Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

[nilagin]

Okay, I accept what you're saying even though we have a different view of it. But there you go again, linking disruption with profit. Profit has absolutely nothing to do with it

So explain to me how they are a disruptor. Because from what I can see they haven't caused the slightest disruption other than for people with plenty of money to burn.

 

[MatBin]

Okay, I accept what you're saying even though we have a different view of it. But there you go again, linking disruption with profit. Profit has absolutely nothing to do with it

Surely it does though, you can't disrupt an industry unless you prove you can make something in either a different way or a product which does the same function but in a different way AND stay in business. If you go bust you aren't disrupting, in my view.

 

[nilagin]

A review of the "updated" Model S.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1158264/Tesla-Model-S-Long-Range-2019-review-range-uk/amp
It includes comments on Autopilot, such as if the road markings change or cease, the car struggles to know where it is, the steering may drop out on incredibly tight bends and also a badly written comment making it unclear what they mean other than the car prematurely accelerating.
If a car I was driving did any of those just once, I would have zero confidence in the system. I still fail to see how the system could make for a more relaxed drive. I would be more inclined to think there was something wrong with how someone drives in the first place and not the car they are driving.

 

[the black fox]

Well back into the fray ,I have just got rid of my gas guzzling 4x4 Kia Sportage as filling it up was killing my pockets each month , but have changed it for a 2011 mondeo 2.0tdci which allegedly will do around 63mpg on a run .nice big roomy car ,one owner and low mileage .much improved over my previous mondeos .

 

[dod]

So explain to me how they are a disruptor. Because from what I can see they haven't caused the slightest disruption other than for people with plenty of money to burn.

Surely it does though, you can't disrupt an industry unless you prove you can make something in either a different way or a product which does the same function but in a different way AND stay in business. If you go bust you aren't disrupting, in my view.

Profitability is irrelevant. Look at Apple, Uber, Amazon. All disruptors and took years to become profitable, Uber still isn't

From the industry

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mod...cnet-roadshow-shift-awards-detroit-auto-show/

https://insideevs.com/news/335599/tesla-is-so-much-more-than-an-automotive-disruptor

From finance

https://markets.businessinsider.com...l-case-other-investors-flee-2019-5-1028242994

Thing is there are mixed opinions, some academics would say tesla isn't a disruptor. Personally I think they have been, they've changed public opinion and coerced traditional manufacturers into taking the market seriously. That doesn't make me right by the way, it's just an opinion.

My reference to Tesla doing stuff that has been done before was in reference to all the "tech" and features they have on the cars. A Tesla Model S falls square in the ugly to non descript category of cars. There is nothing desirable in its appearance. It is a non descript vehicle you would see in the street and not even give a second glance, other than taking up more room than an average car on the road or a parking space, it wouldn't even warrant a second look let alone look at it with any sort of admiration..

Totally subjective. I thought the one I drove wasn't bad looking, maybe not the most attractive car on the market but then neither is my Golf R estate

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Disruption has very little to do with profit. Look at Uber, Amazon, Twitter/Facebook. AI will be the next area, we don't even know yet how that will change things.

Especially as tesla released all their patents for other manufacturers to use. Judging them on profit misses a lot of the point of their existence.

 

[nilagin]

Profitability is irrelevant. Look at Apple, Uber, Amazon. All disruptors and took years to become profitable, Uber still isn't

From the industry

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-mod...cnet-roadshow-shift-awards-detroit-auto-show/

https://insideevs.com/news/335599/tesla-is-so-much-more-than-an-automotive-disruptor

From finance

https://markets.businessinsider.com...l-case-other-investors-flee-2019-5-1028242994

Thing is there are mixed opinions, some academics would say tesla isn't a disruptor. Personally I think they have been, they've changed public opinion and coerced traditional manufacturers into taking the market seriously. That doesn't make me right by the way, it's just an opinion.




Totally subjective. I thought the one I drove wasn't bad looking, maybe not the most attractive car on the market but then neither is my Golf R estate

View attachment 251136View attachment 251137

None of your links say why Tesla is a disruptor. They mention they are, not why and the rest is just waffle. The second link states even mentions Tesla's mission statement, their altered mission statement about sustainable energy, no mention of their original mission statement which was to build an EV for the masses. The Model 3 hasn't done that. It may well have done if it was priced at £27k, which is the UK equivalent of the USA price and also happens to be the average price of a new car in the UK.
From all that Tesla maybe a disruptor or game changer in sustainable energy, but unless they can provide an affordable car and that includes making a profit, then and only then can any claims of being a disruptor in the automotive industry start to be taken seriously.
As I said countless times before Tesla's existence, nor their cars has anything to do with other manufacturers having to take EV seriously, that is only down to the need to lower CO2 emissions and the future banning of the production of vehicles powered by fossil fuels alone.

 

[nilagin]

Especially as tesla released all their patents for other manufacturers to use. Judging them on profit misses a lot of the point of their existence.

So what is the purpose of their existence? They have still failed to provide an affordable EV for the masses which was their original mission. They have now changed that to providing sustainable energy. Last year Tesla made their 2nd only quarterly profit. This year Tesla have been chopping and changing pricing and specification on their vehicles as well as their dealerships in desperation at trying to make a profit. Musk was so sure that Tesla would be posting news of a quarterly profit last week, but they posted a $4m+ loss so they are obviously concerned about profit for their own existence.

 

[wyx087]

Depreciation - you have constantly stated that EV depreciation is less in % terms, and therefore create a cheaper running cost situation, now you are agreeing that they will be the same, make your mind up.
Tax - Disagree, you can get a decent spec BMW 3 series 2.0 Diesel at 30/yr road tax, a comparable car surely is a Tesla 3 and that's in the "luxury" bracket, so a lot more tax per year (3890/yr)
Reliability - you agree, progress
Suitable car - You can buy something that is generally suitable in ICE version and can be pressed int doing a reasonable job on odd occasions, mainly because there is so much choice, not the same with an EV. If you buy something as your primary car to do a 30 mile commute (each way) it will just about suffice in winter, ask it to do a trip to Cornwall or Scotland and the logistics become awkward, yeah it might do it but you'd be anxious. And yes I'd buy a TVR for a once a year trip to Spain and suffer it for the rest of the year, would I buy an EV for my commute and then accept and suffer range anxiety on a long trip, no, not a chance in Hell as things currently stand.

Depreciation - the figures suggest 50%, which is on par to ICE, in the Leaf's case. But we all know there's large demand but shortage of supplies on EV, unlike few years old used Euro 5 diesels, so lower EV depreciation will continue for foreseeable future.

