My experience - in the Nordics, but this is transferable - is they are also much nicer to own and drive. I don’t know anyone who went electric and then went back. The generation who went electric a few years ago is now on their second or third electric car. The makes and models in favour is changing (cue tangent on Tesla brand death in Europe) but the power source choice is not. So as more people get one, I expect their market share to just climb and climb.
I totally agree, I went electric last year and couldn't be happier. Got a hyundai ioniq 6 which is an amazing car. Charging is simple and cheap and where I live (nw europe) the charging infrastructure is great. Did a couple of long range road trips (germany, france) and fast chargers were easy to find. Take a small break, have a coffee and the car was already full again. I had some anxiety about this before, but this has 100% better than I was expecting.
The best thing is, at least here, there are so many "small" charging spots. If you take them into account when traveling to places (even the grocery store, or the museum, or near whatever relative or friend you are visiting), you can just charge cheaply there. This is the hardest habit for me to break: no, i don't need to visit a "gas station" to fill up, just charge wherever you can find a charger, and it doesnt have to be 100%. Even a short stop on a slower charging spot helps a lot.
Depends on who you ask, I suppose. One study in the last year showed only around 1% of EV owners in the US planned to go back to gas for their next car. A different study showed that number was actually 46%. Yet another said it was actually 22%.
I'm inclined to think the number is closer to the higher end, at least in the US. There's still a lot of areas where the charging infrastructure is awful, and if you live in an apartment or are traveling, that's an important consideration. Another is the insurance premium cost, due to the expense of replacing batteries.
I imagine these issues will continue to be less challenging for people over time, as more second hand batteries, recycling and infrastructure continues to expand. Even at current gas prices, though, it didn't make financial sense for my family when we traded in a car two months back.
> Depends on who you ask, I suppose. One study in the last year showed only around 1% of EV owners in the US planned to go back to gas for their next car. A different study showed that number was actually 46%. Yet another said it was actually 22%
There is a lot of crap going around on Facebook that takes a highly qualified study, they take a fact like “90% of Tesla owners who get rid of their Tesla after one year go back to gasoline cars.” And they twist into “90% of EV owners go back to gasoline cars”. And you know, it’s Facebook, people read the facts that reinforce their biases, they aren’t actually looking for useful high quality information.
EVs are great in, say, Norway. But the population of the country Norway isn't even half that of the city Tokyo. Less people means less cars on the street which translates to less cars using up charging stations.
Once things get crowded and you have to wait in line to get your vehicle charged, it becomes a bit annoying.
Well, I live in one of the most densely populated places, the Netherlands. This is not an issue I've encountered. The solution really is : just add more charging spots everywhere. Electric infrastructure is everywhere, charging spots don't need to be concentrated near a gas station. Here in the Netherlands they are everywhere. You just have to get into the habit of using them more often for smaller periods of time instead of habitually going to a gas station.
If electric lawnmowers offered the same value, operational convenience, and maintainability (compared to gas-powered mowers) as electric cars do, they'd sell like hotcakes. Two-stroke engines are a PITA.
My father originally had a 100% manual lawnmower, and for the size of our property, it wasn't really bad; my father is a physically fit dude, and he could knock out the whole thing in a short period.
Then in the late 80s, he purchased an electric lawnmower! Yep it wasn't battery-powered, but it had a little AC cord that you plugged in... somewhere! So Dad would just run a ginormous snake of an extension cord out across the lawn.
Now, our property wasn't large, but to reach an AC outlet, we really needed a lot of cord, and of course it was a key skill to not run over your own cord, like when you're vacuuming.
Dad never got anything gas-powered. He also had an edger that was electric, IIRC, and he made a lot of use of this edger. It was one of those kinds that used a fishing-line type cutting edge.
But he kept that machine around, and I guess it was fine for a very long time. Dad and Mom are old enough to employ a landscaping team, nowadays.
I kept seeing YouTube videos of people reviewing electric chainsaws or snowblowers or whatever and apologizing to their core audience that they weren't woke Democrats, it was just a better tool for many uses.
I can see a hedger working - even with a klunky battery making it a bit unwieldy. But chainsaws and mowers need serious torque - don't so don't they need to stay plugged in while you work ?
What you are describing for an EV sounds like the perfect car for me. Perhaps I should make the switch. I would have last time I switched cars, but I couldn't find a reliable answer if the resell value of EVs was good.
I drive begrudgingly because where I live the public transportation is subpar, and there's no bike lanes (God I miss the Netherlands).
Owning and driving a car for me is pure utility, I have as much passion for it as I have for my dishwasher. I mean, I like my Toyota, it is comfortable and reliable. But it is really just a means to go from point A to point B. I want my car to be an appliance.
I wonder if many are like me or if most want their cars to be anything else.
Back in the day, in my EU country, everybody drove shift gear. Automatic gear was frowned upon. Nowadays everybody drives automatic. People like ‘boring’ comfort, it shows everywhere.
The Manual Gearbox Preservation Society (https://tmgps.org/) is a notable counterexample.
