The introduction of Speed Limiter technology on vehicles should really make some difference to those interested in the higher performance of BEV,s.

The acceleration is there but the Government should maybe be looking at just what performance there is available to those with a driving licence or even no driving licence in the UK. 

Limiters which actually do not allow vehicles to exceed 80 mph on the Kings Highways in the UK seems like simple enough to be activated on all New BEV,s from June 2024.

Flaggged markers for over the speed limit exceeded counts should be easy to pull up on vehicles rather like a tacho on HGV,s. 

That DATA could be available for the vehicles insurers for when a vehicle is due to have the insurance renewed.

It will just be relevant to the vehicle as drivers do not log in and out of vehicles, but that tech is available..

My only concern about speed limiters, on any car not just BEVs, is that it will prevent the ability to avoid an accident by reducing the TED (Time Exposed to Danger) when an overtaking manoeuvre that seemed safe becomes high risk due to the actions of another driver.

 

My same concern applies to black boxes required by some insurance companies - what's better, hard braking or acceleration to avoid an accident or an accident?

 

My suggestion it that there should be a short period (a few seconds) when exceeding the limiter is allowed.

24 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

My only concern about speed limiters, on any car not just BEVs, is that it will prevent the ability to avoid an accident by reducing the TED (Time Exposed to Danger) when an overtaking manoeuvre that seemed safe becomes high risk due to the actions of another driver.

 

My same concern applies to black boxes required by some insurance companies - what's better, hard braking or acceleration to avoid an accident or an accident?

 

My suggestion it that there should be a short period (a few seconds) when exceeding the limiter is allowed.

 

Indeed - the systems remain fallible...   as a typical example I have an app on my phone that tracks my driving - including things like max speed, hard acceleration and hard braking - It uses GPS data.  The other day it flashed up a warning that I'd exceeded the speed limit, along with similar for hard a hard braking and hard acceleration and informed me that my max speed had been 101mph.  I know that is not the case as the car sat on the drive most of the day and the furthest it went was a 14 mile round trip on 30mph roads where there isn't the space or distance to get above that.

1 hour ago, PetrolDave said:

My only concern about speed limiters, on any car not just BEVs, is that it will prevent the ability to avoid an accident by reducing the TED (Time Exposed to Danger) when an overtaking manoeuvre that seemed safe becomes high risk due to the actions of another driver.

 

My same concern applies to black boxes required by some insurance companies - what's better, hard braking or acceleration to avoid an accident or an accident?

 

My suggestion it that there should be a short period (a few seconds) when exceeding the limiter is allowed.

As a person who actually has a black box fitted, it strikes me that the odd bit of acceleration or hard braking does not score against you, as there will always be some circumstances beyond your control. They would act if the box records frequent events which would suggest that you are driving in an inconsiderate and unsafe fashion.

 

The only thing my black box is suggesting to me is that I should consider not driving at night, as it thinks drivers are more likely to crash at night than daytimes. That is impossible to avoid night driving in the winter when taking and collecting people from their place of work because mornings and evenings it is dark.

Edited 12 June, 20241 yr by Graham Butcher

@PetrolDave they allow you to floor the accelerator and over-ride the system.

Let you accelerate and pick up speed into an accident allowing you to then blame the driver of the Red Ferrari that you did not consider was going to do an overtake as well. 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

"Full service history" relates to what is required by manufacturer. If the manufacturer encourages DIY filter change, why is that not full service history? 

Because there is no dependant verification that you as the DIYer actually did anything, but a dealers stamp in the service handbook does say that the car has been serviced and this can be further backed up by keeping the detailed invoice that the dealer provides at the time, that was correct up until main dealers went with digital service history. However even with digital history, provided you give any dealer the cars VIN details, they can print you out a detailed history for the car.

 

If you don't use a main dealer then the indie garage should be giving you a detailed invoice detailing the things done to your car and showing all the relevant details, mileage, date, registration number etc and providing you keep this safe, it forms the service history for your car. How are you going to be able to do that as a DIY job?

 

Just for the record, I too used to do all of my own maintenance years ago but then the cars were also far simpler then, they had no canbus system with modules talking to each other and sealed units etc and the cars were what would be considered to be bangers by todays standards and had extremely low values so nobody was looking service history on cars rapidly approaching the end of their life.

