With a rented car I need to take a full damage insurance just in case a tiny scratch is visible.
Would you pay an extra $500 a month to avoid having to spend $1000 renting a car twice a year? Probably not, so the question is how much more does it cost to not rent the long distance car.
And I've never rented a car where a 1mm scratch would require fixing, nor a 1cm scratch
Bumper Damage IS: Dent/scratch larger than 6” (size of the damage evaluator), or hole/tear of any size
Exterior Body Damage (Non-Bumper) IS: dent/scratch larger than 2” circle, or hole/tear of any size
Glass Damage IS: Any ‘Star’/crack
Ever since Covid happened we rent one for 1 month a year in summer and drive to my in-laws, and further down in central Italy. Overall clocking ~3.5-4k km.
We rented all types, ICE, hybrid and BEV with no noticeable difference: while with the Model Y we had to stop N times to fast-charges and a snack, with the ICE we’d stop anyway to rest, drink or use the toilet even on a half-tank.
Range anxiety is a thing, but it’s over after a couple days.
It’s just FUD, BEVs are ready
Frankly the amount of Nirvana fallacies in this thread is indicative of the coping stress the petrol-heads are suffering.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/gasoline_consumpti...
Have you tried going to the mountains in France? Or anywhere not on the main roads, even? I mean actually traveling around, not just taking the highway across.
My ICE motorbike has a range of around 300 km on the highway, around 200 in the mountains if I'm enjoying myself. I've had range anxiety with it to the point I now cart around extra gas. None of the gas stations I visited had any kind of charging available (outside your regular outlet, but it's unlikely the attendant will let you hook up your car to the outlet inside the office – if it's even open).
Not everybody has the same usage patterns as you do.
Sure, but keep in mind that bikers riding on the rolling hills of the French countryside are a significantly smaller demography than the millions driving across the highway infrastructure.
The feeling I get whenever these discussions come up is that there's a distinct lack of nuance, and a tendency to shove a one-size-fits-all solution down peoples' throats, even though the solution might only fit-most. I get that it's easier to reason with absolutes, and that sometimes some people may need a nudge to take the jump. But I also understand being pushed like this with no apparent concern for peoples' situations can make them close down to the argument, even if it could actually make sense for them in the end.
People complaining about range anxiety are usually told "nah man, it's just FUD!" Maybe it is just FUD even for a sizable portion of those complaining, but just dismissing their concerns out of hand doesn't seem like a good approach.
And this isn't just a bunch of people on a random discussion board. It's actual policies being enacted affecting peoples' actual lives.
Talking about France, in a few years' time my motorbike won't be allowed inside Paris (where I live). I rarely use it. I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment. Especially given that the newer model which complies with the current pollution standards consumes the same amount of gas as mine (judging by the manufacturer's specs). Of course, this law is stupid because it only considers the year the vehicle was sold, but it's just one example of many why people may have a knee-jerk reaction to being forcibly pushed to adopt new things.
The situation you described is purely recreative. Others might argue that the climate is much more important than the personal hobby of a few motorcyclists and would warrant banning ICE vehicles altogether.
One can change recreational activities easily.
> I'd really love to see the proof that building and buying a new one, to replace the one that is in perfect working condition, is actually better for the environment.
I am with you on that one and I believe that if all this wasn't an hypocritical way to save the automotive industry, the governments would push and force car brands to develop and sell homologated EV conversion kits for all cars builds in the last 30 years.
International shipping is single-handedly the greatest contributor by a small margin, tons of which just does not need to happen, full stop. We send products around the entire world because it costs pennies less to package pineapple in one country than another, and most of it goes in the fucking garbage anyway. And the products that do require shipping could be done in a much, much more efficient manner to save tons and tons of ship traffic per year. The other major contributor is industry, which could be trimmed significantly if we put serious work into ending the production of stupid, useless, shitty items that no one actually wants (knockoff electronics, basically anything drop-shipped, single use fucking lithium phone chargers).
And all that's not even going into shit like the FIELDS of e-bikes and e-scooters being stacked in China because there's just nowhere to go with that.
Military dick-wagging especially but not solely by the United States accounts for absolute shit-tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere, too, absolutely none of which needs to happen. Military vehicles, construction vehicles, LTL trucks, service vehicles like garbage trucks: this is where we can make big dents in climate change. Not by taking away Jerry's Corvette that does, at best, 10k miles if he has a good year where he gets in a lot of track time. As far as I'm concerned this is just the "check your carbon footprint" garbage with extra steps: blaming consumers for the state of the environment while completely letting off the dozens of multi-national corporations actually holding the power and making the decisions that are collapsing the biosphere.
