Poll: Do you have, or plan to get, an electric car?

[Airborneguy]

I read another article on this report and it really has me flabbergasted. I know I am going to fail at putting this into words, but I’ll try.

I seriously cannot fathom how anyone with access to home charging, who doesn’t roadtrip more than once a month, would ever consider switching back to ICE, regardless of the EV they own. I’ve never encountered an EV owner who doesn’t love the experience. Not a single one. I also don’t personally know any who switched for environmental or political reasons. Except for one, everyone I know who drives EVs are fairly hardcore rightwing in fact.

This is why I doubt the veracity of this poll. I want to see the actual wording of the questions asked. It’s mindboggling to me that someone who’s experienced parking at home every day, to wake up with a full charge the next morning, never having to think about fueling while running errands, commuting, working, etc. would actually switch back to ICE. No oil changes, no brakes, tires last exactly the same amount of time once you stop punching it at every light. WAY cheaper to fuel, possibly even free for some people.

It makes no sense to me at all. If the entire industry collapsed because of the anti-politics, I’d buy as many as I could to ensure I never have to drive a gas car again. That’s now much better the experience is.

Now cue the people who’ve never driven one telling me how wrong I am…

 

[Kharnynb]

research done by a company that has several oil producing countries as clients and helped promote oxy....yea those guys sound trustworthy.

seriously, their "controversy" page on wikipedia is basically a list of every terrible thing that happened during the last 20 years outside of covid

 

[NeoBrew]

There is definitely some bias in the first article, but there is clearly also bias in the CleanTechnica article. Sadly this is just another case of people wanting to believe what they already believe.

The arguments around “I’ve never encountered an EV owner who doesn’t love the experience…” is classic. We all get in our own bubbles and tend to see what we want to see.

I miss the days when journalism meant a reporter would at least ATTEMPT to get to some objective place in their writing.

 

[Kent88]

I can't remember if it's here or in a Debate thread, but I know I've shared an article where the Ford CEO said that their approach is they want to sell you an EV now so you'll come back for your next EV. They're making some really bold moves to do that.

I'm pretty sure I've heard similar comments from the GM CEO.

And they're saying that because they've noticed that people aren't switching from EV to ICE.

That's not some biased media, that's the people who report to shareholders.

 

[Airborneguy]

The arguments around “I’ve never encountered an EV owner who doesn’t love the experience…” is classic. We all get in our own bubbles and tend to see what we want to see.

I get that anecdotal evidence is rarely evidence at all. That wasn’t my point with the comment. Take it in totality; I’m saying the poll/articles (about it) don’t make sense to me and I want to see unbiased reporting on how this could be possible.

I live in NJ. One of the highest EV uptake states. I know a LOT of EV owners (mostly Tesla). Between close friends/family and talking to other owners at chargers and such, I have yet to encounter a single person who hasn’t said something to the effect of “yeah,
i’m not going back.” Not 1. If this poll was even remotely correct, this should not be the case.

The only time I encounter people switching back to ICE, it’s always online trying to sell and ALWAYS because of lack of home charging. They either never had it and didn’t realize how necessary it would be, or lost it for some reason so they try to sell the EV.

 

[Bilsch]

I get that anecdotal evidence is rarely evidence at all. That wasn’t my point with the comment. Take it in totality; I’m saying the poll/articles (about it) don’t make sense to me and I want to see unbiased reporting on how this could be possible.

I live in NJ. One of the highest EV uptake states. I know a LOT of EV owners (mostly Tesla). Between close friends/family and talking to other owners at chargers and such, I have yet to encounter a single person who hasn’t said something to the effect of “yeah,
i’m not going back.” Not 1. If this poll was even remotely correct, this should not be the case.

The only time I encounter people switching back to ICE, it’s always online trying to sell and ALWAYS because of lack of home charging. They either never had it and didn’t realize how necessary it would be, or lost it for some reason so they try to sell the EV.

I know there are EV owners that want to go back but it's people that are stuck with an inferior charging network and like you mentioned, those with no charging at home.

If someone told me that 50% of Mach E or1st Gen Leaf or Focus EV etc owners, who have to use the Electrify America or Blue oval charging network, wanted to go back to ICE it would not be surprising to me at all. Maybe those are the folks who are driving the McKinsey data?

 

[Airborneguy]

Reliance on non-Tesla charging networks could certainly explain some of the number.

