Is an i3 REx a PHEV or EV [Split Post]

Marcusm

Bigus wrote: »

For bik benefit it has to be ev only so REx or hybrid doesn't qualify.

That might be questionable for the REX for which I understand the engine creates electricity for the battery and does not drive the wheels.


"‘electric vehicle’ means a vehicle that derives its motive power exclusively from an electric motor;”,

Marcusm

unkel wrote: »

+1

Unless you go beyond the EV range of the i3 all the time and have to pay for petrol yourself maybe.



In Ireland the i3 REx is classified as a PHEV. If it ain't zero emissions, it ain't an EV

What I have cited is the definition of EV used in Finance Act 2017 to determine 0% BIK; I will leave it up to an automotive engineer to specify the source of an i3 Rex’s motive power!

Shefwedfan

Marcusm wrote: »

What I have cited is the definition of EV used in Finance Act 2017 to determine 0% BIK; I will leave it up to an automotive engineer to specify the source of an i3 Rex’s motive power!

Again the OP is in Netherlands


Also this has been argued on other threads. The i3 REX is a PHEV in the eyes of the Irish Government

ELM327

Marcusm wrote: »

What I have cited is the definition of EV used in Finance Act 2017 to determine 0% BIK; I will leave it up to an automotive engineer to specify the source of an i3 Rex’s motive power!

Unless you remove the petrol tank and the petrol engine, its a PHEV.
This has been done to death here tbh.
Someone even confirmed it from Revenue themselves.


I think one or two of the toll companies are not applying the rules strictly due to lack of knowledge and are giving the I3 PHEV the full discount. This muddies the waters but the revenue definition is what matters when it comes to BIK. Don't let revenue see you at a petrol station if you own an i3 PHEV and you are declaring it as a BEV.

Marcusm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Again the OP is in Netherlands


Also this has been argued on other threads. The i3 REX is a PHEV in the eyes of the Irish Government

ELM327 wrote: »

Unless you remove the petrol tank and the petrol engine, its a PHEV.
This has been done to death here tbh.
Someone even confirmed it from Revenue themselves.


I think one or two of the toll companies are not applying the rules strictly due to lack of knowledge and are giving the I3 PHEV the full discount. This muddies the waters but the revenue definition is what matters when it comes to BIK. Don't let revenue see you at a petrol station if you own an i3 PHEV and you are declaring it as a BEV.

The question is what qualifies as an “electric vehicle” not what Revenue might expect to have been covered. A PHEV has a petrol/Diesel engine driving the wheels and a separate electric motor driving one set of wheels, drawing power from a battery which is powered by plugging in to the mains. In this regard a OHEV differs from a hybrid only in the source of the electricity (regressive braking for the hybrid rather than plugging in).

A range extender is an electric vehicle with an additional (generally small) combustion engine which is used to drive an electric motor which powers/charges a battery. With a REX, the engine does not power the wheels and thus the “motive” power is generated solely by electricity!

As this is not pertinent to the OP as he is the Netherlands I suspect it may as well rest there. As someone with 20+ years of professional tax experience, I can let you in on a little secret - tax law doesn't Always mean what Revenue thinks it means!

ELM327

Marcusm wrote: »

The question is what qualifies as an “electric vehicle” not what Revenue might expect to have been covered. A PHEV has a petrol/Diesel engine driving the wheels and a separate electric motor driving one set of wheels, drawing power from a battery which is powered by plugging in to the mains. In this regard a OHEV differs from a hybrid only in the source of the electricity (regressive braking for the hybrid rather than plugging in).

A range extender is an electric vehicle with an additional (generally small) combustion engine which is used to drive an electric motor which powers/charges a battery. With a REX, the engine does not power the wheels and thus the “motive” power is generated solely by electricity!

As this is not pertinent to the OP as he is the Netherlands I suspect it may as well rest there. As someone with 20+ years of professional tax experience, I can let you in on a little secret - tax law doesn't Always mean what Revenue thinks it means!

By that definition, the Ampera/Chevrolet volt is a EV too.
You can have 20+ years experience but it's pretty much irrelevant to the issue at hand as EVs are a new issue, the BIK change was only introduced recently. Before this BIK was pretty standard.

