What's the problem with electric cars?

[Kev0607]

Originally Posted by FreshAir

The problem with electric cars are various IMO:

1. The battery technology is evolving. Today's technology will be the VHS compared to 4K movie streaming in a few years. The new technology will bring greater capacity for a given size which will either give greater range or lower cost. That will kill 2nd hand values for the current versions.

2. Ticking time bomb that is the battery. They are made up of c 10,000 cells. Only 1 has to go bad. Repair is expensive, and once faulty 1 is repaired how long before next fails. This makes 2nd hand cars a lottery. Has the battery been regularly charged to 100% or high current charged? At least with traditional engine they are known quantity and rarely fail in expensive way, and can be replaced with second hand one at local garage.

3. Charging access. Not everyone has driveway with access to charge off street. What if family has 3 or 4 cars, and all need to charge overnight. We are not going to have multiple chargers at home (7kW x 4....)

4. Time to charge when travelling. Not everyone wants a big break, or to stop and find they need to queue then charge. Also need to go when charge is finished to avoid the roth of those queuing.

I expect I'll be sticking with engines for may years to come.

All very valid points.

This is why I think hybrid's were a good idea. The battery being able to charge whilst driving solved so many of the range problems that full EV's have, in my opinion. You don't need to stop to find a charger in a hybrid, you don't need a charger at your house for example. If there isn't enough battery power, the engine kicks in.

The day of no petrol and diesel is a long way off yet. Maybe a focus on hybrid's would be good, which would allow time for companies to develop better range for battery cars and try to solve the other problems that come with moving to EV's. Petrol hybrid's are ULEZ compliant. So are diesel ones.

It seems to me like manufacturers are flocking to full EV cars, but no one is actually looking at the bigger picture and seeing that hybrid's solve many issues that EV's have.

Yes there will come a day where there will be no petrol or diesel, then hybrids will be no good. That's a long way off yet... full "net zero" is 2050 (supposedly). Let's not forget that the Government even scrapped the 2030 target for the sale of new ICE vehicles (its now 2035). From reading, the Government haven't decided if the new 2035 deadline includes hybrid vehicles. They don't know themselves! You'll still be able to buy a used ICE vehicle after 2035. Therefore, I don't know why we aren't focusing on hybrid in the mean time.

We're rushing to go full EV... this country would be lucky to have the infrastructure by 2050 for that taking into account the money it would require, let alone the man power.

[The Thong]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

All very valid points.

This is why I think hybrid's were a good idea. The battery being able to charge whilst driving solved so many of the range problems that full EV's have, in my opinion. You don't need to stop to find a charger in a hybrid, you don't need a charger at your house for example. If there isn't enough battery power, the engine kicks in.

The day of no petrol and diesel is a long way off yet. Maybe a focus on hybrid's would be good, which would allow time for companies to develop better range for battery cars and try to solve the other problems that come with moving to EV's. Petrol hybrid's are ULEZ compliant. So are diesel ones.

It seems to me like manufacturers are flocking to full EV cars, but no one is actually looking at the bigger picture and seeing that hybrid's solve many issues that EV's have.

Yes there will come a day where there will be no petrol or diesel, then hybrids will be no good. That's a long way off yet... full "net zero" is 2050 (supposedly). Let's not forget that the Government even scrapped the 2030 target for the sale of new ICE vehicles (its now 2035). From reading, the Government haven't decided if the new 2035 deadline includes hybrid vehicles. They don't know themselves! You'll still be able to buy a used ICE vehicle after 2035. Therefore, I don't know why we aren't focusing on hybrid in the mean time.

We're rushing to go full EV... this country would be lucky to have the infrastructure by 2050 for that taking into account the money it would require, let alone the man power.

Completely agree,
I think we all know the 2030 deadline was a vote generator in a promise that was never going to be kept. Anyone with any sense could see that was never going to be achieved. Nothing less that I expect from our great and mighty leaders

TT

[volvosam]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

All very valid points.

This is why I think hybrid's were a good idea. The battery being able to charge whilst driving solved so many of the range problems that full EV's have, in my opinion. You don't need to stop to find a charger in a hybrid, you don't need a charger at your house for example. If there isn't enough battery power, the engine kicks in.

The day of no petrol and diesel is a long way off yet. Maybe a focus on hybrid's would be good, which would allow time for companies to develop better range for battery cars and try to solve the other problems that come with moving to EV's. Petrol hybrid's are ULEZ compliant. So are diesel ones.

It seems to me like manufacturers are flocking to full EV cars, but no one is actually looking at the bigger picture and seeing that hybrid's solve many issues that EV's have.

Yes there will come a day where there will be no petrol or diesel, then hybrids will be no good. That's a long way off yet... full "net zero" is 2050 (supposedly). Let's not forget that the Government even scrapped the 2030 target for the sale of new ICE vehicles (its now 2035). From reading, the Government haven't decided if the new 2035 deadline includes hybrid vehicles. They don't know themselves! You'll still be able to buy a used ICE vehicle after 2035. Therefore, I don't know why we aren't focusing on hybrid in the mean time.

