so any charging monopoly would be bad for consumers, unless it was heavily regulated of course. However as mentioned up the thread thankfully it seems like some decent competition is developing. I reckon the main risk to cheap EV motoring will be if/when some sort of tax is levied, to make up for the missing fuel duty. Although realistically this more likely to be via a hike in road tax, or toll roads, rather than on charging?
The CMA won’t allow them to have a monopoly
Like the way they stop motorway services all setting their prices to [average fuel price] + 20%?
Like the way they stop motorway services all setting their prices to [average fuel price] + 20%?
Having a monopoly on the total market which is what you know I was replying too is different to having having some "prime" locations to be able to up the price.
EDF is French company which is 83.6% state owned so it’s difficult to answer your question from anything other than a French perspective.
Try the fact I'm talking about EDF in the UK. They're a multinational company in case you never noticed. Anyway, installing chargers and charging higher prices, is that okay because they're not an oil company? Answer the actual question I asked rather than starting some jackanory nonsense please.
Yeah, charging 20% over for convenience is different to charging 2.5x normal when you know there aren't other options or they aren't easy to find.
Off to webuyanycar later today to get rid of the current car, with the intention of becoming a 2 x EV car family. - Just need to decide what to replace with. ?
The problem with the charging infrastructure is that you aren't just paying for energy (electricity), you're actually paying for a service (rate of charge or convenience).
If you pull up to a service station for some en route charging which will you choose, a 7kW charger at effectively the same cost as you would pay for electricity at home, or a little more for a 22kW, or more again for a 50kW, or a 100kW etc.?
When you look at it from a service perspective it's easy to justify the cost increase for each level of improvement, however it soon becomes uneconomical or at least unattractive economically for the consumer.
The reality is that each EV owner will need to consider their typical usage and ensure they have a battery with suitable range and suitable (likely home or work place would be ideal - though this comes with a whole host of constraints) charging. Beyond that for the exceptional journeys the owner needs to weigh up the convenience of a battery with additional range, the additional cost of lugging the larger battery around for the vast majority of typical journeys, the extra initial cost of the larger battery, the cost saving of not needing to charge as many times on atypical longer journeys, vs inconvenience of a smaller range battery, the initial saving on choosing a smaller battery, the extra cost of charging at higher cost "convenience" chargers etc. etc. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily an easy task.
Alternatively those with higher mileage requirements may need to look at alternative technologies, such as fuel cells, which again requires very significant infrastructure developments.
There is also the possibility of developing other technologies or combinations of technology, such as a hybrid car with the ability to run off both batteries and fuel cells. This, provided the energy/fuel is generated via carbon neutral methods, could prove very useful. Not only in that it allows flexibility but also it allows for competing markets which could allow the market (edit: for en route charging) to better regulate cost through consumer choice and demand.
Took a test drive in the Ioniq 5 before driving the id4 and I found the ride so wallowy I actually felt a bit motion sick which I never ever do?
Interesting. I don't like the styling of the Ioniq 5 but I had shortlisted a Kia EV6 for my next car which is built on the same E-GMP skateboard. Hopefully Kia will do a better job with the suspension than Hyundai, the Kia e-Niro certainly has a better ride than the Hyundai Kona which is on the same platform as the e-Niro.
It now looks like Kia will be releasing a refreshed e-Niro at the end of the year. Now if they have boosted the charging power to something over 100kW that might be the perfect replacement for my current e-Niro come 2023.
Off to webuyanycar later today to get rid of the current car, with the intention of becoming a 2 x EV car family. – Just need to decide what to replace with. ?
Ooh I love a bit of vicarious shopping. What are your requirements, and what do you already have?
The problem with the charging infrastructure is that you aren’t just paying for energy (electricity), you’re actually paying for a service (rate of charge or convenience).
Yeah of course, that's why we don't mind paying 40p, but 80p is a bit of a stretch - and a quid? Really?
When you look at it from a service perspective it’s easy to justify the cost increase for each level of improvement, however it soon becomes uneconomical or at least unattractive economically for the consumer.
This is the problem with the whole EV market. Most people won't buy EV while they are seen as expensive to buy and run with punitive electricity prices as soon as they leave home. When the charging infrastructure is in the hands of oil majors that is unlikey to improve. The EV market currently is people who value clean air and are onboard with doing something about global warming even if it costs more.