Marcusm

ELM327 wrote: »

By that definition, the Ampera/Chevrolet volt is a EV too.
You can have 20+ years experience but it's pretty much irrelevant to the issue at hand as EVs are a new issue, the BIK change was only introduced recently. Before this BIK was pretty standard.

My experience is in the interpretation and application of tax law - these are amended frequently. The exemption is what was legislated for last year; the general scheme of the BIK charging legislation remains as is. Whether the parliamentary draftsman instructed by the Department of Finance was fully briefed is also irrelevant at least for this year. Fundamentally, absent an avoidance motivation, taxing statutes are, insofar as possible, construed based on the words of the statute given their normal meaning. As I have said, an automotive engineer would have to advise as to which car is powered by which motive force.

ELM327

Marcusm wrote: »

My experience is in the interpretation and application of tax law - these are amended frequently. The exemption is what was legislated for last year; the general scheme of the BIK charging legislation remains as is. Whether the parliamentary draftsman instructed by the Department of Finance was fully briefed is also irrelevant at least for this year. Fundamentally, absent an avoidance motivation, taxing statutes are, insofar as possible, construed based on the words of the statute given their normal meaning. As I have said, an automotive engineer would have to advise as to which car is powered by which motive force.

Or we could just, you know, apply that which is already written.
Revenue have already advised of the meaning which aligns with the literal reading of the wording aswell. Verbiage is important, but clear definition is important too.


Do you need an automotive engineer to determine what your car's CO2 emissions are? Or to determine what fuel to put in?

Marcusm

ELM327 wrote: »

Or we could just, you know, apply that which is already written.
Revenue have already advised of the meaning which aligns with the literal reading of the wording aswell. Verbiage is important, but clear definition is important too.


Do you need an automotive engineer to determine what your car's CO2 emissions are? Or to determine what fuel to put in?

So we agree to apply that which is written which is the definition of “electric vehicle” which is written, ie one whose motive force is provided by electricity. The only motor attached to the wheels is an electric motor, ergo it’s an “electric vehicle”. Thank you so much for agreeing with me!

Shefwedfan

Marcusm wrote: »

So we agree to apply that which is written which is the definition of “electric vehicle” which is written, ie one whose motive force is provided by electricity. The only motor attached to the wheels is an electric motor, ergo it’s an “electric vehicle”. Thank you so much for agreeing with me!

You got it wrong.....end of story. Accept and move on. Stop with the mumbo jumbo posts.....it is ruining a thread for someone who doesnt even live in bloody Ireland

ELM327

Marcusm wrote: »

So we agree to apply that which is written which is the definition of “electric vehicle” which is written, ie one whose motive force is provided by electricity. The only motor attached to the wheels is an electric motor, ergo it’s an “electric vehicle”. Thank you so much for agreeing with me!

Am I talking to Marcusm, or the person of the family Marcusm.

I didn't consent to any of those definitions therefore they do not apply to me.


And anyway, the revenue are an unauthorised police force, meaning they don't get official policeman hats. And as we all know, they don't have any power if they don't wear the hat

cros13

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You got it wrong.....end of story. Accept and move on. Stop with the mumbo jumbo posts.....it is ruining a thread for someone who doesnt even live in bloody Ireland

Actually I agree with Marcusm here. If you were to argue the point with Revenue, the legislation is clear and the REx would qualify. I'd argue what's happening on the Revenue side at the moment is someone didn't understand that the i3 is a series hybrid and that met the definition in the law. Which is "‘electric vehicle’ means a vehicle that derives its motive power exclusively from an electric motor;”,

The i3 REx was designed to meet a different category in the US called BEVx which is a third category between PHEV and BEV for "extended range BEVs". A requirement of which is that EV range must exceed the range using the combustion engine.
It's only source of motive power is it's 125kW electric motor.

In the real world a BEVx has similar emissions to a BEV because use of the REx is rare. BMW has stated on multiple occasions that from telematics data the vast majority of REx owners never use the REx. Even for high mileage owners like myself use is rare (The last time I filled the 9L fuel tank was in 2017). The typical outlander owner would be using 10-100X more fuel.
Even if I wasn't an i3 owner I'd be arguing the REx is a special case.