Extensive driving data (unrelated to eV ownership) proves that most people don’t drive as much as they think they do. Hyper-mile road tripping is not nearly as common as people like to pretend it is. So even if relying on non-supercharger public charging for road trips, it’s still not a noticeable percentage of annual mileage.

My cousin is a great example of someone who actually drives beyond his car’s range on an actual regular basis. He has a Mercedes EV and a rural cabin. He has to make one stop on the 3hr trip (depending on his SOC when he leaves his house). His near-weekly trips to the cabin far exceed average long-distance driving data. Zero complaints. He loves it. And he’s one of the ultra-Maga people I mentioned above.

I just can’t comprehend how anyone having experienced EV life under typical driving conditions would want to switch back.

I’m adamant on these points because I didn’t make the switch lightly. I studied EVs for nearly 4 years before buying my Tesla. I even bought a new ICE car during that period (that we still have). There’s absolutely no scenario in which I would go back to regularly driving an ICE vehicle to cover my 25,000 annual miles.

I can only assume (if true) that these people did not make the right car choice for their circumstances. It’s not the tool. It’s the improper use of the tool.

 

[Agent]

I can only assume (if true) that these people did not make the right car choice for their circumstances. It’s not the tool. It’s the improper use of the tool.

I mean, a car is a tool whose purpose is conveyance. It used to be a choice of compact vs full size vs truck/suv, all with a range of 350+/- miles with a full tank.

Now you have those same choices, plus range limitations based on brand and bonus features. So while I'm sure most everyone who has bought a Tesla has been satisfied, I'd be willing there are a lot of early Leaf owners who were nowhere near as impressed.

And that said, I think there is a reason that budget friendly low performance, low range vehicles aren't really offered anymore.

 

[sibelman]

budget friendly low performance, low range vehicles

As dollars per kWH have dropped, the dream of Leaf-priced cars with Tesla-class range has become reality. Yes, my Leaf came with range frustration. My Bolt? Not so much.

That said, Tesla's strategy of aiming toward the higher end of the market seems somewhat persistent. So you're largely correct.

As far as performance is concerned: even the Leaf was more than fast enough and agile enough for my modest appetites. YMMV

 

[Kent88]

I dunno. People go to different company's petrol stations all the time. I have the same attitude about charging networks. I've used unaffiliated charging stations, ChargePoint, ZEF, and Electrify America. When Tesla comes available to Chevys, I'll probably use those too.

I did a deep dive into where I could charge along my normal road trip routes before I bought a BEV. I did that even though I know that I don't ask the vehicle in that role to make those drives often. I leave those trips to the vehicle with cargo space.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

The only time I encounter people switching back to ICE, it’s always online trying to sell and ALWAYS because of lack of home charging. They either never had it and didn’t realize how necessary it would be, or lost it for some reason so they try to sell the EV.

This is by necessity oversimplifying things, but...

• A quick google search suggests that about 70% of US homes are either single-family detached or single-family attached. houses. That means that 30% are not.
• The report suggests about 29% of EV buyers are considering switching back to ICEV.

Hmm... Could it be that maybe somewhere in the realm of 30% of EV buyers happen to also be the ones that don't live in single-family homes and have access to home charging, moderately closely mirroring the housing stock?

 

[Broothru]

I read another article on this report and it really has me flabbergasted. I know I am going to fail at putting this into words, but I’ll try.

I seriously cannot fathom how anyone with access to home charging, who doesn’t roadtrip more than once a month, would ever consider switching back to ICE, regardless of the EV they own. I’ve never encountered an EV owner who doesn’t love the experience. Not a single one. I also don’t personally know any who switched for environmental or political reasons. Except for one, everyone I know who drives EVs are fairly hardcore rightwing in fact.

This is why I doubt the veracity of this poll. I want to see the actual wording of the questions asked. It’s mindboggling to me that someone who’s experienced parking at home every day, to wake up with a full charge the next morning, never having to think about fueling while running errands, commuting, working, etc. would actually switch back to ICE. No oil changes, no brakes, tires last exactly the same amount of time once you stop punching it at every light. WAY cheaper to fuel, possibly even free for some people.

It makes no sense to me at all. If the entire industry collapsed because of the anti-politics, I’d buy as many as I could to ensure I never have to drive a gas car again. That’s now much better the experience is.

Now cue the people who’ve never driven one telling me how wrong I am…

You won’t get any argument from me, but I still am having difficulty getting past EV over hybrid. We currently have a 2017 Prius PHEV and a 2013 Volvo. We love the Prius, which is the primary drive for us both, and it has nearly the same total mileage as the Volvo even though it is 4 years ‘younger’ (~73,000 miles for each vehicle).

