GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...-infrastructure-sum-up-why-shoppers-avoid-evs


The more things change . . . The exact same story could of (and has) been written at any time over the past 9 years. The same factors were cited as the most important atrributes for buying, but price moved ahead of range.

. . . When Autolist asked consumers for the minimum range they’d accept in a $35,000 electric vehicle, the leading answer was “between 250 and 300 miles”—stipulations perhaps most closely met by the Hyundai Kona Electric, with its $37,995 base price and 258-mile EPA-rated range. The Chevrolet Bolt EV and Kia Niro EV are also close to meeting those expectations. . . .
You can add the 2020 Bolt to the 250+ range list.

But when Autolist asked the same about a $70,000 EV, the responses, the most common response was “more than 500 miles. . . .”


There's apparently a strong correlation between the age of the respondent and the required range, with older drivers demanding more. Also see:
OVERCOMING THE HURDLES TO WIDESPREAD ELECTRIC VEHICLE ADOPTION
https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/overcoming-the-hurdles-to-widespread-electric-vehicle-adoption
 
How much of the range expectation is being driven by unaffordable pricing? 95% of your trips might be under 100 miles and/or served by good DCFC infrastructure, but you still need another car for the other 5% and then you need to divide your budget accordingly. People want a do-everything vehicle if they are going to spend $35,000, but I suspect that if Nissan revived the 24 kWh Leaf and sold it for $15,000 they would be very popular despite the sub-100 mile range.
 
Maybe EV manufacturers need to add a feature they've avoided: a real Max Eco mode (aka "Get There Mode") that limits both maximum and average motor and heater consumption, producing adequate but sluggish performance - but with another 20-30% range, for longer trips in which the driver just wants to get there, not get there in a sporty fashion. You could even tell the car how far you needed to go, with power then limited according to that goal, or the car just telling you "Fast Charge at xx miles" if necessary. Instead of watching meters and doing tiring, careful operation of the accelerator pedal, you just select Max Eco, turn on some music, and take a relaxed long drive, with the car doing the conservation, including setting the ACC to the appropriate highway speeds and directing climate controlled air at the driver only, or driver and front passenger only.
 
Titanium48 said:
How much of the range expectation is being driven by unaffordable pricing? 95% of your trips might be under 100 miles and/or served by good DCFC infrastructure, but you still need another car for the other 5% and then you need to divide your budget accordingly. People want a do-everything vehicle if they are going to spend $35,000, but I suspect that if Nissan revived the 24 kWh Leaf and sold it for $15,000 they would be very popular despite the sub-100 mile range.


You sure you're not reprinting some of my old posts? :lol: Yeah, a city car makes a lot more sense at $15k than it does at $30k+. Even better at $10k-$12k, which is what I told the guy test-marketing Think Citys (think a Smart with a Lexan body) after renting and driving it for a week in the bay area back in '98 or so.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Maybe EV manufacturers need to add a feature they've avoided: a real Max Eco mode (aka "Get There Mode") that limits both maximum and average motor and heater consumption, producing adequate but sluggish performance - but with another 20-30% range, for longer trips in which the driver just wants to get there, not get there in a sporty fashion. You could even tell the car how far you needed to go, with power then limited according to that goal, or the car just telling you "Fast Charge at xx miles" if necessary. Instead of watching meters and doing tiring, careful operation of the accelerator pedal, you just select Max Eco, turn on some music, and take a relaxed long drive, with the car doing the conservation, including setting the ACC to the appropriate highway speeds and directing climate controlled air at the driver only, or driver and front passenger only.


Most of the Eco+ modes do so limit the car, but I don't think that's the problem. It's range (driving the way people want to, not what the car wants to force them to do) @ price, with infrastructure in third place.
 
Most of the Eco+ modes do so limit the car, but I don't think that's the problem.

I don't know of any EV that limits the power available if you floor the accelerator in Eco. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But cars that adjust energy consumption to get you to a stated destination do not, AFAIK, exist yet.
 
I think a 62kwh battery leaf will do everything I need aside from pull my 18'x99'' flat bed trailer and go on a long road trip.