Tax - You have picked one specific case. Just like above, you are happy to look at one single case to prove your point, ignoring the rest.
Out of EV 16 listed here, only 6 are above luxury tax band because they are luxury brands: 3 Tesla, 3 other luxury branded, highly spec'd cars: https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/electric/best-electric-cars-and-evs/
- Try and spec up F-Pace to similar as I-Pace and see whether it's over luxury tax band.
- Try and spec up Mercedes GLC to similar as EQC and see whether it's over luxury tax band.
- Audi Q5 are already over luxury tax band.

Reliability - I agree with you on the flawed methodology, the data from AA callout is not representative. They need to compare similar aged cars to produce a comparable figure. However, I doubt you'd agree with me saying due to less components that could go wrong, EV will generally suffer less breakdown.

Suitable car - Yes, EV suffers from a lack of choice and bad public charging infrastructure. But it's nothing to do with the flaw in the energy storage, powertrain or its technology. It has everything to do with the lack of commitment earlier this decade from ICE manufacturers.

That brings us neatly onto this discussion:

My reference to Tesla doing stuff that has been done before was in reference to all the "tech" and features they have on the cars. A Tesla Model S falls square in the ugly to non descript category of cars. There is nothing desirable in its appearance. It is a non descript vehicle you would see in the street and not even give a second glance, other than taking up more room than an average car on the road or a parking space, it wouldn't even warrant a second look let alone look at it with any sort of admiration.
To provide equal performance to my car, I would have needed to have spent a lot more money on an EV. I am not interested in economy, if I was I wouldn't have bought a performance car. I really couldn't have cared less if it only returned 15-20mpg.
I can't see how an EV could be any more of a relaxed drive than an ICE. Even my wife's Ka which produces just 82PS is a relaxed drive, even at 70mph on a motorway or dual carriageway and it doesn't even have cruise control.

With your refusal to name desirable EV. So, I take it you agree there had been absolutely zero effort by traditional ICE manufacturers to produce quick accelerating, good looking (for most people) and highly desirable EV's. Must be because selling those polluting ICE car is more profitable, resist changes and lobby to reduce emission targets.

I don't know about you, but I find the Model S to look fantastic, I also like look of CLS and A7. It's mainly the rear shoulderline and the sloping roof that gives it a coupe look. They got the proportion perfect.
If non descript is your sole complain about look of Model S, then I'm not sure what to say about your Fiesta or Kia........ with desirable criteria like that, I guess my bright red Leaf would be more desirable for you?
Oh, I get it! Is that why EV's were made strange looking by ICE manufacturers? To make people notice, not made to sell in volume.

EV's are more relaxing to drive because there is no engine noise. Everything just works effortlessly.
Regenerative braking can also help you to drive smoother, in a more relaxed way. I personally find braking to be stressful because it is literally burning energy, the energy I had purchased, it feels like burning money! With EV regenerative braking, the smooth slowing down feeling of capturing the energy back into the battery is wonderful.

As I said countless times before Tesla's existence, nor their cars has anything to do with other manufacturers having to take EV seriously, that is only down to the need to lower CO2 emissions and the future banning of the production of vehicles powered by fossil fuels alone.

Explain to us, why were there zero EV from ICE manufacturer before 2017, that was made to sell, made to be desirable to the general public?

People look at Leaf, they see a frog-eyed ugly car. People look at Zoe, they see battery rental costs. People look at i3, they see the strange boxy shape. People look at Tesla, they see a normal (to some, good looking) car, they can see themselves driving it just like Audi A7 or Merc CLS.
You see plenty of Tesla making ICE cars look slow. Up to now, you'll not see EV from ICE manufacturer making their bread and butter ICE cars look slow. There's a reason behind this.

 

[wyx087]

The Model 3 hasn't done that. It may well have done if it was priced at £27k, which is the UK equivalent of the USA price and also happens to be the average price of a new car in the UK.

$999 iPhone X USA price, £999 UK price.
$1,199 NVidia RTX 2080 Ti USA price, £1,099 UK price
And you expect Model 3 to sell in UK tax free, without associated transport + processing costs?

So what is the purpose of their existence? They have still failed to provide an affordable EV for the masses which was their original mission. They have now changed that to providing sustainable energy. Last year Tesla made their 2nd only quarterly profit. This year Tesla have been chopping and changing pricing and specification on their vehicles as well as their dealerships in desperation at trying to make a profit. Musk was so sure that Tesla would be posting news of a quarterly profit last week, but they posted a $4m+ loss so they are obviously concerned about profit for their own existence.

In case you are wondering, here are Tesla revenue:
Q2 2019: $6.3 billion
Q2 2018: $4.0 billion
Q2 2017: $2.8 billion
Q2 2016: $1.3 billion
Q2 2015: $955 million
Q2 2014: $769 million
Q2 2013: $405 million
Q2 2012: $27 million

But that doesn't matter, because let's retain all the money as profit on the company finance paperwork to please the investors. Let's not expand our operation and research new technologies. Because that's how Amazon has succeeded right?
/s

Not a disruptor? Model 3 is the best selling car in its class (US): https://electrek.co/2019/07/24/tesla-model-3-outsellin-gas-powered-equivalents-combined/

Version 10 of the Tesla car software is on the horizon, another quick and easy update over the air. New features, no need to buy new car.
https://electrek.co/2019/07/28/tesla-version-10-software-v10-features/

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

So what is the purpose of their existence? They have still failed to provide an affordable EV for the masses which was their original mission. They have now changed that to providing sustainable energy. Last year Tesla made their 2nd only quarterly profit. This year Tesla have been chopping and changing pricing and specification on their vehicles as well as their dealerships in desperation at trying to make a profit. Musk was so sure that Tesla would be posting news of a quarterly profit last week, but they posted a $4m+ loss so they are obviously concerned about profit for their own existence.

To normalise the use of electric vehicles and share the new technology with more mainstream car manufacturers with the hope that they take them up on it and start mass-producing electric cars and charging networks.

 

[nilagin]

Depreciation - the figures suggest 50%, which is on par to ICE, in the Leaf's case. But we all know there's large demand but shortage of supplies on EV, unlike few years old used Euro 5 diesels, so lower EV depreciation will continue for foreseeable future.


Suitable car - Yes, EV suffers from a lack of choice and bad public charging infrastructure. But it's nothing to do with the flaw in the energy storage, powertrain or its technology. It has everything to do with the lack of commitment earlier this decade from ICE manufacturers.

