While on vacation......

[AbleGuy]

⬆️ Exactly!

For many people, the limited range, lack of charging stations, slow charging times and high entry costs are real barriers.

Labeling these folks as misguided won’t solve their problems and won’t solve the anemic sales problems of the EV manufacturers.

Honda heads get that and are speaking honestly about this issue.

 

[life_w_vagabonds]

Honda is an engine company, that also makes cars. No legacy auto manufacturer is lobbying to make EVs.

Stuck in Neutral: Big Automakers Lobby Against Cleaner Vehicles, Make Record Profits from Dirty Cars - Public Citizen

www.citizen.org

Auto manufacturers do not want to make EVs. Dealers don’t want to sell you EVs either. I experienced this first hand test driving a Lightning at two different dealers. This is in Northern California. One of the main reasons I went back to an EV only manufacturer.

Perhaps I have never articulated it well, but my overriding point on electrification has always been that it’s not a technology problem. Hasn’t been a technology problem for years now. I will admit to having a little more understanding now that I am out of the Tesla charging network and I realize I am in a part of the US with better EV infrastructure. I tend to talk big picture automotive and some here are very overland focused, understandable here, but not everyone travels the same either.

'The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.' William Gibson

Why is that technology not evenly distributed? Politics? A subject we aren’t allowed to talk about here and frankly a frustrating distraction leveraged by entrenched interests. Marketing? It’s easy foment doubt, especially when it aligns with your opinion. Some here even think science is an opinion, at least when they don’t agree with it.

Who pays for this marketing? It’s not hard to figure out. This is a level of change that doesn't happen often, not even decades. Auto manufacturers and oil companies have known for 50 years what their products were doing. Our governments knew too.

 

[3laine]

But they ARE right. Those things are true.

No, it's not anywhere near as simple as "those things are true." They're, at best, sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes in-between.

they cost way more

Highly dependent on several variables, but it's demonstrably true that the Lightning can be VERY competitive on price with similarly-equipped Pro/XL and XLT trims: Basically the same price as the gas version after available tax credits when comparing Supercrew 4WD.

Mine, in fact, cost WAY less than a comparable gas truck.

So, no, "they cost way more" is not "true". It can be true, but it's also often false, or "slightly more expensive" rather than "way more" expensive. Sometimes it's completely false and the EV is cheaper.

there's no place to charge them

Not simply "true". Plenty of people are doing long trips in EVs, have owned them for a decade, use them as their primary vehicles, etc.

they take 5 hours to charge on a trip,

This is very rarely true. Most road trip charges take ~30 mins, give or take 15 mins.

and the range is insufficient for their use case.

Sometimes true, sometimes false. Here, talking about Overlanding, it's more likely to be true, but for many people, it's nowhere near as simple as "sufficient or insufficient". It's technically sufficient for a large number of people, but it's a trade-off with the other advantages like home charging, etc.

Boiling these all down to "those things are true" is, at best, overgeneralization.

It is a very small (for now) group of people for whom an EV makes perfect sense. And theres another group of people with one foot on the boat and one foot on the dock...they would like to, or have switched, even though the benefits for them personally could go either way.

I've said this plenty of times: There's a continuum of EV vs ICE as far as people's use case and how they work for each person.

There are some cases where an EV is the obvious choice (many multi-car families), some cases where an EV obviously aren't the right choice (frequent long-distance towing, etc.), and a ton of people in the middle who need to weigh the pros and cons based on facts, not based on commonly-held but often inaccurate perceptions.

Every reasonable person knows it's a continuum, and not "EVs work for everyone" or "EVs don't work for anyone."

perception is 9/10ths of the truth.

When it comes to sales? Sure.

When it comes to objective facts? Definitely not.

Perception has zero direct influence on the fact that a Lightning Pro and a zero-option gas Supercrew 4x4 are the same effective price. Even if everyone perceives the Lightning is more expensive, that doesn't make it 9/10ths true.

Perception doesn't make it true that DC Fast Charging a Lightning takes 5 hours. It still takes ~30 mins regardless of what anyone perceives to be true.

If the claim is "lots of people think this is true, so it will affect sales", then sure. If the claim is "this is true", then no, it's not.

 

[3laine]

I’m not clear on what point you’re trying to make. I do agree with you that “there's some level of disconnect between perceptions/preferences and facts.”