Diesel fired heaters will make all the difference where it's cold.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Most of the Eco+ modes do so limit the car, but I don't think that's the problem.

I don't know of any EV that limits the power available if you floor the accelerator in Eco. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But cars that adjust energy consumption to get you to a stated destination do not, AFAIK, exist yet.
I should have been clearer. I wasn't saying that any cars exist now that include ALL the features you mentioned, just most of them in various combinations. But my point stands - most customers aren't willing to buy a car that forces them to drive a certain way to meet the CAR's needs rather than their own - we know that from the constant increase in BEV range. Which is why city cars with sub-100 mile EPA ranges just don't cut it in the U.S. Once you allow for HVAC use, load, wet roads, reserve and especially degradation, the range becomes too limited and the car is too much of a hassle to appeal to most people. We've got ample experience with the LEAF and other such limited-range BEVs to confirm this.

What's really needed is a battery chemistry/tech which experiences no degradation for the life of the vehicle (15-20 years), as is the case with ICEs. Allowing for degradation, along with climate effects, are the largest contributors to excess cost/weight/hassle and the largest variable, which people hate having to think about/calculate. The only way to get that now is the brute force method, over-sizing the battery and limiting the usable capacity while gradually opening up more and more of the total to maintain the same usable. But that's too expensive (among many other drawbacks) for a cheap city car.
 
Gra, you are just brimming with reasons not to buy an EV, and also with impossible conditions that EVs must meet in order to be acceptable - to you. Range anxiety is the issue for most prospective EV drivers, not some libertarian opposition the the car limiting acceleration on long trips. Women, especially, want to GET THERE, and I think that most would happily allow the car to do what I proposed as long as it accomplishes that goal.

Why not just change your signature to read "I'm going to use every sneaky, passive-aggressive way I can to slow the adoption of EVs, because I like my gas-powered Subaru." Between you and the guy who'd rather burn gas to cook because he likes the way it roasts peppers, This place is starting to resemble a very sophisticated troll farm. :(
 
LeftieBiker said:
Gra, you are just brimming with reasons not to buy an EV, and also with impossible conditions that EVs must meet in order to be acceptable - to you. Range anxiety is the issue for most prospective EV drivers, not some libertarian opposition the the car limiting acceleration on long trips. Women, especially, want to GET THERE, and I think that most would happily allow the car to do what I proposed as long as it accomplishes that goal.
I'm brimming with reasons not to buy an BEV? You mean the general public is brimming with reasons not to do so, as every survey to date including the one at the head of this topic has shown. My specific requirements are way on one side of the curve, and not generally relevant to the typical consumer, but that's not to say that many of the same considerations don't apply to them - they obviously do. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was specifically focused on accel limitation, although that's a factor for some. No, I'm focused on price, range and charging limitations and the compromises which may be required (such as the one you mention) to overcome them.


LeftieBiker said:
Why not just change your signature to read "I'm going to use every sneaky, passive-aggressive way I can to slow the adoption of EVs, because I like my gas-powered Subaru." Between you and the guy who'd rather burn gas to cook because he likes the way it roasts peppers, This place is starting to resemble a very sophisticated troll farm. :(


Because that wouldn't represent my views, in fact it's diametrically opposed to them. As I've stated numerous times, I want us to get off fossil fuels ASAP, and I limit my own use of same as much as possible while meeting my other requirements, just as anyone who's concerned by this will do. I mean, anyone here want to give up both gas and induction ranges as well as fires, and rely on solar ovens exclusively for cooking? After all, that's the lowest cost and most environmentally benign cooking solution. I used to sell those, and will be happy to point you to such products or plans for building your own. Sure, compromises have to be made, but after all, the true believers are willing to do what's best for the environment regardless of the limitations it forces on them. So what if you have to do without cooked food for much of the year, it will take much longer to prepare, and you can never be sure just when a meal will be done?

