As soon as I saw this headline at the Daily Mail,

Drivers of petrol and diesel cars have ‘really poor’ knowledge about EVs and it’s stopping many from going green, think tank claims

I knew fun was going to ensue. The theme is a constant one, and is as annoying as the McDonald’s chirpy whistle that seems to crop up at every ad break on commercial radio. ICE drivers are as thick as porridge, and their tiny brains have been filled up with misinformation by people with vested interests in something-or-other. [Big Oil, perhaps.] Everything they think they know about EVs is pi radians wrong.

In its recent poll, 57 per cent of 1,000 UK drivers of conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars answered no more than two out of 10 questions about EVs correctly.

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, which commissioned the survey, blamed a ‘constant stream of EV misinformation’ for limiting drivers’ knowledge about battery-powered cars.

A quiz! I hate quizzes. But still. Let’s pray these 10 questions are provided, so that we can test how ignorant we are…

Bingo!

Let’s see if we can get more than two out of ten correct. It’s TRUE or FALSE for each. Jot your answers on the back of your packet of Silk Cut, and we’ll compare notes at the end. [The suspicion arises that we may differ from the ECIU on some of the answers; we’ll see.]

Here are the questions:

1. The total upfront costs for an EV are higher than a petrol car

2. The total lifetime CO2 emissions of an EV (from building, driving and scrapping) are no less than those of a petrol car

3. More natural resources are extracted from the earth to build and fuel an EV than are extracted to build and fuel a petrol car

4. EVs pose a threat to the structural integrity of the UK’s car parks

5. EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars

6. EVs are no better for urban air quality than petrol cars

7. The UK is not on course to install the charging infrastructure it will need to make the transition to EVs

8. EV drivers currently pay more for their insurance than petrol car drivers

9. The UK’s grid will not be able to cope with the extra demand that will be created by the UK’s shift to EVs

10. Switching to EV’s will weaken the UK’s energy independence

DISCUSSION

1. The total upfront costs for an EV are higher than a petrol car

TRUE. Not even a climate alarmist engaging in motivated reasoning could come to any other conclusion.

2. The total lifetime CO2 emissions of an EV (from building, driving and scrapping) are no less than those of a petrol car

FALSE. Why did they have to put the “no less” in there when “more” would have made an easier-to-grok question? I’m saying FALSE but there is plenty of nuance. It depends on what electricity sources charge the car, and how many miles the car does before it dies. We have seen that the crossing-over point is a long way into a car’s life, and beyond the age at which many die. However, I’m prepared to grant the ECIU this one.

3. More natural resources are extracted from the earth to build and fuel an EV than are extracted to build and fuel a petrol car

TRUE. They obviously require more materials to build, and the great green future is powered by electricity, which requires more materials to build. We are trading a fossil-fuel intensive system for a materials-intensive system (as I think Mark Mills may have pointed out). But there is nuance here. Ore has to be “extracted” in vast quantities to provide the elements necessary to build an EV. But most of it ends up as spoil. Does this count as “extracted”? If you say yes, the answer is TRUE. If you only count the mass of the end product, the answer is FALSE. Remember too that extracting all this stuff requires infrastructure of its own that is far larger for battery components than drilling for oil.

4. EVs pose a threat to the structural integrity of the UK’s car parks

FALSE. A ludicrous suggestion.

5. EVs are more likely to catch fire than petrol cars

FALSE. Wait, what? Has Jit had his scepticism surgically removed? What about the famous, or infamous, auto-cremating habit of EVs? Well, again the answer needs a wealth of further detail before it can be answered properly. I am prepared to accept that the current population of EVs catches fire less frequently than the current fleet of ICE cars. Is that what the question meant? This situation arises because the average age of an ICE car on the road is far higher than that of EVs. Many more ICEs have reached the inflexion point where a failure ending in fire becomes more likely. In a situation with a stable population of both types, I do not know what the answer is. Does anyone? I do know that the consequences of an EV fire are on the average more serious than an ICE fire.