Shefwedfan

Cros you have a vested interest.

At the moment, no matter who argues, the government see the i3 REX as a PHEV. Anything after that is pointless and as mentioned has been done to death.

Personally, I agree with them. I don't care what way it is set up. If it has any sort of petrol/diesel engine then it's a PHEV.

I am not getting into argument about wording etc. I don't care. Pull the petrol engine out and we are all happy.

Otherwise every car manufacturer will start to take the pi**.......the point is to get petrol/diesel off the road. Not to find ways to get it back onto it....

P.S. A few Outlander owners have confirmed they have not filled in months as they use battery 99% of the time.

liamog

People tout the REX enabling them to have a get out of jail free card when the infrastructure fails and they are away from home.

Therefore they have not made the same compromise as a person driving a BEV. For this reason I think its sensible that the full incentives are not available.

ELM327

liamog wrote: »

People tout the REX enabling them to have a get out of jail free card when the infrastructure fails and they are away from home.

Therefore they have not made the same compromise as a person driving a BEV. For this reason I think its sensible that the full incentives are not available.

+1
Plus simply put, EVs don't have tailpipes. And anything with a tailpipe should not get any of the EV-only tax breaks.

cros13

Shefwedfan wrote: »

At the moment, no matter who argues, the government see the i3 REX as a PHEV. Anything after that is pointless and as mentioned has been done to death.

If I was going for the REx again (I'm not... because it's not useful) I'd be challenging revenue on that.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

P.S. A few Outlander owners have confirmed they have not filled in months as they use battery 99% of the time.

An outlander has a 43L fuel tank (In 3.5 years my i3 hasn't used that much). I know of several Outlander PHEV owners who've never charged the car, and that was common in the UK with people getting Outlander PHEVs for the 0% BiK. That kind of use is literally impossible with an i3 REx, if you don't charge you won't be able to go up mild hills or reach sustained speeds over 50-60km/h.

An i3 REx is fundamentally a BEV. The presence of the range extender has far less impact on it's emissions than for example your choice of charging time from the grid.

unkel

EV=zero emissions

if you don't have zero emissions, you are not an EV!

Shefwedfan

cros13 wrote: »

If I was going for the REx again (I'm not... because it's not useful) I'd be challenging revenue on that.



An outlander has a 43L fuel tank (In 3.5 years my i3 hasn't used that much). I know of several Outlander PHEV owners who've never charged the car, and that was common in the UK with people getting Outlander PHEVs for the 0% BiK. That kind of use is literally impossible with an i3 REx, if you don't charge you won't be able to go up mild hills or reach sustained speeds over 50-60km/h.

An i3 REx is fundamentally a BEV. The presence of the range extender has far less impact on it's emissions than for example your choice of charging time from the grid.

Soon I will have PV.....green to the gills :P apart from the 2ltr diesel Galaxy



The UK is not Ireland. I think the Irish government has seen what the UK got wrong and hence why the 0% BIK is only on full electric cars(no petrol). Now many they seen or maybe they stumbled over it. I don't care but it is right.

Otherwise instead of the uptake in electric cars for company you would have a fleet of 330e etc which are a joke.....

unkel

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Otherwise instead of the uptake in electric cars for company you would have a fleet of 330e etc which are a joke.....

I wouldn't call them a joke. A 330e instead of a 316d is better for all of us. And it seems many owners do plug them in. But yes, they are mainly bought as tax compliance cars.

cros13

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Soon I will have PV.....green to the gills :P apart from the 2ltr diesel Galaxy

I have PV, wind turbines... and two EVs and everything down to my chainsaw runs on lithium ion batteries. If we're out greening each other :P

unkel wrote: »

EV=zero emissions

if you don't have zero emissions, you are not an EV!

An i3 REx has lower emissions on the Irish grid mix than a Leaf because it's ~10-15% more efficient depending on urban/motorway mix.

I accept that NEDC and WLTP ratings put the i3 REx in the 0-50g/km band. But if we're talking real world use a REx is a qualitatively different beast to something like an outlander or 330e.

