No, it just doesn't work. Electric cars aren't facing challenges because they're just too darned new and people just can't deal with the change, they face issues because on all the metrics that people really care about, electric cars eke out a small win on a couple of them at the cost of major losses on quite a few more of them. They really are inferior solutions for many car use cases, perhaps even the majority of them.

Hopefully that will change, and there's good reasons to believe that's a very plausible outcome (though not guaranteed), but you won't convince people by trying to essentially argue the problem is in the people and not the cars, because frankly, that's obviously not true, to the point of being insulting. Insulting your listeners is not a good argument technique.

This article feels really forced.. No place for bags in front of the car? You have a huge trunk. Car heating in traffic jam? Maybe if there is 30'C outside. Huge amount of mechanical technology? Electric cars are full of far more complex technology, harder and more expensive to fix. And what about refueling, why didn't he mentioned "wow, refueling takes only 2 minutes! I don't have to wait an hour".

I know what was the point of this article, electric cars are quite young and given some time many of the issues will be fixed, but it doesn't mean people can't complain about it right now, I think there is still a huge gap between electric and petrol cars.

I think the issue is about expectations of what has been hyped about electric cars (for better or worse) and the reality of their operation vs. what is already known and accepted about internal combustion engines (ICE). People already understand and accept the tradeoffs and costs of using ICE cars, and the "general joe" is hoping for something that provides a significantly better / different experience with their electric car experience.

This has little to do with reality, but regardless, explains why the TNW article was written as it was and why the parody article analogy doesn't hold as well. Although I understand that at some point, people need to get more "real" about what electric cars can truly offer and their real advantages / disadvantages.

Too bad BMW couldn't make the bivalent (Hydrogen) engine very effective. One day I'd like to tank H2O and have my car's engine create the hydrogen using electrolysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

Wow, a whole article full of analogies to argue about. Not to mention...

>Exhaust systems need to be replaced every 20,000 miles.

Wha?

>And all this after 80 years of research and development.

I thought this was supposed to a new-fangled petrol car.

I think the point many are missing is that the electric car is not nearly as developed as today's petrol car. Great advances have been made over the decades to make today's cars safer, more reliable and more fuel efficient. The needs to be done with electric cars. It will come. But only if people believe it can happen. If too many nay-sayers poo-poo all over the advances that have already been made, confidence is going to be shot. The original review this was a parody of could have conveyed the same concerns without thumbing their nose at it. They did seem to have a lot of bias against the car that didn't need to be there.

Lets not forgot the millions of American's who cannot charge a car. I don't have a garage and my HOA does not allow fixed structures outside. There was a discussion about changing HOA rules, but it costs thousands of dollars for an attorney, plus residents have to actually vote on it. We can get 3 people out of 200 to attend an HOA meeting.

My issue with lekky cars at the moment is one of style. Unless you have a skwillion pounds to spend, you have to get a prius or leaf or something.

There doesn't seem to be a stylish looking electric on the market yet. Something that might change once BMW release the i3.