And there is another fat fly in the ointment. A large proportion of car fires are caused by arson. According to that trustworthy source the AA,

The biggest cause of vehicle fires attended by fire brigades is arson or vandalism of parked vehicles. Dublin Fire Brigade told us that most of the car fires they attended in 2020 were due to arson, echoed by James Long, an Irish lecturer and President of the Society of Automotive Forensic Engineers, who said most fires he has investigated have had a deliberate cause. Figures for the UK show that around half of all vehicle fires between 2015 and 2020 were “deliberate”, and that’s before you count accidental fires caused by human activity.

Have our lords and masters thought this through? You do have to wonder. In some places, burning cars is an annual celebration.

A total of 874 cars have been set alight during New Year’s Eve celebrations in France, police say.

6. EVs are no better for urban air quality than petrol cars

TRUE. But again there is nuance. If we are comparing new petrol cars with new EVs, as we have seen on this blog, tyre dust casts a dark shadow over EVs’ performance. But if you compare a new EV to the ICE fleet at large, the EV might win. There are certainly clunkers out there that emit clouds of noxious smoke.

7. The UK is not on course to install the charging infrastructure it will need to make the transition to EVs

I don’t know how to answer this. The charging infrastructure is, or should be, an organic development based on the demand for charging. If we build as many chargers as we “need,” then we will have hundreds of thousands of chargers standing idle most of the time. If you’re asking me are we on course for 300,000 chargers, the answer is FALSE.

8. EV drivers currently pay more for their insurance than petrol car drivers

TRUE. At least, according to news reports.

9. The UK’s grid will not be able to cope with the extra demand that will be created by the UK’s shift to EVs

FALSE. I don’t believe this. Not every EV will want to charge at once, and the authorities have nefarious means to prevent them from charging, should they need to deploy them. Sceptical talking points on this often do not account for the fact that only a small proportion of EVs will be charging at any one time.

10. Switching to EV’s will weaken the UK’s energy independence

I don’t know the answer here. Either way, our energy independence is being curtailed. On the one hand, increasing electrification necessitates the use of interconnectors, which connect to, er, countries that are not the UK. On the other hand, our oil and gas extraction industry has been destroyed, so our dependence on foreign sources for that is only going to increase. I would call this question a score draw.

I think they missed

11. EVs are cheaper to run than ICE cars

For this I was going to go for neither TRUE nor FALSE, since it heavily depends on your circumstances. Now that is an interesting angle I had not thought of before. Think of it this way: an ICE car costs everyone up and down the country exactly the same to run. Sure, there may be variable insurance costs based on where you live, and the costs of fuel varies too. But by and large everything is the same. Compare that situation to an EV. If you have the luxury to charge at home, then undoubtedly you’re winning on running costs vs an ICE. But if you’re in the unhappy situation that you are not the proud possessor of a nice crunchy gravel driveway and have to make use of those foul public chargers, all bets are off. You could well find your EV costs more.

[Out-of-date comparison here.]

And it would be remiss of me not to point out all the tax disadvantages of ICEs which are not an organic part of what it costs to run a car. There is the BIK disadvantage for company car drivers, the excise duty, the fuel duty, and the 20% VAT on the fuel (and the duty). MikeH has tentatively costed the tax foregone as £5 billion, and I have no reason to gainsay him.

Now for the answers.

1. TRUE (62% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: TRUE

2. FALSE (25% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: FALSE

3. FALSE (45% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: TRUE

4. FALSE (33% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: FALSE

5. FALSE (41% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: FALSE

6. FALSE (28% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: TRUE

7. TRUE (80% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: FALSE

8. FALSE (24% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly – 63% answered ‘don’t know’) Jit said: TRUE

9. FALSE (56% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: FALSE

10. FALSE (29% of ICE drivers answered incorrectly) Jit said: DUNNO

Looks like I got 4½ wrong. I have to admit that I’m surprised to have got question 1 right, and that 62% of ICE drivers thought EVs are cheaper to buy than ICE. A mistake here perhaps?

According to the pollsters, 57% of ICE drivers got 8/10 wrong. This may be a BS statistic, bearing in mind the percentage incorrect shown for each question.

