GRA wrote:But you don't have 200+ miles of range if you make the shortest possible stop at an SC, do you? Even if you stay for 1/2 hour and charge to 80%, you've got to subtract your reserve from that as well as allowances for conditions etc. I repeat, I don't want anyone to suffer from range anxiety. With a 10% reserve and starting at 80% that 200 mile car is down to 140 before any other allowances. Putting SCs in the gateways eliminates any worries about being able to get where you want to go, how you want to go, including all driving around inside the park, and also minimizes time inconvenience.
80%? Where are you coming up with these numbers? If I need more, I charge more — it's not a big deal. If I need to drive down to 5% I do that (5% is a lot of miles by my 2012 LEAF standards!). You are making artificial limitations that have no basis in the reality of a typical Tesla driver. Tesla provides the tools needed to forecast the energy needed to make a particular trip and then gives real time
information about the remaining energy expected at the destination — it is a spectacularly powerful tool and very
easy to use. It makes trips quite easy. You are creating "range anxiety" where none exists. It just doesn't work like that.
The point is to minimize inconvenience and maximize flexibility, so that people are free to use as much or as little of their SoC range as they wish. Jeff Dahn has recommended that for best longevity a Tesla's SoC range should be limited to 30-70% for routine use. Some people won't care, and will use 10-100% as a matter of course, others will wish to adhere to Dahn's limits whenever they don't have to exceed them
to get where they're going, and others will be somewhere in between. Now, we both agree that the majority of traffic entering the park will be through Estes Park, and much of it undoubtedly will be regional from the Denver - Ft. Collins area. No one's going to stop in Loveland or Boulder to chargeon the way up because they're simply too close, but Estes Park is far enough away with enough of an altitude gain to make it a reasonable stopping place for a short charge, whether outgoing or return.
dgpcolorado wrote:Last November I needed to make trip legs of 180 miles — Farmington to Albuquerque — in my car with about 186 "rated miles" of total range at a full charge. I Supercharged to 97% and made it in both directions without difficulty, mostly driving at or just below the speed limit, but adjusting as needed. It is old hat for me in my unusually short range Tesla. In the newer, longer range cars, including the coming Model 3SR, a trip like that would be trivial. You really need to take a road trip in a Tesla to see how the nav and energy tools really work.
That you had to do that just demonstrates that the leg needs to be shortened by increasing SC density. The fact that you can push the car that far doesn't mean that it's a good idea, or that everyone is willing to make the compromises that you are. Adding density improves capacity, flexibility and convenience, and as BEVs currently lack both range and 'refueling' speed compared to ICEs, they need to add density.
Here's the thing: can you give a good reason why you wouldn't
want an SC in the places I've indicated, in addition to Boulder and Loveland? IMO, SCs (and QCs generally) have a prima facie case to be located at any town at/near a junction of two or more interstates, U.S. and/or primary/through state highways, and which contain a gas station and restaurant or else two restaurants within walking distance of each other, unless there's a very good reason not to, as well as gateways to recreational attractions. This is obviously an end goal, but it accurately reflects how gas stations are deployed, and why would we want BEVs to offer fewer and less convenient 'refueling' options than ICEs, when they're already less convenient for road trips? Priority certainly needs to go to those locations which expand coverage into new areas and/or which will see the most traffic; Granby is the former type, and Estes Park the latter. Both are way stations rather than destinations (which Steamboat Springs is, and IMO L2s are more appropriate there), and people who are just transiting tend to spend as little time in way stations as possible, so let's enable that.
I'm well aware that Trail Ridge is closed in winter. After all, so's U.S. 34 east of the park. I've driven Trail Ridge in early summer in a thunderstorm and gotten rained/hailed and possibly (I forget now, I think it might have been a day or two later when we hiked up a peak) snowed on at the summit, while carrying 3 men and 1 woman plus a week's worth of gear. Both heat and defrost were in use most of the way. And not all national park driving is at slow speeds (whatever the speed limit may be), although the altitude certainly helps. You should see people bombing through Yosemite on 120 (done it myself on occasion when I was just passing through, late at night when there's no traffic, and definitely not during deer season) - it's 54.2 miles and about 5,000 feet of climb from the west to east entrances on 120, the speed limit's a max of 45 with zones of 35 and 25, and yet times under an hour are typical. Even with non-through traffic, people speed; 50-55 is common, except where the road won't allow it or in areas with lots of people. Now, you could say running out of energy is a good reason for people not to speed and I agree, but barring a major change in human attitudes that's unlikely to be acceptable to large numbers of people.
Even 50-55 mph is a slow speed by road trip standards. At that speed a Tesla gets substantially better
than rated mileage. That was the point I was trying to make. The slower you go, the farther you can go on a charge. Driving in the mountains off of the Interstates usually involves slower speeds that dramatically increase range over the rated miles "par." Throw in the bonus of reduced drag from high altitude and noodling around a place like Rocky Mountain National Park (or anywhere else here in the Rockies) is really quite easy.
Sure, going slower reduces energy use and climbing thousands of feet increases it, while altitude lowers drag. Those factors aren't in dispute. I am being accused of basing my comments on an artificial conditions, but I've used EVtripplanner to run the numbers for S60s through Yosemite from Groveland to Tuolumne Meadows, Tioga Pass, Lee Vining and Mammoth Lakes and back in all likely conditions with a variety of loads. It can be done, but especially for the longer trips it's pushing it in some conditions, especially if you do any driving around in the local area. abasile, who like you owns a used Model S and has driven it through Yosemite on 120, has indicated a desire/need for in-park charging in Yosemite, and while I'm okay with that if it's absolutely essential, the Park Service would prefer to avoid that, and I'm in ideological agreement with them. Gateway SCs eliminate the need for in-park L2s.
Again, why should you be forced to push if there's no need? What is in dispute is the rationale for SCs - are they to be so spaced so that people must navigate from one to the next by flight planning, or do we want them spaced so that the average person, who simply doesn't have to bother with that in an ICE, can just get in their BEV and drive, knowing that the refueling infrastructure will be there regardless of how their plans or conditions may change? If BEVs are to become mainstream, it must be the latter