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)

	▲	7 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 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't see this. Got too caught up back and forth. You explained exactly the issue I was talking about.