UK switching to electric vehicles discussion

[DustyBin]

7 seaters were popular with bigger families, 5 seaters like the C max tended to be quite a lot more than the hatchbacks they were based on for not that much more space.

MPVs aren't at all desirable as well.

At the time in question, smaller MPVs were a relatively new thing. The Scenic had been around for a while, but other early offerings such as the Picasso and Zafira were quite new. The C-Max was still a couple of years away from release at that point.

I wouldn't personally want an MPV under any circumstance, but they have an obvious practical purpose.

 

[AM9]

At the time in question, smaller MPVs were a relatively new thing. The Scenic had been around for a while, but other early offerings such as the Picasso and Zafira were quite new. The C-Max was still a couple of years away from release at that point.

I wouldn't personally want an MPV under any circumstance, but they have an obvious practical purpose.

I had a 2006 mercedes A180 (W169) for 10 years which effectively was a mini people carrier. It was small enough to park in all but the smallest of spaces, yet could easily seat 5 adults or with fold flat/removable seats out, accommodate quite bulky loads. It had a flat floor for easy boarding, and a clear view of the road. So there's a place for EV with similar features. Indeed, with the original A series cars (W168) Mercedes planned to include electric versions in the range and designed-in sufficient compartment into the structure of the rased floor for a battery system.

 

[gg1]

An increasingly unpopular choice, but for no logical reason!

There's one very logical and practical reason why higher cars are so popular now, they're far easier to get in out of for anyone with mobility problems. Apparently it's also easier to strap kids in the back but as I don't have any I can't vouch for that.

Due to my partner's knackered knees we'd never go back to a regular height car, I have no real preference between MPVs and SUVs but there's currently not that many small MPVs on the market.

 

[DustyBin]

There's one very logical and practical reason why higher cars are so popular now, they're far easier to get in out of for anyone with mobility problems. Apparently it's also easier to strap kids in the back but as I don't have any I can't vouch for that.

Due to my partner's knackered knees we'd never go back to a regular height car, I have no real preference between MPVs and SUVs but there's currently not that many small MPVs on the market.

There is that of course, but it doesn’t apply to the vast majority of SUV drivers I know, who are perfectly mobile under-40s.

It probably is easier (or more convenient) to strap kids in the back, but I think that’s clutching at straws (yummy mummy sister-in-law actually agrees).

Actually that reminds me, I have thought of another practical advantage. They’re more suited to mounting kerbs outside schools!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually that reminds me, I have thought of another practical advantage. They’re more suited to mounting kerbs outside schools!

They're not really, as the wheels are typically the same size as a normal estate.

I suppose it depends what we are talking about as an SUV, as the term seems to have evolved somewhat. Most people used to call Rangies, Discos and Defenders "a 4x4", and those massive American things "a pick-up", and did accept they have no role in cities, with terms of disdain like "Chelsea tractor" - in no sense whatsoever does e.g. a Ford Kuga fit into that description, it's just a vertically stretched and slightly shortened Focus Estate.

Then came the term SUV which tended to be used to describe smaller ones.

Now we seem to be putting Kugas or even the very small Ecosport (almost a vertically stretched KA) or even something like the Suzuki Jimny or Fiat Panda 4x4 (both tiny vehicles) into the same class and hitting them with the same revulsion. We even put things like the original Mokka in that bracket (it's about the same size as the Ecosport). Though we do seem now to have adopted "compact cross" for the ones that are basically just a hatchback raised by about 6" and bodykitted like the new Mokka.

This just seems utterly silly to me. They aren't the same thing at all, in any form. In particular objecting to compact crosses means objecting to quite a lot of hatchbacks, because there are hatchbacks with a higher roof line than some compact crosses. Or if it's just about the bodykit, that has no impact on road safety at all, that's just blind prejudice, mostly driven by the cycling lobby, and in particular the more extreme end that is strongly anti-car of any kind but can just about cope with everyone having a Vauxhall Corsa 1.0l, but how dare you have *anything* bigger.

 

[bspahh]

They're not really, as the wheels are typically the same size as a normal estate.

I suppose it depends what we are talking about as an SUV, as the term seems to have evolved somewhat. Most people used to call Rangies, Discos and Defenders "a 4x4", and those massive American things "a pick-up", and did accept they have no role in cities, with terms of disdain like "Chelsea tractor" - in no sense whatsoever does e.g. a Ford Kuga fit into that description, it's just a vertically stretched and slightly shortened Focus Estate.