CONCLUSION

Buy EVs, you ingrates! You may not want to, but it’s only because you’ve been getting a drip-drip-drip of misinformation from your social media echo chamber silo caves.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

49 Comments

  2. Thanks but no.

    I’m happy in my cave heated by a large woodstove,while my large supercharged SUV slumbers in its shed not seeing the light of day from one month to the next so in my mind I am saving the planet one log at a time.

    Like

  3. On question 11, it depends on what you mean by ‘cheaper to run’. Currently, EVs don’t pay road tax (VED) and charging at home means the energy cost per mile is cheaper than ICE given the price of petrol and diesel. (Diesel could be cheaper on energy.)

    But, and it’s a ‘big but’, if you include depreciation from the new price on the road, EVs are really, really expensive. Most EV sales are leasing deals for business users, and leasing relies on a residual value – new price less depreciation – and this is reflected in the monthly lease payment. However, nobody wants to buy a second-hand EV and hence the residual values are horrific – 60 percent loss in value after three years (against one-third for ICE).

    The leasing companies are now increasing payments substantially to account for this. So if you include depreciation, EVs are incredibly expensive to run.

    Question 4 should be ‘true’. EVs are seriously heavy compared to ICE cars. The Kia EV9 weighs over two tons. EVs might not catch fire more than ICE, basically for the reason you discuss. But EV fires are intense and all but impossible to put out. Look at the recent fire in an underground car park in South Korea.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Ah, “The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit …”

    A propaganda unit that often lacks intelligence about energy!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “The UK’s grid will not be able to cope with the extra demand that will be created by the UK’s shift to EVs”

    AIUI at a local level this is true.

    “Not every EV will want to charge at once”

    But statistically there will be hot spots where they all do, and the existing transformers wouldn’t be able to cope.

    We also do not have the generation capacity to supply a country’s worth of EVs.

    Like

  6. Chris Morrison has an interesting piece in the Daily Sceptic:

    Electric Vehicle Explosions Rise 46% in a Year

    His conclusion:

    Miliband is secure at the moment to follow his destructive ideology, but his survival as a political force should not be taken for granted once adult realism starts to dawn. The public is becoming aware that EVs are an ecological and safety menace. It is debatable whether they have a lower ‘carbon footprint’ than internal combustion engines and the potential safety risks they pose scarcely bear thinking about. Combine that with poor second-hand values and range anxiety (constantly having to apologise for being late!) and it is becoming clear that they are another expensive and inferior change imposed by politicians hell bent on following a Net Zero fantasy.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Nial S: you make a good point about the capacity of local infrastructure. An even bigger challenge than EVs is the planned move to heat pumps with their high and constant load, especially through the colder months.

    Wrt to generating capacity, it’s going to take a very long time for the whole car fleet to migrate to EVs. There are something over 30 millions ICE cars in the UK. New car sales average around 2 million per year: it’s going to take a couple of decades at least, if it ever happens. By that time we should have a lot more capacity…..maybe! Also the demand from EVs would not be that great. Average mileage is less than 20 per day: that’s only 5 – 6 kWh per car per day. Multiply that by, say, 30m EVs equates to 150 – 180 GWh per day which is only 6.25 – 7.5 GW, averaged over 24 hours. “Smart charging” is already in use which allows the load to be tailored to the availability and cost of power. So it does seem feasible although unnecessary imho.

    Like

  8. See Jaguar Land Rover to invest £500m in car plant (msn.com) are being realist.

    “Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) will spend half a billion pounds upgrading a factory for electric vehicle production, it has been announced. The manufacturer said the investment would transform its historic Halewood facility on Merseyside to support the production of electric vehicles, alongside existing combustion and hybrid models.”

    Like

  9. I had to laugh. Elon Musk calls diesel and petrol cars ‘combustion cars’. There was me thinking it was EVs which were the combustion type!

    Almost all vehicles will be purely electric long-term. Combustion cars will be a niche, like horses.

    I must admit, I prefer the combustion of my car to be internal rather than external, which is why I won’t be buying an EV!

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Thanks Mike. It looks as if the CBI have been at the punchbowl. The “research” was funded by our old friends the ECIU. What they are saying is that if BEV production does not grow, then there will be fewer jobs, and the value generated in the sector will go down.