If at some point in the far flung future, things like dirt bikes or even track monster race cars owned by folk turn out to be the biggest environmental problem, fine. Then we'll deal with it. But from my perspective we have an entire ocean of fish much bigger and far more worth frying first than them.
Now despite still enjoying riding a motorbike I am doing more recreationnal cycling and only transportation focused motorbike riding[1]. I just embraced moving a but slower. Turns out that with a simple bicycle you can get way enough thrill in the downhills, and with much less risks. As an ex elite road cycling racer, I am no stranger to catching and overtaking cars and motorbikes descending mountain passes.
[1] I basically only ride my motorbike if I have my partner with me and I am going to a specific place we wouldn't be able to make it and back home within a time constraint.
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco...
This year we visited the Dolomites and the weather was insane. The place was full of old photo's of meters high snowfalls but all they got this year was a couple centimeters in early December. We need to change our habits, this pace is unsustainable
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/2023-shatters-climate-reco...
This is exactly the issue I'm talking about.
I'm all for preserving the environment, I really am. And I think that moving the immense majority of (sub-)urban commuters from ICE to EV is great and will make a difference. Or, even better: stop commuting if possible!
Isn't the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle", "in that order"? How are we reducing or even reusing here?
But this whole "replace all ICE vehicles now" just screams of disguised "won't somebody think of the economy?"
Also you make a common mistake of motorcycle owners in equating the amount of gas consumed with the amount of pollution. Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones.
Which is saying something even worse than saying their per-litre pollution is bad since motorcycles get more kilometers per litre. In other words even with their better per-kilometer gas usage, they still pollute more per unit of distance travelled. That is truly bad, from a pollution perspective. It’s a mistake to think the small amount of gas used means there is less impact.
So your motorcycle should be trashed, yes.
I'm all for your considering that I shouldn't get to enjoy the mountains, but please, come out and say that, instead of dancing around the subject and saying that a newer ICE bike would be just fine. The argument just loses credibilty.
> Smaller engines are by far vastly more polluting per kilometer than larger ones.
How small are we talking, here? My motorbike's engine is bigger than many modern ICE cars' (I'm in Europe, so big-ass V8s aren't that common).
Be that as it may, you seem to ignore what I'd say is the most important part of my argument: I'm not complaining that I wouldn't be allowed to ride any bike. I'm complaining that the powers that be figured that a newer bike, with the same weight and similar sized engine (smaller, actually! – so more polluting?) and the same gas consumption is somehow better than my older model, and I should be allowed to ride that and not the one I already have.
Then one would hope we will have swappable battery pack options for motorcycles in the future as well, which could make refueling more widespread. Easier to do for motorcycles than cars. And with a smaller battery by necessity, swapping makes more sense. Anyway I'm just rambling on here, who knows what will happen.
As far as you getting to enjoy the mountains, I had (maybe mistakenly) been thinking you were talking about a dirt bike, versus a road bike. I don't think of the sound of road bikes as annoying to anyone, especially a quiet one. Not quite as Edward Abbey would say, "if there's a road there, the place is already ruined" but definitely you get more leeway to make noise on a road.
The much longer stops translate into needing to sleep at a hotel rather than being at your destination. You clearly haven't accounted for that either.
I’ve clearly accounted for everything dude, including my own endurance and that of my family: every couple hours we need to get out, stretch, have a coffee and use the toilet. Plugging a DC 150kW takes 2 minutes, and we were never stuck in a queue waiting for that.
In any case the worse time wasters are roadworks and traffic jams on the German highways and the abysmal wait at the Gotthard Tunnel. If not for them I could easily make it in one day with a Model Y
More like 2 seconds in a Model Y.
all other designs where you have to present a card are simply a failure
You realise that you weren't in a queue because there are very few EVs around I hope?
Most healthy people don't need toilet breaks every 2h, and you're not accounting for the line at charging spots. 10 minutes * 5 cars isn't a short stop really.
Please, enough goalpost pushing
Peace of mind.
When we're driving an ICE car, we simply don't care about the range. We don't think about it; it's not a concern. That peace of mind is fucking priceless, especially if one's life is already busy with far more pressing concerns.