Shefwedfan

unkel wrote: »

I wouldn't call them a joke. A 330e instead of a 316d is better for all of us.

Yes of course.....but if PHEV was 0% as well, how many people would move to BEV? a lot of eGolf's got sold based on the 0% BIK, most of those would not have happened if PHEV was 0% as well.....

Marcusm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You got it wrong.....end of story. Accept and move on. Stop with the mumbo jumbo posts.....it is ruining a thread for someone who doesnt even live in bloody Ireland

ELM327 wrote: »

Am I talking to Marcusm, or the person of the family Marcusm.

I didn't consent to any of those definitions therefore they do not apply to me.


And anyway, the revenue are an unauthorised police force, meaning they don't get official policeman hats. And as we all know, they don't have any power if they don't wear the hat

unkel wrote: »

EV=zero emissions

if you don't have zero emissions, you are not an EV!

I am afraid you are confusing what you feel should be the definition with what is the definition.

I have sympathy for the viewpoint that an EV should be one which is solely powered by means of drawing power from the grid but that is not the definition and no amount of foot stamping will change that point.

The point I raised concerned BIK alone and the definition of “electric vehicle” for no other purpose. If the other contributors (cros13 excepted as it seems we are of one mind) would like to explain why the defined term means something else i’d Love to read it (genuinely).

ELM327

Marcusm wrote: »

I am afraid you are confusing what you feel should be the definition with what is the definition.

I have sympathy for the viewpoint that an EV should be one which is solely powered by means of drawing power from the grid but that is not the definition and no amount of foot stamping will change that point.

The point I raised concerned BIK alone and the definition of “electric vehicle” for no other purpose. If the other contributors (cros13 excepted as it seems we are of one mind) would like to explain why the defined term means something else i’d Love to read it (genuinely).

We can't control what you think. It's written clearly and already defined. Done to death here.

But look at it objectively, no one except for one other i3 owner who also is biased by virtue of owning a rex agrees with you.

Shefwedfan

Marcusm wrote: »

I am afraid you are confusing what you feel should be the definition with what is the definition.

I have sympathy for the viewpoint that an EV should be one which is solely powered by means of drawing power from the grid but that is not the definition and no amount of foot stamping will change that point.

The point I raised concerned BIK alone and the definition of “electric vehicle” for no other purpose. If the other contributors (cros13 excepted as it seems we are of one mind) would like to explain why the defined term means something else i’d Love to read it (genuinely).

Grid? Stick a PV on your roof......

Marcusm wrote: »

I am afraid you are confusing what you feel should be the definition with what is the definition.

Is the i3 REX 0% BIK?

Marcusm

ELM327 wrote: »

We can't control what you think. It's written clearly and already defined. Done to death here.

But look at it objectively, no one except for one other i3 owner who also is biased by virtue of owning a rex agrees with you.

I’m not sure what you mean by “other i3 Rex owner”; I drive a 4.2 petrol v8.

Please explain where it’s written clearly and defined except what I have cited. “Done to death” is a diversion not a response. I can see that you don’t agree but could you explain the reasoning by reference to the rules (ie law). Otherwise this is not much of a discussion.

ELM327

Marcusm wrote: »

I’m not sure what you mean by “other i3 Rex owner”; I drive a 4.2 petrol v8.

Please explain where it’s written clearly and defined except what I have cited. “Done to death” is a diversion not a response. I can see that you don’t agree but could you explain the reasoning by reference to the rules (ie law). Otherwise this is not much of a discussion.

Unless you'd like an explanation in German there's nothing further I can add. You've been given the answer multiple times, don't like it , and are refusing to accept it.

Marcusm

ELM327 wrote: »

Unless you'd like an explanation in German there's nothing further I can add. You've been given the answer multiple times, don't like it , and are refusing to accept it.

I guess I missed the particular post explaining the point; if you’d kindly point out the one which cogently explained why the definition I cited does not result in a REX being treated as an “electric vehicle” for the purposes of the BIK exemption, I would be most grateful.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Unless you'd like an explanation in German there's nothing further I can add. You've been given the answer multiple times, don't like it , and are refusing to accept it.