    This naturally presupposes that there will only be stagnation or decline in the ICE manufacturing. However, I can assure the CBI that we are not going to be exporting mass-market EVs to the PRC. From a skim, I see nowhere in the report is there a discussion about the relative competitive position of ourselves and other countries. Perhaps this is because we are in a poor position on that score. Here are their four scenarios:

    I’m predicting “Pessimistic.”

    Like

  12. Jit: quite agree with your summary. They have just churned a lot of numbers without putting them into context. There doesn’t seem to be any appraisal of how our companies could improve their market position. There’s no mention of the overall market situation. Annual sales of BEVs are a bit over 300,000. We only produce 75,000 of which about 18,000 are sold in this market. So we supply 6% of our own market: that doesn’t seem very healthy.

    If they persist with the ZEV mandate we may well see manufacturers cutting back on ICEs to avoid fines. So the “pessimistic” scenario looks quite likely.

    Like

  13. Bedford Fire & Rescue Service has published their report into the Luton Airport fire:

    “Following the incident, BFRS have put together a Serious Incident Response task force who are conducting a full internal and multi-agency investigation and review into the cause, response and outcome of the incident. At this time, we can confirm the vehicle involved was a diesel-powered vehicle. To further clarify it was neither a fully electric vehicle (EV) nor a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV).
    As a result of the investigation, all evidence points to the most probable cause being an electrical fault or component failure, which started in the engine bay of the vehicle whilst it was in motion. The developing fire spread to other components, and whilst the owner of the vehicle attempted to fight the fire, the vehicle became overrun with flames and spread to other parked vehicles.”

    That’s pretty clear…..EVs are innocent!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Thanks Mike. The report is here, if anyone wants to read it.

    I have to say, the footage did look like it belonged to a hybrid. Could not quite imagine a diesel squirting a jet of flames like that. But the car was smoking at the entry barrier, and it is clearly a Range Rover Sport (apparently 2014). The driver was seemingly arrested but let go. I’d call it rather reckless at the least not to notice that the engine temp was through the roof (presumably only the dissipation caused by moving air stopped it from blowing up while en route). Perhaps a problem with the diesel particulate filter or exhaust gas recycler. Who knows?

    The problem was apparently exacerbated by the plastic fuel tank melting. This happened on other vehicles and led to fuel runs. The Fire Service say that EVs did not make matters worse, and I can see that, since one car on fire releases a similar amount of energy to another. I don’t think they mention the fact that EVs might have been going off with big bangs as they got hot. Once the building is empty of people, it hardly seems to matter.

    No doubt when there are plenty of poorly-maintained 10-year-old EVs roaming the country, they’ll start plenty of fires. Range Rovers are probably a classic example of a species of car whose maintenance steadily slips as they age.

    Like

  15. Jit: I doubt the driver would have noticed anything amiss until smoke then flames appeared once inside the car park. Engine temps would have been normal unless the motor lost coolant quickly and/or the fire was close to the engine’s sensors.

    At the time there was footage on the web which showed enough of the registration for the car to be identified as a 2014 RR which meant the car was manufactured before JLR started making any form of hybrid. Yet still the EV speculation ran wild. I’m no fan of EVs but there seem to be a lot of folk who are fanatically anti.

    Iirc the Liverpool fire mentioned in the report was also started by a JLR product…..

    Like

  17. The Telegraph also has the story of the German electrical flying taxi firm Lilium, that raised a billion euros or something, and has now gone bust.

    Investors who invest in speculative electrical flying taxi firms deserve to lose their shirts. It’s a moronic idea. I wouldn’t get in the prototype if they said it was going to go more than 10 feet above the ground.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Speaking of stupid ideas,

    “Ovo tycoon’s flying taxi company at risk of collapse”

    Another electric flying taxi… and another chance for investors to set fire to their cash.

    MSN

    Liked by 1 person

  19. More on the stupid idea that doesn’t get any less stupid with age:

    “Europe’s flying taxi dreams falter as cash runs short”

    The BBC report adds Volocopter to the list of patients on life support, to add to Lilium and Vertical Aerospace mentioned immediately above.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. “Now hopes are pinned on China’s Geely, which is in talks to take an 85% stake in Volocopter in return for $95m of funding, according to a Bloomberg report, external. The deal could mean that any future manufacturing would be moved to China.”

