Thread: EV general discussion

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

That will buff right out. !

Paintless dent removal is the go.

The other issue which many don’t realise is that you won’t get comprehensive insurance on a vehicle that is damaged,hail dents included.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

So, let's talk about "work vehicle subsidies".

Yes it's a thing, and should be considered fair and reasonable and part of a productive economy. But we must also consider fairness in our economy. Now disclosure here.. I worked in the fleet industry, and worked on the computer system module that calculated FBT for Australias largest vehicle fleet, so I've got some history in this area.

The reason FBT was introduced was because companies were leasing cars for their employees. The employee was forgoing salary to pay the employer for the car and it was their private car. So effectively the employee was paying for their car tax free. Also, small business owners were buying cars for the wife and and using their cars for private business. This was also considered to be a Fringe Tax Benefit.

So the government (john howard) decided that if you did this you were receiving a tax benefit, and hence forth you'd have to pay FBT. The intention what that the tax would make it so it wasn't beneficial to do this. As with anything tax - it's complex. There were two classes of people. The first class people didn't even attempt to say they used their car for work so they had to use the "Statutory method" which meant that they paid 1/4 of the cars value to the government in tax each year. This largely stopped this industry.

The other class of people were tradies/small business owners. If you claimed that your car was a work car - you had to keep a log book. The cars costs were divided up according to the percentage of business/private trips. Back in the day I was involved (late 90's) it was deadly serious. If you were found rorting your logbook it was very very big trouble.

Anyway fast forward to 2025 and it appears that the big business loophole is still pretty tight, but small business is a bit more problematic. This is an excellent article on ways we currently subsidise Utes.

We Backed Home Batteries. Now Do EVs.



How many utes with company names have you seen driving around on Fraser? I've seen lots. If anyone here doesn't believe me and think this is a thing.. this is what the ATO describes as the "FBT GAP". They believe that they are only getting about 70% of what they should be getting. Note that this does not include EV's.

Latest estimate and trends for the FBT gap | Australian Taxation Office



So in summary .. the utes are already getting subsidised.

Not just utes, but DC 4wd utes which can't really be justified for most business uses when a 2wd 2 door ute would do and probably be more useful with a larger tray. Now I know vehicles can get stuck on muddy building sites, as I had a mate who had this happen, so he got a Toyota Tercel AWD, and didn't have another problem.
The only time I could've benefited from a 4wd ute was trying to reverse up a berm on a golf course at a resort hotel switch room to unwind some cable, but I just had to roll the cable drum off the ute and a few metres to the switch room.
I know of a small business that got given a high riding ute and they had it lowered so that they could fit into covered car parks with their canopy a ladder racks.

Originally Posted by Tins

I did watch this.. he does reasonable videos for someone who makes money from talking about EV fires.. I wonder if doing a channel about landrover fires would get clicks.. plenty of material but I digress.

There are many things that aren't clear about this accident.

- How did the car accellerate into the pole. On my car if you press the accellerator and the brake at the same time a warning message comes up on the screen and it cuts the power.
- As the guy says, unintended acceleration is not uncommon in the car industry and not just EV's. For a good while now most vehicles have fly by wire, so this is an industry wide issue.
- But there is still the big pedal in the middle that is a physical system and would work.
- Safety is complex, and I think he's beyond his qualifications to assert that not having an engine in front of the firewall allowing the low voltage battery to be hit in a monster crash is a defect. You have to put these components somewhere, and if you've got 7 million cars sooner or later someone is going to hit everything in the vehicle. From my understanding of crash safety - not having an engine is a big advantage. It enables them to tailor the way cars crash and absorb energy as there is more space. Handling engines and drivetrains and pushing them out of the way is hard. Tesla have been the safest car in euro NCAP. They've got good people working for them. I saw the video - it looked like they hit fast - very fast. Perhaps if they had an engine they wouldn't have survived at all.
- The door thing and fires.. I don't think they are alone there and I think that because it's a tesla it's a big deal. I can remember a toyota I bought new in 1998 would lock the doors above a certain speed and wouldn't unlock them until somone from the inside unlocked them. How would that have differed in this situation? If the occupants had been incapacitated the doors would stay locked.
- As the guy says.. will we every know the actual details? Probably not. IMHO It's going to come down to "human factors" and we won't hear about it again..

