It may be attractive, but it is not very promising.

Where are we gonna put the solar panels?

I think there are folks that just buy 'the newest thing' and don't really think much about its real world usefulness. Nothing wrong with those folks, but they are certainly very likely to buy stuff that eventually fails because most new products do fail, and many truly innovative products get outclassed by following products.

So, what new products have you bought recently?

Like I said, I was clearly not talking about HEVs. Why you could not catch on to the obvious is not something I care to debate. I perfectly understand there are different classes of vehicles, again you are just stating the obvious, but that does not require one to only discuss all of them as a whole. Your inability to separate them in this discussion is your problem, not mine. I know exactly which vehicles I am talking about, and I have explicitly told you.

If you want to discuss the market issues with HEV's, that is a different debate and there are a different, but overlapping, set of reasons for lagging sales. It would be stupid to conflate that discussion with a discussion of pure EVs.

NO THEY DON'T. Hybrids Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have gas tanks, Electric Vehicles (EVs) don't. If you want to tout your technology you'd better be more precise in what you are talking about to start with.

I personally think EVs are a great technology, than that they are evolving more and more to meet the greater market need, but are not yet to the point where they do meet the needs of the larger market segments. And the real world data from the market reflects that. I can accept that there is something to learn about the product itself from what the market tells us, you clearly don't think so. And you rely on conflating EVs with HEVs to make you points. I have clearly been discussing EVs all along, even told you that, and you still conflate because you know your arguments don't stand when talking about EVs. So, as I said, good day.

I don't think you understood my point. I certainly was not comparing the risks nor the exposure to them, nor debating the accuracy of stats or how they are presented. That is a different discussion and I don't disagree with your take.

IN that frame, I think you will find that vulnerability is not the defining factor when it comes to peoples interest in shark attacks. You'll find that surfers and farmers alike are more interested in shark attack stories than fatal bee stings. Mountain hikers and city slickers are more interested in bear attack stories, and so forth. It has little to do with accuracy of risk perception, and more to do with the nature of the event.

People don't care if shark attacks are less of a risk than bees. Sharks are friggin predators and predator attacks are what rings people's bells. Maybe it is an instinctual thing.

Sharks, grizzly bears, mountain lions, alligators, wolves.. attacks on humans get big news. Bees are not scary. A swarm of killer bees maybe, cause that seems more 'predatorial'.

It doesn't mean we run around scared of these things, it just gets our attention. The biggest 'predator' (in quotes because its not a food thing) of humans is humans. And they are all around us!

Most folks understand that the risk of shark bite is very small. They continue to swim even with the media reports. But when there a multiple shark bites in a relatively small area in a short period of time, and those bites resulted in very serious injuries, it is only natural for a person in that area to hesitate to let their kids in the water. In that case, there helps to be some re-assurance that it is an anomaly or a spike caused by some temporary environmental change, rather than a trend. So it is good that the media is also reporting various attempts to explain the spike.

Shark bites get media attention because that is what people want to read about. Don't just blame the media.

People certainly don't have to take a test drive in an EV to know if range is an issue. Its is quite easy to use the specs and make that determination.

You are still on the "they just don't get it" track. I see you will remain stubbornly stuck there and not apply any critical thinking ........ so good day to you.

There you go again... starting off with 'my misconceptions'. You'd make a great salesman. I clearly was talking about EV's, not hybrids. Could you not figure that out?

Just because you can rationalize why the market SHOULD be stronger, doesn't mean it really should be. History is littered with those who think they were smarter than everyone else on stuff like this, end the end, a very small few actually were.

Instead of pining on why the market SHOULD be stronger for EVs, try a little critical thinking. You are the one who can't explain what is really happening. Doesn't that tell you something?

You are working hard to explain/rationalize why the market is not doing what you think it should do. I see you are passionate about EVs. But the market is speaking, and your explanations don't reflect what the market is telling you. You seem to want to ignore/dispute those points that give explanations for the actual market behavior, but you don't offer any your self other than "they just don't get it and here's why". If your rationalizations worked for the greater market, more cars would be selling.

As the product evolves to meet the needs of larger slices of the market, it will sell more.

If it makes you feel better to describe it that way.. power to you. But I'd be generous to say it is even 40% of the applicable market. Add the fact that you can only get a subset of the market segment for various reasons, and it is, with no doubts, a limiting factor today.

The whole "rental car" fallback is so tired. People want to drive their own cars. They don't want to rent one. Yes, there are some exceptions, but it is small group. And saying the use case is one long trip per year is really reaching as well. That's an even smaller segment of the market.