We all love an EV deal.
I was looking at a few EV's and noticed the driveaway price for this seemed low. Realised they have a $4000 discount at the moment.
ACT: $36,638 Driveaway
NSW: $37,044 Driveaway
QLD: $37,550 Driveaway
SA: $38,230 Driveaway
TAS: $38,247 Driveaway
VIC: $38,583 Driveaway
WA: $39,003 Driveaway
Insurers are insuring millions of EVs around the world.
How is this an argument?
Suckers are spending money all around the world therefore… ?
far less incident rate of fire
Right so important note here. Rate of fire is less, but consequences of fire when it happens are FAR higher.
Most (not all) ICE fires are small that no-one gets hurt, so is not really as big a deal (still a deal but not as much). EV Battery fires are mostly (not all) catastrophic and can consume the entire car in seconds. So Risk Management 101, low chance of happening but high impact still receives a high risk rating. This is bread and butter for insurance companies, they aren't stupid.
Yes unsure how it’s legal, the chance of theft vs other cars is likely zero with so many cameras etc, the systems to avoid crashes as well. Personally think they are charging more due to fuel savings, want it in their pockets not ours
You think it's an anti EV conspiracy?
lol absolutely not. Minor fender bender? No one will sign the car off as safe = scrap the car. Right there a $1000-5000 repair turns into “more expensive than the car”
This is one of the biggest problems with their claims of being better for the environment too! I hear it takes an average of 5 years of driving the EV before you offset the extra emissions it took to make the car versus a ICE vehicle. If half the EV's on the road have "minor fender benders" and get written off before the 5 years is up and they have to buy another EV that takes another 5 years to offset the emissions, it could take 10 years or more to produce less emissions than an ICE vehicle. Accident prone people may never offset the extra emissions if they crash once or more every 5 years. Are we actually making much of a difference to emissions in the end? I highly doubt it, especially when the majority of people likely charge their vehicles off the grid which produces emissions too.
@Tythefly86: How about the 5 years of petrol that you'd be using in an ICE vehicle for that same period?
@drprox: Most EV buyers will have Solar PV, and Australia's renewable generation is increasing really fast each year, it's almost 40% already.
it's almost 40% already
Yeah nah, it doesn't quite work like that. Because if you read past the headline, almost all of that 40% is generated in the middle of the day, but most people consume electricity in the mornings and evening when solar generation is near zero. So if you were able to track each and every kw you'd find most people are charging overnight, and most of that electricity at that time is coming from coal and gas.
Where do you think your electricity comes from at night time?
@dtpearson: Which is great if you work at home full time and don't use your solar for anything else. It would also be hard work or even more expensive to optimise any home charging network.
@drprox: No they don’t there have been many and they use the typical North American energy mix as one of the baselines
Studies show
Good old 'studies' eh?
Let's cite an actual study, not mine, just the results of a quick google: https://youtu.be/S1E8SQde5rk?t=578
According to this guy, who is pro electric, the larger the battery the worse the lifecycle emissions, so that for a 400 mile battery, an ICE car still has lower total lifecycle emissions even after 180000miles (288000kms or 19 years of average driving)
about 16 months not 5 years
In his example the 125 mile range EV broke even at 90000miles (144000kms) which is 9 years for an average driver.
oil loving governments
You are reading this on products made from oil, in a building made from oil products, while wearing clothes made using oil and eating food produced from oil products.
Feel free to stop using oil whenever you are ready… You wouldn't want to be labelled a hypocrite would you?
@1st-Amendment: Labeling someone a hypocrite can be a complex judgment and often depends on the context and nuances of their beliefs and actions. In the scenario you described, if someone expresses a belief that electric vehicles (EVs) are better than internal combustion engine (ICE) cars because they don't use oil, but they themselves are surrounded by products made from oil, it may seem inconsistent. However, it's important to consider a few factors:
-Gradual change & Practical constraints for example.
While I advocate for transitioning to electric vehicles as a more immediate and impactful change, it doesn't mean I'm not conscious of other aspects of my lifestyle.
