Why 200 miles??

[Deleted member 14724]

People do not like the feeling of being close to limits, and that's an issue with an EV. If you decide you want to go somewhere halfway across town to shop or meet a friend, you have to plan. That's not generally the case with an ICE. That's not an irrational fear. People buy vehicles all the time which will cover the 5-10% case, because essentially *all* vehicles will do the 90% case (commutes under 50 miles). It's on the margins where decisions are made, so it is a mistake to ignore the margins when designing an EV. The feeling of security is a powerful draw. It's why people react so strongly to crime and terrorism, even though those two things are extremely small risks compared to things like driving a car. Terrorism is less of a risk than having a pool, but the sense of unease is much greater with terrorism. Similarly, being stranded leaves people with a huge sense of unease, and getting too close to that point is extremely discomfiting. Failing to actually eliminate the reason behind the discomfit will cause EVs to fail in the market. Changing public perception, in the face of options, simply is not a viable track.

 

[kubel]

Nissan sold us a 100-mile car goes 75 miles.

This is exactly why. Nissan's "100 mile" electric car gets 45 miles in normal winter conditions. I'm getting about 25 if I make frequent stops (heater is always running at maximum capacity since it never has a time to warm up and level off). I love my LEAF, but I hate the battery.

 

[knightmb]

People do not like the feeling of being close to limits, and that's an issue with an EV.

Even ICE vehicles have a "miles to empty" dash display that when riding with friends using this feature, they fear letting it get under 150 miles before pulling into the gas station again. It's not as though there is not a gas station every few miles, but it is the mind being a little paranoid. Maybe if one would turn off the Leaf GOM, people would drive with better peace of mind. :mrgreen:

 

[DanCar]

I assume "range extender" really means CO2 spewing gasoline engine? The LEAF isn't "perfect" with a gasoline engine, sorry.

Do you think trashing range extenders serves to increase or decrease CO2 emissions? They can be made equal to cars in terms of CO2 performance. If we make EVs more useful, by having range extended trailors available, then more people will buy them. The use of the trailor is only for the occasional long trip. People might starting buying electric SUVs with a 100 mile range, if it was easy to rent a range extender.

 

[knightmb]

Nissan sold us a 100-mile car goes 75 miles.

This is exactly why. Nissan's "100 mile" electric car gets 45 miles in normal winter conditions. I'm getting about 25 if I make frequent stops (heater is always running at maximum capacity since it never has a time to warm up and level off). I love my LEAF, but I hate the battery.

The devil is in the details. I can get 100 miles on my leaf but only in the most economical of circumstances of level driving, low speed, no AC/Heat, etc. If at least one person out there in the world can get 100 miles on a full charge, then that is the person they tote around. The guy that lives at the top of a winding, mountain road in the middle of winter that gets half the range, well of course they don't mention him. :shock:

 

[knightmb]

I assume "range extender" really means CO2 spewing gasoline engine? The LEAF isn't "perfect" with a gasoline engine, sorry.

Do you think trashing range extenders serves to increase or decrease CO2 emissions? They can be made equal to cars in terms of CO2 performance. If we make EVs more useful, by having range extended trailors available, then more people will buy them. The use of the trailor is only for the occasional long trip. People might starting buying electric SUVs with a 100 mile range, if it was easy to rent a range extender.

Given how much energy is wasted in an ICE vehicle, it would seem to be better use of gas to generate electricity to drive with than all the added complexity that goes into the ICE engine. Diesel powered trains don't drive from the diesel directly, the diesel is used to drive a generator for the electrical motors in the train. Why? Because it is more efficient to use the fuel to make electricity than drive the train directly. The same hundred year old concept would certainly make more sense for modern ICE vehicles or even a range extender for the Leaf. It is better than how things are being done currently. Unless a new generation of batteries comes to market with 3 times the capacity, that is the only good alternative at the moment.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Why would anyone need more than 64 MB of RAM ?

That would be 640KB ...

 

[eloder]

2 charge stops of over an hour each assuming that the battery was at 100% health and you could hit a SC station in the right locations

Tesla SC charges just under 180 miles in 20 minutes, and Teslas (along with most every other EV out there with proper temperature control, besides Leaf/iMIEV) do not suffer any substantial long-term battery degradation.

