It’s not a random moment, they degrade predictably over time and at a very slow rate. They have less “random” big expensive failures than ice cars. How much is an ice whole engine replacement in a semi modern car? Not cheap and happens more often than an ev battery dropping dead.

So I mean I’m sorry your wife is irrational about it, but I don’t think that’s indicative of the market as a whole.

▲

Flamingoat 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It’s not a random moment, they degrade predictably over time and at a very slow rate.

So do traditional vehicles. You need to have them serviced regularly, but otherwise they work fine for literally decades. My uncle has a Volvo 240 GL that car is 50+ year old.

> How much is an ice whole engine replacement in a semi modern car? Not cheap and happens more often than an ev battery dropping dead.

Engine failure is extremely rare. My 1997 Landrover Defender 300TDI is getting upto 300,000 miles and lets just say it hasn't had the easiest life (it was on a farm before I got it). Landrover's aren't known for their reliability.

My old Astra is still on the road (according to the DVLA) and that had well over 150,000 on the clock when I sold it.

> So I mean I’m sorry your wife is irrational about it, but I don’t think that’s indicative of the market as a whole.

His wife isn't irrational. I can get a mid-2000s Diesel that will have decent mileage for less than £4000 in the UK. I see people saying "I only paid $30,000 for this EV". I have never paid more than £10,000 for a car and they last for years and years as long as I get them serviced

▲

dalyons a day ago | parent [-]

His whole point was that the battery pack would randomly completely fail and they’d be unpredictably out a bunch of money. That doesn’t happen. Or at least, doesn’t happen more than ICE engines randomly die.

▲

Flamingoat a day ago | parent [-]

No his point was that there could be a cost to replacement that would be extremely expensive and that put his wife off. It would puts most people off.

It doesn't matter what the rates are compared to Petrol/Diesel cars, it is an unknown and large potential cost with an expensive initial purchase especially compared to a second hand vehicle that would fulfil the exact same function.

▲

dalyons 21 hours ago | parent [-]

My ice car _could_ spontaneously catch fire and be totaled, that would be an unknown large expense. But people (rightfully) don’t factor that into buying cars because it’s an infrequent fault. Same with this fear of spontaneous battery failure.

Saying that actually makes me wonder - surely insurance would cover a random battery failure fault, in the same way as an engine fire? I dont know if it does but it feels intuitively like it should.

▲

Flamingoat 13 hours ago | parent [-]

You example wasn't really what is being discussed. The person was talking about potential cost of replacing the battery that would need to happen sometime in the future. This would most likely be uneconomical.

It is something that I do not need to worry about with my current vehicle, in fact most Petrol/Diesel vehicles will last a very long time with basic servicing.

I don't understand why people on have such a hard time understanding potentially expensive unknowns are not an attractive proposition.

▲

dalyons 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Most petrol cars will last a very long time. Some small number won’t, and will die in an expensive way.

Most EVs batteries will outlast the lifetime of the car, with some acceptable loss of capacity. Some small number won’t, and that will be expensive.

It’s the same thing.

▲

Flamingoat 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Most EVs batteries will outlast the lifetime of the car, with some acceptable loss of capacity. Some small number won’t, and that will be expensive

As far as most people are concerned that is just a claim that is made as they have no idea whether it is true. I am specifically talking about what is the perception.

Therefore it is seen as risky and for something like a car which most people see as a way to get from A to B, they don't want potential headaches.

> It’s the same thing.

No because one is already known and the other isn't as far as most people are concerned.

They also talk about whether these things are any good. They normally talk about the issues that other people have had. Any issue that seems like a PITA, will put them off when the existing vehicles typically don't have many of these issues.

I think we are still in the Early Adopter Stage for EVs and I don't know whether we will get out of it.

▲

dalyons 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So, it is the same thing… but people have vibes and perception that it’s not? Data says otherwise, but people have feelings? I don’t really know what to do with that argument.

Even if it’s true that people have a “perception”, it won’t matter in the medium term, these folk are going to learn pretty quick that EVs are more reliable than ice cars. Much simpler, much less to go wrong. And soon cheaper, at least everywhere but the US. We’ll be into majority EV soon enough (not in the US, for reasons)

	▲	12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

robomartin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You get it. I agree with your perspective.

For the benefit of others still arguing one the basis of specs, checkboxes, links to technical data, etc., here's my response in another branch that addresses the fact that some commenters are completely missing the point:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45631855

	▲	Flamingoat 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't see this. Got too caught up back and forth. You explained exactly the issue I was talking about.

▲

robomartin a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> So I mean I’m sorry your wife is irrational about it

No, quite to the contrary. She is being far more rational than most fan boys.