In some cases, it may be challenging to completely eliminate oil-based products from our lives due to practical constraints, such as limited alternatives or affordability.
So with that in mind, could you please refrain from trolling with your nonsensical arguments here, like the one you just presented?
Labeling someone a hypocrite can be a complex judgment
Not really, it's actually very quite simple. If your actions don't match your words then you fit the definition of a hypocrite.
"Hypocrisy often refers to advocating behaviors that one does not practice. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
If the hat fits…
could you please refrain from trolling with your nonsensical arguments here
We all rely of fossil fuels to survive, so comments like " ICE lovers" or "oil loving governments" Is while relying on oil every waking moment of your life is hypocrisy plain and simple.
This argument is logically sound, but cognitive dissonance is a thing…
Not really, it's actually very quite simple. If your actions don't match your words then you fit the definition of a hypocrite.
Although this definition is true, it's important to note that people can sometimes make mistakes or fail to live up to their ideals without necessarily being hypocrites. This might be able to be assessed of someone over a decent length of time. But bud.. your grade school attempts of psychoanalysis isnt as good as you may think it is.
This argument is logically sound, but cognitive dissonance is a thing…
You comment here actually sounds codescending tbh, as I never claimed to be 'without sin'.
Regarding fossil fuels, I am quite aware of the environmental impact and the need for more sustainable alternatives, yet as I have alrwdy stated here many of us rely on fossil fuels due to convenience, lack of alternatives, or other factors.
But rather than solely labeling individuals as hypocrites, it may be more constructive to encourage awareness, open dialogue, and collective efforts toward finding and implementing more sustainable alternatives. Addressing the systemic issues surrounding fossil fuel dependency is crucial for achieving meaningful change on a larger scale.
Which is what others are attempting to state here.
People trying to claim that we continue to use ICE vehicles over EV cars (which I add, are not a mature market and will also comtinue to improve ecologically, even with existing ones) tend to continue holding onto confirmation biases and thus spreading misinformation, rather than using critical thinking and being humble enough to admit when they get things wrong.
Are you prepared to do this¿
your grade school attempts of psychoanalysis
It's not psychoanalysis, it's simple logic.
it may be more constructive to encourage awareness
I'm doing exactly that. Fossil fuels are what keeps us all alive. You seem to not be aware of this with your troll comment so I helped spread some awareness…
The reason that gOvErNmEnTs LoVe OiL is for this very fact, without it billions of people would be be dead. Don't you think that keeping billions of people alive in relative peace and prosperity is a good thing?
tend to continue holding onto confirmation biases and thus spreading misinformation
Exactly like "feom ICE lovers? or oil loving governments?"
Own it and move on…
Fossil fuels are what keeps us all alive.
Fossil fuels HAVE played a significant role in powering modern societies and economies. However, it's crucial to note that there are environmental concerns and efforts to transition to more sustainable energy sources.
The reason that gOvErNmEnTs LoVe OiL is for this very fact, without it billions of people would be be dead.
Besides you pathetic use of sarcasm here this is Misinformation: While oil has been a critical resource for many countries, claiming that billions of people would be dead without it oversimplifies the complexities of global energy dependence. There are alternative energy sources and ongoing efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Saying that we need to keep using oil in order to keep billions of people alive in relative peace and prosperity is a subjective opinion about the perceived benefits of using fossil fuels for maintaining global stability and prosperity.
Now.. as you put it OWN IT AND MOVE ON:
Fossil fuels HAVE played a vital role in powering our modern societies and economies. However, it's important to acknowledge the environmental concerns associated with their use.
The claim that governments love oil because without it, billions of people would be dead is an OVERSIMPLIFICATION. While oil HAS been a crucial resource, there ARE alternative energy sources, and there ARE ongoing efforts to transition to cleaner and more sustainable options.
Promoting awareness of the challenges and opportunities in the energy sector is commendable, but it is alap ESSENTIAL to consider a balanced perspective.
Exploring and investing in renewable energy sources CAN contribute to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future while addressing the global demand for energy.