Whether one likes it or not, and frustrating as it may be, misconceptions often can become the reality that some people wind up embracing. And at that point, for all intents and purposes that kind of perception will be the reality some are going to believe.

I'm just trying to diplomatically point out that public perception is just that, a perception, and only loosely based on fact.

So, public perception can be exaggerated, based on old information, based on misinformation, etc., positive or negative, pro-EV or anti-EV.

I'm in agreement with what you've said in this quote. People are going to believe things that are just partly true, or *used* to be true, or even never really true at all. And that's going to have a huge effect on sales and overall EV adoption timeline. That goes for all topics.

But there are plenty of things that we can talk about that are much more objective than public perception. Vehicle pricing is an objective number. Charge times are objective numbers. Public perception often doesn't line up with reality on these points.

Ultimate point being: Public perception is important for sales and timeline, but it's not evidence of objective fact. Presenting a public perception, or common belief, as if it's an actual fact, doesn't make it an actual fact. (This is a general statement, not an accusation of your post)

People can disagree on what public/personal perception is or should be, but there are objective facts that aren't up to perception, and objective facts that prove many perceptions (positive or negative) to be overgeneralizations.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

Keep jumping through all the mental hoops you need to, sir. But with all due respect, nobody out there on the road -or off road, for that matter - fills just enough to get by unless they have to. Jerry cans included. They use them because they are at thier rope's end but given the choice, they will fill they tank whenever possible. Given the choice, people want to fully charge the EV, not just eek another 100 miles after 30 minutes of waiting.

At that math, the new Chevy Silverado WT could possibly take upwards of 2 hours to get you that 450 mile claimed range. I get mine in 10 minutes. That's a real thing, because, SOMETIMES I need a meal or to shop or am settling in for the night. Other times, most times, I need my tank filled ASAP so I can get back on the road.

Unless you feel Doug DeMuro is some enemy of EV's, see below

https://insideevs.com/news/731162/chevrolet-silverado-ev-wt-doug-demuro-review-overpriced/

$75 grand and the article didn't even mention the configuration problems...I get vinyl, plastic, no place for my cross toolbox, and no Leer cap will fit? Unless I somehow have extra cash lyning around after THAT sale?

And to get the stellar range they do, they essentially needed double the battery of the next E-Truck.

Sir, I personally am a facts guy. Yes perception drives sales but facts also drive sales. Like the facts listed above. Maybe you just dont want to see them.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

It absolutely is as simple as those things. If those issues were "cured", nobody would care at all whether they drove ICE or EV. It would come down to style and preference, like Toyota vs Honda, or Fors vs Chevy. Rivian vs Canoo, if Canoo ever gets an offering out the door. Right now it comes down to complex math and planning ones life or vacation out much farther down the line or in much greater depth than need be with an ICE vehicle.

Again, I'm no enemy of EV's. I prefer Hybrids over EV's, and I'm driving an ICE right now, but ultimately I dont care what propulsion it uses, it just has to fit the bill.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

Honda is an engine company, that also makes cars. No legacy auto manufacturer is lobbying to make EVs.

Stuck in Neutral: Big Automakers Lobby Against Cleaner Vehicles, Make Record Profits from Dirty Cars - Public Citizen

www.citizen.org

Auto manufacturers do not want to make EVs. Dealers don’t want to sell you EVs either. I experienced this first hand test driving a Lightning at two different dealers. This is in Northern California. One of the main reasons I went back to an EV only manufacturer.

Perhaps I have never articulated it well, but my overriding point on electrification has always been that it’s not a technology problem. Hasn’t been a technology problem for years now. I will admit to having a little more understanding now that I am out of the Tesla charging network and I realize I am in a part of the US with better EV infrastructure. I tend to talk big picture automotive and some here are very overland focused, understandable here, but not everyone travels the same either.

'The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.' William Gibson

Why is that technology not evenly distributed? Politics? A subject we aren’t allowed to talk about here and frankly a frustrating distraction leveraged by entrenched interests. Marketing? It’s easy foment doubt, especially when it aligns with your opinion. Some here even think science is an opinion, at least when they don’t agree with it.

Who pays for this marketing? It’s not hard to figure out. This is a level of change that doesn't happen often, not even decades. Auto manufacturers and oil companies have known for 50 years what their products were doing. Our governments knew too.