The most reliable chargers I use are run by supermarkets and town councils.
Ooh I love a bit of vicarious shopping. What are your requirements
Sunglasses holder #1 priority. 🙂
Most people won’t buy EV while they are seen as expensive to buy and run with punitive electricity prices as soon as they leave home.
The general narrative seems to be that they are cheap to run - that's on every article and every review. I don't think people actually know about the high cost of Ionity etc until they turn up at one in their new car. But even then it's not really a problem as such - for the occasional use, it's trivial; for the regular user you can subscribe anyway and get it at a more sensible price. So I really don't think high charging costs are 'the problem with the whole market'. IMO that's purchase cost. As I said earlier, I'm looking at iD4s for my next car but at nearly £50k it's an outrageous sum for me to buy a car and not something I'd ever have considered otherwise outside a lottery win scenario. But that's coming down.
Sunglasses holder #1 priority.
Well, the Hyundai one takes my shades perfectly 🙂
The problem with the charging infrastructure is that you aren’t just paying for energy (electricity), you’re actually paying for a service (rate of charge or convenience).
If you pull up to a service station for some en route charging which will you choose, a 7kW charger at effectively the same cost as you would pay for electricity at home, or a little more for a 22kW, or more again for a 50kW, or a 100kW etc.?
Yep, for rapid charging the units are pricey (often more expensive than the cars that plug into them), the grid connections they need are expensive to put in, contactless card payments have fees and need connectivity, the units need maintaining (software and careless users damaging plugs), people expect 24/7 phone support, etc.
Ideally for the providers they have the units busy much of the time, but people want enough chargers that they can just roll up and plug in (rather than queue) and to mitigate any charger failure so you want more units (more ££££) to make the location attractive.
Fastned said the "real" cost of providing rapid charging is well above 1 euro per kWh. Lots of charging providers are just taking on loads of investment/debt to land-grab good locations in the hope of making the numbers work further down the road. Gridserve at least look quite canny for using charging hubs as well-connected sites for their grid balancing batteries so they have other income besides putting power into cars.
I keep saying it, the solution for atypical long distance journeys is a trailer mounted battery pack with a common standard connector.
When the charging infrastructure is in the hands of [s]oil[/s] any energy majors in a deregulated market that is unlikey to improve.
FTFY
squirrelking
I keep saying it, the solution for atypical long distance journeys is a trailer mounted battery pack with a common standard connector.
No doubt a sensible option, but I cant stop imagining some Max Max: Fury Road contraptions circling the M25
We’ll that was painless. -About £500 less than the auto generated value taking into account a poorly re-sprayed bumper, stone chips and scuffed alloys.
Currently got an e golf. Thinking e tron or I pace - probably ex demonstrator / pre registered. Or perhaps wait and have a look at new i4
Battery trailer were available in france for the Zoé, I've never seen one, they just delayed the need to charge and became pointless when the Zoé 40 was released.
Another failed concept was the battery swap, which is why the Fluence was had an easily swapped battery and a system to do it. People don't want an unknown second-hand battery.
What's been proven to work is high capacity cars and an excellent reasonably priced charging network. Thank you Tesla for proving it's possible. But only possible when you can subsidise the charging network by factoring part of the cost into the sale price of your cars. Once you have to price your cars competitively the system fails.
Why would tow a trailer behind you when you can
simply stop, have a coffee and be on your way again?
The EV market currently is people who value clean air and are onboard with doing something about global warming even if it costs more.
Currently maybe, but that will change fairly rapidly as the legislated phase-out of ICE cars gains pace
The most reliable chargers I use are run by supermarkets and town councils.
I can't imagine our cash-strapped councils being keen to install and run charging facilities on a large scale. If involved at all I'd guess they'd be more likely to out-source to one of the energy companies?
Supermarkets might see a value in providing cheap charging though, to drive footfall in their shops, much the same way as their cheap petrol and diesel.
Future wholesale electricity price is another question mark. I think I'm right in saying that UK electricity price has historically tracked the price of generation, and hence largely governed by gas price. With renewables in the mix this link is getting weaker, and at some point will presumably no longer be relevant. I'm not sure what happens then, perhaps pricing becomes more supply/demand governed. And we'd start to see energy suppliers making money on wholesale rather than consumer prices (in much the same way that oil companies income is mostly from crude oil sales, rather than the few pence per litre they make on the actual petrol and diesel products)
I keep saying it, the solution for atypical long distance journeys is a trailer mounted battery pack with a common standard connector.