I look forward to teaching my kids to drive stick. Stick makes driving more engaging then automatic's point-and-go. Engagement breeds attentivity. Texting while driving stick is obviously decreased because both hands are actively required to drive. None of their friends will be able to drive my manual car. I don't know why anyone would hand their kid the keys to an automatic given its downsides.
I had no trouble managing my mug of coffee while driving stick. (Before cupholders were universal, and before texting).
It required some deft coordination to get out of the parking spot and getting up to speed, but I spent most of my time in fifth gear and staying there. One hand is just as free as it is in an automatic.
Texting while driving remains a bad idea, but I don't think a stick shift would prevent it. I could have managed to text just as well as I managed drinking coffee.
Which hand dominant are you? My guess is you're a lefty so being offhanded with coffee in the right, which you don't have to look at, is no biggie.
Righties tend to fiddle (not shift) with the shifter or have the right hand on the wheel most of the time. Texting offhanded with the left is miserable.
The truly dedicated can drive one-kneed, heel-toe, drink coffee, and text simultaneously. But manual definitely makes texting more obviously stupid by requiring intermittent use of the second hand.
What downsides for the _average_ driver (who just wants to go from A to B comfortably and safely) does an automatic have? Back when I still drove a non-electric vehicle, I really appreciated an automatic giving me one less thing to think about (which means a little bit more attention to the things that matter like safety).
> What downsides for the _average_ driver (who just wants to go from A to B comfortably and safely) does an automatic have?
No downside really.
But as an analogy closer to HN, is there any advantage to knowing about software and operating systems and networking if all you're going to do is watch netflix on a walled-garden phone?
Same answer, no advantage really.
But knowledge is rewarding, understanding systems is fun.
> I look forward to teaching my kids to drive stick.
Same here, in only a few years!
There might be no long term use for it (but near future use certainly, since all our regular cars are standard, only the truck and EV are not) but having another skillset is always good. And it makes driving so much more engaging.
Ferarri is going to retrofit some of their cars with fake manuals (completely electronic emulation). Car reviewers soiling their pants over it was hilarious, especially so after the Luce backlash lol.
You seem to be in the ICE enthusiast category, which is likely a minority of car owners.
For most people though, if they are buying a car it's because they can't practically get by without one, so things like "soul" and "character" of the car are irrelevant and actually an anti-feature if it makes the car cost more to own than an EV option which does the job perfectly well and is possibly even better in terms of features and comfort at the same TCO.
A bit like the unfortunate decision of Sony deciding to discontinue physical PlayStation discs was likely inevitable based on the market clearly preferring to move away from them [0], I suspect it's inevitable that sales of EVs will ultimately completely dwarf, if not entirely replace, ICE cars. If the range issue is solved (admittedly not a certainty), ICE cars could become relegated to usage only by enthusiasts like yourself and once the last generation who grew up with ICEs dies out, will probably be as common as a horse drawn cart.
I personally think hyping emissions as a benefit for drivers is a case in total misunderstanding of human motivations and desires. It's not a benefit for drivers. It's a benefit for everyone else who only has to breath the brake dust off the EV instead of the brake dust plus exhaust. The benefit is not captured by the driver so doesn't matter to the driver. The people that care about the concept of emissions almost universally don't care about actual emissions, they care about the flexing and social standing being able to claim zero emissions gives them in their social circle. It matters not if the car actually has zero emissions or if the manufacturer is pulling a Volkswagen and cheating to those guys.
The selling point for EVs is the much nicer ride they now produce (much quieter interior, much better acceleration, usually much better technology package) and the potentially much cheaper operation depending on your driving situation.
I am an example of the new electric car buyer. I test drove a toyota crown and a toyota bz and the bz surprised me with how much drastically better it was to drive. I then did the math on operating it and vs my 12 year old SUV it will save me between 3 and 5 thousand a year on fuel costs and probably another few hundred on maintenance because I now have 3 kids and drive 25k - 30k kms a year vs 10k kms when I bought the suv. If the battery actually last 10 years I will likely save 30-50 thousand on op costs so it was a no brainer to go electric. If the battery pricing improves and the terrible charging infra improves, when I go to replace my second car in five years I will probably go electric there too, mostly depending on the charging infra since I still do some longer inter city/province driving for which the bz will be a pain in western Canada.
How do they account for the cost of having to rent ICE vehicles for road trips that do not suit EVs (some do, and some do not)? Do they factor in the cost of insurance, which some say is much higher for their EVs?
I have owned PHEVs and like them quite a bit, but if I'd bought them new I still wouldn't have reached the payback period. It seems that a PHEV typically costs $12k more than the ICE version, so the payback period is quite long (I think I estimated it to be 50k miles, assuming you charge for free at work, and gas is $5/gallon).
EVs and PHEVs can be great for some people, and some may even save money with them (maintenance is blessedly low). But I find it unlikely that for "most" US drivers, they would save money (and of course they would save on emissions, this is kind of a useless thing to add to the headline).
There are lots of articles written by journalists where they tried road tripping in an EV. Sometimes it worked out great, especially when their vehicle had a lot of range and could charge quickly. Other times it was a disaster.