Honda is a motor vehicle company. They make more ICE engines than anyone if you include aircraft. They also make electric generators and thin film solar panels, FYI. They offered the first (yes, before Toyota) hybrid in the US with the Insight. Then had one of the cleanest burning efficient natural gas engines in the Civic GX. And they had a good attempt at a hydrogen cell car, the FCX Clarity. I recall that well as I had a 2006 Civic Si and was interested in the Clarity but it never came to Boston...1997, a Honda EV was introduced and a plug in electric Fit in 2012.

Here you say no legacy car maker wants to try something alternative? Because they know the limitations and they know what the customer wants.

All of the above, dead. Not enough interest. Honda would sell them if they could.

Honda Prologue is coming out, based on GM's Ultium platform, although the GM-Honda EV partnership has withered on the vine for lack of public interest.

Why are two of the biggest car manufacturers trying so hard and still find that EV sales are tanking?

Because they dont yet stand the test. I believe they will, in the not-too-distant future.

Toyota, huh! General Motors, harrumph! Honda, c'mon! What would they know about this compared to you or me?

You say manufacturers and our governments know what the old products are doing? What do you think electric products are doing. Where do you think lithium comes from and how is it brought to the surface. Processed?
Bad but just different bad. That's all.

Technology has NEVER been evenly distributed, that's less politics and more economic. If you are looking for a political utopia to push everyone to EV's, you may be at it a long time. Personally, ai am not overland focused, just over-the-road focused.

You think there is mo technology problem with EV's. Ok. Even if there isnt, there is a cost and infrastructure problem that is absolutely insurmountable to most people, not just overlanders.

 

[MotoDave]

I'm chiming in just to offer my experiences as someone who replaced a Subaru Outback with a EV (VW ID.4) recently. For OUR USE the change has been awesome and we have no regrets or complaints.

Neither of us has long commutes - my wife does about 30 miles a day and I drive 20-30 miles a day. We charge it at home once a week, plug it in when we get home and its done by morning.

I asked my wife recently what she likes about it and not having to spend any time 'filling it up' was high on her list. If she wants to she can have a 'full' car every single morning with zero time or effort. The first month we had it I think she nervous about range and would plug it in at 50%, but now I've noticed she will run it down to <10% before bothering to charge, which tells me she's come to be more confident in the range.

We have a second vehicle that is gas (GX460) but I'd like to replace it with an EV in a few years (probably a Rivian R1S). The only time we've used the GX for longer trips recently has been because we needed more cargo capacity or extra seats, not due to range or lack of charging. Most of our 'road trips' are within the ~250 mile range it has on a full charge, and the few times we've wanted to go further charging hasn't been a big deal for us. We have 2 kids and a dog so we're not doing 1000 mile days, and a 20 minute stop to use the bathroom and get a snack is enough time for the car to charge from 20 to 80%.

I will point out that where we live in California there's charging infrastructure all over the place, and one of my considerations in the Rivian is having access to the Tesla Supercharger networks which really opens up a lot of additional charging options near most of the routes we're likely to travel.

I do think if you are interested in tech, can afford it, and have the ability to charge at home, and don't have a daily use that requires 200+ miles/day, EVs are a good option. But I'm also not standing here demanding that everyone switch. If you tow longer distances, or generally mostly use the vehicle for long road trips, or live somewhere with limited charging infrastructure it doesn't see like a good fit. Options are good.

 

[life_w_vagabonds]

Honda is a motor vehicle company. They make more ICE engines than anyone if you include aircraft. They also make electric generators and thin film solar panels, FYI. They offered the first (yes, before Toyota) hybrid in the US with the Insight. Then had one of the cleanest burning efficient natural gas engines in the Civic GX. And they had a good attempt at a hydrogen cell car, the FCX Clarity. I recall that well as I had a 2006 Civic Si and was interested in the Clarity but it never came to Boston...1997, a Honda EV was introduced and a plug in electric Fit in 2012.

Here you say no legacy car maker wants to try something alternative? Because they know the limitations and they know what the customer wants.

All of the above, dead. Not enough interest. Honda would sell them if they could.

Honda Prologue is coming out, based on GM's Ultium platform, although the GM-Honda EV partnership has withered on the vine for lack of public interest.

Why are two of the biggest car manufacturers trying so hard and still find that EV sales are tanking?