Then came the term SUV which tended to be used to describe smaller ones.

Now we seem to be putting Kugas or even the very small Ecosport (almost a vertically stretched KA) or even something like the Suzuki Jimny or Fiat Panda 4x4 (both tiny vehicles) into the same class and hitting them with the same revulsion. We even put things like the original Mokka in that bracket (it's about the same size as the Ecosport). Though we do seem now to have adopted "compact cross" for the ones that are basically just a hatchback raised by about 6" and bodykitted like the new Mokka.

This just seems utterly silly to me. They aren't the same thing at all, in any form. In particular objecting to compact crosses means objecting to quite a lot of hatchbacks, because there are hatchbacks with a higher roof line than some compact crosses. Or if it's just about the bodykit, that has no impact on road safety at all, that's just blind prejudice, mostly driven by the cycling lobby, and in particular the more extreme end that is strongly anti-car of any kind but can just about cope with everyone having a Vauxhall Corsa 1.0l, but how dare you have *anything* bigger.

I object to the weight and bulk of 4x4s in the wrong context. That means:

1. When the weight and poor handling causes you to lose control, roll onto my side of the road and hit my car.

2. When I park in a car park and come back to find I have a 6 inch gap to squeeze in because a large vehicle has parked next to me. I drive a Mondeo which is wider than a lot of 4x4s.

3. When I am delayed by a 4x4 which takes ages to park because of an enormous turning circle, because the driver can't judge whether you can fit through a gap (because it is a big vehicle, or the driver can't see the corners), or can't go around a corner at a reasonable speed.

I don't mind if you have one to tow a trailer out of a muddy field, or if you have one because you like it, so long as you can control your car.

A Kuga weighs ~ 100kg more than the equivalent C-Max, which I think makes them slightly worse. I'll get over it.

 

[gg1]

For clarity, in my previous post (which was a response to the assertion that there was no logical reason for choosing a higher car - other dimensions weren't mentioned) I was referring to the small/medium sized SUV/Crossovers @Bletchleyite mentioned which take up no more roadspace than 'normal' cars, as opposed to the larger versions which have a footprint more akin to a Transit sized van.

There is that of course, but it doesn’t apply to the vast majority of SUV drivers I know, who are perfectly mobile under-40s.

It probably is easier (or more convenient) to strap kids in the back, but I think that’s clutching at straws (yummy mummy sister-in-law actually agrees).

How exactly is it clutching at straws? For most people practicality and convenience are a major influence in their choice of car. If strapping kids in the back of your car is something you're doing most days, often multiple times per day, the ease of doing so will be a factor to consider.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I object to the weight and bulk of 4x4s in the wrong context. That means:

1. When the weight and poor handling causes you to lose control, roll onto my side of the road and hit my car.

That's caused by bad driving. VERY bad driving, in fact - you can throw e.g. a Kuga around quite happily if you want, it's quite a stable car. Like with a double decker bus, the top bit is quite light because it's thin and mostly contains air, with the main weight (engine/batteries and most of the body strength) low down.

In terms of weight distribution (which is what affects handling) cars are roughly triangular.

2. When I park in a car park and come back to find I have a 6 inch gap to squeeze in because a large vehicle has parked next to me. I drive a Mondeo which is wider than a lot of 4x4s.

So you should object to Mondeos? Cars have got wider because of the addition of side impact protection - the narrowest car I have owned is a Land Rover Defender, because it had none whatsoever, the doors were maybe an inch or two thick, typical car doors are now at least 4-5" thick.

Parking spaces need to get wider because cars have got wider for good reasons, and that would solve the problem. If Councils are worried about loss of income from that, just increase the price proportionately to the increased size of a space.

I can understand people saying "people should get cars with a small footprint" - but that doesn't mean five metre estate cars. A Mondeo is without doubt worse in an urban area than a small SUV like an original Mokka, say, it's coming on twice as long.

3. When I am delayed by a 4x4 which takes ages to park because of an enormous turning circle, because the driver can't judge whether you can fit through a gap (because it is a big vehicle, or the driver can't see the corners), or can't go around a corner at a reasonable speed.

Again, bad driving. I've seen more young, new drivers unable to park their Ka or Corsa than people unable to park a Rangie with all-round cameras and other assistance features.