We're rushing to go full EV... this country would be lucky to have the infrastructure by 2050 for that taking into account the money it would require, let alone the man power.

To give an alternative view......in my opinion hybrids are a terrible idea. Over complicated and carrying unnecessary weight around all of the time. The only reason that manufacturers poured so much money and advertising into them is because they look good on an emissions test bed and therefore save the manufacturers from paying fines.
When you think about it the battery is being charged from the petrol/diesel so there MUST be an efficiency loss there no matter how small and then the petrol or diesel mpg must be worse than it would be without lugging the weight of the battery around.
Lexus / Toyota could be forgiven possibly - at least they have made hybrids which don't go wrong. From what I can see the others do go wrong and a lot of the time the main dealer does not know how to fix them, the standard response seems to be "you need a new battery sir, that will be £xx k." Gulp, the car is scrap at five years old. Except it probably does not need a new battery.
There are going to be a lot of hybrid cars in the graveyard in the next ten years and then people will realise what an utterly stupid idea they were.
Full petrol / diesel cars have a use case and full BEV have a use case for the end user. Hybrids are a solution for the manufacturers to appease the politicians global emissions targets.
Just mho.

[Cull06]

Agree with the above re hybrids. Over-complicated, and clearly extortionate costs if anything goes wrong. Also agree with the above that Toyota nonetheless seem to have nailed it though. Volvo certainly haven’t based on what I’ve seen re ERAD.

Hybrids are great if you need the extra range over a full electric but have it on a company lease re lower BIK. That’s about it. I wouldn’t buy one again though, other than Toyota!

I’ve just come back from my golf pro who has taken on a full electric through his company. He loves the car. Saving a fortune with the lower BIK and on commuting fuel costs.

Full electric makes sense in a lot of situations. Depends what you want and what suits your personal circumstances.

[Tannaton]

In principle, Hybrids are the best balance of all options.

ICE engines, especially petrol, are at their most inefficient when running at low throttle. This is why powerful cars driven at low speed are way more thirsty than the same car being driven in the same way with a smaller engine.

So instead of having a ICE car with an engine that may be only used at 50% power or more say 5% of the time, supplement it with an electric motor that can make up the gap when strong acceleration is required, but give it only a small battery so there isn't the significant weight penalty that you have with a full EV, and you have the significantly better range and rapid refueling that you get with an ICE car.

Technically the best solution for a number of reasons, though as has been said, more complex and costly.

[Moose Test]

Personally, I liked BMW's approach with their range extender option on the i3.

All of the advantages of a purely electrical drive train, with added range via a small ICE in the rear replenishing the main battery charge only if required. A fully electric vehicle if used on shorter runs, with minimal added weight and complexity for greater distances when required.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Moose Test

Personally, I liked BMW's approach with their range extender option on the i3.

All of the advantages of a purely electrical drive train, with added range via a small ICE in the rear replenishing the main battery charge only if required. A fully electric vehicle if used on shorter runs, with minimal added weight and complexity for greater distances when required.

......and when the ICE engine is in operation, it is at optimum RPM and power for greatest efficiency, and it's under a constant load charging the batteries.

With careful use say as a taxi in London, you could operate the engine in the suburbs and use only electric power in the centre...

[volvosam]

Originally Posted by Moose Test

Personally, I liked BMW's approach with their range extender option on the i3.

All of the advantages of a purely electrical drive train, with added range via a small ICE in the rear replenishing the main battery charge only if required. A fully electric vehicle if used on shorter runs, with minimal added weight and complexity for greater distances when required.

I came close to buying one of these a few years ago. That was a bullet dodged. On paper yes all looks good. Back in the real world......there are reasons it was discontinued.
The fuel tank only held a few litres - rules to keep it a BEV. And because the tiny petrol engine might only be started once every few months...guess what...it wouldn't start when you needed it. Add to that the puny range on petrol (and EV) and the dangerously low top speed on petrol and you have a truly awful car. The icing on the cake was the designer who thought it would be a genius idea to spec the car with a unique tyre size. And no spare. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that makes it quite awkward (and very expensive) to buy new tyres and even worse if you are stranded with a flat.

[volvosam]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

......and when the ICE engine is in operation, it is at optimum RPM and power for greatest efficiency, and it's under a constant load charging the batteries.

With careful use say as a taxi in London, you could operate the engine in the suburbs and use only electric power in the centre...

It was designed to get you home st 40mph if you ran out of battery not to charge them. That must be fun on a dark wet motorway.

[Moose Test]

Originally Posted by volvosam

It was designed to get you home at 40mph if you ran out of battery not to charge them. That must be fun on a dark wet motorway.

I have never owned one and so don't speak from experience but my understanding is that, if you knew you were making a longer trip than the battery alone would handle, then you fired-up the range extender towards the beginning of said trip, rather than at the end when the battery was flat or heavily depleted, so you weren't on "direct drive". Obviously beyond a certain point, that's where you'll inevitably end up of course and to be honest, never having driven one I don't know what that speed/distance curve looks like.

It still strikes me as not a bad concept in principle, even if one company's implementation was poor/had scope for improvement.