Nah it's not. You'll still need a charge eventually. We need more chargers because there'll be more cars and you will want one nearby that you can use, you don't want to have to drive 20 miles to get one. So we need a high density of charging points for those reasons besides range anxiety.
You need more chargers because then they compete with each other and the cost limits itself - if it's a limited extra compared to home charging then people use them more, beyond a pain threshold people start to avoid buying it, the same as any other 'thing' be that petrol, bread or chocolate.
I've got apps for 4 chargers as that covers the vast majority in SW Norway, and the prices self regulate, especially as I know the price I pay for leccy. If other networks appear I'll add them if I need. At least one of those is run by an oil company, and despite the rumours of evil they have to stay price comparable.
Why are oil companies interested - well because we see where energy use is going, and because we're good at large, multi billion infrastructure projects it's not a big psychological barrier to jump to install these. In contrast small energy resellers will have no experience with big projects, no staff with management experience, so will find it tricky
'Cars don’t wear out. Shocks, CV joints, injectors, big ends, turbos etc etc wear out. For most things you can replace them and the car will continue. This is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly than buying a new one. ' Not true, simply. The emissions from energy use to build a new car and running soon become less than those from keeping a banger on the road. This maths has been demonstrated repeatedly. The only variable is how clean is your energy mix, so you need to think about how to shift that off fosssil fuels asap.
The emissions from energy use to build a new car and running soon become less than those from keeping a banger on the road. This maths has been demonstrated repeatedly. The only variable is how clean is your energy mix, so you need to think about how to shift that off fosssil fuels asap
Define banger? Intuitively I find it hard to believe that manufacturing an entirely new vehicle is more environmentally friendly than keeping say a 10 year old ICE vehicle on the road. But have to admit I haven't seen any figures to back that up..
Not true, simply. The emissions from energy use to build a new car and running soon become less than those from keeping a banger on the road. This maths has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Genuinely interested in info you have or can link to on this, because I've seen the opposite asserted but not proven. I'd like you to be right as I want a new EV more than I want an old car 🙂
The emissions from energy use to build a new car and running soon become less than those from keeping a banger on the road. This maths has been demonstrated repeatedly. The only variable is how clean is your energy mix, so you need to think about how to shift that off fosssil fuels asap
this is demonstratably untrue. A BEV costs 8800kg of CO2 whilst being produced (source
) - an oldish car may have emit 140g/km of co2. Even if the BEV caused zero CO2 whilst being driven (unlikely), you're looking at over 40,000 miles before breaking even.
If you compare an old car to a PHEV (with reasonable average emissions - say 80g/km) the maths is even worse. 6700kg of CO2 is emitted during production, that's a 70,000 mile payback.
Even if the BEV caused zero CO2 whilst being driven (unlikely), you’re looking at over 40,000 miles before breaking even.
Energy in Norway would be zero carbon, you'd only be looking at the energy cost of tyres etc and building/maintaining all those hydro power stations. But if it's only 40k miles then that's really not that much, is it? Even 70k means it's still a significant net positive.
There are many studies out there into the CO2 that goes into making an EV and well-to-tank CO2 for petrol and electricity.
I used some to do some calculations recently and taking an existing petrol car that gets 45mpg it takes:
(10,000 miles/year) ~5 years to "break even" on the CO2 from building the new EV (+average grid CO2 form the electricity used in driving). Every year you delay going EV takes just over an extra year to get you level (compared to switching today)
(5,000 miles/year) ~11 years
Battery trailer were available in france for the Zoé, I’ve never seen one, they just delayed the need to charge and became pointless when the Zoé 40 was released.
110-140 mile range doesn't render a range extender pointless. Remember I'm talking about atypical journeys here so they typical drive to the alps/length of Britain for a holiday argument. There are also places where you can go massive distances in "extreme" conditions like Scandanavia where a battery trailer would make sense.
What’s been proven to work is high capacity cars and an excellent reasonably priced charging network. Thank you Tesla for proving it’s possible.
Why would I buy a car with capacity I would only take advantage of a vanishingly small percentage of the time, increasing cost and wear and decreasing range when there is an easy solution for the rare occasions I need it?
