Fenman

Even with BEVs in their current state of development, that must be a minority. We know most people do 20-ish miles a day at most. We know the majority of people have off-road space (so can have a home charger). We know most people might do a longer trip a couple of times a year (for which there’s a growing public charger network). We know there are roadside chargers beginning to be introduced for those without off-road charging. And we know there are BEVs just coming to market with around 500 miles of range or more. Anecdotally there are a couple of people on here who insist they must drive 500 miles a day, every day. I can’t imagine how tiny a fraction of the population that must be. I’m struggling to see how a BEV would be a problem for most people. Some of these anti-EV arguments remind me of my dear aunt, who insisted she would never wear a seatbelt because she’d invented an implausible fantasy scenario where wearing one was more dangerous than not (I don’t remember the details but it involved drowning while unconscious). But she was just terrified of change. Are there many people who would now argue seatbelts should not be compulsory? Paul

The problem is that most people assume Heathrow is monolithic, and that you just need a single station — and while you do write about all terminals you then cite a station at T5. But only ~1/3rd of Heathrow passengers are going to T5: the rest would need to change to a shuttle of some sort to reach their terminal. If the majority of airport passengers are anyway going to need to change to a shuttle, it makes no sense to add extra journey time and inconvenience to all the non-airport passengers (ie, the majority of any train) by making them divert via Heathrow. Instead you just have an all-terminals shuttle from Old Oak Common. Your proposed Heathrow loop was what was investigated in great detail, at the request of Lord Adonis, by the former Tory minister Brian Mawhinney. I’m no fan of his, but his report was a pretty comprehensive dismissal of the idea: the costs (including the ongoing ones) would vastly outweigh any benefits. The current proposal for a western approach off the GWML also seems sensible to me. Paul

I don’t think I can make a judgement from a couple of photos and without any dimensions. We all know camera angles can be tricky. Why is that so hard to understand? Equally he may be right. Hence me not wanting to comment. Or would you rather I spouted out a synthetic / outraged opinion based on no knowledge?! Paul

Yes, you made two points. One I can’t comment on — I don’t know if the new design fits all EVs or not, though I’d be surprised if it didn’t. It’s your 2nd point that I found baffling — it seemed to be a battle cry against standards. But if you’re not pursuing that point then I certainly don’t want to take any more of your time. Paul

I still don’t understand. It’s as if the government announced there would be thousands of new petrol mini-pumps placed on streets. Then the drivers of diesel cars start moaning that it’s no good for them. The diesel car drivers are actually no worse off — they’ve lost nothing — yet apparently they *must* share in any new benefit. Why? People who bought Type 1 cars are no worse off than they thought they’d be. Conversely, why should we encourage the proliferation of a non-standard charger type — adding expense for everyone? The great Margaret Atwood famously wrote that “‘better’ is always worse for someone”. This is one of those rare cases where that’s not true. Paul

I don’t think it’s quite that bad. AIUI this is a design intended mainly for people without their own home charger. I’d be amazed if there were many/ any owners of cars with Type 1 ports who don’t already have their own charger — this design is therefore irrelevant for them (though it might reduce the number of people willing to buy their car 2nd hand). Standards for new technology are always tricky. Many of us will be old enough to remember how the technically inferior VHS system crushed Betamax. A large group of early adopters who chose the wrong standard were left with — what? A “better” system, albeit one with no longer-term future. In my old profession being at the “cutting edge” was always defined as being at the “bleeding edge”: it’s a risky place to be and you shouldn’t be there unless you can afford all the potential costs. But in this case I don’t think it’s particularly terrible. The EU has come to the rescue of consumers by insisting on a single standard for car chargers (just as they’re about to do for mobile phone chargers). Some early adopters will find the technology they’ve chosen has no longer-term future: but it’s so that everyone (in the longer term) can reap the benefits of standardisation. I bought an EV well aware of the risks I faced, and in the knowledge that I might lose a chunk of money. I won’t be thrilled if I do, but it seemed to me to be something that, on balance, was worth it. So far I’ve been very pleased with how it’s gone. But I went into it not expecting perfection. And recognising that the whole market and infrastructure is in its infancy. There is no certainty there: each of us must make decisions for ourselves, based on our individual use cases. In that context, the new design of charger gives us all another option — which I’m glad about, rather than complaining that it doesn’t help a small percentage of very early adopters. Paul

Because he’s demonstrating a lack of understanding of what he’s criticising. To cite extra wear on brakes is simply wrong: most EVs mostly use regenerative braking. Therefore there is less wear on brakes. in fact, one of the potential problems with EVs is that the brakes can rust due to lack of use. Some clever EVs now have systems which deliberately use them occasionally instead of the regenerative braking, so they don’t rust. Bamford has certainly built a great business. But that doesn’t mean he’s infallible. As, for example, Dyson found when he tried to launch an EV. Paul