That brings us neatly onto this discussion:

With your refusal to name desirable EV. So, I take it you agree there had been absolutely zero effort by traditional ICE manufacturers to produce quick accelerating, good looking (for most people) and highly desirable EV's. Must be because selling those polluting ICE car is more profitable, resist changes and lobby to reduce emission targets.

I don't know about you, but I find the Model S to look fantastic, I also like look of CLS and A7. It's mainly the rear shoulderline and the sloping roof that gives it a coupe look. They got the proportion perfect.
If non descript is your sole complain about look of Model S, then I'm not sure what to say about your Fiesta or Kia........ with desirable criteria like that, I guess my bright red Leaf would be more desirable for you?
Oh, I get it! Is that why EV's were made strange looking by ICE manufacturers? To make people notice, not made to sell in volume.

EV's are more relaxing to drive because there is no engine noise. Everything just works effortlessly.
Regenerative braking can also help you to drive smoother, in a more relaxed way. I personally find braking to be stressful because it is literally burning energy, the energy I had purchased, it feels like burning money! With EV regenerative braking, the smooth slowing down feeling of capturing the energy back into the battery is wonderful.


Explain to us, why were there zero EV from ICE manufacturer before 2017, that was made to sell, made to be desirable to the general public?

People look at Leaf, they see a frog-eyed ugly car. People look at Zoe, they see battery rental costs. People look at i3, they see the strange boxy shape. People look at Tesla, they see a normal (to some, good looking) car, they can see themselves driving it just like Audi A7 or Merc CLS.
You see plenty of Tesla making ICE cars look slow. Up to now, you'll not see EV from ICE manufacturer making their bread and butter ICE cars look slow. There's a reason behind this.

Why are you preoccupied with diesel and dismiss petrol cars to make your point on depreciation? Modern petrol cars are getting close to diesel in terms of CO2 emissions and economy.

No one finds a Leaf desirable to look at, not even a red one.

Engine noise doesn't make cars stressful to drive and as for your comment on regenerative braking being less stressful because you don't like braking as it burns energy you have paid for kind of backs up what I said about the stress is down to the driver not the vehicle.
Why would your EV be burning energy when you brake anyway, ICE cars don't burn fuel when you brake, ICE cars don't burn fuel when you slow down neither and the alternator kicks in to recharge the battery to save on fuel at other times. So EV aren't really any less stressful to drive than ice vehicles.

How many more times do you have to be told that until now interest in EV has always been low, just because sales have increased, interest is still low.

In 2015 Ford introduced the Mk3 Focus, it was one of the highest selling vehicles during it's 3yrs lifespan and for almost a year was the world's best selling vehicle, as you well know it was available as an EV, it was priced similarly to other similar sized EV and offered similar range, so why didn't it sell in big numbers? Lack of interest in EV.
Tesla don't make affordable Ev's. Traditional manufacturers are trying to make Ev's affordable.
Whatever warped ideals you have in your head between EV and ICE, car manufacturers have and are building the cars people want to buy. I suppose you are now going to say that traditional car manufacturers charge high prices for their EV to deter people from buying them and buy ice instead.
I would say that all the stress in your life has come from all your penny pinching and removed all means of rational thought and replaced it with paranoia (evident by your panic when your ice fuel light comes on even though it signifies at least 50 miles left).

 

[nilagin]

To normalise the use of electric vehicles and share the new technology with more mainstream car manufacturers with the hope that they take them up on it and start mass-producing electric cars and charging networks.

Again, pressure to reduce CO2 emissions and meet CO2 targets is doing that, not Tesla.

 

[nilagin]

$999 iPhone X USA price, £999 UK price.
$1,199 NVidia RTX 2080 Ti USA price, £1,099 UK price
And you expect Model 3 to sell in UK tax free, without associated transport + processing costs?


In case you are wondering, here are Tesla revenue:
Q2 2019: $6.3 billion
Q2 2018: $4.0 billion
Q2 2017: $2.8 billion
Q2 2016: $1.3 billion
Q2 2015: $955 million
Q2 2014: $769 million
Q2 2013: $405 million
Q2 2012: $27 million

But that doesn't matter, because let's retain all the money as profit on the company finance paperwork to please the investors. Let's not expand our operation and research new technologies. Because that's how Amazon has succeeded right?
/s

Not a disruptor? Model 3 is the best selling car in its class (US): https://electrek.co/2019/07/24/tesla-model-3-outsellin-gas-powered-equivalents-combined/

Version 10 of the Tesla car software is on the horizon, another quick and easy update over the air. New features, no need to buy new car.
https://electrek.co/2019/07/28/tesla-version-10-software-v10-features/

But Tesla aren't there to make a profit, they are there to make an affordable EV for the masses. So if they can do it for the USA, yes they should do it for the UK. They have become a disruptor in the USA because they are selling the 3 at an affordable price.


So Tesla had $6.3Bn, revenue in Q2. Ford 's revenue for Q2 was over $36Bn You do realise profit doesn't just pay dividends to shareholders, it also gets reinvested into the company for future research, development and products. Ford still managed to make a profit and that is all whilst restructuring it's world operations and investing not only in it's own operations but other companies as well.

Anyone buying a car for karaoke, needs an update themselves, not the car.

 

[dod]

None of your links say why Tesla is a disruptor. They mention they are, not why and the rest is just waffle. The second link states even mentions Tesla's mission statement, their altered mission statement about sustainable energy, no mention of their original mission statement which was to build an EV for the masses. The Model 3 hasn't done that. It may well have done if it was priced at £27k, which is the UK equivalent of the USA price and also happens to be the average price of a new car in the UK.
From all that Tesla maybe a disruptor or game changer in sustainable energy, but unless they can provide an affordable car and that includes making a profit, then and only then can any claims of being a disruptor in the automotive industry start to be taken seriously.
As I said countless times before Tesla's existence, nor their cars has anything to do with other manufacturers having to take EV seriously, that is only down to the need to lower CO2 emissions and the future banning of the production of vehicles powered by fossil fuels alone.

Like I said, plenty people don't agree. For many people the evidence is out there, up to you if you want to accept it or not. Just because you don't/can't/won't see it doesn't make them wrong or you right.

There has been pressure to reduce CO2 emissions since the early/mid-80's. The traditional manufacturers could have embraced that movement if they'd wanted to. They didn't because it didn't really suit their business model.

