Electric car thread

[old man emu]

It seems that a lot of the hype has been about particular car models, especially in the high price bracket. Much is also made of the purchase price comparison between equivalent sized, and expected performance vehicles. What doesn't seem to be used in the comparisons is the car for family transport. 

 

One of the first things that is thrown up against the idea of purchasing an EV is the price tag on the dealer's lot. Comparable family EVs have a price tag somewhere about $20K higher than an ICE.

 

HOWEVER what most people do not know is that the cost of a family EV can be brought to within a cup of coffee's worth of that for an ICE. It's all about how the purchase is financed.

 

I'm posting this video from the bloke a lot of you hate, John Cadigan. This video explains how even the average worker could afford an EV simply by using the assistance provided by our taxations system. YOu don't buy a car with a personal loan, or a car loan. You use a system called Novated Leasing. Don't forget that Cadigan is in the car sales business, so he must have some knowledge of how to finance the purchase of a car. 

 

 

[onetrack]

Hertz have ceased purchasing EV's in the U.S. for the hire fleet, stating their overall costs are still way higher than any IC car, and there are many "hidden costs in EV ownership".

 

The price of used EV's is plummetting in the U.S., following a fall in demand. Stocks of unsold new EV's are also increasing.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/hertz-sell-about-20000-evs-us-fleet-2024-01-11/

[kgwilson]

There are heaps of you tubers rabbiting on about all the unsold EVs and how they are crap etc. It seems that US car manufacturers were all given billions by the federal government to produce EVs. Then the videos began to appear such as Ford was losing $76,000 for every EV is built. Then 3600 Car dealers wrote a letter to Biden saying the couldn't sell them, the charging infrastructure wasn't there and lots of other problems. The real reason they didn't want to sell them is they don't make any money from servicing and maintenance because they don't need any. Plus the other one about insane insurance costs and comments like $20,000 to fix a dent.

 

GM and Ford, the only US owned manufacturers left have produced a lot of pretty poor EVs & they are not selling many. Tesla on the other hand is going gang busters and the Model Y is the number 1 selling car in the world now.

 

Due to US import policy there are no Chinese EVs in America. China has surpassed Japan as the worlds largest motor vehicle exporter and makes more than half of the worlds EVs and most of the worlds lithium based batteries. Even Elon Musk saw the light and has a massive Tesla factory in China. BYD though is set to overtake Tesla in the next year.

 

The US ICE car industry is looking like going down the same path as the British car industry did more than 40 years ago. The US treasury is still the biggest shareholder of GM after the record $13.8 biillon  bailout over 12 years ago..

[old man emu]

Hertz was buying Teslas. It would have all been on some sort of leasing arrangement through a third party. When Elon dropped the price of new Teslas, the arse fell out of the second hand market, making the price of vehicles at the end of the lease much less than the residual, so Hertz had to fork out and made big losses. 

 

Hire cars are always thrashed, so the maintenance costs are much higher per vehicle than the family-owned chariot. At the end of the lease period Hertz would have had to fix up the "accumulated damage". That's the dings and scratches that you normally get in carparks.  That's more cost. Businesses might have income and turnover in the millions of dollars, but the actual Nett Profit as a percentage of investment might only be around 5% (Jerry can clear that up.) So if the value of a car at the end of the lease period is not what was planned for, then that 5% starts to dwindle.

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

The real reason they didn't want to sell them is they don't make any money from servicing and maintenance

That's one variable in the equation. Another is the cultural attachment Yanks have to the machismo of big, noisy engines. If you put these variables into an algebraic equation, they would be accompanied by a minus sign. 

 

You'll notice that the anti-EV stuff seems to come mainly from the USA (with, of course the Aussie lap dog bouncing around) There's very little negative stuff coming out of Europe.

[red750]

There are lots of Teslas around our area. There's one next door and one across the road. You can't go down the street without seeing a couple. 

[onetrack]

While the car hire companies are getting out of EV's, the American public is piling in, buying EV's at a record rate.

 

However, "a new broom sweeps clean", and the joy attached to buying and owning a new EV in 2023 or 2024, as a private buyer, might become a little jaded in a couple of years as the realities of the shortcomings of EV's show up. Those shortcomings are typically a major shortage of technicians who can repair them (either when they develop electrical/electronic faults), or after a crash. 

 

Plus the U.S. buyers are getting a US$7500 rebate from the Biden Govt for an EV purchase. And as of Jan 1, 2024, the rebate is an immediate discount, whereas previously it had to be claimed as a tax rebate when you filed your tax return with the IRS.

Worldwide, EV's have been getting massive subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other perks and lurks - while the EV supporters claim the petroleum industry is the one getting all the subsidies.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2023/12/19/buy-ev-now-full-tax-credit-selection/71925664007/

 

Why Hertz is dropping thousands of electric cars from its fleet (msn.com)

 

 

[kgwilson]

The fossil fuel industry has been supported by governments all over the world for decades and Australia is no exception. That's how so many massive corporations end up paying little or no tax. A few thousand off the price of a new EV pales in to insignificance compared to that.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

(Jerry can clear that up.)