Part of the EV problem is that people just don't know EVs can do now. The capabilities from a Tesla will be affordable by the average middle class family within three years, while low-end daily commuter EVs are cheaper than hybrids on leases or when taking the federal credit into account.

 

[Deleted member 13843]

2 charge stops of over an hour each assuming that the battery was at 100% health and you could hit a SC station in the right locations

Tesla SC charges just under 180 miles in 20 minutes, and Teslas (along with most every other EV out there with proper temperature control, besides Leaf/iMIEV) do not suffer any substantial long-term battery degradation.

Part of the EV problem is that people just don't know EVs can do now. The capabilities from a Tesla will be affordable by the average middle class family within three years, while low-end daily commuter EVs are cheaper than hybrids on leases or when taking the federal credit into account.

Tesla's own site confirms that 170 miles can be done in 30 minutes. They also confirm that full charge takes 75 minutes. And not to push my point but looking at the numbers again it would take me 3 stops in a Model S85 at a SC station to make the trip, so now we're nearly at 4 hours of charging time alone. At that rate I could stop and fill my gas tank 40 times on the same trip and not be a second later than a Tesla. And just as an aside, there isn't a single SC station between me and my destination for the Dec 2013 trip I used as my model. In fact, looking at the map there isn't one at any of the destinations I'm considering going to in the next couple of years at all. (http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

And what Tesla might be able to do in three years makes no difference to the car buyer today. Elon has already pushed that date back once. And for today the reality is that unless you shell out more than the average family makes in about 16 months (pre-tax) you're not getting a Tesla.

And my understanding is that the range problem with cold weather in a Leaf isn't a long term problem and the range will mostly come back in warmer weather. Have I been lead astray on this or is this another attempt to defend Tesla? Now you have me wondering more about what I'm getting into here. Do other EVs also suffer the "If you want to make 90 miles on a charge you need to do 40 MPH" kind of problems? As I said, I did just shy of 900 miles in one day. Doing 40 MPH simply wasn't an option even if the might Tesla only needed three charges on the way.

I'm getting a sinking feeling that most EVers don't even know what EVs can (and can't) do at this point. It seems that the glories of the EV wunderkind known as Tesla doesn't even live up to the hype that we've been fed. I like to trust the people here but I'm really taken an aback by claims like these.

 

[finman100]

yep. best to give up and continue with gassers. seems there's no hope in sight. if the best and perfect is not here and now, forget about waiting.

It takes patience and a certain amount of...a sense of adventure. if you can't cut it, then get out of the way of those who want to. Which means of course keep pumping gas.

sorry, but it annoys the hell out of me when there are obvious choices for everyone out there. pick the right tool, with a bit of research! it's not hard. it's called the internet. don't worry if an ev isn't all it should be right now or even 10 years from now. Everyone still can choose gas. some will not. just saying.

Curt

 

[RonDawg]

I'm getting a sinking feeling that most EVers don't even know what EVs can (and can't) do at this point. It seems that the glories of the EV wunderkind known as Tesla doesn't even live up to the hype that we've been fed. I like to trust the people here but I'm really taken an aback by claims like these.

That's a huge stretch given that EVers are forced to know first-hand what their cars can and cannot do.

It IS possible to drive very long distances in a Leaf....our own Tony Williams has done so long before there was any sort of QC network. Whether or not you wait to take the time necessary to do so is of course a different story.

We all have to start somewhere. 100 years ago it would be unthinkable to travel cross-country in anything but a train, horse, or on foot simply because the technology and infrastructure to allow an ICEV to do so practically was not yet in place. Of course now a long distance road trip is quite common and nowadays it's technically possible fly cross country and back the same day.

 

[knightmb]

I'm getting a sinking feeling that most EVers don't even know what EVs can (and can't) do at this point. It seems that the glories of the EV wunderkind known as Tesla doesn't even live up to the hype that we've been fed. I like to trust the people here but I'm really taken an aback by claims like these.