You say they didn't do it before because of demand. In EXACTLY the same market Tesla saw an opportunity and developed something to meet it, they created a demand. Ford, GM etc, with their billions could easily have done what Tesla has done, including pumping money into marketing, but it was easier for them not to.

Now the other manufacturers are running about playing catch up to be honest. You may well disagree, but that's what it looks like on the outside. They may run out of cash/time, and I don't think they've got it right when you look at the controls, but there's no doubt they've been more innovative in that market than anyone else. I definitely see them as disruptors.

 

[nilagin]

Like I said, plenty people don't agree. For many people the evidence is out there, up to you if you want to accept it or not. Just because you don't/can't/won't see it doesn't make them wrong or you right.

There has been pressure to reduce CO2 emissions since the early/mid-80's. The traditional manufacturers could have embraced that movement if they'd wanted to. They didn't because it didn't really suit their business model.

You say they didn't do it before because of demand. In EXACTLY the same market Tesla saw an opportunity and developed something to meet it, they created a demand. Ford, GM etc, with their billions could easily have done what Tesla has done, including pumping money into marketing, but it was easier for them not to.

Now the other manufacturers are running about playing catch up to be honest. You may well disagree, but that's what it looks like on the outside. They may run out of cash/time, and I don't think they've got it right when you look at the controls, but there's no doubt they've been more innovative in that market than anyone else. I definitely see them as disruptors.

Co2 emissions have been reduced since the 80's it's what all the emissions regulations are based on.
Up until a couple of years ago when the Model 3 was announced, interest in Tesla cars could barely be called demand. As people keep ignoring, the majority of the Model 3 sales that everyone is raving about aren't sales, they are registration of vehicles that people pre ordered 2yrs or more ago, they have only just started supplying rhd models this year.
It was pointed out that the Tesla 3 is the highest selling vehicle in its class in America, again that in the most part is people finally getting their cars due to Tesla finally starting to get their production woes sorted and able to supply pre-ordered cars in greater numbers. Once Tesla are closer to clearing that backlog and start fulfilling more recent orders and still registering higher new car sales than the competition, then the claims they are a disruptor will hold up. Tesla are setting up in China to produce the Model 3 as it will be cheaper for the Chinese market, unless other countries have trade deals with China, the Model 3 will still be overpriced for those markets.

The fact that you think other car manufacturers could have invested in EV as Tesla have done shows how little you understand in the car industry. Car manufacturers want and need to make a profit to stay in existence. Car sales are falling around the world. Building expensive cars you still can't make a profit on won't keep them in business, especially in a dwindling market. Ev's have been around for a lot longer than Tesla but interest and demand for such vehicles has always been low. It appears that manufacturers are playing catch up, but that does mean development isn't going on behind the scenes, continuously improving and changing their products, looking for ways to make the vehicles cheaper to buy, ready for when demand actually makes it worthwhile releasing to market.
In America, the sales of SUV's and pick up trucks is a lot stronger than for saloon cars, why isn't the Model X SUV, the highest selling vehicle in America now? That has been held by the Ford F Series truck for 42 consecutive years and shows no signs of changing. Musk has made a big deal of the Tesla pick up that is coming that will take sales away from the F150, capable of towing 300 ton, a game changer or disruptor? Apparently not by the video I posted last week of the prototype F150 towing 1300 ton. Do you still think the traditional are playing catch up?
Tesla are among the lowest rated companies in the field of Autonomous vehicles, there are car manufacturers and tech companies rated far higher in terms of their development. Still reckon Tesla is a game changer and others are playing catch up?

 

[dod]

Co2 emissions have been reduced since the 80's it's what all the emissions regulations are based on.
Up until a couple of years ago when the Model 3 was announced, interest in Tesla cars could barely be called demand. As people keep ignoring, the majority of the Model 3 sales that everyone is raving about aren't sales, they are registration of vehicles that people pre ordered 2yrs or more ago, they have only just started supplying rhd models this year.
It was pointed out that the Tesla 3 is the highest selling vehicle in its class in America, again that in the most part is people finally getting their cars due to Tesla finally starting to get their production woes sorted and able to supply pre-ordered cars in greater numbers. Once Tesla are closer to clearing that backlog and start fulfilling more recent orders and still registering higher new car sales than the competition, then the claims they are a disruptor will hold up. Tesla are setting up in China to produce the Model 3 as it will be cheaper for the Chinese market, unless other countries have trade deals with China, the Model 3 will still be overpriced for those markets.

The fact that you think other car manufacturers could have invested in EV as Tesla have done shows how little you understand in the car industry. Car manufacturers want and need to make a profit to stay in existence. Car sales are falling around the world. Building expensive cars you still can't make a profit on won't keep them in business, especially in a dwindling market. Ev's have been around for a lot longer than Tesla but interest and demand for such vehicles has always been low. It appears that manufacturers are playing catch up, but that does mean development isn't going on behind the scenes, continuously improving and changing their products, looking for ways to make the vehicles cheaper to buy, ready for when demand actually makes it worthwhile releasing to market.
In America, the sales of SUV's and pick up trucks is a lot stronger than for saloon cars, why isn't the Model X SUV, the highest selling vehicle in America now? That has been held by the Ford F Series truck for 42 consecutive years and shows no signs of changing. Musk has made a big deal of the Tesla pick up that is coming that will take sales away from the F150, capable of towing 300 ton, a game changer or disruptor? Apparently not by the video I posted last week of the prototype F150 towing 1300 ton. Do you still think the traditional are playing catch up?
Tesla are among the lowest rated companies in the field of Autonomous vehicles, there are car manufacturers and tech companies rated far higher in terms of their development. Still reckon Tesla is a game changer and others are playing catch up?

You're absolutely right, I don't understand the industry. But I don't need to. What I need to understand is what products are available now, who's putting them together and when are they going to be available.

Let's have a look at Ford's range.

1,2......3

Ah well, that was fun

 

[wyx087]

How many more times do you have to be told that until now interest in EV has always been low, just because sales have increased, interest is still low.

In 2015 Ford introduced the Mk3 Focus, it was one of the highest selling vehicles during it's 3yrs lifespan and for almost a year was the world's best selling vehicle, as you well know it was available as an EV, it was priced similarly to other similar sized EV and offered similar range, so why didn't it sell in big numbers? Lack of interest in EV.

Are you sure the lack of demand you speak of was down to people don't want EV's? It's more to do with lack of marketing, lack of halo-car and lack of buzz.