I'd have to go through the company accounts to work out the gross v net profit rate, but the sentiement is correct. I don't think our firm handles fleet leasing to rental companies directly (but they do sell the cashflows of the pooled leases to the wholesale market). However the leases to the car rental companies work, there will probably be a ballon payment they have to make (i.e. the leasing company doesn't want hassle of owning the car at the end of the lease and having to sell them - they would rather have the ownership revert to the car rental company and let them have the pain of selling the cars.

 

The problem Hertz is seeing is that of being an early adopter of a new technology on a more or less mass scale is they accepted the risk of a potentially volatile market in the product. The price cuts to get demand moving (check the therory of equilibrium pricing) meant that what was already poor resale values of EVs in general (due largely to unknown performance of batteries over time with some misinformation thrown in)  was forecast to bbe less than their floor for making a return. So, they are quitting while there is more value.

 

Also, they quoted higher than expected maintenance costs - and I would only guess this is because Teslas are not that cheap to fix when things go wrong as there is only one parts supplier. I am not sure Hertz would have trained technicians or rely on Tesla technicians, but I would hope that they were not so blinded by "Electric Jesus" (as JC likes to call him) and were thinking "if we supply them, customers will come.."

 

That does not mean there is not a rental market for them.. but the general market needs to settle a bit more.

 

The reality is EVs are have probably just emerged fvrom the intridutory stage of their lifecycle to the early growth stage. The market is still immature, and secondary markets still need to develop... I can't speak for Australia, but over here, only the nay-sayers are preoccipied with range anxiety and infrastructure - the government (ironically mostly under BoJo) has been more encouraging to get things off ICE as much as possible, mainly for public (urban) health reasons as much as trying to save the planet (of which, when considering total lifecycle ecological costs, not in favour of EVs but not by much).

 

[onetrack]

Fortunately for the EV owners who have run out of juice, the RAC is on call to juice you up! - with a fresh load of electrons! 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-17/new-electric-vehicle-roadside-assistance-van-launched/103350262

[octave]

2 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Fortunately for the EV owners who have run out of juice, the RAC is on call to juice you up! - with a fresh load of electrons! 

 

 

Nothing new really. NRMA and RACV etc. have always carried around a jerry can of fuel for the many cars that run out of petrol. 

 

Basic roadside assistance for zipping around town

Including the basics, our Roadside Care package provides assistance for anyone driving your nominated vehicle. Per breakdown it includes:

• help for common breakdowns, flat batteries, and tyre troubles 
• 20km of metro towing 
• 5 litres of fuel if you’re stranded in Victoria with an empty tank.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I would have thought fuel management on an EV sould be much the same as one for an ICE car; have to be a bit more careful because the infrastructure is still developing (rather than not there), but otherwise should make sure you have enough to get where you're going or at least to visit fuel stops i between.

 

This was a year ago and the fella driving the EV didn't seem to have too many problems:

 

Would I buy an EV to take across the Nullabor? Probably not yet.. But maybe in a few years?

[old man emu]

46 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Would I buy an EV to take across the Nullabor? Probably not yet.

Would I buy an EV if I lived and worked in an urban environment and did not have any need for long distance travel? Possibly, if, for myself, money was not a consideration.  Given my present financial strenght, I wouldn't be looking at comparably priced ICE under the same conditions either.

[octave]

This video is very informative.  It is great to see facts rather than hysterical nonsense. The small time difference would not be a deterrent to me.  If time is the issue we should remember that the internal combustion engine is near the end of its development. There can not be much more efficiency to be squeezed out of it. By contrast, the EV is much less mature.   There is so much more potential yet to be realized.  The 1000-mile battery, sodium batteries solid state batteries are all on the way. 

[red750]

Channel 7 report onn CarExpert.com comparison run of two BMWs, the EV version and the pertol model.

 

>EV vs petrol - Melbourne to Sydney.

[kgwilson]

Since owning an EV I have never felt so refreshed after driving. Even driving a very expensive luxury car doesn't provide the same feeling. It may be a sub sonic vibration that is always present when driving an ICE car even though you do not seem able to feel it. The electric motor has none of this and it seems so effortless to drive. It makes no difference going up a hill or on a level road. There is no change in engine (electric motor) note and even though it may be hard to detect in an expensive ICE car it is still there.

 

Then of course there is that EV torque that you just cannot get from any ICE car.

 

My first long trip experience was terrible though. It was on the day of the Optus meltdown & I got to Brisbane from home, nearly 400km & was busting for a pee & coffee, but couldn't use the app or the charger as both were affected by the outage. I couldn't even buy lunch. Eventually I went in to a bank and they did a cash withdrawal from my account. Once everything was back up & running it only took 20 minutes & I was off

[kgwilson]

27 minutes ago, red750 said:

Channel 7 report onn CarExpert.com comparison run of two BMWs, the EV version and the pertol model.