 

This Pathé News short film shows BMC cars on German Autobahns undergoing destruction tests on engines and the tests were set to be 20,000 miles or 3 to 4 years of normal  driving, they passed this test so they extended them to 25,000 miles, and they still passed, but the point is that the cars of that era were never expected to last long and so as they approached those kinds of mileages, their value dropped faster than a falling stone.

 

 

Edited 12 June, 20241 yr by Graham Butcher

A FMDSH / Full main dealer service history has never and still does not mean that a vehicle has been Serviced to the Manufacturers Service Schedule, Guidelines, Specifications or advice.

It just means there is a History of what Main Dealers have or not done.   Often the History can show what was not recorded being done.   eg Skoda / VW Approved Used Cars with a FMDSH.

2 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

Because there is no dependant verification that you as the DIYer actually did anything, but a dealers stamp in the service handbook does say that the car has been serviced and this can be further backed up by keeping the detailed invoice that the dealer provides at the time, that was correct up until main dealers went with digital service history. However even with digital history, provided you give any dealer the cars VIN details, they can print you out a detailed history for the car.

 

If you don't use a main dealer then the indie garage should be giving you a detailed invoice detailing the things done to your car and showing all the relevant details, mileage, date, registration number etc and providing you keep this safe, it forms the service history for your car. How are you going to be able to do that as a DIY job?

How are DIY jobs recorded in the old days? Do 100% of the people never DIY any jobs and never keeps record? 

Parts invoices?? 

 

But unlike ICE, changing cabin filter or not does not degrade vehicle health. So I would happily buy a MOT passed 3 years old Tesla Model 3/Y without any service information because missed intervals are not detrimental to vehicle health. 

 

In latest firmware update (2024.14), Tesla now also estimates remaining filter health. My almost 2 yo car has 91% and 94% for the 2 filters. So I don't plan on following recommendation, I'll follow the service estimates and change parts when needed. Less waste. 

 

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

It uses GPS data.  The other day it flashed up a warning that I'd exceeded the speed limit, along with similar for hard a hard braking and hard acceleration and informed me that my max speed had been 101mph. 

Reads like GPS inaccuracy problem. Hopefully shouldn't be such problem for blackboxes in the vehicle because it would have access to speed at the wheel. 

14 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

A FMDSH / Full main dealer service history has never and still does not mean that a vehicle has been Serviced to the Manufacturers Service Schedule, Guidelines, Specifications or advice.

It just means there is a History of what Main Dealers have or not done.   Often the History can show what was not recorded being done.   eg Skoda / VW Approved Used Cars with a FMDSH.

But a FMDSH does show that the car has had regular servicing and give the pending new buyer of the car a level of confidence that would not be there if the car was serviced on a DIY basis.

3 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

But unlike ICE, changing cabin filter or not does not degrade vehicle health. So I would happily buy a MOT passed 3 years old Tesla Model 3/Y without any service information because missed intervals are not detrimental to vehicle health. 

And so would I, but then you and I are not the typical car buying public are we, we know what makes them tick and are capable of doing things, most cannot even change a flat wheel.

22 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

But a FMDSH does show that the car has had regular servicing and give the pending new buyer of the car a level of confidence that would not be there if the car was serviced on a DIY basis.

There is also issue with warranty. Would VAG honour an engine problem if the car hadn't had oil change in the last 2.8 years? 

Tesla would honour battery warranty or drivetrain if no service were carried out. This is the biggest difference that affects running cost. 

 

We need to follow what was put into user manual to have valid warranty claim, ICE car manuals say must do regular oil changes. 

 

Tesla manual does not have such service intervals on battery/drivetrain: https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-E95DAAD9-646E-4249-9930-B109ED7B1D91.html  Do you think Tesla can reasonably deny warranty work on battery/drivetrain if cabin filter wasn't changed as per interval? 

 

  

17 minutes ago, Graham Butcher said:

And so would I, but then you and I are not the typical car buying public are we, we know what makes them tick and are capable of doing things, most cannot even change a flat wheel.

Well, the public's view of vehicles now need to change. EV doesn't need as much regular interval servicing. 