Indeed it's easier to park a Kuga than a Mondy because it's about 2 feet shorter. I've not had a Mondy but I have had a Vectra estate which is about the same size, and my present Kuga is certainly much easier to park!

A Kuga weighs ~ 100kg more than the equivalent C-Max, which I think makes them slightly worse. I'll get over it.

100kg is inconsiderable, it's the weight of one extra adult passenger.

To be honest I could understand you objecting to big cars if you drove a supermini, but a Mondeo is a large, heavy car which is greedy of roadspace being five metres long - I think your arguments are therefore rather hypocritical in nature to be honest. I like the Mondeo and would happily have one (and am sad at them having been dropped from the range), but to suggest it's in any way morally better for anything than a Kuga, or worse a smaller mini-SUV, is just nonsensical. And to suggest it's morally better than say one of those smaller electric SUVs is just plain silly.

 

[DustyBin]

How exactly is it clutching at straws? For most people practicality and convenience are a major influence in their choice of car. If strapping kids in the back of your car is something you're doing most days, often multiple times per day, the ease of doing so will be a factor to consider.

Because for most people it's a marginal benefit. As I said, I get it's more convenient, but not in itself a reason to "need" an SUV.

I should make it clear here that whilst I don't like SUVs, and (more to the point) the market shift towards them, it's each to their own within reason. It's not for us to dictate what people should and shouldn't drive.

 

[gg1]

Parking spaces need to get wider because cars have got wider for good reasons, and that would solve the problem. If Councils are worried about loss of income from that, just increase the price proportionately to the increased size of a space.

That may well happen anyway in many car parks, though for different reasons.

Supposedly many multi storey car parks would not safely be able to take the weight of being full to capacity with EVs as they were originally designed with generally lighter ICE cars in mind. The easiest way around that problem is to reduce the capacity of them by enlarging the spaces.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because for most people it's a marginal benefit. As I said, I get it's more convenient, but not in itself a reason to "need" an SUV.

Most people don't "need" more than a supermini, but people don't buy cars on that basis, they buy them because they'll enhance their life in some way (e.g. be easier to put the kids in) and because they like the look of them or the image they project.

Indeed many people don't "need" a car at all, they just want one.

 

[DustyBin]

Most people don't "need" more than a supermini, but people don't buy cars on that basis, they buy them because they'll enhance their life in some way (e.g. be easier to put the kids in) and because they like the look of them or the image they project.

Indeed many people don't "need" a car at all, they just want one.

Yes I know - I have four!

 

[AM9]

Most people don't "need" more than a supermini, but people don't buy cars on that basis, they buy them because they'll enhance their life in some way (e.g. be easier to put the kids in) and because they like the look of them or the image they project.

Indeed many people don't "need" a car at all, they just want one.

Then a sensible move would be to differentiate vehicles by size (in terms of road space taken) by grading the Car Tax. Of course there would be a chorus of complaining pushing constructed reasons why they shouldn't have to pay because they 'need' a space-hungry vehicle, (even thouigh they can afford to buy and run one) but can't afford the Tax.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then a sensible move would be to differentiate vehicles by size (in terms of road space taken) by grading the Car Tax. Of course there would be a chorus of complaining pushing constructed reasons why they shouldn't have to pay because they 'need' a space-hungry vehicle, (even thouigh they can afford to buy and run one) but can't afford the Tax.

With ICE cars there's already graded taxation, in that bigger and heavier cars use more fuel. Fuel tax is basically the perfect method of taxation for ICE cars - it's proportional to the pollution your car emits (because it's proportional to fuel burn) and it's hard to evade.

Replicating this for EVs via some sort of road pricing mechanism is the challenge. They will use more electricity but it's cheap on its own.

 

[jon0844]

Replicating this for EVs via some sort of road pricing mechanism is the challenge. They will use more electricity but it's cheap on its own.

Have a test for car makers that determines the efficiency of each car in miles per kWh (or equivalent metric) in different conditions, and impose a charge based on that. Then car makers will have to advertise the tax bracket when they sell a car.

You can buy a small EV with a small battery that does more miles because it's half the weight of a SUV or pick-up with a 246kWh battery* that's needed to give it a decent range - and will be horribly inefficient (as well as far more expensive to charge than a 50kWh battery).