 

>EV vs petrol - Melbourne to Sydney.

Public chargers are pretty expensive in Australia. There are not enough of them and there is not enough competition. At home it costs me less than a third of the cost of petrol even though the price has come down a bit from what it was at over $2.00 a litre. Unless you do long distance road trips every week or 3 it is still far less costly to fuel an EV. I charge mine 1 or 2 times a week at off peak rates when I am asleep and I get free power for 4 hours in the weekend so take advantage of that as well. I have had rooftop solar for 12 years but the capacity is only 2kW. I am adding another 6.6kW & then will be able to charge the car almost free during the day. Based on my average driving I have calculated that the investment will be fully paid off within 2 years and that is at current electricity prices.

 

EV costs are still coming down and will reach parity with ICE within a couple of years according to some reports but the total cost of ownership is already well in favour of EVs. The first service of my car is after 2 years or 40,000km & costs about $250.00 & that is just to check brakes, wheels etc replace A/C filters and fluids etc. The motor only has one moving part & requires virtually no maintenance.

[old man emu]

Have you seen that several of the companies (USA-based) have closed shop in Australia and run back the the Home of the Brave? Another one which is still hanging around has upped its per kWh price so that the electron "fuel" cost to run an EV using public charging stations is approaching the cost of hydrocarbon fuel?

 

At this moment in time, EVs are a fad, just like this one of the 1970s 

[red750]

Tesla have ceased delivering Telsa 3 models immediately as they fail the safety regulations. They don't have child seat anchor points. 

[octave]

Just now, red750 said:

Tesla have ceased delivering Telsa 3 models immediately as they fail the safety regulations. They don't have child seat anchor points. 

 

Bullshit. As a sharer holder, I am closing following every minute detail Yes there is an issue but you are either misled or misrepresenting the situation. If you have information that I don't then please post links. 

[red750]

Just reporting tonight's news. Seeing you have fully investigated and researched every subject we discuss, and have certified proof, why don't you ru the news services.

[octave]

1 minute ago, red750 said:

Just reporting tonight's news. Seeing you have fully investigated and researched every subject we discuss, and have certified proof, why don't you ru the news services.

What does "ru" the news services mean, just asking for a friend

 

[octave]

6 minutes ago, red750 said:

Tesla have ceased delivering Telsa 3 models immediately as they fail the safety regulations. They don't have child seat anchor points. 

January 17: 2024 Tesla Model 3 deliveries paused in Australia due to breach of motor-vehicle regulations

 

Yep, this is in Australia and it is temporary until a solution is found. Look I have hard-earned money invested in Tesla shares. Sorry but most of you crusty old conservatives who as so afraid of change are usually wholly or partly wrong. I a  more than happy to discuss details. I know change is frightening but like it or not is is going to happen.,   

[red750]

Typo, should be "run". Looks like you had the same problem in your last post.

2 minutes ago, octave said:

I a  more than happy to discuss details

[Jerry_Atrick]

Given that the MSM (ex ABC) are private, for profit companies and they get their profit from advertising they sell, if their advertisers are pi$$ed off at something or see it as a threat, don't you think these news orgnaisations may not failthfully represent the news from all angles if that news might result in their sponsors/advertisers being p!44ed off and pulling their ad revenue?

 

So, yes, I would prefer someone else who is not so focussed on making money to be running the news.. In fact, I haven't seen it yet, but there is a feed rom Michael West Media in my email this morning titled something like "Journalism was once a respected profession."

 

 

The article mentioend that the difference was something like $15 over c. 900kms.. I personally would be ignoring the price difference between the two cars because at that proce, they are status symbols and price is more about pschological factors than being related to the cost of productuion - certainly the scale of he vehcles would not lend themsleves to such a hefty price difference being the battery alone. So, for say, $15 per 900K driving, assuming hydrocarbon fuels are cheaper all the time - which they aren't as per KGW's post above - is that really too much to spend to provide cleaner air and save how much in public finding of health services as a result of the illnesses brought on by hydrocarbon pollution? It is really that unsuitable for Australia?

 

Yes, we have to consider the total cost of ownership, and at the moment, for EVs that is probably higher for the individual of typical ownership holding a car for 5 years (that is the depreciation period in Aus, from memory). But as adoption of EVs grow, and battery wear has better data (and a there is a better informed public), depreciation will probably reduce over time.

 

57 minutes ago, old man emu said:

At this moment in time, EVs are a fad,

Bit like the bitcoind fad that just won't go away. I like to look at the numbers, Granted, I have not checked the source, but even it the rate of growth is half of what they say, I'd say it's a bit more than a fad: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1371599/global-ev-market-share/

 

 

Edited January 17 by Jerry_Atrick