ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
UCS and CU did the survey. They showed the results to groups in the industry, including Plug In America, shortly before releasing it. The small BEV range was one of the first questions we asked. :smile:
They were indeed aware of Tesla, but (I am extrapolating a bit here as their answer was pretty short) didn't want the survey to get too divided - not in the questions, or in the results. They didn't want to say x% have $y and can live with a 200 mile car, z% can live with a 60 mile car, etc. They made a couple of similar shortcuts with PHEVs vs BEVs - they were aware of the differences and did make some adjustments (i.e. BEVs had to have charging at home; PHEVs could have just charging at work) but in other places lumped them together.
The resulting survey was easier to design and fill out, and the results are easier to understand. But it means the results are necessarily conservative, because they missed some cases. I suggested they point this out when they released it, but I think they had all of their PR ready and were really just giving us a courtesy heads-up, not looking for survey feedback.
I think to them, it doesn't matter that their numbers are conservative. They just want to point out that the numbers are MUCH higher than the numbers of cars being sold, to raise awareness that we don't have to wait for future developments. That's why they didn't include any cars being released in the near future, like Model X. And perhaps partly why it was conservative by design - they didn't want anybody arguing the numbers are too high. Most people seem to think EVs are only suitable for 5% of the population, and they are trying to dispel that myth. I don't agree with everything they've done, but I do think they are honestly trying to help. Most of us figure the great majority of the population could use some BEV or PHEV and think 42% sounds awfully low, but they are not aiming the results at us.
They were indeed aware of Tesla, but (I am extrapolating a bit here as their answer was pretty short) didn't want the survey to get too divided - not in the questions, or in the results. They didn't want to say x% have $y and can live with a 200 mile car, z% can live with a 60 mile car, etc. They made a couple of similar shortcuts with PHEVs vs BEVs - they were aware of the differences and did make some adjustments (i.e. BEVs had to have charging at home; PHEVs could have just charging at work) but in other places lumped them together.
The resulting survey was easier to design and fill out, and the results are easier to understand. But it means the results are necessarily conservative, because they missed some cases. I suggested they point this out when they released it, but I think they had all of their PR ready and were really just giving us a courtesy heads-up, not looking for survey feedback.
I think to them, it doesn't matter that their numbers are conservative. They just want to point out that the numbers are MUCH higher than the numbers of cars being sold, to raise awareness that we don't have to wait for future developments. That's why they didn't include any cars being released in the near future, like Model X. And perhaps partly why it was conservative by design - they didn't want anybody arguing the numbers are too high. Most people seem to think EVs are only suitable for 5% of the population, and they are trying to dispel that myth. I don't agree with everything they've done, but I do think they are honestly trying to help. Most of us figure the great majority of the population could use some BEV or PHEV and think 42% sounds awfully low, but they are not aiming the results at us.