I can't speak for all, but I think most do know what they can or can't do because physics won't allow otherwise. :lol:

The hype would be if a salesman told you the leaf could do 100 miles a charge in any condition, which would be flat out wrong. I've talked to a lot of sales people before buying my Leaf, did research online, read these forums end to end looking for every possible negative thing before considering buying one. I've only encountered hype from dealerships (well expected of course), but I know from research that the 100 mile claim is only under the most ideal circumstances possible. Much like the MPG stickers on ICE vehicles, it's all an average from ideal testing circumstances. With gas being cheap (well for now anyway) and stations everywhere, no one really nit-picks the MPG on their ICE vehicle, at least not here. :? You need a different forum if you want to hear all the complaints about ICE vehicles.

 

[BrockWI]

Curt I couldn't agree more.

Pick the right tool for the job. Yes if you have to drive what sounds like 600 miles regularly, then an EV would't be my first choice. Although I would hope I would never be in a situation where I have to regularly drive 600 miles in any vehicle. If you have to drive 600 miles once or twice a year, rent a car or if you have two vehicles and one is a gasser your all set. I for one am not willing to keep driving a 20 mpg vehicle as our primary vehicle for the twice a month trip we do need it, we now have three vehicles and we do exactly that, pick the correct vehicle for the task at hand. I can say we have moved more of our driving to electric than I thought we were going to and if it weren't for the lease mileage limit it would be even more.

 

[mbender]

Why would anyone need more than 64 MB of RAM ?

That would be 640KB ...

Off-topic, but just fyi: myth

 

[minispeed]

It seems to me a waste of money and rresources to dump huge dollars into a investment that wears out simply by sitting there. If you aren't using the high range capabilities every day, then why toss an extra 10 grand into your car for something that does nothing but add weight to your car for 95 percent of the time. The leaf's range right now is perfect. All they need to do is sell an optional detachable 20 hp range extender engine tank combo that drives one or both of the rear wheels at highway speeds. Be a lot cheaper and lighter than adding all those batteries. And it would help to heat the cabin.

I assume "range extender" really means CO2 spewing gasoline engine? The LEAF isn't "perfect" with a gasoline engine, sorry.

No BEV is perfect yet, and there's a long way to go until we get there. A range extender is the perfect bridge until when we get there. There's a lot of added advantage to range extenders in getting people on the BEV band wagon that can add up to decreased CO2 spewing. In 2 car households it may allow both cars to be plug ins and it may allow increased use of the electric car for trips that are just above the max range or just above the comfort level of the driver to choose to take the electric car. Just the other day I was driving to a Dr apt and they sent us for an ultrasound. We needed it same day so we had to go far and then had to stop and switch to the prius to make it. We would have gone 75-90% of that extra distance on electricity if we had a range extender.

For example most of us on this forum have not advised people with a long commute to buy a leaf if they can't charge at work, someone who drives 60 miles might not be able to live with a leaf. If they did 300 miles once a month they would need a second car or to buy something other than a leaf. If they bought a 2015 volt according to fueleconomy.gov they would burn 192 gal a year in gas vs a prius at 440. If a car got the range of a leaf with the gas fuel economy of a volt it would burn 56 a year. That's a lot less CO2 spewed.

Any battery capacity that you don't need to use at least once a month is in my opinion wasteful. There's no car out there, and the it doesn't look like one is coming that will do that 300 miles on all electricity. There's all the added CO2 of production of the physical batteries and transport.

 

[eloder]

Tesla's own site confirms that 170 miles can be done in 30 minutes. They also confirm that full charge takes 75 minutes. And not to push my point but looking at the numbers again it would take me 3 stops in a Model S85 at a SC station to make the trip, so now we're nearly at 4 hours of charging time alone. At that rate I could stop and fill my gas tank 40 times on the same trip and not be a second later than a Tesla. And just as an aside, there isn't a single SC station between me and my destination for the Dec 2013 trip I used as my model. In fact, looking at the map there isn't one at any of the destinations I'm considering going to in the next couple of years at all. (http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

170 miles in 30 minutes is still a far cry from an hour of charging every 60 minutes of driving like people often suggest.