Why would tow a trailer behind you when you can
simply stop, have a coffee and be on your way again?
Instant charge by virtue of hooking it up. Do you want to stop every 100 - 140 miles?
Nah it’s not. You’ll still need a charge eventually.
Swap the trailer for a freshie (I accept that by that point you are going to be done in anyway).
There are also places where you can go massive distances in “extreme” conditions like Scandanavia where a battery trailer would make sense.
Some, but I doubt even in Scandinavia you will go more than 200 miles without a filling station which means there'd be a place to install a charging station. And I'll be they do just that. It'll be places like Canada or Russia where it'll get harder but if I end up road tripping those places one day I'll hire something 🙂
Do you want to stop every 100 – 140 miles?
Who's talking about 100 miles in this day and age? Since that early Zoe battery capacity has improved to entirely useable levels before a standard for a battery trailer and common connector could even have been agreed on, rendering such a device useless, IMO.
bit of a stunt but it shows whats possible
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1949861
lejog with under 44 mins of charging the whole way. I imagine they weren't ragging it, but hopefully most will admit that those stats under normal driving would meet pretty much every need.
Instant charge by virtue of hooking it up. Do you want to stop every 100 – 140 miles?
No, I don’t need to now so doubt I will my next one.
Who’s talking about 100 miles in this day and age?
No, I don’t need to now so doubt I will my next one.
*facepalm*
Read what I wrote again, particularly the bit about useful battery capacity for the majority of your driving.
Batteries use finite resources.
Batteries add weight.
Weight reduces range.
Battery capacity adds cost.
Tell me which of these are false?
Having more battery capacity than you need most of the time is good for the battery. The only time I fully charge and get close to full discharge is on long trips. The rest of the time the battery is in the 30-90% range which is perfect for long life.
A bigger battery can make use of faster chargers without deterioration. The charge speed won't slow as quickly either as the management system seeks to look after the battery. The early 24kWh fast charge leafs suffered rapid deterioration when fast charged at 46kW, the 100kWh Teslas can be charged at 100kW without undue deterioration.
Big batteries are ace, range angst a thing of the past. As for faffing with a trailer with all that entails in terms of hassle driving, parking, storing etc., no thanks, like Drac I'm happy to stop for a coffee after 2-3 hours. Over 4hrs on French routes nationales, that's as long as a truck driver can legally drive.
Tell me which of these are false?
Well none but I’m not sure what has to do with you thinking future EVs only do 100 mile let alone recent ones.
I've explained it once. I'm not explaining it again. Honest tae ****.
It still makes no sense what so ever.
Batteries add weight.
Weight reduces range.
Unless you're driving up a mountain, the impact of weight on range is negligible and even then can be nearly completely recovered using regenerative braking.
But clearly the answer for squirrel is to carry more weight.
It seems that the only reason for electric cars is to keep car sales and the economy going nothing else hmmm
Hmm they are actually very nice to drive, one foot driving and silky smooth instant acceleration.
Also don’t hydro-lock if you get a bit of water.
In theory less moving parts to go wrong no clutches, actuators,rubber bands, bore scoring ,IMS failures,sumps to hole,to low oil or wrong fuel engine destruction opportunities.
With dual motors you should be able to limp home on one.
I think they’ve got a lot going for them TBH
I think squirrels trying to point out sizing the battery to your real world mileage needs.
It’s a bit like owning a van for the one 300 mile trip a year you go to Newquay with your surfboard,when you only normally do 10 miles a day in a town with small streets and limited parking.
A 100 mile small range and cheap city car would do,but the edge case of that single trip would make what would be the most practical solution for you unviable.
Define banger? Intuitively I find it hard to believe that manufacturing an entirely new vehicle is more environmentally friendly than keeping say a 10 year old ICE vehicle on the road. But have to admit I haven’t seen any figures to back that up.
This is basically a false question. The 10 year old ICE car will not be scrapped just because it's being replaced with an EV. If it is being scrapped it would have been scrapped whether being replaced with an ICE or EV. But in all likelihood it will be sold on and kept running.
So the real difference is in the CO2 in manufacturing ( and whole life CO2 cost) a new ICE v EV.
We are doing this now, replacing 11 year old Seat Leon against new EV. The Leon is low mileage 1.4TSI so will go to happy new owner and live out its natural life and many more miles. If EVs weren't a thing we'd be getting a new car anyway