Hi Brian, I am an EV advocate (and proud skeptic) and wanted to add a couple of thoughts. It would be interesting to see the corresponding weights of models that are offered in both ICE and BEV models e.g. the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, BMW 7 series, I am sure there are others. Also, about the tire wear thing - when I last replaced my tires at a large, reputable chain, I overheard the tech discussing with a Tesla owner how they come in so often with worn-out tires over a relatively short mileage interval, so I suspect there is something to this. My theory - the vehicles that are higher on the list tend to come with big-boy truck tire & wheel setups that may be better suited for their heft. The Teslas ride on regular sedan tires which may be asked to "do more" at the contact patch to keep those 4500 lb cars on the road, and hence scrub off tread at a higher rate?
You are saying that most/many/some people who buy an SUV or truck do not really 'need' such a vehicle because they do not go off-road or carry large things or something similar, rather use them just as 'cars'. I'm afraid this is a red herring that misses my point completely. Don't get hung up on my use of the word 'need' because what I mean is that they are looking for a vehicle that has certain attributes not that they actually need those attributes i.e. they are in the market for an SUV or a truck even if they are just driving kids to school. Saying that an F350 is equivalent to a Honda Civic because both are used as 'cars' and the category is just 'marketing' is silly. One is clearly much larger than the other and marketing a Civic as a truck isn't going to fool anyone.
We can dispense with all of this because I can make my point another way: it is clear that the type of car we pick will have more to do with whether it is above or below average than whether it is an EV or not. In other words if I pick a truck it will be above average whether it is an EV or not (and whether there is any 'marketing' influence or not). If I pick a sedan it will be below average whether of not it is an EV.
If our goal is to assess if trucks are heavier than average or sedans are lighter than average then this analysis is fine, but if our goal is to assess EVs it is VERY misleading. If we pick the Cybertruck then we would conclude that EVs are twice the average! If we pick the Honda Civic we would conclude that non-EVs are much lighter than average! Both are ridiculous.
You could actually do a proper statistical analysis of this and compare the correlation between 'type' and 'weight' with the correlation between 'EV/non-EV' and 'weight', i.e. is the type of vehicle better predictor of its weight or is whether or not it is an EV better.
It is with the greatest of respect that I write this, as I have been a fan for 10 years or more and come to appreciate your approach to research and the even handed treatment you give to controversial topics. However, it seems to me that you have an intellectual blind spot when it comes to EV's. I thought I detected it in some earlier posts but in this one it is very clear. Your use of statistics here is very misleading and were it anyone else I would assume it to be malicious but I am pretty sure in your case it is just an intellectual blind spot (which we all possess in one way or another).
To get to the point, it is misleading because you have chosen (the reason for which is unclear) to compare EVs against the average of all vehicles sold of your selected 25 models. This is problematic because why should the number sold be relevant and also because it skews the average towards vehicles that are very popular, which in the US is trucks, which are very heavy - so the average is substantially inflated. The comparison is also invalid because you are comparing a specific type of vehicle against no specific type, when the purchase decision is not based on the question 'is this vehicle better or worse than the average of all new vehicles sold', rather 'I want a vehicle that fulfills some need, how does this vehicle compare against other vehicles that can also fulfill that need'. In other words, a valid comparison would be 'how does an entry-level EV sedan compare against non-EV entry-level sedans' or 'how does a large EV truck compare against a large non-EV truck'. Doing this you would come to the opposite conclusion: the Model 3 is the heaviest sedan on the list and 500lb more than the next highest, the Model Y is the heaviest compact SUV and 500lb heavier than the next heaviest compact SUV, and you don't even include the Cybertruck but it would also be the heaviest truck and more than 500lb heavier than the next heaviest truck on the list.
Now, to be clear, I am not anti-EV and I find the fact that EVs seem to be heavier to be actually irrelevant. It is not enough that they are going to tear up roads and I don't see any other downsides to the extra weight that aren't reflected in cost or efficiency or other things that should be analyzed in aggregate.
To get back to my initial statement, I do not think this misuse of statistics is deliberately intended to mislead, I think you just have formed an opinion that EVs are good and confirmation bias is causing you to misinterpret these results.
By the way, if you want to weigh in EVs more, there are plenty of claims, both pro-EV and anti-EV, that need to be debunked. My challenge to you is, now you have done a few debunks of anti-EV claims, maybe debunk a pro-EV claim. It is not important that one side wins, only that we assess the facts dispassionately and not swayed by ideology.
Ideology is exactly the problem — in this case, giving half the cars a pass because they are sold under a different marketing label. Cars bought by people and driven are cars, whether they bear the truck, SUV, or sedan label. Why do you think manufacturers call half their line "SUVs" now? it's to take advantage of more lax efficiency regulations. If you want to assess the impact of people driving cars, you have to count all of them, and not let marketing labels skew the results.