Marcusm wrote: »

I guess I missed the particular post explaining the point; if you’d kindly point out the one which cogently explained why the definition I cited does not result in a REX being treated as an “electric vehicle” for the purposes of the BIK exemption, I would be most grateful.

Wie ich gesagt habe:



Mann kann hier sehr gut fuer sich selbst lesen, dass das i3 ein PHEV unter diese Irische Regeln steht. Es braucht keine erklaerung oder etwas anders. Selbsteverstaendlich

zilog_jones

Marcusm wrote: »

The question is what qualifies as an “electric vehicle” not what Revenue might expect to have been covered. A PHEV has a petrol/Diesel engine driving the wheels and a separate electric motor driving one set of wheels, drawing power from a battery which is powered by plugging in to the mains.

You are describing a series-parallel hybrid, which is not the definition of a PHEV. You can have a series hybrid (where the ICE does not drive the wheels) that has no external charging functionality, like the Nissan Note e-Power.

An i3 REx is still a hybrid - can't really deny that (it has two sources of power, doesn't matter how it's driven). Whether the government's decision on classification is appropriate or not is another thing.

unkel wrote: »

EV=zero emissions

if you don't have zero emissions, you are not an EV!

How about ZEV = zero emissions vehicle (one of CARB's classifications)

"EV" is ambiguous and not necessarily mutually exclusive of PHEVs. A PHEV is definitely not a ZEV though, it could be a ULEV or PZEV (ultra-low or partial zero emissions vehicle).

BEV would be another more specific term to battery-powered EVs.

mordeith

I'm a Rex owner. I pay a higher rate if tax than the 120 due on the Leaf I had previously. Obviously the emissions the Rex can output are taken into account and I've no problem with that. As said in another post being able to pop into a petrol station to get you to your destination as opposed to relying on the charging infrastructure is worth the lesser incentives that come with a full BEV.

Soarer

ELM327 wrote: »

Wie ich gesagt habe:

Mann kann hier sehr gut fuer sich selbst lesen, dass das i3 ein PHEV unter diese Irische Regeln steht. Es braucht keine erklaerung oder etwas anders. Selbsteverstaendlich

Even in German, the REx is "a vehicle that derives its motive power exclusively from an electric motor".

ELM327

Soarer wrote: »

Even in German, the REx is "a vehicle that derives its motive power exclusively from an electric motor".

Oh but of course, I was just being facetious as I'm blue in the face at this stage explaining it to the other poster

cros13

cros13 wrote: »

If I was going for the REx again (I'm not... because it's not useful) I'd be challenging revenue on that.

Based on your opinion of course, mine is completely different, I've used the Rex many times since last November for a good distance on several occasions too all because charging is too inconvenient or chargers are in use.

The charger network is a disgrace and I've been able to avoid chargers in use or queues at Naas on more than a few occasions.

At this point in time with a poor charging network the Rex in my opinion is essential.

You maybe willing to wait a long time at chargers all the time to save a few Euros but I'm certainly not, especially if my two Boys and partner are with me, after a long drive I'm not queuing and having to wait up to an hour or more.

yes I have charged too on many occasions but having the Rex when it's too inconvenient or chargers are down or in use is just fecking brilliant !

I don't really care what people call the Rex or if more tax applies because the convenience of not having to wait around at chargers that are in use or dead just completely outweighs paying a bit more tax and some petrol.

8 second fill up V 30 min charge or queue for 30 mins + 30 min charge ? I know what I'd rather pay for at this point in time !

FriendsEV

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't really care what people call the Rex or if more tax applies because the convenience of not having to wait around at chargers that are in use or dead just completely outweighs paying a bit more tax and some petrol.

8 second fill up V 30 min charge or queue for 30 mins + 30 min charge ? I know what I'd rather pay for at this point in time !

Agree

Its what all sub 60kWh EVs should have

Brilliant idea

Costs about 2k to manufacturers to put in that system

I was hoping Nissan, Hyundai etc would follow

liamog

Some of us don't need training wheels.

It can be argued that it's what all sub 20kWh EVs should of had, but even at 40kWh I think it's a big waste.