    Suppose China has the cash to spare.

    Like

  22. Is the worm turning? I have long been of the view that the EU is dependent on German economic power, and that German economic power is – or has until recently – been dependent on its (ICE) motor industry. Given the push for EVs, and the seeming inability of German car manufacturers to compete with cheap Chinese EVs, the whole edifice is in danger of crashing down around Von der Leyen’s ears. And so we reach this stage:

    “EU should spare carmakers from ‘punitive’ emissions fines, says Scholz

    Germany’s chancellor backs auto industry as Volkswagen considers unprecedented plant closures”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/20/eu-carmakers-emissions-fines-olaf-scholz-germany-vw

    The EU should refrain from “punitive” fines on carmakers that fail to meet emissions standards, the German chancellor has said, adding to the heated debate on the future of the key European industry.

    Olaf Scholz, who is running for re-election in February at a time when Germany’s biggest carmaker, Volkswagen, is planning unprecedented plant closures in its home market, made the comments after meeting fellow EU leaders in Brussels.

    His intervention comes days before the sector faces stricter standards on cutting carbon emissions from their new cars. From 2025 until 2029 the average new car in Europe should emit no more than 93.6 grams of CO2 for each kilometre, to get the industry on track for the phase-out of petrol and diesel vehicles from 2035.

    Carmakers that fail to meet these targets, which are measured by fleet averages, face fines of €95 (£75) for every gram of CO2 above the target.

    The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, an industry lobby group, has said carmakers risk multibillion-euro fines that could otherwise be invested in the switch to electric and zero-emission vehicles.

    The industry has argued for a rethink amid falling sales of electric cars in Europe, while it faces intense competition on EVs from subsidised Chinese rivals.

    The European Commission said on Thursday that a “strategic dialogue” on the future of the European car industry would launch in January “with a view to swiftly proposing and implementing measures the sector urgently needs”. Its president, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “We need to support this industry in the deep and disruptive transition ahead.”

    The 2025 target was set by EU lawmakers in 2019, after a proposal in 2017. Campaigners argue the industry has had plenty of time to prepare, but carmakers say there has been a profound shift in the economic climate, as European car sales are still below pre-pandemic levels.…

    Liked by 1 person

  26. “UK needs to ban full hybrid cars by 2030 or face net zero ‘catastrophe’

    Motoring body says hybrids without a plug should be banned or else confidence in electric cars will be damaged”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/02/uk-needs-to-ban-full-hybrid-cars-by-2030-or-face-net-zero-catastrophe

    Britain needs to press ahead with a ban on the sale of new hybrid cars with no plug from 2030 or risk taking “a catastrophic misstep” on the road to net zero, ministers have been warned.

    Cars such as the Toyota Prius, which charge a battery from an internal combustion engine, need to be excluded from the list of vehicles sold in the UK from 2030 or there will be a “profound” fall in confidence in the government’s commitment to electric motoring, according to the representative body Electric Vehicles UK (EVUK).

    The Department for Transport (DfT) will ban the sale of new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines from 1 January 2030.

    It is consulting on what other types of new cars – such as full hybrids – can be sold between that date and the end of 2034, after which all non-zero-emission new cars will be prohibited.

    Ministers have come under huge pressure to delay the date when a full ban on non-electric cars takes place.

    Full hybrids, including the Toyota Prius, have a petrol or diesel engine as well as an electric motor powered by a battery….

    Is that last point true? Genuine question – I simply don’t know, though I thought that hybrids were only with petrol, not diesel, cars.

    Like

  27. Right, what constitutes news in teh Guardian these days, is that the purveyor of a inadequate product would like to see sales of the useable product banned as soon as possible.

    Mark, like you I thought all hybrids were petrol, but searching the internet, it seems not. Although they appear to be a niche product in rather a high price range (high for non-EVs, that is).

    Like

  28. Mark/Jit; there are many varieties of “hybrid” on the market, in addition to the plug-in versions. The majority are petrol, as you say, but there are a few diesels too – from Merc and BMW, for example. I would guess that is mainly due to the benefits being much greater for petrol than for diesel combined with the declining popularity of diesel.