The Focus EV is a quiet model made on available on the side. There was no marketing push to make people aware of existence of this car. (please correct me if I'm wrong) There wasn't any performance stunts like the I-Pace smart cone challenge or the ID-R record breaking runs. The car was quietly sitting on one side, with poor range and expensive price, then, Ford turned around and said "no demand".

The ancient car dealerships are known to actively talk people out of buying EV's
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...tric-cars-worldwide-not-just-u-s-studies-find

For dealerships, how can we forget this masterpiece?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXodSqMpuUQ

Why would your EV be burning energy when you brake anyway, ICE cars don't burn fuel when you brake, ICE cars don't burn fuel when you slow down neither and the alternator kicks in to recharge the battery to save on fuel at other times. So EV aren't really any less stressful to drive than ice vehicles.

I think you are deliberately not comprehending.
You buy fuel with money. You burn fuel to accelerate, gaining kinetic energy. You transform kinetic energy into heat via brake system in ICE cars. So in a way, you are burning money whenever braking.
In this example, Audi EV going down a hill Audi have gained 10kWh of free energy. Same principle applies when slowing down: little brake use (less brake dust) and energy captured for later use.
https://insideevs.com/news/338980/watch-as-audi-e-tron-gains-energy-downhill/

Building expensive cars you still can't make a profit on won't keep them in business, especially in a dwindling market.

Porsche Taycan?
Aston Martin Rapid-E?
Audi E-Tron?
Jag I-Pace?
Merc EQC?
Start with expensive cars that make people want to buy the cars. Then move down towards more affordable models. Sound familiar?

Before you say ICE sales propping up EV R&D. Last time I checked, the EV-only manufacturer Tesla are still in business, they are actually expanding.

I would say that all the stress in your life has come from all your penny pinching and removed all means of rational thought and replaced it with paranoia (evident by your panic when your ice fuel light comes on even though it signifies at least 50 miles left).

Please do try harder

Speaking of trying too hard, this statement of yours is repeated yet again:

Ev's have been around for a lot longer than Tesla

Today's EV with long distance driving capability really started with Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S (or Roadster).

Is there any earlier EV that can recharge majority of its range in 30min?

 

[dod]

The fact that you think other car manufacturers could have invested in EV as Tesla have done shows how little you understand in the car industry. Car manufacturers want and need to make a profit to stay in existence. Car sales are falling around the world. Building expensive cars you still can't make a profit on won't keep them in business, especially in a dwindling market. Ev's have been around for a lot longer than Tesla but interest and demand for such vehicles has always been low. It appears that manufacturers are playing catch up, but that does mean development isn't going on behind the scenes, continuously improving and changing their products, looking for ways to make the vehicles cheaper to buy, ready for when demand actually makes it worthwhile releasing to market.

Actually that deserves a fuller reply.
What you're actually saying is that there's still not enough demand to justify electric vehicles but at the same time you're developing them in the background? That's a direct contradiction in terms. It's the actions of a company that realises it's late to the game and I'd imagine is working like hell in the background to catch up.

All you're doing is saying how good Ford is and when they're ready they'll release something. That's in a market where your competition already have ranges out. Do they not understand the market either?

 

[MatBin]

Ping pong fun.
Gents, none of the manufacturers of EV cars and I repeat NONE of them make a mass market appealing vehicle.

Plus Points Negative points
1) Attractive - Tesla All of them too expensive for Mr Average - doubtful survivability of the Company
2) Attractive - Jags, Porsche etc Too expensive, although survivability of the Company possibly better
3) Pig ugly - the rest, just about affordable Range anxiety or inconvenience to keep charged at home

It doesnt matter if Tesla is a disruptor or not in short nothing, or very very little, is suitable to Mr/Mrs/Ms Average and that's where Companies make their PROFIT, by selling big numbers of items and if they don't make a profit they die. Everyone is saying the DSLR makers are taking hits on their profits and are doomed to die, it's the same for all companies.

No doubt we'll all be buying EV in the mid-term (probably VW, BMW and Ford) and we'll have to suffer one way or another, be it looks, price or range but be under no illusion very few people want one now, some do and good luck to them, but you'll probably guess it wont be either Neil or I.

 

[dod]

Are you sure the lack of demand you speak of was down to people don't want EV's? It's more to do with lack of marketing, lack of halo-car and lack of buzz.

The Focus EV is a quiet model made on available on the side. There was no marketing push to make people aware of existence of this car. (please correct me if I'm wrong) There wasn't any performance stunts like the I-Pace smart cone challenge or the ID-R record breaking runs. The car was quietly sitting on one side, with poor range and expensive price, then, Ford turned around and said "no demand".

Bit of both I think. Until EV's become genuinely appealing at a reasonable price point with decent range people won't take them on. There's nothing out there at the moment that would replace my car 100% of the time so I won't be going EV for the foreseeable future.

But, if Ford had a genuinely attractive option available at the moment, or it was close to being ready, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

[nilagin]

Are you sure the lack of demand you speak of was down to people don't want EV's? It's more to do with lack of marketing, lack of halo-car and lack of buzz.

The Focus EV is a quiet model made on available on the side. There was no marketing push to make people aware of existence of this car. (please correct me if I'm wrong) There wasn't any performance stunts like the I-Pace smart cone challenge or the ID-R record breaking runs. The car was quietly sitting on one side, with poor range and expensive price, then, Ford turned around and said "no demand".

The ancient car dealerships are known to actively talk people out of buying EV's
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...tric-cars-worldwide-not-just-u-s-studies-find

For dealerships, how can we forget this masterpiece?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXodSqMpuUQ



I think you are deliberately not comprehending.
You buy fuel with money. You burn fuel to accelerate, gaining kinetic energy. You transform kinetic energy into heat via brake system in ICE cars. So in a way, you are burning money whenever braking.
In this example, Audi EV going down a hill Audi have gained 10kWh of free energy. Same principle applies when slowing down: little brake use (less brake dust) and energy captured for later use.
https://insideevs.com/news/338980/watch-as-audi-e-tron-gains-energy-downhill/


Porsche Taycan?
Aston Martin Rapid-E?
Audi E-Tron?
Jag I-Pace?
Merc EQC?
Start with expensive cars that make people want to buy the cars. Then move down towards more affordable models. Sound familiar?

Before you say ICE sales propping up EV R&D. Last time I checked, the EV-only manufacturer Tesla are still in business, they are actually expanding.


Please do try harder

Speaking of trying too hard, this statement of yours is repeated yet again:

Today's EV with long distance driving capability really started with Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S (or Roadster).