FriendsEV

liamog wrote: »

Some of us don't need training wheels.

It can be argued that it's what all sub 20kWh EVs should of had, but even at 40kWh I think it's a big waste.

Even 40kWh isn't great, cant even 2 hours at motorway speed

It wouldn't do a small journey like Limerick to Dublin @ 120, at least in a car like a Leaf, Focus etc

60kWh is min imo, 90kWh ideal, 120kWh perfect

Range is needed for motorway driving and most EVs will use 20kWh/100km at motorway speeds

liamog

I'm in favor of bigger batteries, but I do think 40kWh is more suitable to actual drivers than the naysayers believe.
The majority of drivers just aren't making long distance jumps across country on a regular enough basis.

Norway has a very high adoption rate, they don't have special batteries with double the capacity of ROW cars, they simply have a well distributed charger network with each station having multiple charge points.

FriendsEV

liamog wrote: »

I'm in favor of bigger batteries, but I do think 40kWh is more suitable to actual drivers than the naysayers believe.
The majority of drivers just aren't making long distance jumps across country on a regular enough basis.

Norway has a very high adoption rate, they don't have special batteries with double the capacity of ROW cars, they simply have a well distributed charger network with each station having multiple charge points.

True

Us becoming like the Norwegians isn't happening anytime soon

We have idiots in change

If chargers were 50c a minute we wouldnt have the situation of clowns in outlanders/330e/i3 rex etc and cheap bastards Taxi drivers/crazy commuters travelling from Arklow to Dublin hogging chargers daily

Charging network is completely useless here over that situation

Only EVs I would buy is a Tesla so I had a private network and a big ass 64kWh battery Kona so I would rarely need to use network

liamog

liamog wrote: »

Some of us don't need training wheels.

It can be argued that it's what all sub 20kWh EVs should of had, but even at 40kWh I think it's a big waste.

liamog wrote: »

I'm in favor of bigger batteries, but I do think 40kWh is more suitable to actual drivers than the naysayers believe.
The majority of drivers just aren't making long distance jumps across country on a regular enough basis.

Norway has a very high adoption rate, they don't have special batteries with double the capacity of ROW cars, they simply have a well distributed charger network with each station having multiple charge points.

Easy to say all that when you haven't got the Rex !

Even the largest battery cars will be let down by our disgraceful charging network.

40 Kwh is fine if you have 10 times the amount of chargers and/or can charge at 100 Kw.

Until there are a much larger number of chargers I'll be sticking to the Rex because of it's sheer convenience.

I did the BEV only thing for 3 years and 85K Kms, never again with the existing infrastructure , if I had 44 Kwh it would be the same story, get to a charge point, someone waiting and a Leaf 40 Kwh charging at 20 Kw lol or a P100D just plugged in at 10% !

Rex wins !

liamog

I can certainly see the attraction for those who regularly drive beyond the the range of current EVs. Using a rough rule of thumb,

@40kWh gives 125km return or 250km one way.
@60kWh gives 187.5km return or 375km one way.

How many people are regularly doing those kind of journeys? There will always be some, and for those a REX or PHEV makes sense.
For myself the longest regular trip we'd do is Dublin to Banbridge, it's around 280km return and is one of the reasons I'm keen to pick up a Kona64. Saying that we do the trip probably 6 times a year, so realistically the single rapid charge isn't too onerous, plus the Banbridge FCP is in the middle of nowhere so doesn't have too many campers.

unkel

liamog wrote: »

I can certainly see the attraction for those who regularly drive beyond the the range of current EVs. Using a rough rule of thumb,

@40kWh gives 125km return or 250km one way.
@60kWh gives 187.5km return or 375km one way.

How many people are regularly doing those kind of journeys?

Very interesting survey

Linky


Summary: current EVs are not suitable for everybody right now, but given a good fast charging network, most people would be happy enough with an EV that has the range of a 30-40kWh Ioniq. Most people don't need (or want to pay for) 60, 80, 100, or 120kWh at all.

liamog

liamog wrote: »

I can certainly see the attraction for those who regularly drive beyond the the range of current EVs. Using a rough rule of thumb,

@40kWh gives 125km return or 250km one way.
@60kWh gives 187.5km return or 375km one way.