I think there are too many variables simply to extrapolate the future in a straight line from today: EVs are still in their (relative) infancy, and battery technology is changing very rapidly — see here, for instance, where Hyundai is projecting Lithium-metal batteries which would increase the range of their new Ioniq 5 from 300 miles to 500 miles. Other manufacturers are pursuing other avenues. Who knows what type of batteries will be the EV standard in 5 years, let alone 10? But if we don’t know that, it’s hard to work out the recycling requirements or the environmental consequences. What we do know includes: — car batteries can have a second life, as home storage batteries (this seems more plausible as the government decides our home heating must move from gas to electricity: combine that with PVs and the demand for home storage should massively increase just at the time loads of 2nd hand EV batteries are coming into the market); — the materials used in batteries are valuable in themselves and are therefore economically worth recycling. But I agree with you that this is all extremely complicated stuff. Paul

I thought Polestar was now a standalone brand, not a Volvo sideshow? Paul

Two contrasting examples: the Ioniq 5 launched with every reviewer only being given the top-of-the-range “Project 45” edition to try (or a European top spec version with features like a panoramic sunroof, which is not actually available on any U.K. version of the car). BUT the manufacturer also simultaneously issued details of the whole range, including the price of the cheapest poverty spec car. We knew the range we were getting. There was a car in that range that seemed affordable to me and I went ahead and ordered one. Polestar at its most recent launch only had a single top-spec car, at the highest price, and had no details or prices for any cheaper models (though they said they’d follow at some future point). Just like Volvo has only given information about the top version of the new C40 — no price range. As you wrote, this embeds the perception of what the brand is all about. Which, to me, means cars that are ridiculously expensive and I won’t even bother thinking about them (though it later turns out they do have models in my price range). Unless they’re only aiming to sell to enthusiasts who spend their lives checking out every minor subsequent announcement, I’m struggling to see the up-side of this strategy. But as always I freely accept I’m an old fart who doesn’t understand a lot of modern concepts. Paul

I suspect neither of you have understood the point I was trying (and clearly failing — apologies) to make. I *know* there are now cheaper variants of those models. But by launching to great fanfare only a top-of-the-range model, with a suitably high price, it sets my perceptions of the whole range. So Polestar to me is indelibly associated with starting prices over £100k, and Volvo now seems to be pursuing the same path. In truth, I suspect Volvo is not much interested in private cash buyers: we now make up only ~10% of the market and there are probably greater rewards for them in going for company cars or cars which use financial instruments of one sort or another. I’m not sure how novel that last part is: decades ago, after the initial rise of leasing, I remember Ford being described as primarily a financial services company with a bit of manufacturing on the side. Paul

The market does seem to be changing, with tax-related issues driving business users in one direction while private buyers look on mystified at apparently crazily-high costs. It also seems to me there’s a change in the way some new cars are launched: Polestar and Volvo seem to offer a highly-priced, top-of-the-range model first, hinting vaguely at cheaper and simpler models later. This approach doesn’t work for me; I now just assume Polestar is way out of my price league, producing cars that cost >£100k+. I also hadn’t realised over 90% of private buyers now get PCP deals, where the headline retail price doesn’t matter as much as the difference between price at the start and end of the contract. None of this helps people in the second-hand market. Paul

This “one measure is more important than any other” makes no sense to me: surely what is most important to you depends on your individual circumstances? In my case, over the last five years I have never driven more than 200 miles in one day. Never. So, now that many EVs have ranges of 250 or 300 miles (and some now nearly 500!), range is as irrelevant to me as the capacity of the fuel tank on an ordinary ICE car. Trying to reduce everything to a single measure is like playing Top Trumps; a pathway to bragging rights when we were wee kids, but the real world is just more complicated than that. Even though multinational oil companies will try to persuade us that EVs are primitive and impractical and soulless (really?!), while they desperately try to cling on to market share. Though, in fairness, Tesla seems to be playing the same Top Trumps game with its ridiculous straight-line acceleration rates: while motoring journalists now decry anything that takes 7 or 8 seconds to do 0-60 as being “slow”, when I was a kid anything that took less than 10 seconds was considered almost a racing car. Paul

This is nice: the overall “Car of the Year” in the new Parker’s Guide new car awards is the Skoda Enyaq. That’s not just “Electric Car of the Year”, but “Car of the Year”. Runners-up in the EV category were the new Hyundai Ioniq 5 and the Tesla Model 3. Paul

Apologies for misunderstanding you. This morning I read a What Car? review in which the one year-old ID.4 (a car I liked when I drove it) was described as now being an “also ran”, so far had it been overtaken by newer rivals in its class. While last week a new Audi EV not on a purpose-designed platform was described in Car as being completely out-classed by rivals. Those reviews have clearly stuck in my mind. Paul