In an EV we have to constantly keep an eye on that battery level, on that Miles Remaining counter. We have to micromanage the A/C and other things that consume power. That is mentally draining, and for what? It's something we don't have to care about in an ICE car.
I drove an EV, I constantly worried about the range. Range was constantly on my mind, even when I wasn't driving the fucking thing. It was mentally fucking exhausting. Sincerely: No thanks.
I'll happily pay the $50~70 bucks at the gas station to fill up my car in a few minutes and be at peace. It easily beats paying almost nothing charging overnight and then worrying if I can come back home when I start another day.
Personally I prefer paying almost nothing (in fuel) for a nicer drive with far less maintenance worries.
> I prefer paying almost nothing (in fuel)
Both of these look like very dependent on the personal situation. In my case I never really got over the winter induced anxiety (the range dropped severely for my expectations), combined with the lack of home charger, combined with high electricity costs, combined with the fact that I can walk, cycle, or take public transport for most of my needs. I eventually returned to a cheap, small, ICE car that I use occasionally but serves for peace of mind (it's there!) and makes me just as comfortable as an EV makes you. I wouldn't recommend to you a bicycle or even a small car because it's very important not to generalize to others based on my needs.
Of course all transport ownership is dependent on personal situation. That really goes without saying, just look out the window! I didn't recommend anything, to do so would be daft.
I simply do not believe range anxiety is still the problem it once was.
I gave it up and switched back in November 2022. While I always keep my options open and an eye out for what makes sense for me, I haven't seen any signs that the situation is radically different in general. It certainly hasn't changed for me personally.
> I simply do not believe range anxiety is still the problem it once was.
Maybe but that says very little. If your waiter told they don't believe the soup contains anywhere near the amount of spit it once did you wouldn't feel encouraged. I'm happy if the situation is improving and if I still care about owning a car in the future I'll surely reassess if that critical threshold was reached. Anything short of that will get a "very good, keep up the good work" but not my money.
My partner has had a series of EVs for 10 years now.
Just a few weeks ago dropped me off at the airport (~100 mile roundtrip) and started planning for it days it advance. How much needed to driver on day N-2, N-1, how much charge would be left. Then spent the morning of the trip sipping coffee at Whole Foods to bring the charge up to %100 (normally limited to %80). Then spent the whole trip hyperfocused on the mileage remaining, worried about getting home.
While the trip is quite a bit shorter than the advertised range, with hilly terrain it's always uncertain what the real world mileage ends up being.
It all seemed very exhausting. So I guess it takes more than a decade to get over range anxiety.
Which goes back to.. more range REALLY DOES help. 100 vs 200 miles range is game cahnging. 200 to 300 would be huge for road trips. 400, 500, starts to hit some diminishing but non-zero returns.
I pay about 15% of what I would have previously paid for diesel, and the only maintenance I've had to do was a new tyre after running over a nail.
Driving an EV in the SF Bay Area is super convenient -- I know all the chargers off the top of my head and maintaining enough range is second nature to me now. I regularly road trip my Model 3 as well without any issues. I don't even look at the miles, just battery %.
I recently got an ICE car for fun on the weekends and thinking about gas, oil changes, preventative maintenance, and repairs has been way more stressful than charging.
Give the infrastructure a few years to catch up. Now that NACS has taken over in the US, things will only get better.
Even our least populated states are littered with fast chargers alone highways and interstates.
When I bought my model 3 in 2018, infrastructure was good enough in Idaho the meet my needs, though there were a few tight gaps.
Now in 2024 the picture has dramatically changed with every route having excess charge capacity and options.
Those down on EVs are having to come up with ever more convoluted scenarios and routes to justify why they aren't feasible. I literally saw one where a person posited they needed to drive from Edmonton to Winnipeg Canada every day during the winter and because an EV is a bad fit for that situation it's a bad fit for everyone.
So what I want to say is, that poor people have better things to worry about than EVs and sustainability, like getting through the day with food on their plate and maybe a roof over their head. While they will be the most impacted, they can afford to care about it the least.
Also, EVs right now just shift the problem around until we manage to produce electricity from renewable sources, which is still some way off, especially in the poor places that will drive the least efficient ICEs while they last.
I don't think it's well thought through given how broken the rating of cars is, but that's a step in the right direction I guess.
> Also, EVs right now just shift the problem around until we manage to produce electricity from renewable sources
Until we manage to actually reduce the amount of cars. The solution for transportation is quite clearly less and smaller vehicles, all EVs.