Because they dont yet stand the test. I believe they will, in the not-too-distant future.

Toyota, huh! General Motors, harrumph! Honda, c'mon! What would they know about this compared to you or me?

You say manufacturers and our governments know what the old products are doing? What do you think electric products are doing. Where do you think lithium comes from and how is it brought to the surface. Processed?
Bad but just different bad. That's all.

Technology has NEVER been evenly distributed, that's less politics and more economic. If you are looking for a political utopia to push everyone to EV's, you may be at it a long time. Personally, ai am not overland focused, just over-the-road focused.

You think there is mo technology problem with EV's. Ok. Even if there isnt, there is a cost and infrastructure problem that is absolutely insurmountable to most people, not just overlanders.

Marketing. Lithium mining equal to oil extraction? That’s fine, I’m tired of the same conversations. Enjoy

 

[ThundahBeagle]

Marketing. Lithium mining equal to oil extraction? That’s fine, I’m tired of the same conversations. Enjoy

Strip mining, which is highly destructive...or a process similar to fracking. That's how they get lithium mined, show me I'm wrong and I will stand corrected.

Only they dont call it fracking because that's an evil term associated with oil production.

Again, I'm fine with all that, but let's call it what it is.

 

[3laine]

Keep jumping through all the mental hoops you need to, sir.

It's not "mental hoops" to say that public perception is not the same thing as facts.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. There are innumerable examples of this.

But with all due respect, nobody out there on the road -or off road, for that matter - fills just enough to get by unless they have to.

They do if they want to get where they're going as fast as possible. Charging to 100% is a terrible idea for someone worried about travel time. Charging to 50% twice is FAR faster. I'd say it's most common to charge to 70-80% in ~30 mins, give or take.

At that math, the new Chevy Silverado WT could possibly take upwards of 2 hours to get you that 450 mile claimed range.

You claimed that "they take 5 hours to charge" was "true", and your proof is that if you charge all the way to 100% on the biggest battery EV in existence it takes 2 hours?

I get mine in 10 minutes. That's a real thing, because, SOMETIMES I need a meal or to shop or am settling in for the night. Other times, most times, I need my tank filled ASAP so I can get back on the road.

No one disputes that EVs take longer to charge on long trips than fueling gas vehicles, so I'm not sure why you're pretending that's up for debate, now.

$75 grand and the article didn't even mention the configuration problems...I get vinyl, plastic, no place for my cross toolbox, and no Leer cap will fit? Unless I somehow have extra cash lyning around after THAT sale?

The Silverado with the biggest battery is overkill for a large number of people, so the price is quite high. And it has potential issues with people not being able to re-use their toolbox or bed cap. No one disagrees. The Lightning is a better truck and better value and more "normal" for a large number of people, so we don't really need to keep bringing up the complaints about the Silverado that everyone agrees with.

I have vinyl and plastic, can use the toolbox, could add a Leer cap, and paid half as much as the Silverado - and way less than a similar gas truck would have cost, even a work truck trim with a base engine and fewer features.

There's the admitted con of recharge time, but it's nowhere near the "true" statement of 5 hours, and like I've said several times, people should look at the REAL pros and cons (which exist, no one is saying otherwise) and evaluate them vs their use case.

Sir, I personally am a facts guy. Yes perception drives sales but facts also drive sales. Like the facts listed above. Maybe you just dont want to see them.

Please show me an objective "fact" that I disputed.

Every actual fact, I agree with, or say, "not totally true", but yes, that's a concern, and it needs to be weighed against the pros.

Over and over again, I've said there are pros and cons. EVs have longer charge times when traveling, but often charge quicker than the public assumes. They CAN cost more, but often a smaller difference than claimed or public perception. Range is insufficient for some, but often works for more people than the public realizes. So people should take those admitted cons, determine the real size of those cons for their use case, and then compare them to the pros, like home charging convenience, fuel savings, power storage/outlets, performance, etc.

They should make an accurate comparison relative to their use case and make a decision accordingly. Some will choose gas. Some will choose EVs.

 

[3laine]

I'm chiming in just to offer my experiences as someone who replaced a Subaru Outback with a EV (VW ID.4) recently. For OUR USE the change has been awesome and we have no regrets or complaints.