Both cars are immaculate and mechanically well maintained, though now with both of us retired, the Volvo is a ‘garage queen’ that seldom sees the road unless we have separate places to be at the same time. The weakness comes into play with regard to range. If we’re going to D.C. or Baltimore, the Prius can’t make the round trip without going into ICE mode, so we default to the Volvo.

Even around town, the Prius is plugged in (electrically depleted) at least every other day after local driving only. That said, I only add gas to its 9 gallon tank only 2-3 times per year, and that’s usually because the factory recommends it due to fuel staling and varnishing concerns.

As far as replacement vehicles for both cars, we’re very impressed with Toyota, but for more than 50 years we have always had at least one (often more than one) Volvo in the stable. Toyota seems firmly in the camp of plug-in technology, with future emphasis on hydrogen fuel cell and pure EV tech taking a back seat to hybrid. Volvo seems to be backing away from pure EV while focusing on PHEV.

The upside is Volvo PHEVs getting 250~300 miles per full charge verses the 32 miles per charge we typically get from the Prius. If these two vehicle manufacturers who we really like are putting their money on PHEV, shouldn’t I concentrate on that technology, at least until the infrastructure for charging becomes as ubiquitous and numerous as gas stations?

 

[sibelman]

A bit of news about EV-related beliefs and attitudes.

 

[beren]

I've had a few vehicles over the years, will go drive 100mi each way to Baltimore for a pit beef sandwich without a 2nd thought. 215k miles on my last Civic, 330k miles so far on my Cummins, and I plan on getting a used Kona EV Ultimate. I'll miss my stick shift, but even with my high electric rates ($0.24/kwh) the Kona will get me almost 70 miles for the cost of 1 gal of regular, and can go 260mi on a full charge. It has a slower fast charge than the new ones, which can go from 10-80% in 13min. That's how long a stop is on a long road trip at least, so you're not really losing any time if you have one of them, and new battery tech promises even faster speeds. I love that the Kona is a normal car, with normal buttons and stalks. Touchscreen only cars can diaf as far as I'm concerned. If you can't change the radio or climate with your eyes closed, it's dangerous garbage and should be banned as using a cell phone while driving is.

That's my hot take.

 

[sibelman]

Touchscreen only cars

dangerous garbage

normal buttons and stalks.

Yes, I was kinda excited about the Volvo EX30 (smaller, more affordable - what I'll need when it's time to replace my Bolt) but I don't think you can even activate the defroster without the touch screen - a significant safety compromise.

 

[beren]

I test drove the Ioniq5 and it was mostly ok, but the climate controls were smooth touch buttons, so you can't feel your way around but at least it's not all on a LCD screen with menus.

 

[Broothru]

Interesting take on touch screens. Before retiring I flew Airbus 320s, Boeing 757/767, and Boeing 777 aircraft. All were highly reliant on touch screens and electronic displays for virtually every aspect of basic flight and systems control. Granted, there was redundancy of display and control which usually meant another CRT or LCD, but the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of “glass” cockpit controls was always orders of magnitude better than analog display and manual control systems.

In nearly 20 years of flying “glass” cockpits, I can’t recall a single failure of touch screen and electronic switching systems. On the other hand, with also nearly 20 years of flying systems with electromechanical controls and displays, all were much more susceptible to failure. That’s why most devices were redundant, often triply redundant, for critical safety of flight components.

I suspect the majority of electronic touch screen control ‘failures’ is more likely due to failure in some power supply component to the device, rather than failure of the device itself. Modern aircraft systems have multiple sources of electrical power (multiple engine driven generators, multiple battery backups, ram air turbine generators (RAT) that deploy automatically in the event of total electrical failure, hydraulic motor generators that come on if the RAT fails, runaround relays and switchable power sources, bus tie switching, etc). Automobiles usually only have an alternator/generator and a chassis battery. The average airplane is also much better maintained than the average car.

But having utilized both touchscreen and electromechanical systems in highly critical applications, my experience is that the state of the art for the former is much more reliable than the latter.

 

[sibelman]

more reliable

Good to know.

I speculate that eyes off the windscreen may be more quickly problematic in case driving than flying.
Also, the touchscreen (or its computer) in my otherwise reliable Bolt did fail. So I'm wanting "critical" functions on hard buttons/knobs.