Is there any earlier EV that can recharge majority of its range in 30min?

Their was no marketing push for the Focus as a whole. Some cars Don't require marketing they sell on their own merit. There was no marketing for the Focus RS, yet it outstripped demand, the UK was only earmarked for around 5k cars yet over 7k were sold in the uk alone and over 34k in total around tbe world. There is currently marketing for the mk4 Focus but that is only to announce the arrival of a new model. How much marketing have you seen for the best selling coupe in Europe, the Mustang, very little if any. How much marketing have you seen for Europe's best selling supermini the Fiesta which is also the UK's number 1 selling car?

 

[wyx087]

Gents, none of the manufacturers of EV cars and I repeat NONE of them make a mass market appealing vehicle.

What do you think of the up coming VW ID 3?
It's size of Golf, with space of Passat, cost similar to a highly spec'd Golf with more than enough range for all but travelling salesman.

Bit of both I think. Until EV's become genuinely appealing at a reasonable price point with decent range people won't take them on.

Also mustn't be made to look too strange. Car manufacturers had a habit of making EV's look weird in an attempt put people off.

The assembly line need to be built for EV from the ground up for EV. I want to use that front storage space. Not for you to package the EV inverter and motor like an ICE and assemble like an ICE car in the Juke factory.

Their was no marketing push for the Focus as a whole. Some cars Don't require marketing they sell on their own merit. There was no marketing for the Focus RS, yet it outstripped demand, the UK was only earmarked for around 5k cars yet over 7k were sold in the uk alone and over 34k in total around tbe world. There is currently marketing for the mk4 Focus but that is only to announce the arrival of a new model. How much marketing have you seen for the best selling coupe in Europe, the Mustang, very little if any. How much marketing have you seen for Europe's best selling supermini the Fiesta which is also the UK's number 1 selling car?

Tesla doesn't spend anything in marketing, yet their Model 3 are selling better than cars in the same class.

You keep saying Model 3 is selling well because of the backlog. Tesla had 400k pre-orders, so far in America alone, they've registered close to 500k cars. So in US, they ought to have sold more than their backlog by now, current quarter US orders will all be from new orders. It would be interesting to see whether they will continue outsell ICE cars in the same class.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/tesla-model-3-vin-tracker/

 

[nilagin]

Actually that deserves a fuller reply.
What you're actually saying is that there's still not enough demand to justify electric vehicles but at the same time you're developing them in the background? That's a direct contradiction in terms. It's the actions of a company that realises it's late to the game and I'd imagine is working like hell in the background to catch up.

All you're doing is saying how good Ford is and when they're ready they'll release something. That's in a market where your competition already have ranges out. Do they not understand the market either?

That's not a contradition of terms at all. It's what companies do. There is no point in bringing products to market if the market isn't big enough or doesn't exist at all. That is just financial suicide. As manufacturers are fully aware that EV is the future and it is being forced upon them, it is better to continue development to improve functionality etc and make the product marketable at a reasonable affordable cost to the customer.
You and others think that traditional manufacturers are panicking and playing catch up, yet people are insisting Tesla's technology is patent free and there for others to use freely, if that is the case, why has there been no mention of other manufacturers using Tesla's freely available established technology? Why are car manufacturers collaborating with each other in their own EV development? Why is there no collaborations with Tesla? Tesla have established EV technology which you assume others to catch up with and Tesla suffer so many production woes, they could certainly do with some expert help with their manufacturing.
There is only one reasonably priced EV on the market at the moment and it has only just arrived, the Mini EV. Where are all the other similarly priced and sized Ev's that Ford are losing to by not yet having joined the market?

 

[nilagin]

What do you think of the up coming VW ID 3?
It's size of Golf, with space of Passat, cost similar to a highly spec'd Golf with more than enough range for all but travelling salesman.



Also mustn't be made to look too strange. Car manufacturers had a habit of making EV's look weird in an attempt put people off.

The assembly line need to be built for EV from the ground up for EV. I want to use that front storage space. Not for you to package the EV inverter and motor like an ICE and assemble like an ICE car in the Juke factory.


Tesla doesn't spend anything in marketing, yet their Model 3 are selling better than cars in the same class.

You keep saying Model 3 is selling well because of the backlog. Tesla had 400k pre-orders, so far in America alone, they've registered close to 500k cars. So in US, they ought to have sold more than their backlog by now, current quarter US orders will all be from new orders. It would be interesting to see whether they will continue outsell ICE cars in the same class.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/tesla-model-3-vin-tracker/

Odd the graph which shows Teslas own production figures not the graphs showing bloombergs tracker estimate, puts Model 3 total production figures at less than 300k cars by end of Q2 2019. So they are still building backlog not only for USA but the rest of the world also.

 

[nilagin]

Also mustn't be made to look too strange. Car manufacturers had a habit of making EV's look weird in an attempt put people off.

Only the Leaf out of all Ev's could be classed as downright fugly. But then Nissan have never been renowned for making good looking mainstream cars, even some of their niche cars don't look too great.
Why would manufacturers go to the expense of building an EV that is likely to lose them money and make it look weird just so it won't sell? You have some really odd ideas.

 

[nilagin]

I think you are deliberately not comprehending.
You buy fuel with money. You burn fuel to accelerate, gaining kinetic energy. You transform kinetic energy into heat via brake system in ICE cars. So in a way, you are burning money whenever braking.
In this example, Audi EV going down a hill Audi have gained 10kWh of free energy. Same principle applies when slowing down: little brake use (less brake dust) and energy captured for later use.
https://insideevs.com/news/338980/watch-as-audi-e-tron-gains-energy-downhill/


Porsche Taycan?
Aston Martin Rapid-E?
Audi E-Tron?
Jag I-Pace?
Merc EQC?
Start with expensive cars that make people want to buy the cars. Then move down towards more affordable models. Sound familiar?

Before you say ICE sales propping up EV R&D. Last time I checked, the EV-only manufacturer Tesla are still in business, they are actually expanding.