I do think if you are interested in tech, can afford it, and have the ability to charge at home, and don't have a daily use that requires 200+ miles/day, EVs are a good option. But I'm also not standing here demanding that everyone switch. If you tow longer distances, or generally mostly use the vehicle for long road trips, or live somewhere with limited charging infrastructure it doesn't see like a good fit. Options are good.

Exactly. You have the right use case (multi-car family and the ability to charge at home, like many Americans) and realize there are still obvious use cases for both gas and electric with a bunch of use cases in between that requires weighing pros and cons.

 

[3laine]

It absolutely is as simple as those things.

I said it's not as simple as "those things are true". Several of the things were not actually true, or were exaggerated versions of real concerns. People should weigh the pros and cons *accurately* to make the best decision for them.

Right now it comes down to complex math and planning ones life or vacation out much farther down the line or in much greater depth than need be with an ICE vehicle.

Depends. My wife just drove with her mom to a funeral, ~1200 miles round trip.

It was on short notice. They didn't have to do any special planning. They just got in the car and put in the location and the car told them what to do. They even were able to adjust the stops to their preference for food/timing/clean bathrooms like anyone would in a gas car, rather than being forced to use certain stops.

The most complex math that needs to be done is for some people to accurately look at their use case and the pros and cons of EVs vs gas. That's a big hurdle for EV adoption. Digging through the misinformation (in both directions) to determine really what owning an EV would really be like, how much the fuel savings could be, what it actually costs, what the range will be in their use case, etc.

Again, I'm no enemy of EV's. I prefer Hybrids over EV's, and I'm driving an ICE right now, but ultimately I dont care what propulsion it uses, it just has to fit the bill.

Sounds good to me. If gas fits your use case better, great. Or if you just WANT to drive a gas car, great!

 

[MotoDave]

Exactly. You have the right use case (multi-car family and the ability to charge at home, like many Americans) and realize there are still obvious use cases for both gas and electric with a bunch of use cases in between that requires weighing pros and cons.

To be clear - my experience using the ID4 for a year has convinced me I don't need the 2nd car to be gas either.

Our longer trips tend to be either up the coast (Ventura to Monterey - 274 miles - would stop to charge once, probably in SLO at the airport where we like to get lunch anyways) or up to the Eastern Sierra (Ventura to Mammoth Lakes - 322 miles - stop to charge twice most likely). I guarantee with my kids we'd be stopping that often anyways Real world, we charge to 100% the night before, then stop every ~200 miles to charge from 20-80% which takes 20-30 minutes.

We drive to Oregon every other year or so, but we split that trip up into 2-3 days anyways - again traveling with kids does not equal long road days in my experience. Probably 2 charging stops per day of driving. Not a big deal to me, but seemingly unpossible to others who demand not to stop for more than 10 minutes every 1000 miles. You do you.

If anyone is interested abetterrouteplanner.com is a neat route planning site (and app) to investigate what any particular route might be like in whatever EV you pick.

 

[life_w_vagabonds]

To be clear - my experience using the ID4 for a year has convinced me I don't need the 2nd car to be gas either.

Our longer trips tend to be either up the coast (Ventura to Monterey - 274 miles - would stop to charge once, probably in SLO at the airport where we like to get lunch anyways) or up to the Eastern Sierra (Ventura to Mammoth Lakes - 322 miles - stop to charge twice most likely). I guarantee with my kids we'd be stopping that often anyways Real world, we charge to 100% the night before, then stop every ~200 miles to charge from 20-80% which takes 20-30 minutes.

We drive to Oregon every other year or so, but we split that trip up into 2-3 days anyways - again traveling with kids does not equal long road days in my experience. Probably 2 charging stops per day of driving. Not a big deal to me, but seemingly unpossible to others who demand not to stop for more than 10 minutes every 1000 miles. You do you.

If anyone is interested abetterrouteplanner.com is a neat route planning site (and app) to investigate what any particular route might be like in whatever EV you pick.

We used to go from Sacramento to Tucson a couple times year in our old model 3. Even drove through hurricane Hillary once. Not a big deal, I need to stop more often than the car does. We don’t own a combustion vehicle anymore.

We’re headed to Port Townsend for the wooden boat festival soon. Longest trip in the Rivian yet, we’ve done Big Sur, Yosemite and lots of trips in the Sierra already. Haven’t had the truck long but I do miss the Tesla charging network. Haven’t gotten our NACS adapter from Rivian yet, but the magic dock works pretty good.