 

[Kent88]

If you can't change the radio or climate with your eyes closed,

It's a bad idea to close your eyes while driving. Please be careful.

 

[beren]

It's a bad idea to close your eyes while driving. Please be careful.

Of course, that wasn’t the point. But if you have a flat piece of glass with no ability to feel what you’re touching before the button is activated you will press the wrong thing often unless you divert your full attention to where you need to touch.

 

[Airborneguy]

Muscle memory still applies.

 

[beren]

Muscle memory still applies.

Sure. You’ll get close.

 

[Broothru]

Good to know.

I speculate that eyes off the windscreen may be more quickly problematic in case driving than flying.
Also, the touchscreen (or its computer) in my otherwise reliable Bolt did fail. So I'm wanting "critical" functions on hard buttons/knobs.

Undoubtedly true. Tactile feel and muscle memory are all important factors, and you don’t get that in touchscreen activation. A well designed interface on device firmware and software can mitigate this somewhat however. But you’re absolutely right that even a second or two shifting focus from the road to a buried touchscreen is a recipe for disaster.

We have a 10” screen multi-function display (MFD) on our Mercedes-based motorhome that controls most subsystems (NAV, phone, entertainment, climate, performance, etc.) that are accessible from steering wheel inputs as well, with repeater messaging on the driver’s instrument cluster (all electronic). That reduces fixation on the 10” display. There is also voice activation integration with all menu and system functions but honestly I find it tedious and annoying.

 

[sibelman]

voice activation

If I could reliably activate key functions with voice, I could probably chill about touch screens. "Alexa, max defrost now!" Except not Alexa ffs.

 

[Broothru]

If I could reliably activate key functions with voice, I could probably chill about touch screens. "Alexa, max defrost now!" Except not Alexa ffs.

Roger that.

“Hey, Mercedes” is bad enough. Plus, just like my ‘co-pilot’, she doesn’t always listen to me.

 

[beren]

If I could reliably activate key functions with voice, I could probably chill about touch screens. "Alexa, max defrost now!" Except not Alexa ffs.

Maybe, but I despise voice commands.

 

[sibelman]

I despise voice commands

Also not a fan, and I definitely don't want my car to talk to me. (Woody Allen: "Then, the elevator made a remark.")

But I might learn to make an exception for this voice-command use case...

doesn’t always listen to me.

...if it were >95% reliable.

 

[Broothru]

Also not a fan, and I definitely don't want my car to talk to me. (Woody Allen: "Then, the elevator made a remark.")

But I might learn to make an exception for this voice-command use case...

...if it were >95% reliable.

 

[Bilsch]

Good to know.

I speculate that eyes off the windscreen may be more quickly problematic in case driving than flying.
Also, the touchscreen (or its computer) in my otherwise reliable Bolt did fail. So I'm wanting "critical" functions on hard buttons/knobs.

Unless the car is doing the driving and you are just a systems monitor. That is the way I drive anymore. Reminds me a lot of flying on autopilot where you don't concern yourself with the heading and altitude hold drudgery but instead relax and take in the big picture.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

But having utilized both touchscreen and electromechanical systems in highly critical applications, my experience is that the state of the art for the former is much more reliable than the latter.

Count me in the "anti-touchscreen" camp in a car. It's not about reliability. It's about safety. The fewer times you can take your eyes off the road, the better. It's nearly impossible to operate a touchscreen without at the VERY least glancing at it. And anything that requires navigating menus is IMHO a lot more time than you should be spending watching a screen instead of the road.

Good to know.

I speculate that eyes off the windscreen may be more quickly problematic in case driving than flying.
Also, the touchscreen (or its computer) in my otherwise reliable Bolt did fail. So I'm wanting "critical" functions on hard buttons/knobs.

Obviously I don't know as much about flying as @Broothru -- but I know there are several key differences...

• When flying, you have defined flight plans and altitude corridors that you're flying in.
• When flying, you have the benefit of air traffic control.
• When flying, based on those advantages you may have conditions where you're flying on instruments and can't see out your windscreen. This is something you're trained to do.
• When flying, you're in the sky with other highly-trained, competent people in all other "vehicles".

Whereas when driving, you're often on a crowded road, surrounded by incompetents, who are all going their own way without any coordination, and who are all "supposed" to be monitoring the road themselves but might be looking at their touchscreens, looking at their phones, wrangling their kids in the back seat, or with who knows how many other distractions going on.

So I wouldn't have the objections to touchscreens in an airplane as I would in a car. They're different situations on SO many levels.