[1] https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/prime-conversion
>Until we manage to actually reduce the amount of cars. The solution for transportation is quite clearly less and smaller vehicles, all EVs.
That's called a motorcycle, although they're not electric. There's a few hundred million of them already in the world, and greater adaption of motorcycles where possible would be incredible for reduced traffic and reduced pollution. On top of that they are cheap, fuel efficient and fun to ride. But nobody will listen to the solution, because there is too much money to be made from the problem.
Note that "the majority of people" don't have a car, they have 2-wheeled vehicle at best. [1] I'm not conflating "electric vehicles" with "electric cars".
> That's called a motorcycle, although they're not electric.
No shit.
> There's a few hundred million of them already in the world, and greater adaption of motorcycles where possible would be incredible for reduced traffic and reduced pollution. On top of that they are cheap, fuel efficient and fun to ride. But nobody will listen to the solution, because there is a too much money to be made from the problem.
Fully agree, even though the maximum amount of public transportation is in my opinion desirable in areas that permit it.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/04/16/car-bike-...
My mistake!
To add a bit more to the discussion. Larger adaption of motorcycles instead of cars in cities can also reduce the pollution from public transport. Nothing spews more exhaust than a bus stuck in traffic. Motorcycles are also a good complement to public transit, since you can get to a station or terminal that is far away on your motorcycle and easily park there. Car parking needs much more space. In many cases it is better to get to a terminal that has express public transport by your own means, so that you don't have to live by the local bus schedule and wait for the slow route to the terminal.
The main advantage I see to electric motorcycles is that you barely need to change anything in most car-dependant areas to start mass adoption. They are fast enough for you to not feel unsafe next to cars at a red light, and can go quite far on a single charge.
I've been raving about Taiwan's Gogoros for a while, but still, too many motorcycles is a big safety hazard. Electric bicycles are much better in that regard, muscle ones even more.
It would also save a lot of money on infrastructure, if traffic could be improved without having to build larger and larger highways.
As for electric and muscle bicycles, I think they have their time and place. There's nothing wrong with people combining all methods of transportation in their life, depending on circumstances and weather. Car + MC + Bicycle could be in everybody's garage.
I wouldn't consider many motorcycles a safety hazard. It's mostly people riding like lunatics. And safety gear has become better recently, with airbag clothes. At least bikers only hurt themselves in an accident. In my experience motorcycles are safer than electric bicycles, unless you're in a place with very good bicycle infrastructure. Motorcycles can accelerate out of dangerous situations and have better manoeuvrability than large-wheeled bicycles.
And I’m talking about gas cars.
And cars carry more people.
The fact that motorcycles use less gas has absolutely no connection to how much pollution they produce, which is a lot.
Cars carry more people, and more stuff. And it protects you from the weather. But if you're just transporting yourself or yourself and a passenger, the motorcycle can be a good option many times.
I don't know about that. It certainly affects mine. I may not be representative of the average person in my culture, but I was a product of my culture regardless.
All the while the same people drive ICE vehicles and contribute to the insane amount of environmental destruction caused by oil drilling and transportation. But they don't go commenting on every new ICE vehicle article saying "But what about the Exxon Valdez, what about the birds covered in oil?"
The really good ones can also check if there are free slots in the chargers and optimise accordingly.
Also, the fuel consumption of an ICE is going to be much more consistent and predictable especially later in it's service life.
*hyperbole
If planning a route using the built in satnav it will say "you won't make it, add a charging stop?"
But there's so many chargers I don't even bother planning.
This integration didn’t exist when the EV versions were just electrified versions of ICE cars.
This changed with the upcoming of car by traditional automakers that were designed to be an BEV first. I’ve used the route planning in a Kia EV as well as a VW EV without any issues. You can plan your route with charging points, select the desired remaining capacity, select the kind of charging you want, etc. AFAIK Porsche offers the same features too
Edit: Just looked up Porsche and they have it too. They call it "Intelligent range optimiser". Can't be asked to check more brands.
You are the exception. That's what all the replies are trying to tell you
Well said. And I think that you cut to the heart of what the electric vehicle advocates are doing wrong. They are telling us the only times we actually enjoy being in the car and travelling are the ones we should give up.
I don’t use a car in the city. An electric car can’t yet take me home in 2 days without perfect conditions and a tailored root.