I have driven IC cars 300K miles. The cost of maintenance over that period of time was in the <$5K range. Modern vehicles last a very long time without problems with very moderate maintenance. I can also swap out an entire engine and transmission for a few thousand dollars if necessary (which is never). I have personally rebuilt engines, transmissions, clutches and brakes for very little money.

She manages the family finances, and has exactly zero interest in taking a risk that nobody on this thread making an argument for EV's is willing to underwrite for my family. And that extends to the manufacturer as well.

So, while it might feel right to call someone irrational for not aligning with what I consider your fantasy, unless you are willing to issue my family a guarantee that the battery swap will not cost us more than $5K per vehicle you are taking advantage of being able to criticize someone while not putting your money where your mouth is going.

Yet another take: $50K invested in a good ETF (like VGT) will probably double in five years to $100K and over $200K in ten years. That's a shitload of money to waste on batteries. No, I think she is very far from being irrational.

▲

dalyons a day ago | parent [-]

Full battery random failures aren’t a thing that happen at any regularity that you should be rationally worried about. Neither are battery replacements common at all. You can of course make your own risk decisions on your own criteria, just don’t expect them to generalize. By the choice of your language it sounds like you have an axe to grind.

▲

robomartin 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What's being missed here --likely from the context of technical people who have never had a sales position-- is that whatever you might want to say about the technical realities of batteries is utterly irrelevant.

I know batteries degrade over time. I know random failures do not happen unless, well, something random happens, which is generally rare.

As an engineer who has designed and manufactured dozens of products and then had to go sell them, what I am telling you is that the EV industry has done a shit job selling risk mitigation.

There are virtually no stories of IC cars requiring $25K repairs after N years. Nobody buying a new or used IC vehicle ever thinks about having to spend at those levels, because is just does not happen except for really freak circumstances (your engine and transmission commit suicide).

In the EV world the case is different. Someone (my wife and others) don't go from "Let's install a large solar array to get ready to buy a couple of Teslas" to "I am not touching an EV if it was free" out of nowhere.

That happened because the fear of the $25K expense per vehicle got planted into her head when reports of this happening surfaced. You never hear from happy customers who put 200K miles on an EV. You definitely do hear from cases where the manufacturer charged someone $25K or more for a battery replacement.

This is called "Positioning" and there's a very famous marketing book on the subject. Once your product or a concept owns a certain position in someone's mind it is incredibly difficult to change it.

You know exactly how positioning works. If I were to ask you who you'd call to fix your plumbing; where to go to get the best coffee, burger, steak, etc. You will typically answer that question instantly using whatever brand or company owns that positioning in your brain. That's how it works.

Well, the EV companies have managed to own the "$25K battery replacement" position. They should have come out of the gate with an aggressively low replacement cost, the kind that nobody would every object paying. In my post I proposed that this number is $5K. Why? Because I know that, if this guarantee existed, this would be the number that would put two Teslas on our driveway right now.

Don't send links about battery longevity and your personal anecdotal data. They are irrelevant. This is the equivalent of "Sell me this pen" for the EV question about batteries.

Maybe this example can drive the point further: I have a fear of going up on a tall ladder, you know, the kind you might use to get up on a roof. I get up past a certain point and my brain says "Hard stop! No f-ing way". Now, intellectually, I know that millions of people go up and down these things every day without a problem. I also know that, as long as I secure the bottom very well and make sure the top can't slide around, I'll be safe. I further understand that I have to keep the vertical projection of the center of gravity within the base of the triangle formed by the ladder against the house. I know these things. And I know that I will be perfectly safe. And yet, in my brain, the "tall ladders are unsafe" positioning has taken hold and that's that. I know I can fix it. And it will take a lot of work.

That's my point. Positioning. Not physics.

	▲	dalyons 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I understand the argument now thank you. And I guess that makes sense for people stuck in that positioning, they would have to be marketed to with guarantees to change their mind. Or, what I suspect but have nothing but anecdotal data - the “25k replacement” positioned group is not that big, or not big enough for manufacturers to care. I’ve certainly never heard that as a fear or even mentioned from anyone I know. Manufacturers can probably just ignore these folk, sell to the rest of the market, and over time they’ll change their mind “for free” anyway as more mass market evidence comes in of it not being a real problem. Or not, and they never sell to those particular folk, but oh well, it’s still not worth it, it’s incredibly expensive to change a skeptics mind. These companies aren’t idiots, they do all kind of market positioning research. The fact that there’s no product/guarentee for your particular concern probably means it isn’t worth it to them. They’ll never get your $ but they don’t care. I do idly wonder if there’s a market here for a specific insurance product for ev batteries, and then those that have the fear can buy it.