 

This is part of the reason dealerships don't like EV's and manufacturers with dealership model (all of them except EV only ones) still require regular busy-work. 

 

 

Edited 12 June, 20241 yr by wyx087

A Record of Servicing or Inspections at a TESLA Service Station might give buyers a feeling of security.

 

The same at an ARNOLD CLARK Service Centre where it might just be the Brakes that were supposedly given a Brake Fluid change and a Look See and report and a Wash and Vacuum if they bothered to might be a warning.  'Buyer beware'.   & not only with BEV,s.

There is a load of crappy BEV,s going to be on offer for sale that might well need some servicing after you buy them at 3 or even 2 years old.

 

The real issue in the UK can be the lack of trained technicians and establishments that can get the car in and do the service or plug in and check.

 

Same with PHEV,s though,  like a Superb or Octavia PHEV that should have the DSG Service at 40,000 miles and are being sold without that having been done.

Even Skoda Approved Used ones. 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Reads like GPS inaccuracy problem. Hopefully shouldn't be such problem for blackboxes in the vehicle because it would have access to speed at the wheel. 

 

For reference it also uses other sensors within the device such as accelerometers etc. so it can decipher, for example, whether driving, on Public Transport, cycling or walking - which, granted, I should have mentioned - so not just GPS and not necessarily a GPS inaccuracy problem.

 

Regardless it demonstrates that the systems are not infallible and never will be for various environmental / other reasons.

44 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

This is the biggest difference that affects running cost. 

 

We need to follow what was put into user manual to have valid warranty claim, ICE car manuals say must do regular oil changes. 

 

Really - I think not - as that scenario would only come into play if a 'failure' occurred.

 

It can't therefore be considered in any general 'running cost' calculations.

2 minutes ago, skomaz said:

Really - I think not - as that scenario would only come into play if a 'failure' occurred.

 

It can't therefore be considered in any general 'running cost' calculations.

Sorry, I struggle to understand. 

 

Why would this difference "can't be considered in running cost calculations"? One powertrain need regular things doing, the other don't. 

 

Are you saying ICE don't need oil changes despite it's part of service interval specified by manufacturer? 

4 hours ago, wyx087 said:

The estate part may not be possible moving forward. The world have been pushed toward bloated crossover/SUV. 

 

There is 149 EV's with 300l or larger boot, no body type limitation but otherwise fit your criteria: 

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?bootSizeValues=Medium&fuel-type=Electric&maximum-mileage=50000&postcode=bl35rd&price-to=10000&sort=relevance&year-from=2019

 

For comparison, there's 1725 for 40mpg+ ICE. 

 

Used EV market is still not there yet, due to poor EV investment by car manufacturers in the 2010's. Before ~2021, choices of EV is quite limited. Hence choices of £10k EV now is quite limited. 

 

But range isn't everything. Please do consider how much range is actually needed for your personal needs. How much range do you actually need 90% of the time? 95% of the time? Is the rapid charging speed suitable for the other 10%? 

I have a set of criteria and Range is one of them. If the potential range isn't possible then for me the vehicle isn't suitable. I don't see anything there that meets my personal range requirements.

An EV needs to meet my requirments and not me suit the EV

Yes most of the time I don't need the full range. My superb can get 600 miles on a tank and I typically refuel at 300 miles.

I like having the range there in case it's needed

And yes, am aware the used market isn't there yet for any number of reasons. When it is I may consider the move.
 

Edited 12 June, 20241 yr by Winston_Woof

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Sorry, I struggle to understand. 

 

Why would this difference "can't be considered in running cost calculations"? One powertrain need regular things doing, the other don't. 

 

Are you saying ICE don't need oil changes despite it's part of service interval specified by manufacturer? 

 

You implied that something like warranty work due to a failed component / engine would be rejected as a result of not having undertaken regular servicing and hence the cost of such un-warranted work should be included in the general running costs.

 

I pointed out that it shouldn't be included in general running cots as any costs would only be incurred as a result of a component failure and were therefore not general running costs.

 

Edited 12 June, 20241 yr by skomaz

4 minutes ago, skomaz said:

You implied that something like warranty work due to a failed component / engine would be rejected as a result of not having undertaken regular servicing

Correct. 