I insist on looking rationally at what will prevent or slow down the shift from fossil fuels, and from the time I began posting here I've always tried to remind people that the general public's priorities aren't the same as early adopters, because the latter group tends to believe the public only needs to be shown the true and righteous path to see the light, and that it will be easy to convince them to have the same priorities as the early adopters do. Based on your knowledge of human behavior, does this seem realistic to you? If I'd been in any doubt, I confirmed that wasn't the case when I was selling off-grid AE systems a quarter century ago, where the same early adopter/general public divide existed. You can only persuade people to change if they want to change, and that requires that you give them a better option. And that's better according to THEIR priorities, not yours. Maybe you can convince them to adopt your priorities, but odds are you can't.

Compared to ICEs, BEVs currently don't match the priorities of the general public in the U.S., and most other countries for that matter, That's a fact, confirmed by the need to directly bribe or coerce people to buy them everywhere, except at the top end of the range where people can ignore rational calculations of transportation value for money. Which is why almost 9 years after production BEV introduction here we're at about 2% take rate, and that's driven almost entirely by cars at the higher end of the price range (which also come closest to meeting people's operational requirements) as well as perks like HOV access.

As the topic survey shows, the general public's concerns about BEVs have remained essentially unchanged all this time, so barring large-scale coercion of individual consumers here, we'll have to give them what they want if that's to change. That's an affordable car which requires minimal thinking or planning to use, i.e. has acceptable operating range over the necessary life when driven by the majority of drivers, and an extensive and ideally ubiquitous and affordable charging infrastructure, as is the case with gas stations. Neither of these conditions is present as of yet although we're getting closer with cars, but until charging infrastructure is actually profitable to build and the electricity can be sold at a similar or lower price than gas, we're not going to see lots of QC sites, and the public won't be saying "Gee, a BEV really is better, and I'm buying one". Do you disagree?

While some government mandates may be acceptable here (I'm a big fan of congestion pricing and emission-free zones), the sort of dictatorial "you will do this or else" approach possible in China just isn't going to happen. Even in China, NEV sales rates have fallen a lot since they reduced the subsidy, and we've got a lot more choices than they have, not to mention far more leverage over the government. So why would you expect rapid movement on our part, barring some catastrophic event like Greenland's glaciers all melting in the next 5-10 years, and large parts of Houston, Miami, NYC etc becoming permanently flooded, serving to concentrate the public's mind on an immediate threat which will undeniably affect them, in their taxes if not physically, rather than some uncertain, diffuse future threat that may not happen until after they're dead?
 
I mean, anyone here want to give up both gas and induction ranges as well as fires, and rely on Solar ovens exclusively for cooking? After all...


Classic troll stuff. I'm afraid I skimmed the rest of it - as with much of what you post. Thousands of words reposted a day doesn't increase the Sube's MPG.
 
GRA said:
So why would you expect rapid movement on our part, barring some catastrophic event like Greenland's glaciers all melting in the next 5-10 years, and large parts of Houston, Miami, NYC etc becoming permanently flooded, serving to concentrate the public's mind on an immediate threat which will undeniably affect them, in their taxes if not physically, rather than some uncertain, diffuse future threat that may not happen until after they're dead?

As you know, I don't expect anything other than doubling of EV sales every three or four years. And mostly not on environmental concerns, yet those are present.

EVs are just better to drive, and more convenient most of the time. Sure, ending incentives would set the curve back a few years, as would punitive taxation of EVs.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I mean, anyone here want to give up both gas and induction ranges as well as fires, and rely on Solar ovens exclusively for cooking? After all...


Classic troll stuff. I'm afraid I skimmed the rest of it - as with much of what you post. Thousands of words reposted a day doesn't increase the Sube's MPG.
No, it's an example of an extreme which most people won't find acceptable. I increase my Subaru's mpg by taking someone else with me as often as possible when I do drive it, and as my sig says, using more efficient forms of transport as much as possible. I mean, you ride an electric bike. I ride a human-powered one. Dozens of words doesn't improve your e-bike's efficiency. Should I accuse you of passive-aggressive attempts to impede a transition to the most efficient land transportation yet invented?

You ride one presumably because of health issues, but someone else may say they just don't want to provide all the power themselves, so it has to be an e-bike, and none of the available ones currently meet their requirements. Should we accuse them as above? Why are you or I better at drawing that line for them than they are?