Hi Brian, I am an EV advocate (and proud skeptic) and wanted to add a couple of thoughts. It would be interesting to see the corresponding weights of models that are offered in both ICE and BEV models e.g. the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, BMW 7 series, I am sure there are others. Also, about the tire wear thing - when I last replaced my tires at a large, reputable chain, I overheard the tech discussing with a Tesla owner how they come in so often with worn-out tires over a relatively short mileage interval, so I suspect there is something to this. My theory - the vehicles that are higher on the list tend to come with big-boy truck tire & wheel setups that may be better suited for their heft. The Teslas ride on regular sedan tires which may be asked to "do more" at the contact patch to keep those 4500 lb cars on the road, and hence scrub off tread at a higher rate?
You are saying that most/many/some people who buy an SUV or truck do not really 'need' such a vehicle because they do not go off-road or carry large things or something similar, rather use them just as 'cars'. I'm afraid this is a red herring that misses my point completely. Don't get hung up on my use of the word 'need' because what I mean is that they are looking for a vehicle that has certain attributes not that they actually need those attributes i.e. they are in the market for an SUV or a truck even if they are just driving kids to school. Saying that an F350 is equivalent to a Honda Civic because both are used as 'cars' and the category is just 'marketing' is silly. One is clearly much larger than the other and marketing a Civic as a truck isn't going to fool anyone.
We can dispense with all of this because I can make my point another way: it is clear that the type of car we pick will have more to do with whether it is above or below average than whether it is an EV or not. In other words if I pick a truck it will be above average whether it is an EV or not (and whether there is any 'marketing' influence or not). If I pick a sedan it will be below average whether of not it is an EV.
If our goal is to assess if trucks are heavier than average or sedans are lighter than average then this analysis is fine, but if our goal is to assess EVs it is VERY misleading. If we pick the Cybertruck then we would conclude that EVs are twice the average! If we pick the Honda Civic we would conclude that non-EVs are much lighter than average! Both are ridiculous.
You could actually do a proper statistical analysis of this and compare the correlation between 'type' and 'weight' with the correlation between 'EV/non-EV' and 'weight', i.e. is the type of vehicle better predictor of its weight or is whether or not it is an EV better.
It is with the greatest of respect that I write this, as I have been a fan for 10 years or more and come to appreciate your approach to research and the even handed treatment you give to controversial topics. However, it seems to me that you have an intellectual blind spot when it comes to EV's. I thought I detected it in some earlier posts but in this one it is very clear. Your use of statistics here is very misleading and were it anyone else I would assume it to be malicious but I am pretty sure in your case it is just an intellectual blind spot (which we all possess in one way or another).
To get to the point, it is misleading because you have chosen (the reason for which is unclear) to compare EVs against the average of all vehicles sold of your selected 25 models. This is problematic because why should the number sold be relevant and also because it skews the average towards vehicles that are very popular, which in the US is trucks, which are very heavy - so the average is substantially inflated. The comparison is also invalid because you are comparing a specific type of vehicle against no specific type, when the purchase decision is not based on the question 'is this vehicle better or worse than the average of all new vehicles sold', rather 'I want a vehicle that fulfills some need, how does this vehicle compare against other vehicles that can also fulfill that need'. In other words, a valid comparison would be 'how does an entry-level EV sedan compare against non-EV entry-level sedans' or 'how does a large EV truck compare against a large non-EV truck'. Doing this you would come to the opposite conclusion: the Model 3 is the heaviest sedan on the list and 500lb more than the next highest, the Model Y is the heaviest compact SUV and 500lb heavier than the next heaviest compact SUV, and you don't even include the Cybertruck but it would also be the heaviest truck and more than 500lb heavier than the next heaviest truck on the list.
Now, to be clear, I am not anti-EV and I find the fact that EVs seem to be heavier to be actually irrelevant. It is not enough that they are going to tear up roads and I don't see any other downsides to the extra weight that aren't reflected in cost or efficiency or other things that should be analyzed in aggregate.
To get back to my initial statement, I do not think this misuse of statistics is deliberately intended to mislead, I think you just have formed an opinion that EVs are good and confirmation bias is causing you to misinterpret these results.
By the way, if you want to weigh in EVs more, there are plenty of claims, both pro-EV and anti-EV, that need to be debunked. My challenge to you is, now you have done a few debunks of anti-EV claims, maybe debunk a pro-EV claim. It is not important that one side wins, only that we assess the facts dispassionately and not swayed by ideology.
Ideology is exactly the problem — in this case, giving half the cars a pass because they are sold under a different marketing label. Cars bought by people and driven are cars, whether they bear the truck, SUV, or sedan label. Why do you think manufacturers call half their line "SUVs" now? it's to take advantage of more lax efficiency regulations. If you want to assess the impact of people driving cars, you have to count all of them, and not let marketing labels skew the results.