Buying an EQC in 3-4 years time is a bold prediction. It seems to me the pace of innovation in EVs is already such that what is on sale today is unlikely to be your best choice at that time. The EQC, for example, does not use a purpose-designed EV platform so it is spatially compromised by the need to fit on an ICE platform. Perhaps even more significantly, we’re now seeing the arrival of “mid”-range EVs with 800v architecture — Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 — whose charging rates beat even the previous market-leaders like Tesla, while leaving most other EVs standing. As it happens, I don’t think charging away from home is the big deal that many others claim — most of us rarely drive in any one day further than the range of most new EVs (especially since 250-300 miles is the new “normal” range). But while range anxiety is a big deal in the minds of most of the marketplace, slower-charging EVs are at a significant disadvantage. With the new E and S class EVs Mercedes has now shown what it can do with purpose-designed EV platforms: I’d expect the next generation EQC to be a step-change over the current model (just as Hyundai’s 2nd generation Ioniq 5 is a step-change over their Kona). Fascinating times ahead. Paul

The first “problem” doesn’t seem to exist (battery management systems are vastly better than even ten years ago), while you don’t make clear what to you is the minimum acceptable range? Paul

And none of that could ever be said about the driver of any ICE car, ever, eh? My point is not that some of the drivers of every single model of car (irrespective of its motive power) are complete ****s (insert your own favourite expletive), but that categorising everyone who has chosen an EV as “poncing around” isn’t going to persuade anyone of the rightness of your cause, while also serving to raise hackles. Or is that what you’re trying to do? Paul

I was recently reading a review of the Lada Niva. I always loved the simple, Tonka-toy looks (that 2 door looks absolutely great, by the way). But they also remind me of the advances I would miss: automatic transmission, air conditioning for those crazy hot days, vastly better fuel economy. A bit more comfort. Paul

I think you ought to work out what your complaint is: so far you’ve slagged off EVs because they have worse depreciation than ICE; then, when a source suggests they depreciate slower than ICE, you complain they’ll be too expensive to buy 2nd-hand. Honestly, it’s beginning to sound as if you’re just looking for any stick to beat a dog with! It’s a good question: “what happens when fossil fuels run out?”. Whatever the answer, I suspect “just keep burning them until they run out” probably isn’t the most sensible approach. Let’s try alternatives: of course none of them is likely to solve all the problem in one go. But should we just throw our hands up in despair and keep on burning those fossil fuels? ”poncing around”? Please try to keep it classy. Paul

I agree with you. Living in remote countryside my particular hate is lane keeping assist which on narrow lanes constantly tries to steer me into ditches. To be fair, it’s a problem in every single new ICE car, not just confined to EVs. Paul

I'm curious where you have seen this because everything I've seen says the opposite -- eg, taken from Carwow, a a site that is not evangelical for EVs: There are so many myths about EVs, many of them funded by Big Oil, that I appreciate it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. And from what you've posted elsewhere I think your career was based in an industry committed to burning as much irreplaceable fossil fuel as was profitable, so I also accept you are naturally inclined against EVs. But it is worth seeking out alternative viewpoints -- especially because, as Ron Ron Ron points out, sooner or later we're all going to have to come to terms with them. Paul

10-80% recharge in 18 minutes in an Ioniq 5. Admittedly it has 800v architecture unlike most EVs, but it will be the first of many sharing this ability to get mega-fast charging. The case you cite — of cars at motorway services just blocking chargers — seems to me to be very unlikely: who spends hours whiling away their day at motorway services? To me, your comparison of ranges is absurd: what percentage of the population drives 1,000 miles without a break? I’m an old man now and I’d stop, at most, every couple of hours. Even at v-max, 70mph x 2 =140 miles. You may have seen adverts boasting of only 260 miles, but ranges continue to grow: 300 miles is now the new normal for the big battery versions of the mid-rank cars (Mustang, ID3 and 4, Ioniq 5, EV6); 400+ miles is now appearing (big battery versions of Tesla, Mercedes, Polestar) and more will follow: next generation Tesla and Mercedes (and others) are citing 500+ mile ranges. I think those are unnecessary for most use cases, and actually worse for many (no-one should be dragging around too many heavy batteries if they don’t need to). But there’s so much range anxiety that maybe people do need them to overcome their terrors of being stranded? Paul

In the local Hyundai dealer here a couple of weeks ago: it took a few days before I could get a slot for a test drive in the Ioniq 5. I loved it and placed an order. The salesman commented that was the fifth one he’d sold in the last week. This is not in the posh south. The Mustang has had pretty decent reviews but it’s trading on the heritage of the boy-racer “muscle car” brand. The Ioniq 5 is aimed at those of us who lived through the 80s and have both the nostalgia and enough disposable income, as well as liking higher driving positions and probably having a dog or two. As an old fart myself, the Mustang made me wince whereas the Ioniq 5 made me smile. YMMV, and almost certainly will. Paul

The Mk2b was the mainstay in the last years of LHCS on the pre-electrified West Anglia line, Liverpool Street—Cambridge—King’s Lynn, first in B/G InterCity, then in NSE, and as often as not hauled by Cl.37s. Damnit. I sold most of my 00 stock a couple of years ago and went large instead, but now I’m thinking maybe there’s some room for a little 00… Paul