How many people are regularly doing those kind of journeys? There will always be some, and for those a REX or PHEV makes sense.
For myself the longest regular trip we'd do is Dublin to Banbridge, it's around 280km return and is one of the reasons I'm keen to pick up a Kona64. Saying that we do the trip probably 6 times a year, so realistically the single rapid charge isn't too onerous, plus the Banbridge FCP is in the middle of nowhere so doesn't have too many campers.

40 Kwh won't give you 250 Kms at 120-140Km/h and when away from home I would like to be guaranteed to be able to pull up to a charger and charge just like in a petrol station, I can fill up pretty much anywhere any time.

40 60 80 Kwh will need public chargers at some point and no point sitting for 1hr 45 mins hrs while the 60 Kwh + driver wants 90% charge from 5%.

I'd agree that 40 Kwh would be fine if there were tonnes more chargers , but there's not. Maybe I'll reconsider in 2020 when my PCP is up but I'm having less and less faith in the ESb considering it will be probably the end of 2019 when new chargers are commissioned at this rate !

If there's 44 Kwh i3 BEV only that can charge faster than 50 Kw I'd say fair enough but only if there are a lot more chargers.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

Very interesting survey

Linky


Summary: current EVs are not suitable for everybody right now, but given a good fast charging network, most people would be happy enough with an EV that has the range of a 30-40kWh Ioniq. Most people don't need (or want to pay for) 60, 80, 100, or 120kWh at all.

Yes a good enough network and faster charging electrics. 50 Kw isn't powerful enough in my opinion. If a 40 Kwh could charge to 80% in 10 mins I think even I would be happy with that. I don't need 60 Kwh for the majority of the time , on the other hand, the more range you have the greater the independence from the network.

unkel

Deleted User wrote: »

40 Kwh won't give you 250 Kms at 120-140Km/h

A car with the efficiency of Ioniq and a 40kWh battery will give you 250km at 120km/h even in winter.

FriendsEV

unkel wrote: »

A car with the efficiency of Ioniq and a 40kWh battery will give you 250km at 120km/h even in winter.

Does the Ioniq get 175km at 120 in 3 degrees with a head wind?

Doubt very much it does 16kWh/100km in those typical winter conditions, just like a diesel won't do 5l/100km

ELM327

FriendsEV wrote: »

Does the Ioniq get 175km at 120 in 3 degrees with a head wind?

Doubt very much it does 16kWh/100km in those typical winter conditions, just like a diesel won't do 5l/100km

Yes it does.
Even in the rain at 3 degrees.
Personal experience on the hilly M3. Now you'd want to be at a charger after 175km.


And I was doing a real world 120, not speedo.

FriendsEV

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes it does.
Even in the rain at 3 degrees.
Personal experience on the hilly M3. Now you'd want to be at a charger after 175km.


And I was doing a real world 120, not speedo.

That is impressive

Really hope the 39kWh rumours are true

Shefwedfan

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes it does.
Even in the rain at 3 degrees.
Personal experience on the hilly M3. Now you'd want to be at a charger after 175km.


And I was doing a real world 120, not speedo.

The M3 is a bit*h going Cavan direction


Coming the other way it is a lot easier on the battery

catharsis

Shefwedfan wrote: »

The M3 is a bit*h going Cavan direction


Coming the other way it is a lot easier on the battery

Jaysus even the cars want to get out of Cavan it seems :-)

Patser

This is an intriguing enough argument, and it's real splitting hairs argument to show the difference between say a PHEV and an emergency parachute option like a REX.

But what's really interesting is the amount of effort put into this argument for what is an option on a small scale selling model. As far as I'm aware the i3 is the only model to offer a REX, and what would be best estimate for total current REXs on road - 50?

And with improvements in range for BEVs all the time I doubt there more Rex models on track? So a lot of debate for a miniscule number of cars, most of which are privately owned with no impact on BIK.

Edit : my bigger concern about Rex is why someone would be so insecure, so Mad, as to feel the need to pay a lot extra for a parachute that so impacts on their acceleration and performance of their car (ok I got my traditional sly dig in)