One does not need to take frequent vacations for the cost of renting a vehicle to really add up. If you went for a week, twice a year, that could be a thousand dollars right there.
> EVs are just so much more fun and satisfying to drive. Even a mediocre EV these days will do 0-60 in 5s.
I always thought there’s a lot more to driving satisfaction and “fun” than slamming that pedal in a straight line. But most drivers will settle for 0-60 because it’s “accessible” fun, everyone can slam the pedal (and sadly this is so visible in daily traffic). There are very few EVs that manage to mask their weight in a corner.
This is demonstrably untrue. We have PHEVs and it absolutely would not have made sense to buy EVs instead. If you don't have a long commute and can stay within the EV-only range, but take regular trips that are beyond the range of any EV, then a PHEV absolutely makes more sense. We could not have bought an EV of the same size for the cost of our PHEVs, and being able to tank up on trips is extremely valuable.
Why would you rent ICE for road trip tho? It's so incredibly inconvenient, noisy, poor performing and constant headache of even making there due to poor reliability. With occasional chance of burning or poisoning your family with fumes.
The 10 bestselling vehicles in the US are: Pickup truck, Pickup truck, SUV, Pickup truck, Toyota Camry, Pickup truck, Electric SUV, SUV, Pickup truck, SUV.
Americans don't like having less money in their pocket - who does? - but it's pretty clear that for American car buyers, fuel efficiency is just one concern among many.
After all, a gallon of gas costs the same no matter how rich or poor you are. If government policy keeps fuel affordable for families in the 25th percentile ($41k annual household income) then a family in the 75th percentile ($153k household income) can easily afford the fuel needed to commute to their office job in a crew cab F150, if they so wish.
Of course, that 25th-percentile family's demand for fuel will be inelastic in the short term if their house is a 45 minute drive from their workplace. So when prices rise they'll really feel the crunch - and they'll make plenty of noise about it. But they ain't the ones buying brand new vehicles.
I've never understood the thing about gas costs. It is oft complained about. And while it always seems to be a point of contention, a quick google search suggests the cost is ≈$200/mo on average¹. Rent and healthcare vastly outstrip that; groceries is more but not by as significant a factor.
Like the national debt and a thousand other things, it seems to be just a stick to beat the Democrats with, not something they actually care about when their team spikes both with a pointless war.
I think they do care about cost savings, and the near-universal retrenchment of car companies culling their EVs in the wake of the expiration of the $7,500 federal tax credit tells you that these vehicles do not save consumers money. If they did, people would still be clamoring to buy them.
Yeah that was kind of surprising. EVs were supposed to a no-brainer cheaper and more reliable car. I was expecting it to cost no more than half of a ICE car, but they are just as expensive and even more expensive to insure often.
I could see the government having a tax program or incentives to build charging stations. But the cars should have needed that, they should be selling themselves.
Unless things have changed, when I looked a couple of years ago, I couldn't make the math math. The cost difference outweighed the savings, IIRC, even if we assumed electricity to be free.
The bigger problem, though, was that the EV we were considering (a Prius) was scarce. So even though I couldn't make the alleged price make sense … well, if there's no supply, then the price may as well be $∞.
So IDK, since that lack of supply also seems to suggest other people disagree (or put utility to the ecological aspects).
I'm not sure this will be the case going forward, as much of the depreciation in the past was due to Tesla's $10K+ price drops, the cancelled EV rebate, and luxury manufacturers making bad but expensive EVs.
That would work other way too, EVs would be expensive to upgrade to newer models. Though nowadays it is not that big a concern, but battery pack replacement at some point need to be accounted for.
> “We even did a sensitivity study to see if the range is reduced in very cold climates, and we found that, even in the most unfavorable conditions, EVs still reduce emissions by a substantial amount,” Miotti says.
the range is so bad that he couldn’t even finish the thought about range
that’s hilarious and I’m an EV driver, in warm and sunny southwest though
The overall calculation is very personal to each household.
Do you even need a car?
Do you live in a house or an apartment?
If you're in an apartment, is there car parking with charging infrastructure?
If you're in a house, do you own it or are you renting?
Do you have solar panels?
How long is your daily drive?
How often do you need to travel further than the car's range?
How much can the car recharge overnight?
Can you plug the car in anywhere to charge overnight?
What public charging infrastructure is nearby?
What rate are you charged for electricity?
I'm in a house with solar and battery and have had a 2014 Nissan Leaf for nearly two years. It costs $11k, and in that time has saved us around $2,500 in petrol. We've since purchased another EV, replacing a petrol family car, both of which have about the same range with a 'full tank', except the EV costs about $5 to go from empty to full whilst the petrol car was about $70. We've only had the new one about 3 months, so I can't speak to reliability over an extended period. Both cars are charged overnight just at 10A, 240V, no fast charge and so far they cover our normal daily usage no worries.
I'm aware that I'm lucky in that my situation seems to be a perfect use-case for EVs.
(I'm also not in the US, and so the recent EV was cheaper or at least comparable to equivalent petrol cars; someone mentioned a 'payback period', in my case it doesn't apply).