    SMMT figures show “HEVs” accounting for 13.4% of the new car market, greater than the plug-in share at 8.5%. That hybrid figure does not include “mild” hybrids which, aiui, are cars with negligible battery-only range – such as the Prius. They are included with the figures for petrol and diesel; it’s my impression that the numbers are significant but I cba to try and dig up the numbers!

    The varieties range from companies like Mazda and Nissan (I think) where the ICE simply drives a generator to charge the battery when necessary, with the drive system being purely electric. Toyota have long been masters of the basic system where an ICE is augmented by an electric motor with energy recovery. Afaik there are hybrid variants of all their cars, as well as the hybrid-only Prius. They use a variation of the normal 4-stroke: the Atkinson cycle. It works extremely well and, being Toyota, is ultra reliable – as evidenced by the number used as minicabs.

    Hybrids are a relatively new development. It’s going to be interesting to see how they fare as they age. There’s all the complexity of having 2 power systems, concerns over battery life (they work much harder than in pure EVs, etc..

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Jeremy Warner in t’ Telegraph. His conclusion:

    Ministers face a clear choice. Either they must abandon the charade of the zero emission mandate and let the market decide the pace of the transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles.

    Or they can let UK manufacturing fall on the sword of rigid net zero commitments, knowing that it won’t make a blind bit of difference to global emissions – and, by the by, would destroy whatever chance Labour may still have of eventual re-election. One imagines that common sense will prevail.

    I wouldn’t be too sure about that!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. More propaganda from the BBC, starting with an EV driver in Northern Ireland. They never ask my views. Who is he and why is the BBC building an article round him?

    “‘Support’ needed for NI drivers to switch to EV”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ymqq3evvo

    As the UK approaches its’ climate change goals, “support” is needed to encourage motorists in Northern Ireland to switch to electric vehicles (EVs), one EV driver has said.

    “The cars need to be more affordable and there needs to be proper infrastructure,” Stephen Kane said.

    The Electric Vehicle Association NI (EVANI) said it was too early to “take away the incentives” such as free public charging and financial schemes.

    Meanwhile, the Department for Transport (DfT) said there are “already a range of incentives” such as favourable taxation rates and targeted grants, and it will support “continued demand”….

    Then there’s the inevitable misinformation about misinformation:

    Darren Henderson, director of EVANI, said “disinformation” on social media is affecting people’s decision to buy an EV.

    “Petrochemical companies are throwing information out there to try and slow things down,” he said….[without evidence, as the BBC and the Guardian love to add when reporting on Trump’s unevidenced claims].

    Liked by 1 person

  33. FCDO is funding Porsche electric vehicles for Albanian prisons . . . . . to get to Net Zero, you understand:

    The UK taxpayer paid £499,649 to buy 15 Electric Porsches for the British Embassy in Tirana- to be donated to Albanian Prisons. ‘Part of a drive to net zero.. the required vehicles should be delivered at once’ Contract awarded to Porsche Albania by the FCDO

    Image

    Image

    Image

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Jaime, that sort of thing makes me think Trump has a point. Worse still, looking at the dates, we can’t even blame the current government.

    Like

  36. On depreciation, Auto Express has this year’s top ten worst cars. 6 EVs, 2 top-of-the-range Audis, and 2 Maseratis. The worst is a Nissan Leaf, worth 27% of its original price after 3 years.

    Like

  37. Jit: To be fair, of the 6 EVs one has been discontinued (Jag) and another is an old model about to be (Leaf). Depreciation is only an issue for direct purchase. Around 90% of EV sales are company cars and, aiui, virtually of the remainder are bought on lease, PCP, etc.. Very few folk hand over their hard-earned for a new car these days.

    OTOH, second-hand EVs are beginning to look like bargains: cheaper to buy than their ICE equivalents and very cheap to run. They are now selling quicker than ICEs. The finance companies are probably taking a caning – hard to sympathise!

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Jit: that’s just the usual clickbait nonsense, trying to pin the issue of obsolete barriers on EVs.