Going on from this.. to say "Caveat Emptor".. I find it actually pretty comical that this advice is coming from the owners of aging English cars. The MY when it was released in europe was the safest car every tested. I don't worry about my family driving the Tesla. I'm confident they are as safe as they can be in a car. I'm sure the new LR's are very good. Safety is one of those evolving things.

My time in a fleet company I got to attend some interesting presentations. Safety is complex. If you want to watch a geek talking about this..

https://youtu.be/3FhDfy9Ufl4?si=vMQuimHr1yO99QfM

Originally Posted by RANDLOVER

Not just utes, but DC 4wd utes which can't really be justified for most business uses when a 2wd 2 door ute would do and probably be more useful with a larger tray. Now I know vehicles can get stuck on muddy building sites, as I had a mate who had this happen, so he got a Toyota Tercel AWD, and didn't have another problem.
The only time I could've benefited from a 4wd ute was trying to reverse up a berm on a golf course at a resort hotel switch room to unwind some cable, but I just had to roll the cable drum off the ute and a few metres to the switch room.
I know of a small business that got given a high riding ute and they had it lowered so that they could fit into covered car parks with their canopy a ladder racks.

Everyone howls in protest at me in here... but as I keep saying IMHO the majority of these vehicles are unnessary. It has environmental impacts, but it also has safety implications. Because so many people are buying these cars to drive around the city .. don't be surprised if governments intervene. I do think it's a way off though.. Oh well.

It's not just bullbars either. It's 4x4's and DC's. People are going under the front of them. Kids being backed over in driveways. These vehicles bypass safety tests because they are commercial - but when there is one for mum, dad, and the kids.. being driven around the city as city cars ... on a population level it results in bad things happening.

Let's hope it doesn't result in restrictions for people who do actually need them.

Pedestrian deaths just reached an 18-year high. Bull bars are part of the problem

What could be causing this?

One key reason appears to be the growing size and weight of vehicles, which can increase the risk of death and injury.
Then there is the not-so-uncommon use of bull bars, especially on four-wheel drives and large urban vehicles.
Research shows they increase the severity of pedestrian injuries and the risk of death when crashes occur.
Which raises a simple question: are bull bars really justified on vehicles driven in our cities?

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Everyone howls in protest at me in here... but as I keep saying IMHO the majority of these vehicles are unnessary. It has environmental impacts, but it also has safety implications. Because so many people are buying these cars to drive around the city .. don't be surprised if governments intervene. I do think it's a way off though.. Oh well.

It's not just bullbars either. It's 4x4's and DC's. People are going under the front of them. Kids being backed over in driveways. These vehicles bypass safety tests because they are commercial - but when there is one for mum, dad, and the kids.. being driven around the city as city cars ... on a population level it results in bad things happening.

Let's hope it doesn't result in restrictions for people who do actually need them.

Pedestrian deaths just reached an 18-year high. Bull bars are part of the problem

I was driving a light strike fire yesterday. The Engine had to run all day for safety reasons. The HR license replaced my very old redundant Navy car/truck License given to me when the Petty Officer asked who can drive a truck to several dopey new types and I noted I had picking up hay bales on the farm Be afraid very afraid?

Government over control would be most unwelcome.

Solid state batteries are coming - We aren't there yet

I post this merely for interest, not a con or pro for EVs. Much of the content applies to ICE, also.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Kids being backed over in driveways.

That can happen with any vehicle.Rear visibility in many vehicles has gradually deteriorated over the years,mainly due to smaller rear windows.

Utes have had reversing sensors and cameras for the last few years.

It was the govt that should have mandated rear sensors and cameras for all light vehicles decades ago,unfortunately they didn’t.

FWIW,later vehicles slam the brakes on if going backwards and an object is detected.