If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

UK rags love to hate on EVs!



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,031 ✭✭✭✭the_amazing_raisin

    Sure what else is new 😬

    Not just the UK gutter press, seen a lot of negativity coming from Irish news outlets, including RTE

    "The internet never fails to misremember" - Sebastian Ruiz, aka Frost

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,031 ✭✭✭✭the_amazing_raisin

    Also as a general rule I'd say doing the opposite of whatever Nadine Dorries or any of the other hardliners Tories do is a good idea

    "The internet never fails to misremember" - Sebastian Ruiz, aka Frost

  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Stevie2001

    The electric car ‘revolution’ is a disaster before it’s begun (

    Good points though in it, like VW cutting production because of a demand problem

    Volkswagen to cut electric car production in Germany as demand slumps | This is Money

    Autogiants are being dragged kicking and screaming into making EV's, they'd rather sell you a petrol and that's just a fact now

  • Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭GSBellew

    The Rowan Atkinson one is actually an interesting read, you will note he is an EV owner and isn't just EV bashing.

    Sebastian Vettel ran his ex Nigel Mansell FW14b F1 car on a few laps of a demo run at Silverstone last year on carbon neutral synthetic fuel, if development continues and we all know it will when manufacturers and race series are behind it then it will become a viable alternative in time and overnight make a petrol car "green"

    There is a post on here that was linked the other day about someone with an EV just out of warranty that has a suspected failing electric motor, € 10k to replace, as someone who did electronics in college way back when I was young I find it amusing that people consider EV's to be zero maintenance, they can and will fail just like anything with moving mechanical parts can. Yes I accept that an ICE engine new in a crate would be a similar price but at least you could put a new one in without wondering if you will have to replace the fuel tank in a few months time.

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,202 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    EVs are not zero maintenance, but they are much, much lower maintenance than ICE vehicles. This is a problem for the distribution channel; a dealer who sells you an EV isn't creating an opportunity for himself to secure a significant future earning stream servicing the vehicle, because they don't require a lot of servicing.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,004 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio

    Agreed, he's saying that governments are incentivising people to adopt a technology that is still nascent, which is very true, and that it's more environmentally friendly to keep your current car going than scrap it and buy a new EV, also true.

    It seems Dorres gripe is more with the charging network, but don't let that get in the way of a good headline!

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,532 ✭✭✭✭elperello

    Paper never refused ink and you do get some EV bashing on UK papers but the three articles in the OP are not really that bad.

    Nadine Dorries is mainly complaining about the charging network. Surprise surprise she is happier in a Land Rover PHEV than a Zoe EV. So would I be in her situation.

    The one about road damage is based on University of Leeds research and is part of an ongoing discussion about weight of vehicles.

    As one would expect from Rowan Atkinson his article is balanced and thoughtful. Of the three it is most worthy of recommendation.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,717 ✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld

    We all know that people buying more stuff is not going to fix the problem.

    Best to keep your current car, reduce the number of cars in your family, reduce the size of your car, the number of trips you take or get rid of your car completely if you can.

    It's a hard sell when there is a shiny new Tesla that's going to "save the planet" a mouse click away. And everyone saying buy buy buy.

    Post edited by SuperBowserWorld on

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd

    The VW plant shutting is because very few in Germany want an Ev and thats Vws main market (ouside of china).

    I went for a late evening walk round the block yesterday (in Germany). I wanted to see if my local chargers were actually available for once and on my way tried to count how many Evs were about. I found 1 Tesla opposite the charger, and 3 probable plug in Hybrids at the chargers, and 2 cars with "E" regs elsewhere but again likely plug in Hybrids. On the rest of my wander 100s of petrol or diesel cars, parked at the side of streets with no chargers, except those 6 which were half blocked.

    I live in the city with allegedly the highest per capita electric car ownership, and you can barely find an electric car, or a place to charge the buggers. That sortof tells a tale why VW has to wind down production.

  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Stevie2001

    Yep same in Poland and Ukraine when I was there pre war

    Read a stat that 46% of the EU population live in apartments, that's a major issue for EV ownership.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,258 ✭✭✭MightyMunster

    What's this carbon neutral fuel going to be made from? The one I've seen before was for aviation fuel and as that would require more land to be used than is used for food production it's a non runner unless they reduce aviation by >90%

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,733 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder

    Sebastian Vettel ran his ex Nigel Mansell FW14b F1 car on a few laps of a demo run at Silverstone last year on carbon neutral synthetic fuel

    how was it made? i am usually extremely sceptical about claims of carbon neutral fuel. usually it's either smoke and mirrors, or totally unscalable.

    regarding the damage to roads caused by EVs, the usual calculation on wear and tear on the roads is that it is proportional to something between the third or fourth power of the weight of the vehicle. so a 20% increase in vehicle mass would cause roughly twice as much wear and tear, so that claim is reasonable. it should also be pointed out though that going by the same calculations, a fully laden artic, say weighing 30 tons, will cause a minimum of 5,000 times as much wear and tear as a two ton vehicle.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,915 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui

    Are you familiar with the mathematical concept of powers? To the power two is usually refered to as exponential. To the power three is the cubed law - things like the rapid fall of in sound volume with distance or the amount of energy drop off from a radiating source like a radio antannae or light from the Sun.