Striking a balance between meeting energy needs and minimising environmental impact is a complex but necessary task for ensuring long-term well-being and prosperity for future generations.
So please. Do yourself (and everyone here) a favour and turn off your screen and go and touch some grass.
A brief look at your previous comments history paints a picture of how you are at times over opinionated and refuse to admit when you make a mistake in judgement.
You are not being clever here you are just being argumentative with your confirmation biases shining through.
The claim that governments love oil because without it, billions of people would be dead is an OVERSIMPLIFICATION
Nope. It's a simple fact. Here's a simple test you can do at home, try to see how long you can survive without it.
The rest of your war and peace is a comical attempt at deflection… Good to know that you felt the need to search my comment history though. When you're out of ideas always attack the person lol…
@Tythefly86: You hear wrong :) EV pays back carbon bill in 18months after that it is in the negative.
Suggest you watch "stop burning stuff" for data driven material.
What is the source of your claim that the majority of people charge from the grid? Do you think that the millions of Aussie homes with solar could charge their homes from one or the other or a mix? What is your point about charging from the grid, is it bad to charge overnight when grid is underutilized? (So underutilized power companies have reduced tariffs of 8cents) I dont know anyone aside from local greens pollies whose primary reason to own an EV is to save the planet.
@Creaser: Unfortunately there is a lot lf misinformation out there that can grey the truth and depending on the individual's confirmation biases they will sadly cling onto what they want to believe despite mounting evidence against their beliefs on this type of issue.
Here's a breakdown of the misinformation they presented here:
Claim about offsetting emissions after 5 years:
Assumption about "minor fender benders" and replacements:
Exaggeration of the time needed to offset emissions:
Generalisation about charging off the grid:
Their comments here are full of both inaccuracies and oversimplifications that may lead to a misunderstanding of the overall benefits of electric vehicles.
@Tythefly86: Yeap do agree, this could be preventable but we have a lot to figure out.
Also a massive part of the problem is people forget where the electricity comes from. Depending on where you live, you really might not be using clean energy at all…
yeh quotes for a new tesla 3, has me from around $3.5k-$9k/py
currently paying $1.2k for an ice car.
What, 9k/year?!
Spend the cash to build a garage and bring it down to 1k/yr.
Insurance premiums are obvs based on highly complex algorithms but one factor no-one has mentioned is that Tesla repairs are an entirely proprietary ecosystem. Talk to any body shop who's dealt with it, and they won't have anything kind to say. Big opportunities there for other EV manufacturers to use more open source methods to bring costs down for consumers.
my ICE insurance went up 250%. Yes 250%. Even the other car went up 40%. Same company. Same car. No damage, no claims. Nothing changed except now it's 2024.
Didn't know what GWM was. Turns out it's just Great Wall Motors.
Yea, everyone remembers Great Wall Motors as that disgusting China brand, so they just use the letters now hopin we all forget
Or put a giant “Haval” name across the back.
Yeah nah, still just cheap GWM garbage.
Unfortunately by the number of the turds on wheels driving around, people must be falling for it.
The new Havals have a decent build quality
@TEER3X: My bro and his wife bought one recently. We'll see in a few years.
It actually drives ok and has a good interior/exterior design.
Doesn't drive as well as our 2018 Tiguan, but not too far off
@TEER3X: Yeah but have you seen that big ugly badge on the back? I can't name an uglier font, short of Papyrus.
People used to say the same thing about Japanese cars, then Korean cars, now it's Chinese cars. Before you know it, they'll be super commonplace and reasonable well respected. Then you can move on to bashing Indian cars.
@ozmian: but CCP bad. can't reason with some of these ppl why they gotta bring politics into every discussion.
@Wizard: But you will buy a Tesla made in the ccp, and with a BYD battery and at least half its other components, so that a company in the USA can profit, whe t he US are responsible for most of the wars of the last 75 years? Sounds perfectly sensible.
@dtpearson: Considering this isn't Minority Report and I'm not Tom Cruise, I'd be going with the not yet WW3 option
@Jackson: I have no opinion on BYD, I’ve only owned Tesla’s. I’m not concerned about Chinese EV companies though, as long as their vehicles are safe, perform well and are reasonably priced, they will achieve market success.