I comprehend perfectly, you are the one with a lack of understanding.
You said driving an EV is less stressful and you feel more relaxed because you Don't like braking as it is money being wasted on burning fuel and you prefer using regenerative braking. You get regenerative braking even when you put your foot on the brake. In an ICE regardless of whether you take your foot off the accelerator or touch the brake to slow, you are not burning any fuel, the injectors have shut off and the engine is just motoring being driven by the road wheels. Regardless of whether a vehicle is powered by ice or electric, both will use fuel to accelerate back up to speed. None of which is a reason for stress or not to feel relaxed. If you are driving correctly the amount of slowing, braking and accelerating can be minimalist if it causes you that much stress. If having to brake and accelerate again is causing you that much anxiety and it is beyond your driving capability to react accordingly yourself, perhaps you would be better investing in this. https://media.ford.com/content/ford...ford-smart-driving-coach-sees-around-cor.html

 

[PaulF]

Tesla doesn't spend anything in marketing, yet their Model 3 are selling better than cars in the same class.

They did however spend in the region of $30 million on the referral program.

 

[wyx087]

There is no point in bringing products to market if the market isn't big enough or doesn't exist at all.

The change to EV will require consumer education, people don't like change, when presented with choices without explaining the benefit of change, people will not change.

Tesla have done education by being in the media spotlight and doing many things differently. VW are doing now with their ID-R records. Jag have done with their PR stunts when I-Pace came out. Porsche are doing with their Taycan.

Ford, on the other hand, have just pushed out the Focus EV. No media fan-fair, no effort in educating benefit of EV, no performance halo car. Then turned around to say "no one interested".

Why would manufacturers go to the expense of building an EV that is likely to lose them money and make it look weird just so it won't sell? You have some really odd ideas.

Simple. To continue sell their ICE cars. Vast majority of people think of EV as milkfloats. Without campaign to educate the technological advance, most people won't know.

You and others think that traditional manufacturers are panicking and playing catch up, yet people are insisting Tesla's technology is patent free and there for others to use freely, if that is the case, why has there been no mention of other manufacturers using Tesla's freely available established technology? Why are car manufacturers collaborating with each other in their own EV development? Why is there no collaborations with Tesla?

The reason is the open-source-like nature of Tesla patents. Tesla allow others to use their patent in "good faith", but in doing so, you'll have to allow Tesla to use your patents. A traditional manufacturer will not want an industry disruptor to look into their library of manufacturing secret sauce.
https://electrek.co/2015/11/10/a-nu...nts-and-it-has-some-interesting-implications/

But it's the same with similar licenses. We are looking at using a CERN technology, but doing so, we'll have to publish our design (everything from schematic to code) on their project repository.

 

[wyx087]

There is only one reasonably priced EV on the market at the moment and it has only just arrived, the Mini EV.

Interesting you are saying Mini EV is reasonably priced. The Mini EV only has 33kWh battery with range of ~130 miles. Asking price of £27k.

What about the MG ZS EV? 160 miles range, starting at £21,495 for a compact SUV
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/new-cars/2019-mg-zs-ev-price-sale-date-electric-range-details/
e-Golf? with ~35kWh battery and range of ~140 miles. £30k asking price.
Zoe? 40kWh battery, 180 miles at ~£18k battery owned being offered on carwow.
Leaf 40kWh? ~160 miles range at £28k asking price.
Also, Smart EV? VW e-Up? Ioniq? All under the Mini EV price, all been around for a while.

I comprehend perfectly, you are the one with a lack of understanding.
You said driving an EV is less stressful and you feel more relaxed because you Don't like braking as it is money being wasted on burning fuel and you prefer using regenerative braking. You get regenerative braking even when you put your foot on the brake. In an ICE regardless of whether you take your foot off the accelerator or touch the brake to slow, you are not burning any fuel, the injectors have shut off and the engine is just motoring being driven by the road wheels. Regardless of whether a vehicle is powered by ice or electric, both will use fuel to accelerate back up to speed.

How much energy is regenerated by braking in ICE? 1kWh at most, size of the 12v battery. Rest are wasted as heat, either at brake disk or engine block.
In case you are confused: Zero fuel when braking <<< Gaining fuel when braking.

They did however spend in the region of $30 million on the referral program.

Number in vacuum doesn't mean much.

How much was spent on marketing by other manufacturers?
Toyota appears to be spending $1000-$2000 million on marketing: https://www.statista.com/statistics/261539/toyotas-advertising-spending-in-the-us/
Mercedes annual "paid media" estimated to be at $950 million: https://www.adweek.com/agencies/omnicom-picks-up-mercedes-benzs-950-million-global-media-business/

 

[nilagin]

The change to EV will require consumer education, people don't like change, when presented with choices without explaining the benefit of change, people will not change.

Tesla have done education by being in the media spotlight and doing many things differently. VW are doing now with their ID-R records. Jag have done with their PR stunts when I-Pace came out. Porsche are doing with their Taycan.

Ford, on the other hand, have just pushed out the Focus EV. No media fan-fair, no effort in educating benefit of EV, no performance halo car. Then turned around to say "no one interested".


Simple. To continue sell their ICE cars. Vast majority of people think of EV as milkfloats. Without campaign to educate the technological advance, most people won't know.


The reason is the open-source-like nature of Tesla patents. Tesla allow others to use their patent in "good faith", but in doing so, you'll have to allow Tesla to use your patents. A traditional manufacturer will not want an industry disruptor to look into their library of manufacturing secret sauce.
https://electrek.co/2015/11/10/a-nu...nts-and-it-has-some-interesting-implications/

But it's the same with similar licenses. We are looking at using a CERN technology, but doing so, we'll have to publish our design (everything from schematic to code) on their project repository.

So you have chosen to ignore Ford's teasers of a Mustang inspired fully electric SUV or the video I posted last week of the prototype F150 pick up truck towing in excess of 1,300,000 lbs.
"To continue selling their ICE cars" . Do you realise how many hundreds of millions of dollars or pounds it takes to develop a vehicle and tool up for production. No car manufacturer is going to waste such great expense in the hope it prolongs the ice vehicle sales.

 

[nilagin]

How much energy is regenerated by braking in ICE? 1kWh at most, size of the 12v battery. Rest are wasted as heat, either at brake disk or engine block.
In case you are confused: Zero fuel when braking <<< Gaining fuel when braking.

You are the one who is confused. You are the one who said driving an EV is more relaxed because you don't like braking as it burns fuel. It doesn't burn fuel. It also doesn't generate heat in an engine block, it will lose heat as there is no combustion.
Drive properly and with a little thought watching the roads ahead and very little energy is wasted. You want to try it sometime.

 

[nilagin]

The reason is the open-source-like nature of Tesla patents. Tesla allow others to use their patent in "good faith", but in doing so, you'll have to allow Tesla to use your patents. A traditional manufacturer will not want an industry disruptor to look into their library of manufacturing secret sauce.
https://electrek.co/2015/11/10/a-nu...nts-and-it-has-some-interesting-implications/

But it's the same with similar licenses. We are looking at using a CERN technology, but doing so, we'll have to publish our design (everything from schematic to code) on their project repository.