 

4 minutes ago, skomaz said:

and hence the cost of such un-warranted work should be included in the general running costs.

No, not un-warranted work, I am and have always been talking about regular service costs. The cost of regular servicing should be included in running costs. There is a difference between ICE and electric powertrain. 

 

Never in any of my running cost calculation have included component failure, only regular servicing costs based on costs I incurred from my ownership of a 2.0 TDI Octavia (£200 service, 500 timing belt, 200 DSG oil). 

 

5 minutes ago, skomaz said:

I pointed out that it shouldn't be included in general running cots as any costs would only be incurred as a result of a component failure and were therefore not general running costs.

I completely agree. 

5 hours ago, wyx087 said:

What is the percentage of driving population that actually do require the kind of mileage on a daily basis? 

 

I have never said EV is suitable for every single person, "if situations allow". Key is evaluating it as a viable option first. 

 

 

 

 

Well I was reacting, at that time, to your conclusive statement that for people with driveways "... EV should be the default first consideration now". Obviously, that is not a true statement. I agree with your later qualification that states that this is not actually a true statement.

 

EVs are an alternative to ICE cars, but they are not an automatic improvement for many people and I would argue they are not an improvement for the majority of people. The EV owners I see, are all financially pretty secure people, or they are at the time of purchase/PCP/Lease. It feels like there is a financial divide between ownership of EVs rather than ICE in general, imho. 

15 minutes ago, Lady Elanore said:

EVs are an alternative to ICE cars, but they are not an automatic improvement for many people and I would argue they are not an improvement for the majority of people. The EV owners I see, are all financially pretty secure people, or they are at the time of purchase/PCP/Lease. It feels like there is a financial divide between ownership of EVs rather than ICE in general, imho. 

It is true that EV used to have a small premium in purchasing price. That is no longer the case depend on vehicle and will soon be the reverse. 

 

EV are a LOT cheaper to run when charge at home, hence my driveway comment. 

 

Most people don't drive mega miles daily, so EV would not inconvenience most people's daily lives. It would actually be an improvement not having to think about refuelling during daily use. 

 

Apart from the social divide on having a driveway, which is not a big one. What other factors made you comment on "financially secure" aspect? To me, it feels like a very strange comment built up from conformational bias. 

I just do not believe that it is only 40% of UK drivers that do not have access to a driveway or offroad parking.

 

I know they say drivers and it is not about properties, but there are a lot of drivers living in hi-rise building,s, flats, blocks of 4 etc etc.

 

EDIT.  Posted the wrong page. sorry.

Edited 12 June, 20241 yr by Ootohere

The additional Tariff the EU are to impose of 17.4% to 38.1% on electric cars produced in China is going to be interesting and more importantly if the UK follows suit. 

The EU & UK manufacturers are going to have to be getting on a producing and selling more desirable cars at prices people are prepared to pay.

BMW / MINI have GWM building the new MINI in China but they might need to get them started being built sooner than planned in Oxford or elsewhere in Europe.

8 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

The additional Tariff the EU are to impose of 17.4% to 38.1% on electric cars produced in China is going to be interesting and more importantly if the UK follows suit. 

The EU & UK manufacturers are going to have to be getting on a producing and selling more desirable cars at prices people are prepared to pay.

BMW / MINI have GWM building the new MINI in China but they might need to get them started being built sooner than planned in Oxford or elsewhere in Europe.

If they can, as many of the parts and materials are sourced from China, so they are bound to retaliate and shove their prices up. 

1 hour ago, wyx087 said:

Correct. 

 

No, not un-warranted work, I am and have always been talking about regular service costs. The cost of regular servicing should be included in running costs. There is a difference between ICE and electric powertrain. 

 

Never in any of my running cost calculation have included component failure, only regular servicing costs based on costs I incurred from my ownership of a 2.0 TDI Octavia (£200 service, 500 timing belt, 200 DSG oil). 

 

I completely agree. 

 

Noted but that was unclear in your comment which implied inclusion of un-warranted repairs.

 

Presumably, for balance, you have therefore also included things like increased insurance costs for EVs and increased costs of 'disposables' such a tyres and the like?

 

Either way for many the 'general running costs' are less of an issue than the up-front purchase costs, which currently remain higher for EV's vs comparable ICE.