After all, while the move to electric is great and one day all the energy generated to charge them might be green, we should still be rewarding people for driving more efficiently. Add in the congestion zone charging I've mentioned before, as EVs still add to congestion and we shouldn't all be driving everywhere, every day just because they're (currently) cheaper, and the Government now has a way to recover some of the lost revenue from fossil fuels.

* The EV Hummer, although that's not all usable.

 

[bspahh]

So you should object to Mondeos?

I object to Mondeos which are driven inconsiderately. There are better city cars. I don't drive much in cities (if you accept that Ely is effectively a town and not a city, even if it has a cathedral).

I can understand people saying "people should get cars with a small footprint" - but that doesn't mean five metre estate cars. A Mondeo is without doubt worse in an urban area than a small SUV like an original Mokka, say, it's coming on twice as long.

"twice"? A Mk4 Mondeo is 4.84m long. A Mokka is 4.15m long.

Indeed it's easier to park a Kuga than a Mondy because it's about 2 feet shorter.

A Kuga is between 4.614m and 4.629m, so its 8.3-8.9 inches shorter than a Mondeo.

To be honest I could understand you objecting to big cars if you drove a supermini, but a Mondeo is a large, heavy car which is greedy of roadspace being five metres long - I think your arguments are therefore rather hypocritical in nature to be honest. I like the Mondeo and would happily have one (and am sad at them having been dropped from the range), but to suggest it's in any way morally better for anything than a Kuga, or worse a smaller mini-SUV, is just nonsensical. And to suggest it's morally better than say one of those smaller electric SUVs is just plain silly.

I am also against bad driving. Bad drivers in bad cars are worse than bad drivers in good cars. I haven't said anything about morals or mini SUVs.

BTW, in an earlier post I referred to the kinetic energy of a 2000kg car being 78% more than a 1500kg one. That is in an alternate universe where kinetic energy is 1/2 vm² and not this one where its 1/2 mv², and the difference is 33%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I object to Mondeos which are driven inconsiderately. There are better city cars. I don't drive much in cities (if you accept that Ely is effectively a town and not a city, even if it has a cathedral).

Thus surely your objection should not be to SUVs, but to badly driven vehicles of all kinds?

"twice"? A Mk4 Mondeo is 4.84m long. A Mokka is 4.15m long.

A Kuga is between 4.614m and 4.629m, so its 8.3-8.9 inches shorter than a Mondeo.

Sorry, I was being a bit hyperbolic. But my point is that a Mondeo estate is a very large car.

I am also against bad driving. Bad drivers in bad cars are worse than bad drivers in good cars. I haven't said anything about morals or mini SUVs.

Fair enough.

BTW, in an earlier post I referred to the kinetic energy of a 2000kg car being 78% more than a 1500kg one. That is in an alternate universe where kinetic energy is 1/2 vm² and not this one where its 1/2 mv², and the difference is 33%.

Also fair enough.

 

[DelW]

I suppose it depends what we are talking about as an SUV, as the term seems to have evolved somewhat. Most people used to call Rangies, Discos and Defenders "a 4x4", and those massive American things "a pick-up", and did accept they have no role in cities, with terms of disdain like "Chelsea tractor" - in no sense whatsoever does e.g. a Ford Kuga fit into that description, it's just a vertically stretched and slightly shortened Focus Estate.

Then came the term SUV which tended to be used to describe smaller ones.

The terminology needed to evolve because many, possibly most, of the cars that look like 4x4s are now actually only 2wd. The American acronym SUV doesn't differentiate by drive train, rather by size and body style.

Then a sensible move would be to differentiate vehicles by size (in terms of road space taken) by grading the Car Tax. Of course there would be a chorus of complaining pushing constructed reasons why they shouldn't have to pay because they 'need' a space-hungry vehicle, (even thouigh they can afford to buy and run one) but can't afford the Tax.

My local High Street is plagued by illegal parking by people who apparently can afford £70k for a Range Rover or BMW X5, but not 70p for the adjacent car park. It's particularly annoying when the bus I'm on has to sit idling for several minutes because it can't get past them.

 

[AM9]

My local High Street is plagued by illegal parking by people who apparently can afford £70k for a Range Rover or BMW X5, but not 70p for the adjacent car park. It's particularly annoying when the bus I'm on has to sit idling for several minutes because it can't get past them.