Musk thinking or believing that a number of companies are using the patents isn't the same as companies are using the patents. It also doesn't mention any company names. There is a possibility that IF there are companies using the patents, that none of them are car companies, they could be any of the tech companies developing autonomous vehicles.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Musk thinking or believing that a number of companies are using the patents isn't the same as companies are using the patents. It also doesn't mention any company names. There is a possibility that IF there are companies using the patents, that none of them are car companies, they could be any of the tech companies developing autonomous vehicles.

Agree, lots going on with AIV - Autonomous Intelligent Vehicles at the moment in factory automation

 

[wyx087]

*sigh* can you read or not?

So you have chosen to ignore Ford's teasers of a Mustang inspired fully electric SUV or the video I posted last week of the prototype F150 pick up truck towing in excess of 1,300,000 lbs.

That is only recently, when Ford is following the change in the industry.

The comment you've quoted was in reply to "market isn't big enough". Which you were very keen to point out Focus EV at every opportunity. My post you've quoted is direct reply for that. When Focus EV was out, were there any campaigns to push this new powertrain? The answer is likely no. Ford then turned around and said "no demand" (your words). What did they expect?

You are the one who said driving an EV is more relaxed because you don't like braking as it burns fuel. It doesn't burn fuel. It also doesn't generate heat in an engine block, it will lose heat as there is no combustion.

No where ever did I even remotely suggest braking burns fuel. Re-read this:

Regenerative braking can also help you to drive smoother, in a more relaxed way. I personally find braking to be stressful because it is literally burning energy, the energy I had purchased, it feels like burning money!

Now, riddle me this: Where do you think the kinetic energy of the vehicle go when you do engine braking?

Musk thinking or believing that a number of companies are using the patents isn't the same as companies are using the patents. It also doesn't mention any company names.

Re-read my comment you've quoted. No where did I suggest there are company using Tesla patents. I am simply suggesting the reason behind why established car companies don't use Tesla patents (as you've said). The patents are not so free, as mass media tend to wrongly report.

 

[wyx087]

Drive properly and with a little thought watching the roads ahead and very little energy is wasted.

What about the ~60% of energy wasted as heat or sound by the internal combustion engine?

Petrol engine getting 40% efficient is news worthy and world leading apparently:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/...rol-engine-world’s-‘most-thermally-efficient’


I just learnt Westminster have great EV incentive. Pay for 10min to park for 4 hours anywhere in their council controlled zone.
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/electric-vehicles
They also have a diesel surcharge for pre-2015 diesels. People with as young as 5 years old cars getting penalised.

 

[MatBin]

They also have a diesel surcharge for pre-2015 diesels. People with as young as 5 years old cars getting penalised.

According to your AA bloke Londoners change their cars every 3 years
But no surcharge for more recent diesels, doesn't that indicate that London's "govt" think they are clean?

 

[PaulF]

Number in vacuum doesn't mean much.

How much was spent on marketing by other manufacturers?
Toyota appears to be spending $1000-$2000 million on marketing: https://www.statista.com/statistics/261539/toyotas-advertising-spending-in-the-us/
Mercedes annual "paid media" estimated to be at $950 million: https://www.adweek.com/agencies/omnicom-picks-up-mercedes-benzs-950-million-global-media-business/

You really do have a way of wriggling don't you.

My simple statement was in reply to your comment that Tesla don't spend any money on advertising, and marketing by association. That was not correct. They spent millions giving away roadsters to those users who could generate enough referrals to qualify amongst other referral incentives including but not limited to free supercharging, discounts on Model 3 etc.

The fact other manufacturers also spend money on marketing is irrelevant to the point.

 

[wyx087]

You really do have a way of wriggling don't you.

My simple statement was in reply to your comment that Tesla don't spend any money on advertising, and marketing by association. That was not correct. They spent millions giving away roadsters to those users who could generate enough referrals to qualify amongst other referral incentives including but not limited to free supercharging, discounts on Model 3 etc.

The fact other manufacturers also spend money on marketing is irrelevant to the point.

Yes, I was wrong. Referral programs is a form of marketing, so Tesla did spend on marketing.

But I'm sorry. I feel other manufacturer's spend is still very relevant to the discussion:
I said Model 3 sold well without marketing, you corrected me and said they have spent $30mil on referral programs (how much of that is specifically for Model 3 is unknown). Building on the information you've provided (without reference though) I then re-enforced my point by pointing out $30 million is tiny compared to what other manufactures are spending.

So, in summary, Model 3 had much smaller marketing spend, yet selling better than cars in similar class.

According to your AA bloke Londoners change their cars every 3 years
But no surcharge for more recent diesels, doesn't that indicate that London's "govt" think they are clean?

Is this the actual quote you were referring to?
“They tend to keep their residual value . Even a Tesla with high mileage is keeping its value. So to some extent that's good news for the people who can afford them, because even if they keep them three or four years, they'll almost get their money back.”

So are you reminding us EV keep their value better than diesels?

No surcharge for recent diesels. This sounds like London "govt" think they are clean enough, for now.

 

[nilagin]

*sigh* can you read or not?


That is only recently, when Ford is following the change in the industry.

The comment you've quoted was in reply to "market isn't big enough". Which you were very keen to point out Focus EV at every opportunity. My post you've quoted is direct reply for that. When Focus EV was out, were there any campaigns to push this new powertrain? The answer is likely no. Ford then turned around and said "no demand" (your words). What did they expect?


No where ever did I even remotely suggest braking burns fuel. Re-read this:

Now, riddle me this: Where do you think the kinetic energy of the vehicle go when you do engine braking?


Re-read my comment you've quoted. No where did I suggest there are company using Tesla patents. I am simply suggesting the reason behind why established car companies don't use Tesla patents (as you've said). The patents are not so free, as mass media tend to wrongly report.

Ford released news of the Mustang inspired SUV long before anyone was aware of the VW ID-R. You only have to look at the number of EV cars on the road before the recent surge to realise people just weren't interested.

Where does a car get its energy? It's fuel. You said you don't like braking because it is burning the energy you have paid for. You have paid for the fuel. So in other words you think it is burning fuel.

A lot of the kinetic energy remains in the engine keeping it turning. It also recharges the battery. It isn't wasted as much as you believe. The rest is used to slow the car.