    The road damage relationship to vehicle weight is far more extreme; it's a 4th power relationship.

    A tractor driving past a rural house once, would cause more damage to the road surface than a years commuting by the occupant of the house. When EVs become the norm, roads are going to require a lot more maintainance.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,004 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio

    I really don't buy this argument. Roads don't need more maintenance, they just need to be built better. Urban roads were likely built back in the 70's and 80's and are nowhere near good enough for traffic volumes now, EV or otherwise.

    Besides, where is the furore about road damage from the average lorry which could be anywhere from 20 to 40 tons? Good luck with your power of 4 there.

    What about the average car that's gone from 800kg to 1300kg over the past 50 years?

    What about all the people choosing SUVs over compacts?

    Just seems like another weak effort to paint EVs as environmentally damaging. But, but the tyres!! They wear faster!

  • Registered Users Posts: 523 ✭✭✭VikingG

    The maths nerd in me has to point out that the power of 2 is not referred to as exponential - exponential is where the variable is in the exponent. Also the drop off in radiating power is in proportion to the square of the distance between emitter and receiver. This is called the Inverse Square Law - nothing cubic about it.

    Have no idea what this 4th power rule is though between the relationship of road damage and weight so wont comment on it - but if you have some details send it on

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,915 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui

  • Registered Users Posts: 523 ✭✭✭VikingG

    Thanks - that fourth power rule looks like an interesting engineering approximation - but just to make sure that we are all grounded that would mean that an eV is twice as hard on the road surface as a diesel equivalent.

    For example an eNiro 64Kwh weights 1787 Kg while the Niro 1.6 GDi weighs 1494Kg - so ( 1787/1494) ^ 4 = 2.04

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,733 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder

    yes, that's a reasonable claim from the articles above.

    it's not a big issue for roads; but there have been some publicised worries about multi-storey car parks (especially old possibly badly maintained ones) which might be more founded than worries about roads.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6 ardara

    Just in case it was missed, there was a response to the Rowan Atkinson article:

    theguardian 23/jun/08/ fact-check-why-rowan-atkinson-is-wrong-about-electric-vehicles (I'm not allowed to post links apparently but search engine that and you should get to it)

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,625 ✭✭✭zg3409

    There is a pinch of truth in list articles.

    The key thing if buying new an EV is the way to go. Manufacturers generally make more profit from non EV but shop around and don't overpay. The Zoe for example is a great city car and they have lots of history and rarely give trouble.

    Batteries won't be scrapped, they will be recycled for valuable minerals.

    Good news does not sell.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,202 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    The increasing weight of cars is an issue, but it's not one related only to the switch to EVs. For the last couple of decades ICE cars have been getting bigger and bigger, heavier and heavier. Vehicle sizes themselves have grown, plus the mix of vehicles on the roads has changed, with a big swing to heavier vehicle types as, e.g. SUVs make up a larger and larger share of car sales, even as SUVs themselves get bigger and bigger. In the last twenty years, the curb weight of the average new car sold in Europe has grown by 278 kg, or 21%. Very little of this will be attributable to the move to EVs.

    If the vehicle weight problem needs to be addressed, it's not clear that the way to address it should focus primarily on the contribution that battery weight is making to the problem.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,915 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui

    I have for a long time thought non commercial vehicle taxation should be largely based on weight. This would have kept the SUV plague in check. SUVs and heavy and stiff EV's like Teslas, while reducing injuries and death to their occupants, increase the injuries and deaths of the occupants in other vehicles in accidents where the other vehicle is lighter.

    This has probably increased the road toll above what it would have been if non commercial passenger vehicles had been of more similar weight, such as in the 70's. An SUV/car crash of moderate+ severity, is more likely to result in the death of occupant/s in the car, wheras if they had been of more similar weight, the occupants in both would have survived.

    There are people who buy SUVs solely because they believe they better protect their children, and they would be correct, but in a crash with a car also containing children, they are buying their own children's safety and continued existence with the severity of injuries and lives of other people's children. That to me is an unacceptable currency.