And what Tesla might be able to do in three years makes no difference to the car buyer today. Elon has already pushed that date back once. And for today the reality is that unless you shell out more than the average family makes in about 16 months (pre-tax) you're not getting a Tesla.

Why is that a problem? The average car buyer today can lease an electric smart car for less than what most gas cars cost (even ignoring the savings from running the two vehicles) in order to handle some 80-90% of all daily commuting needs. A Leaf, similarly, is less expensive than most hybrids. Even many one-car families could become a two-car family with the right EV, when replacing a long enough commute. By the time that lease is up, a company definitely will have an affordable 200 mile range vehicle for the middle class.

And my understanding is that the range problem with cold weather in a Leaf isn't a long term problem and the range will mostly come back in warmer weather. Have I been lead astray on this or is this another attempt to defend Tesla? Now you have me wondering more about what I'm getting into here. Do other EVs also suffer the "If you want to make 90 miles on a charge you need to do 40 MPH" kind of problems? As I said, I did just shy of 900 miles in one day. Doing 40 MPH simply wasn't an option even if the might Tesla only needed three charges on the way.

I'm getting a sinking feeling that most EVers don't even know what EVs can (and can't) do at this point. It seems that the glories of the EV wunderkind known as Tesla doesn't even live up to the hype that we've been fed. I like to trust the people here but I'm really taken an aback by claims like these.

I was discussing the point that many Leaf owners make about how the range doesn't fully come back every summer. That particular problem doesn't exist in other EVs outside the MIEV and Leaf. It may not exist with the new Leaf battery chemistry, but that is highly doubtful as they don't provide active temperature control for excess heat.

(For your information, a lot of other non-Leaf, non-MIEV EVs suffer far less range degradation than the Leaf in cold weather. Many people report still hitting 70 city miles in 30-40 F degree weather on smart EVs, for example, and only see the sub-40 mile range when temps hit -10 F and below ignoring heater use).

 

[Deleted member 14724]

Why is that a problem? The average car buyer today can lease an electric smart car for less than what most gas cars cost (even ignoring the savings from running the two vehicles) in order to handle some 80-90% of all daily commuting needs. A Leaf, similarly, is less expensive than most hybrids. Even many one-car families could become a two-car family with the right EV, when replacing a long enough commute. By the time that lease is up, a company definitely will have an affordable 200 mile range vehicle for the middle class.

Yes, but what about those buying right now? People don't generally buy a car for 80-90%. They buy a new car for the 100%. Until an EV can satisfy the 100%, ordinary people will only choose them at a discount.

 

[Yogi62]

...For a driver with some inter-city ambitions:

You need access to a charging (supercharging?) network that is sufficiently built out that you can always find a charging station when you are between 20% and 40% charged, and then get back to 90% in a reasonable amount of time. 70 mile range doesn't cut it. 150 (actual) might. 2.5 hours of driving and 30 minutes of charging gets you there at about 50 mph average...

That might be the model for people using DCFC "quick charge" stations. But it works differently for Superchargers. Those charge more quickly up to about 50% SOC, from Tesla owner reports, so when doing long distance trips Tesla drivers try to get to the next station with a low SOC plus a buffer of perhaps 25 miles. A larger battery speeds things up by allowing more of the charging in the bottom 50% of the battery. Supercharger stations tend to be about 80 to 120 miles apart, depending on the terrain. The idea is to charge just enough to get to the next one, plus that buffer, and to monitor energy usage so that you can slow down a bit if you guessed wrong. It requires some planning at each stop for the next one (I would find that sort of thing fun and am looking forward to doing it someday).

That's why a 200 mile range is pretty much the minimum to make long distance Supercharger network trips practical: it allows for significantly faster charging and shorter stops because most of the charging is done in the lower half of the battery SOC. It is somewhat different from a typical QC pattern of trying to get 80% or so at each stop.

I mention this because a lot of people with QC experience don't seem to be familiar with Supercharger network strategies.