Then loading the car tax for their additional demands on road space would be fair measure, - if they really can't afford it and don't have a genuine need, instead of having to pay an unavoidable tax cost, they will downsize their vehicle. For those that still insist of taking the space, the additional tax will come in handy for improving pedestrian safety.

 

[johncrossley]

Paris is considering charging more for heavier cars to park.

 

[AM9]

Paris is considering charging more for heavier cars to park.

Good. I hope it works so that it can be rolled out elsewhere.

 

[The Ham]

An interesting article about the extra costs of insurance for EV's:

Why is electric car insurance so expensive? EV vs ICE cost analysis | Auto Express

We look into claims that electric cars face higher insurance premiums than ICE equivalents

www.autoexpress.co.uk

There few paragraphs sum up the general point being made (yes there's some extra costs, but mostly not too far adrift):

The results reveal that the cost of insuring these electric cars is indeed higher, but the difference is not as substantial as the headlines would suggest. The EV was actually cheaper to cover for one of our drivers. Taken as an average across the board, the quotes given for the MG ZS EV were 10.4 per cent more than the 1.0-litre turbo petrol model, while the Corsa Electric’s were 16.6 per cent higher than the equivalent 1.2T 130 petrol version. Drivers choosing the electric BMW iX3 will pay a more significant 20 per cent premium over the diesel X3. But it seems that certain best-selling electric cars are pulling up the overall average for EVs, with Tesla in particular being shunned by some brokers entirely, making them expensive to insure. Owners are shocked to discover most of the Tesla range is placed in insurance group 50 – the same as exotica such as Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

 

[jon0844]

My petrol car went up quite a bit and when I attempted to shop around, everything else had shot up too. I definitely don't think it is solely an EV thing (the anti EV brigade suggesting it's because EV batteries keep catching fire).

 

[paul1609]

My petrol car went up quite a bit and when I attempted to shop around, everything else had shot up too. I definitely don't think it is solely an EV thing (the anti EV brigade suggesting it's because EV batteries keep catching fire).

There is a Thatcham report out about it. The problem is that EVs are depreciating so fast that any damage to the battery pack means that an EV over 10 months old (and some more or less as soon as they leave the forecourt) will be written off because the replacement battery (if its available) will cost more than the residual value of the car. The battery technology has been pushed so far that theres currently nobody thats willing to attempt a repair.

 

[bspahh]

There is a Thatcham report out about it. The problem is that EVs are depreciating so fast that any damage to the battery pack means that an EV over 10 months old (and some more or less as soon as they leave the forecourt) will be written off because the replacement battery (if its available) will cost more than the residual value of the car. The battery technology has been pushed so far that theres currently nobody thats willing to attempt a repair.

This is the press release on the Thatcham report

PRESS RELEASE - 5 JULY 2023 00:01

New report highlights risks to Battery Electric Vehicle adoption if repair and insurance sector concerns are not addressed​

• Thatcham Research and Innovate UK’s much-anticipated Impact of BEV Adoption on the Repair and Insurance Sectors report finds all parts of the Motor Insurance Claims process will need to adapt to support transition to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs).
• Implications remain unquantified on repair capacity, training and skills, cost, and lifetime sustainability of BEVs.
• Although solutions exist for most, if not all, challenges highlighted by the report, the rate of BEV adoption may be impacted, unless “credible cross-industry plans are urgently put into place.”