    It's completely unconscionable and governments have ignored and allowed this immorality to proliferate unchecked, leading to a sort of vehicular arms race of weight and size.

    Non commercial passenger vehicle road taxation as a 4th power of the vehicle weight would have done more for the environment, emissions and human benefit, than EV's ever will.

    The whole NCAP tetsing mania is incredibly flawed and I think partialy to blame. Most vehicle accidents don't involve them smashing into a commercial buildings reinforced loading dock, and only the test dummies in the tested vehicle are shown. If you had NCAP videos of an SUV or Tesla ploughing into a Fiat 500 and the consequence for both sets of dummies, something probably would have been done politically along the lines of my suggestion, a long time ago.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,733 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder

    i don't think it's too often i find myself in agreement with cnocbui - but we have seen an arms race in vehicle size.

    volvo make the claim (i think now active, wasn't it due in 2020?) that no-one will ever die in an XC90 again. i'd hope not, it's the size of a cargo ship.

    but i'd add an extra factor in to tax on private vehicles - vehicle height. the aforementioned XC90 is approx 5'10" tall, which is the same height as an average irish man. that's a massive theft of visibility from pedestrians and other road users, especially in urban areas. not only can a pedestrian often not see over or around a beast like that; possibly more significantly, a driver in an oncoming car will not see a pedestrian till they step out from behind it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,004 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio

    I disagree with a few points of this.

    Heavy does not mean safe, and there are plenty of heavy, unsafe cars and SUVs. I accept that compacts aren't as safe, but lets be honest, these are city cars and are not designed for motorway miles and speeds, and the standard Paddy spec omits driver assist features. The Irish Govt has incentivised their purchase through low tax rates and low running costs, so they're very popular in this country.

    Second, if I'm buying a car to protect myself and my family, I want the car to prioritize my safety over the safety of other road users. Call me selfish, but that's what I'm paying for. It shouldn't be my concern that the other driver is in a more unsafe car.

    Finally, road deaths are on average decreasing as cars and roads get safer, though 1 in 5 car deaths is still down to not using a seatbelt.

  • Registered Users Posts: 315 ✭✭Stevie2001

    At the end of the day EV's are an inferior technology convenience wise for many

    They will never suit everyone like ICE and if petrol/diesel was cost price like 20c a litre, very few would drive them, only maybe environmentalists or people that like how EV's drive eg instant power etc or frugal crowd with solar etc or do whatever government tell them to do , a niche market

    When you have to tax/ban/incentivise/guilt something into oblivion to make it successful, you know its an inferior technology

    Without market manipulation EV's are dead in the water, everyone knows that, they are banning ICE in 2030 to make it work ffs :)

    People don't like being told what to do and what they can buy, people are sick to the teeth of governments dictating to them and EV's are that.

    There was nothing wrong with ICE, it didnt need to be replaced and banned

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,202 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus

    You might prioritise the lives of your family over the lives of other road users — who wouldn't? But there's no reason why we (i.e. the community atlarge) should prioritise the lives of your family over the lives of other road users. So when it comes to things like safety standards, road and vehicle tax structures, etc, it's unrealistic and unreasonable to expect them to prioritise the lives (or interests) of car buyers and their families over the lives (or interests) of others.

  • Registered Users Posts: 711 ✭✭✭LeeroyJ.

    They are looking to ban ICE's to encourage and push manufacturers to shift to EVs. They are definitely not inferior technology, less moving parts, less maintenance, constantly being improved though software updates, much cheaper to run and safer. Calling them inferior technology is laughable, it's like calling a smartphone inferior to a regular phone because the smartphone needs to be charged more often. Incentives and tax cuts are in place because EVs are still quite expensive compared to ICE's and unattainable for many people, this is an area where ICE's have an edge - although prices are further coming down constantly and will eventually reach parity. I'm not going to get into the whole we don't like the man telling us what to do because that's just a nonsense argument, governments are constantly involved in incentivizing and steering people by the way of taxation, incentives and laws.

    Post edited by LeeroyJ. on

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭creedp

    I think your first paragraph has been and continues to fuel endless discussion and argument on this forum and elsewhere. The most important word there is 'many'. Yes for many ICE is and will continue to be more convenient technology but for others EVs are more convenient, e.g. if they have home charging. So it's not a one option suits all situation despite what a lot of people on either side will spend countless posts trying to argue.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,095 ✭✭✭sh81722

    I prefer ICE for my two motorbikes and EV for my two cars regardless of what the fuel costs. Hated driving the diesel camper van we used to have, so that had to go mainly because of diesel after having switched to EVs. I would jump to the electric equivalent if it was economically viable. Until then hotels and camping (wish the Model 3 was an estate).