Thanks for the Supercharger charging strategy info. While the current network may be planned for cars with a real 200 mi range (60Kw and 85Kw), I really think that to make the Model 3 and other cars that might be in the 150 mile range feel "safe" to go intercity they need to double the network density, and cut the spacing in half. I haven't run the numbers, but I propose that doubling the number of charging stations (and adding that to the cost of the car) is cheaper than every car having twice as much battery.

Smaller charges more often and never being that far from a station would combat apprehension about refueling. After all that is part of the current gasoline appeal, "there is a station on every corner". (FYI, trying to find diesel in some areas at night in 2001 I got the same range anxiety feeling, it's not just for EVs!)

 

[knightmb]

Why is that a problem? The average car buyer today can lease an electric smart car for less than what most gas cars cost (even ignoring the savings from running the two vehicles) in order to handle some 80-90% of all daily commuting needs. A Leaf, similarly, is less expensive than most hybrids. Even many one-car families could become a two-car family with the right EV, when replacing a long enough commute. By the time that lease is up, a company definitely will have an affordable 200 mile range vehicle for the middle class.

Yes, but what about those buying right now? People don't generally buy a car for 80-90%. They buy a new car for the 100%. Until an EV can satisfy the 100%, ordinary people will only choose them at a discount.

People buy a car for 100% of what they need not 100% of what infinite possible uses the car can have. What good is an EV that only does 80 miles per charge is like asking what good is an ICE that only has 80 miles of gas left in the tank. They both do the same thing, except one has stations every where and other may not. Where I live, there are over +100 charging stations in just a 50 mile radius, so an EV is very useful. The same logic can be used in Alaska where airplanes are more useful than cars because cars can't fly. I can't speak for all EV owners, but I bought mine to use it like a car, not a toy. I don't worry that I can't drive to California on a whim, the same way I don't worry that I lack a private jet to fly to another country. People don't buy an EV either because it's unfamiliar to them with the needs and considerations or they did research for the area they live in just does not *yet* have good infrastructure support for the EV they want to drive. One could make the same statement about ICE vehicles in the Antarctic Circle being impractical because they can't get 3,000 miles of travel on one tank of gas.

 

[Deleted member 14724]

People buy a car for 100% of what they need not 100% of what infinite possible uses the car can have. What good is an EV that only does 80 miles per charge is like asking what good is an ICE that only has 80 miles of gas left in the tank. They both do the same thing, except one has stations every where and other may not. Where I live, there are over +100 charging stations in just a 50 mile radius, so an EV is very useful. The same logic can be used in Alaska where airplanes are more useful than cars because cars can't fly. I can't speak for all EV owners, but I bought mine to use it like a car, not a toy. I don't worry that I can't drive to California on a whim, the same way I don't worry that I lack a private jet to fly to another country. People don't buy an EV either because it's unfamiliar to them with the needs and considerations or they did research for the area they live in just does not *yet* have good infrastructure support for the EV they want to drive. One could make the same statement about ICE vehicles in the Antarctic Circle being impractical because they can't get 3,000 miles of travel on one tank of gas.

No argument. 100% of what they need. A lot of people need to take 3-4 road trips a year. A lot of people need to occasionally drive 80 miles around a metropolitan area in a day during the winter. Certainly, I've had plenty of days where I unexpectedly needed to drive around a lot, especially with a family. Wife got stranded, buddy needs some help. Mother-in-law had to go to the hospital, etc. I think people will want that ability sufficiently that they will only give up that ability for a discount in price. The mass market does not buy cars based on operating expense. The upfront cost is a bigger deal. Nobody worries about the infinite possibilities of a vehicle, correct. But for *driving to a place*, no ICE is a pronounced disadvantage to another. If the question is "can you drive over here, do these things, and drive back," then the only new car which might provide a "no" answer is an EV. This is a market disadvantage. Are there other advantages of EVs? Of course. That's why I have one. But I would not, in good conscious, recommend that a young family with a limited budget in Atlanta buy it or any other EV as their only car. In fact, I'd literally recommend any ICE they could afford over the Leaf in that situation. And until that statement is no longer true, I don't see EVs being mass market vehicles. In a mature market like the car market, unlimited range within the fuel budget is the norm. Anything outside of that norm is going to be a niche player.