    Yes, some EVs are heavier than their ICE equivalent but others – notably Tesla – are pretty close. Further, some ICEs are heavier than their EV competitors – eg Range Rovers vs Kia EV9.

    More significantly, the weight difference is often similar to adding a full complement of adults and luggage – easily 250+ kg.

    These days there’s not much that meets the 1500 kg criterion, even with only the driver on board. For example, ICE variants of the VW Golf list at between 1350 and 1550 Kg unladen.

    So there may be a point that the barrier design specs are obsolete but the real issue is the huge increase in car weights generally. The latest big SUVs are up around 2.5 tonnes, unladen! Trying to link the issue to EVs is just the dog-whistle journalism from the DT…no surprise there.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. From the Knowledge:
    “The government is facing a growing revolt from senior Labour figures over plans to save £5bn by cutting disability benefits.”
    Rough maths says that is about the amount of tax that HMRC are foregoing, mainly due to the Benefit-in-Kind advantages granted to company car drivers who have EVs…..

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Regarding the motorway barriers, my first thought was that lorries must weigh a lot more than that, so as Mike H suggests, I think it’s probably inaccurate scare-mongering.

    Like

  43. Well, I guess the barriers are not designed to be proof against HGVs, since they are driven by people who are supposed to be professionals, with a higher skill level than the rest of us plebs.

    Also – I’m sure the last time I checked, when there was an EV and ICE version of the same model… the EV was heavier. That does not mean that there cannot be lighter EVs. But I would like to see the stats before passing judgment on that. Small cars seem to be taking punishment across the board, leading to a general swelling of the waistlines, as Mike says. If EVs have a lower centre of mass, they would not go wheels up on collision, giving them an advantage there.

    The Mail now has the story, if anyone is out of range of the Telegraph.

    Like

  44. The official report on the Luton Airport car park fire has been issued:

    https://www.bedsfire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Significant%20Incident%20Report%20LLA%20Car%20Park%202%20fire.pdf

    From the conclusion: “It is clear from the Fire Investigation report that a standard diesel vehicle was the origin of the fire. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the presence of electric vehicles parked in the car park had a detrimental impact on the outcome of the fire.”

    Liked by 1 person

  46. “County’s flat roads help electric car set record“

    I don’t know why this is now in the news – it happened a while ago.

    The journey lasted 22 hours and 57 minutes and the car covered 581.3 miles (935.44km) going between 30mph (48 km/h) and 40mph (64 km/h).

    Driving at 40, the team of crack drivers – one presumes only one at a time was on board – could have made the trip in 15 hours. At 30 they could have done it in 20 hours, so they spent a long time stationary, swapping drivers.

    Not mentioned in the BBC report is that they got pulled over (presumably for driving slowly). Once the cops had discovered they were setting a world record, they were sent on my way. Should they have got a ticket?

    Previously discussed by Geoff:

    Like

  47. He said the records were set in “real world conditions on normal roads in the UK”.

    It doesn’t sound like it in any real sense. They weren’t driving at normal speeds, for a start, not does it seem they were bothered about getting in the way of other road users

    Like

  48. It was totally contrived.

    What’s needed now is for someone to take an identical model of car and thrash it around to get the LOWEST mileage from a charge (while driving legally, of course).

    These sort of demonstrations have always happened. I was reading recently about a Hurricane being flown from Edinburgh to London in 1938 at an average speed of 408 mph (about 90 mph above the plane’s true top speed). It was good PR and the RAF did have the honesty to mention a bit of a tailwind!

    Like

  49. Coincidentally, from Autocar:

    “Nissan has driven a Qashqai fitted with its new e-Power hybrid powertrain the length of the UK – from Land’s End to John O’Groats – on a single tank of fuel. The powertrain, which was recently updated to improve its efficiency and refinement, yielded 75mpg in the hands of Nissan engineers while completing the 837-mile drive.

    That marked an improvement on the result achieved by Nissan on the same journey in 2007, when a 1.5-litre diesel-engined Qashqai clocked 67mpg. According to Nissan, the e-Power car’s trip took 18 hours (over two days) and the car reached John O’Groats with enough petrol left in its tank to drive a further 100 miles.”

    That’s an average speed of 46.5 mph which is far more realistic than that EV run.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.