Or should we rather realize that their priorities and situation may not match ours, and given that they're willing to ride an e-bike that meets their requirements (which is certainly better environmentally than using a car for the same trip, however powered), let's provide them with one, rather than trying to convince them that only a human-powered bike is acceptably pure - they've already said that's not a way they're willing to go.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
So why would you expect rapid movement on our part, barring some catastrophic event like Greenland's glaciers all melting in the next 5-10 years, and large parts of Houston, Miami, NYC etc becoming permanently flooded, serving to concentrate the public's mind on an immediate threat which will undeniably affect them, in their taxes if not physically, rather than some uncertain, diffuse future threat that may not happen until after they're dead?

As you know, I don't expect anything other than doubling of EV sales every three or four years. And mostly not on environmental concerns, yet those are present.

EVs are just better to drive, and more convenient most of the time. Sure, ending incentives would set the curve back a few years, as would punitive taxation of EVs.
Right now, I don't see doubling continuing at that rate absent massive mandates/subsidies/perks ala China/Norway. Five years from now we may start to see that, as range/price/infrastructure more closely approach people's comfort zones. For the U.S. at the moment, Tesla continues to carry BEVs on their backs, and I don't see that as sustainable.
 
I mean, you ride an electric bike. I ride a human-powered one. Dozens of words doesn't improve your e-bike's efficiency. Should I accuse you of passive-aggressive attempts to impede a transition to the most efficient land transportation yet invented?

You ride one presumably because of health issues, but someone else may say they just don't want to provide all the power themselves, so it has to be an e-bike, and none of the available ones currently meet their requirements. Should we accuse them as above? Why are you or I better at drawing that line for them than they are?


More troll-speak. You know I ride a (hydro source) electric-assist bike because of poor health, yet you bring in a non-applicable strawman argument just to try to get a little dirt on me from it. I think I'll just filter you, and click on the posts that look interesting. I will admit that you're one of the more interesting trolls I've encountered over the decades.
 
LeftieBiker said:
I mean, you ride an electric bike. I ride a human-powered one. Dozens of words doesn't improve your e-bike's efficiency. Should I accuse you of passive-aggressive attempts to impede a transition to the most efficient land transportation yet invented?

You ride one presumably because of health issues, but someone else may say they just don't want to provide all the power themselves, so it has to be an e-bike, and none of the available ones currently meet their requirements. Should we accuse them as above? Why are you or I better at drawing that line for them than they are?


More troll-speak. You know I ride a (hydro source) electric-assist bike because of poor health, yet you bring in a non-applicable strawman argument just to try to get a little dirt on me from it. I think I'll just filter you, and click on the posts that look interesting. I will admit that you're one of the more interesting trolls I've encountered over the decades.


Whatever works for you, but it's not a strawman argument and I wasn't attacking you, just pointing out that attacking anyone else because you feel that they're less holy than you is dumb - there's always someone even holier than thou. As an omnivore, I'm certainly not saying I am. In the e-bike choice case, I know people in San Francisco who, despite the hills, consider anyone who rides an e-bike as beneath contempt (these tend to be the same kind of Jackass extremists who cause most of the negative PR in Critical Mass rides). As I've long recognized that I'm an environmental sinner (just as everyone not living naked in a hole and living on grass and rainwater is), I've learned to accept that other people see things differently than I do, and do my best to help them meet their requirements in as environmentally benign a way as they'll accept, rather than trying to force them to be me, an exercise in futility.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As you know, I don't expect anything other than doubling of EV sales every three or four years. And mostly not on environmental concerns, yet those are present.

EVs are just better to drive, and more convenient most of the time. Sure, ending incentives would set the curve back a few years, as would punitive taxation of EVs.
Right now, I don't see doubling continuing at that rate absent massive mandates/subsidies/perks ala China/Norway. Five years from now we may start to see that, as range/price/infrastructure more closely approach people's comfort zones. For the U.S. at the moment, Tesla continues to carry BEVs on their backs, and I don't see that as sustainable.

