3 ms·
Again you just keep adding more and more stuff to defend your concept and it applies to fewer and fewer people. The waste majority, 99.9something people will n
by nickik 5y ago
Again you just keep adding more and more stuff to defend your concept and it applies to fewer and fewer people.
The waste majority, 99.9something people will never drive with a caravan and most don't go threw the mountains.
You simply need to accept that you are representing an expedition, this has been studded. Most cars only very, very rarely do long travel at all. And when they do they don't do it very often. And when they do they stop reasonably often anyway.
You can simply accept that an EV is not for you for the moment because you are apparently a special case. Most people don't stop wanting to pie so they can beat rush hour to a campsite. That is simply not the case for 99.9999% of miles driven.
- jackthezipper 5y ago>Most cars only very, very rarely do long travel at all. And when they do they don't do it very often. I agree, and this is what I said in my first post. My entire point is that, for most people, a car needs to meet _all_ needs, not 99% of them. Don't get me wrong, EV's are a great step forward, but perhaps hydrogen can solve some problems EV's can not. They might very well introduce more problems than they solve, fair enough. But it seems silly to just brush off possible solutions in favour of an incomplete one. Yet this is what happens every time hydrogen gets mentioned. >And when they do they stop reasonably often anyway. You are ignoring the optional vs mandatory difference. Whether it's a problem for you or me personally is irrelevant, the fact is it limits your freedom considerably.