@dontpanic: Are you saying I can't start bashing Indian cars yet? I don't miss an opportunity to bash jags and land rovers
Today's "KFC"
Same with LG. Was Lucky Goldstar. Goldstar was a nasty brand when I was a kid but they improved and improved and now nobody remembers. They also use Life’s Good to wash off the tarnish.
It's only taken them 30+ years.
@gadget: Well yeah, they were a good grand ten years ago so I’d say more like 15-20 years. Long term strategy. Chinese brands will be the same in the coming decades.
@GeneralSkunk: Probably, but not right now. I personally would hesitate to drop $40k on any car whose brand still struggles with QC in their home country. Just like I would never have bought a Kia 15 years ago (with good reason).
They said the same about Toyota and Nissan in the 60s.
Reminds me of how Lucky Goldstar changed their name too…
Generate wins magic
Haha were they bad? (Srs question)
Were? Nothings changed except the marketing…and maybe they got a bit better at ripping off the designs of other companies so they don’t look as shit.
why do you have so much sand in your vagina
No idea why this keeps getting downvoted.
Anything GWM is a giant steaming turd on wheels.
Maybe it's because there is virtually no choice but to buy chinese if you are an EV buyer so they all defend them.
If it's really so bad you won't see so many people driving GWM and Haval on street now
I'm from NZ… and back there, they were so bad in relation to safety, but also brand image as a Chinese car. So they disappeared from the country shortly after arriving, and basically came back after a decade or so.
Ora good cat =v=
Meow 😻
Design inspired by Mini Cooper
Was my first thought too
Yeah looks heaps like a Fiat 500
Nothing wrong with that! They look great
Range of 420 😎
Up to 310 km of driving range for the standard range
'Up to'
haha thats the weed number! epic…!!!
DUDE
Where's my EV?
new mini is based on the same underpinnings, but will be over $60k
really wish the BYD seagull comes to Aus soon.. 10k USD, probably a retail price of $24,999 drive away AUD
I hope they rebrand the Australian version to BYD Tipchook.
I prefer the more elegant term 'bin chicken'
That's a perfectly cromulent term I admit, and would make for a nice mid-tier model variant. BYD Refuse Avian can then be their top tier.
Waiting for them to release the BYD Ibis is China. Until then binchook is the best we can do.
Planning to be made in RHD in Thailand I believe. Had a big uptake there.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chines…
https://motowheeler.com/th/electric-cars/byd-seagull-ev-1309… (Price in $AU 17 500 approx)
Man super solid cars as a feature and spec package but I can not get over 2 year warranty for the screen and something like 3 years for the body and the TERRIBLE interior.
They mention in many places that the interior is inspired by a gym and point out that the white part of the center console is a muscle? Ugh disgusting. Why did they think you want to be staring at a strain off muscle without skin the whole time you are in the car? And someone pointed out that the passenger dash looks like it’s melted and I can not unsee…
Can't bypass the safety ratings for aus
According to this post they aren't releasing it here, preferring to focus on the higher profit models…
https://www.drive.com.au/news/2023-byd-seagull-unveiled-not-…
I would only buy this as a gift for my worst enemy
You have a lot of people who would happily throw eggs at you trying to take that place.
can i be your my worst enemy?
Me first.
You're a loser, Dollar General.
Is that enough?
I hate you - can you buy me one now?
:-D
Should've been a Kia
In case anyone missed the joke: Kia Ora (as in Maori for Hello) lmao
This is an issue only for keyboard warriors. Insurers are insuring millions of EVs around the world.
Byd side impact crash tested the Seal twice, removed the battery installed it in another vehicle and drove away. A car is going to be written off before the battery is damaged. Also, the battery in a write off has value as a mega sized home battery.
So rather than things getting worse the higher occupant survivability lower CoG and far less incident rate of fire, things will only get better with lowering of rates inline with reduced cost personal injuries.
https://youtu.be/n2J0BVxt-rg?si=g7xSuTqpp5_1dc2K