rustbucket
Registered User
- Messages
- 757
It’s more likely because of the recent hysteria around trade in values for electric vehicles. Nothing to do with being an inferior product at all.
Newer technology is always more expensive.
The collapse in EV sales is telling us that people don’t want them unless they’re subsidised.
Why is that? Might it be because they’re an inferior and less convenient product?
There was no collapse in sales during the automobile boom of the 1920s even though the new automobiles were undercutting the older more expensive models. People were not going back to the horse or steam engine because automobiles were too expensive or because many people thought steam or the horse was superior. It was blindingly obvious that the automobile was the future no matter how expensive they were, everyone had to have oneIt’s more likely because of the recent hysteria around trade in values for electric vehicles. Nothing to do with being an inferior product at all.
Newer technology is always more expensive.
collapse is a little hyperbolic gordon.The collapse in EV sales is telling us that people don’t want them unless they’re subsidised.
Why is that? Might it be because they’re an inferior and less convenient product?
Yes, that is false as it is not universally true. A large proportion of drivers on Irish roads could switch to an EV and rely fully on at-home charging. I drive about the national average mileage, there isn't a journey that I drive in the last few years that could not have been completed in an EV. There are many people who drive considerably less than me. My elderly mother for example, only ever drives to the shops once or twice a week. It would be far more convenient for her if she could plug in at home occasionally rather than messing with petrol pumps that she finds difficult due to arthritis.Fallacies like EVs being less convenient and requiring a lot more planning?
One of them being the simpler maintenance.and whichnis throwing up all sorts of commercial issues with garages now.
There is a reason VHS won out, its due to LA's well known "other" film industryThis debate reminds me a bit of the video format wars of the 1980s. Some of you will recall there were two (three actually) competing formats: VHS, Betamax and the lesser known Philips 2000 (or something like that.) The first two were on an equal footing for a while - I remember video stores stocking movies in both formats in equal ratios. Then, for some unknown reason VHS powered ahead, despite the Sony Betamax format being objectively superior in several respects. In the end it didn't matter - VHS became the only format in town until DVD arrived on the scene.
When it comes to EVs it doesn't really matter whether they're better, more efficient or cheaper to run. There've been so many negative articles and reports in recent months about declining sales, rapid depreciation and underperforming range promises that the game is up. Most buyers are running away from them (41% drop during March alone, according the Society of the Irish Motor Industry.) They're damaged goods and there's no coming back from those catastrophic sales figures. Production will likely wind down until/unless there's a vast improvement in the technology - or a superior technology emerges.
(Anyone want to buy a Sony SACD player?!)
To be fair, that is in all our interests as not alone will more EVs significantly reduce the level of pollution in the air, it will help towards avoiding huge fines.I do have issue with subsidies from tax payers money to suit agenda of a specific group in the name of environment.
collapse is a little hyperbolic gordon.
surely its better that the subsidies are directed at cars that emit zero in their local environment than ones that emit harmful cancerous emissions?I don't care if people buy EV out of thier personal choices. I do have issue with subsidies from tax payers money to suit agenda of a specific group in the name of environment. In the end its all marketing led by technology billionaires that provides guilt escape of polluting environment. Pollution is caused by increased human activity and consumption. People are replacing cars sooner and buying bigger cars which they don't need - this will increase net pollution.
I wish governments spend tax money on public transport infrastructure that will make real difference in pollution and carbon footprint.
collapse is a little hyperbolic gordon.
European car sales are +10.2% YoY
BEV +10.3%
Petrol +6%
Diesel -5.1%
Ireland does buck the trend, however, Ireland has a negligible impact on trends in car industry.
Next time you're in any of the motorrway services, count the number of EVs Vs ICE - Way more ICE cars in there and all buying coffees and meals. If it was just EV drivers doing so, we wouldn't have any services!Those who have been defending EVs, with related discussion on range anxiety, and stopping to charge their EVs, are not only playing down the time lost, each time they need to pull in to get some power, but they are also conveniently disregarding the cost of all of the coffees and sandwiches that the are buying, while having to kill time, waiting for their EV to charge ! I'd be fairly certain that most of that expenditure wouldn't be incurred by ICE drivers, who don't need to kill time refueling.
Can you provide a source that? Given you seem to think it's a universal truth that should be easy.The collapse in EV sales is telling us that people don’t want them unless they’re subsidised.
Both measured in horse power….14%, 18%, and 41% declines over different time periods in a market that’s growing is a collapse.
And comparisons between horses and ICE vehicles are silly. An automobile could do more than a horse!
If we went back in time I imagine you'd be one of those claiming horses were better and that cars would never catch on. Remember, early cars were slower than horses, they couldn't handle mud, steep hills, or rough ground, and they needed more infrastructure like roads, garages, petrol stations that weren't widespread in the early years.And comparisons between horses and ICE vehicles are silly. An automobile could do more than a horse!
Clearly you don't remember how bad the original iPhones were. My Nokia Simbian smartphone was far superior. Look at them now....How on earth is EV vs ICE vehicle in any way similar to iPhone vs Blackberry.
If anything, the ICE vehicle is closer to the iPhone in that analogy, given how limited EVs are.
I’d venture that a lot of the defensiveness around EVs stems from buyer’s regret and the realisation that they’ve bought the BetaMax or MiniDisc of our time. Exhibit A, collapsing sales and collapsing values.
People were probably worried about where to buy petroleum distillate, and that it was harder to find than horse feed.There was no collapse in sales during the automobile boom of the 1920s even though the new automobiles were undercutting the older more expensive models. People were not going back to the horse or steam engine because automobiles were too expensive or because many people thought steam or the horse was superior. It was blindingly obvious that the automobile was the future no matter how expensive they were, everyone had to have one
New technology is risky and expensive. From space flight to nuclear power and other green technologies the first movers are almost always governments. Once the level of risk and potential reward is more refined private enterprise enters the the market, a market that's usually subsidised through tax breaks or direct supports. Once the market is self sustaining the State can leave it to function like every other established market.
At the moment we are still at the early stages of the evolution of EV cars and the associated infrastructure. I can see the merits of arguing that it is too early to enter the market because the support infrastructure is not sufficiently developed or because battery technology is evolving at such a rate that existing cars will lose their value too quickly and/or because the next generation of cars will be significantly better.
I see no merit in the argument that EV cars are a stupid idea per se.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?