Automotive risk intelligence company Thatcham Research is today issuing a report, funded by the UK Government’s innovation agency (Innovate UK), that highlights the technical and practical differences between BEV and ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle insurance claims processes. The report examines potentially significant implications for motor insurers, their supply chains and in turn, consumer acceptance.
Despite newer BEVs featuring high fitment levels of ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) and passive safety technologies, they are not risk or incident free. Due to the nascent nature of the industry, BEV incident claims are currently ~25.5% more expensive than their ICE equivalents and can take ~14% longer to repair. Road collisions involving a BEV can be catastrophic for the vehicle as understanding and competence in rectifying the damage continues to develop.
Battery assessment and repairability
The most significant challenges identified by the report originate from the high voltage (HV) battery. BEV batteries represent a substantial percentage of the original vehicle value and are therefore rapidly presenting negative impact to the economic model of vehicle repair. Although there is a relatively small number of BEVs in the market, there is an understandable but concerning lack of affordable or available repair solutions and post-accident diagnostics.
Thatcham Research’s data-driven modelling shows that in 2022, 9,400 vehicles were potentially involved in collisions resulting in battery inclusion in the repair. This is estimated to reach up to 260,000 vehicles annually by 2035.
Adrian Watson, head of engineering research, Thatcham Research, comments: “Without meaningful change, there is a strong likelihood that claims costs will continue to rise disproportionally.
“Much of the motor insurance industry is yet to adapt to mass BEV adoption challenges, and the implications remain unquantified on repair capacity, training and skills, cost, and the lifetime sustainability of BEVs. This lack of awareness means many BEVs are often deemed irreparable, leading to premature write-offs because of high battery cost and the lack of value the UK ecosystem can recover from them.”
Currently, the cost of a replacement HV battery is causing a significant increase in the risk of ‘total loss’ or write-offs. The cost of HV batteries varies widely from high-end vehicles, currently costing ~£29,500, to the low-end costing ~£14,200. The ‘depreciation curve’ of battery cost versus average used value, shows that the cost of a replacement battery is more than the used price of the vehicle after only one year.
Watson continues, “These cost increases present a significant risk to BEV uptake, reducing potential economic and sustainability gains. Technical solutions do exist for most if not all of these challenges. However, it is vital that credible cross-industry plans are urgently put into place that focus on addressing battery cost, diagnostics, and the creation of a sustainable ecosystem for battery repair.”
Other considerations for BEV repairability
Government guidelines state that due to potential fire risk, damaged BEVs awaiting repair should be stored in an outside quarantine area, at a safe distance of 15 metres from other nearby objects. As such, an outside storage space with capacity for 100 ICE vehicles, would allow for the safe quarantine of just two BEVs, representing a potential 98% reduction in repair capacity. The cost incurred through following recommended quarantine protocols of 48hrs will add a minimum of £60 to every claim, the report states.
If the vehicle cannot be safely stored at the repair centre there will be further costs associated with transportation to and from an alternative location, storage at the alternative location, along with a longer duration of hire vehicle.
Watson comments, “This could result in a measurable rise in associated claim cost and duration, negatively impacting on the BEV ownership experience.
“This presumed rise in cost is a result of just one element of the BEV claims process flow. However, there are many other factors which may also result in further insurance premium costs due to the differing processes that follow a BEV collision. These range from limited access to battery diagnostics to enable a better understanding of battery health and potential repair options, to the increased weight of a BEV creating challenges to roadside recovery and a requirement for bodyshops to make costly investments in specialised repair skills and equipment.”
Recommendations
“It’s important to reiterate that most, if not all, of the outcomes highlighted by the report could be avoided with the right solutions in place,” said Watson.
The report’s authors would suggest investment in further cross-industry work to identify more detailed solutions and to make direct recommendations about a range of interventions or support to accelerate those solutions. For example, by understanding the needs of vehicle manufacturers, repairers, insurers, and salvagers to optimise the supply of new / refurbished / recovered batteries in vehicle repair.
Thatcham Research continues to work closely with Government and Vehicle Manufacturers to identify solutions to the issues raised by the report.
To access a fully copy of the report, click here: www.thatcham.org/thatcham-research-innovate-uk-bev-report-2023/
Industry Commentary
Jonathan Fong, Association of British Insurers (ABI) Senior Policy Adviser, General Insurance, said: “The insurance industry fully supports the roll-out of electric vehicles and is actively working with Government to help meet their 2035 targets for zero emission vehicles. With any new technology, there will be factors that need to be worked through, including a host of considerations in the insurance and vehicle repair supply chains. We’ve been calling for more investment in training and reskilling automotive technicians to help develop a robust and independent repair network that can cope with an increasingly electrified fleet.”
Chris Payne, Head of Networks and Engineering at LV= General Insurance – which supported the research with motor insurance claims modelling – added: “As one of the major insurers in the UK we’re working hard to find solutions to some of the current challenges around EVs. This includes upskilling the next generation of technicians and redesigning and developing our new and existing repair sites. As an industry we also need to ensure there is collaboration between insurers, car manufactures, salvage agents, repairers and the entire supply chain. This will ultimately help us work towards a combined goal that enables the latest vehicle technology to be repaired safely, and efficiently with the right skills, tooling and equipment to ensure we meet the needs of the future.”
Michael Hill, Operations Director at SYNETIQ, a specialist in vehicle salvage, dismantling and recycling, which brought essential insight to the report around market readiness for financially and environmentally sustainable EV repair, said: “The report highlights the UK's need of a stronger infrastructure to support the lifecycle of a BEV. From a recycling point of view, we need more data from manufacturers to be able to process the vehicles in a safe, cost-efficient, and sustainable way. A joined-up approach and more knowledge sharing throughout the entire supply chain would help to facilitate the safe handling and repairing as well as recycling and repurposing of collision-damaged BEVs. This would support the industry in creating a sustainable, cost-effective way of handling the batteries and electrical components.”