You don't see the advantages of BEVs to a lot of people today.

Your comfort zone is rather different than my former neighbors. The ones that had been as far away as Springfield, MA? A Bolt or a Leaf Plus would work for them with only home charging. Doesn't get much better than that. Range? Don't need any more. Price? TCO lower than a comparable ICE. Infrastructure? No new infrastructure needed, just grid power to the house which is already there.

Needs and wants are in a distribution, not a single point. Your stated needs are at one end, my former neighbors are at the other. Yes, the mandates and subsidies and perks move up the time to get to a given take rate. But the technology is improving. What's the subsidy on a Tesla this quarter?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As you know, I don't expect anything other than doubling of EV sales every three or four years. And mostly not on environmental concerns, yet those are present.

EVs are just better to drive, and more convenient most of the time. Sure, ending incentives would set the curve back a few years, as would punitive taxation of EVs.
Right now, I don't see doubling continuing at that rate absent massive mandates/subsidies/perks ala China/Norway. Five years from now we may start to see that, as range/price/infrastructure more closely approach people's comfort zones. For the U.S. at the moment, Tesla continues to carry BEVs on their backs, and I don't see that as sustainable.

You don't see the advantages of BEVs to a lot of people today. <snip>


On the contrary, I see the advantages but they don't, which is the critical point. Even in the U.S., a far higher number of people could benefit from PEVs now than do. My use case means I'm not one of them yet (I could use but not benefit from a PHEV, versus an HEV), but that doesn't apply to most of the people who can charge at home and commute on a daily basis by car, especially in multi-car households.

A few years back Plug-in America found that 56% of U.S. households could charge at home. There are currently about 128 million households in the U.S., so 56% would be ~72 million households that have the potential to benefit from a PEV, yet cumulative U.S. PEV sales to date are somewhere between 1 and 2% of that (and many of those cars are no longer in the fleet). The mass of the potential market remains either uninterested or unwilling to get one, for the reasons stated in the survey. Until PEVs can meet their needs and desires they aren't going to adopt them in large numbers. We move closer to that point all the time, but IMO we're still several years away.
 
WetEV said:
Sure, ending incentives would set the curve back a few years, as would punitive taxation of EVs.

And I think we’re almost there. Federal subsidies are ending this year for Tesla, and will for others at some point. State and other subsidies are not consistent everywhere. And there is a disturbing trend toward increased and new EV penalties, especially fees charged at annual registration. Most are north of $100 with some almost 2½ times that and passed on the specious argument that EVs don’t pay gas taxes. While true, the amount of gas taxes for ICE vehicles the size of EVs and even larger are a small fraction of these EV fees.

I’d like to see every new EV tax accompanied by an ICE carbon tax. Show me a politician who will submit that thinking to a vote and I’ll show you an ex-politician.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
You don't see the advantages of BEVs to a lot of people today. <snip>


On the contrary, I see the advantages but they don't, which is the critical point.

Time is why everything doesn't happen at once.

Even in the U.S., a far higher number of people could benefit from PEVs now than do. My use case means I'm not one of them yet (I could use but not benefit from a PHEV, versus an HEV), but that doesn't apply to most of the people who can charge at home and commute on a daily basis by car, especially in multi-car households.

A few years back Plug-in America found that 56% of U.S. households could charge at home. There are currently about 128 million households in the U.S., so 56% would be ~72 million households that have the potential to benefit from a PEV, yet cumulative U.S. PEV sales to date are somewhere between 1 and 2% of that (and many of those cars are no longer in the fleet). The mass of the potential market remains either uninterested or unwilling to get one, for the reasons stated in the survey. Until PEVs can meet their needs and desires they aren't going to adopt them in large numbers. We move closer to that point all the time, but IMO we're still several years away.

US PEV sales are more than 1% to 2% of 56% of the market. More like almost 2% of the whole market last month, and more than 2% of the market in some past months. It's interesting how you have recast your "PEVs are less than 1% of the market" into PEVs are less than 2% of the market.

I expect you can use the same arguments at 4% of the market, 8% of the market, 16% of the market...
 
Back
Top