The 85 page report is here

 

[trebor79]

There is a Thatcham report out about it. The problem is that EVs are depreciating so fast that any damage to the battery pack means that an EV over 10 months old (and some more or less as soon as they leave the forecourt) will be written off because the replacement battery (if its available) will cost more than the residual value of the car. The battery technology has been pushed so far that theres currently nobody thats willing to attempt a repair.

But how likely is the battery to be damaged in the first place?
I saw a Fully Charged video about the BYD Seal the other day. They showed a test BYD had done to test the structural battery. They did the side impact test into a pole set into the floor on BOTH sides of the car, doors wrecked, car written off etc. They then removed the battery from the test car, showed it was completely pristine externally, then fitted it to another undamaged Seal and drove it away.

With either of our EV's I'm pretty sure that normal shunts and bumps from the side wouldn't affect the battery which is under the floor. By the time the battery is getting damaged, the car's going to be a write off anyway.

Some batteries are not really repairable anyway. The battery pack on my Model 3 for example is sealed with glue and membranes that get destroyed by disassembly. The Model S I believe has (or had) a pack that can be disassembled, but even then, breaking and making the connections to the individual cells and modules is very specialist and (certainly in the case of the Model 3) not really something that can be done by hand. Battery repair is non-trivial anyway. It's not as simple as just swapping out some damaged cells for new ones.
Really, the solution is likely to be that you just put a new battery in and the old one is sent for recycling. Similar to if the timing belt on your ICE breaks it's cheaper to just fit a new/second hand engine rather than attempt to rebuild the smashed up one (if indeed you keep the vehicle at all). The EV battery recycling industry is in its infancy but will scale rapidly as more raw material becomes available to it.

 

[jon0844]

Even if companies come along that will offer to do battery repairs and servicing (and I am sure they will increase in numbers) the industry needs to stop practices such as tying a battery to a specific car, and not allowing batteries to be moved, from say a written off car with a working battery. I believe Tesla does this, and like Apple it means you are in effect forced to deal with the car maker - who can then force you to buy a brand new battery.

In such circumstances, that means insurers will be basic risk on the cost of a new battery for a Tesla that, thanks to the nice little protection racket, will have an eyewatering price.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if companies come along that will offer to do battery repairs and servicing (and I am sure they will increase in numbers) the industry needs to stop practices such as tying a battery to a specific car, and not allowing batteries to be moved, from say a written off car with a working battery. I believe Tesla does this, and like Apple it means you are in effect forced to deal with the car maker - who can then force you to buy a brand new battery.

In such circumstances, that means insurers will be basic risk on the cost of a new battery for a Tesla that, thanks to the nice little protection racket, will have an eyewatering price.

Is not the moral of that story "don't buy a Tesla"? There are many reasons why one should not, not least not giving money to Musk.

Other manufacturers are likely to behave more conventionally I'd have thought.

 

[jon0844]

Is not the moral of that story "don't buy a Tesla"? There are many reasons why one should not, not least not giving money to Musk.

Other manufacturers are likely to behave more conventionally I'd have thought.

I would never buy a Tesla (not just because of Elon, but also the fact the cars look so basic inside and out, and I dislike using touchscreens when driving), but other car makers are likely to follow suit if they haven't already.

I expect the EU will one day regulate this sort of thing as a continuation of right to repair policy, but whether Elon would take any notice is another thing - but ultimately, car makers and everyone these days seems to want to lock down hardware so you never truly own it (as in you can't repair it yourself and if they decide to stop supporting it, you own a brick).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would never buy a Tesla (not just because of Elon, but also the fact the cars look so basic inside and out, and I dislike using touchscreens when driving), but other car makers are likely to follow suit if they haven't already.

Legislation would help. A good example of recent helpful legislation was the ban on manufacturers making warranty conditional on main dealer servicing.