Evoforce
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Feb 2015
Location: Fountain Hills Arizona

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:55 pm

GRA wrote:
Evoforce wrote:Since we are referring to charging a Tesla, Superchargers and home charging are not the only ways to charge. Level 2 are at most campgrounds and there are many other 240 volt outlets saturating this country. In addition to this, we can also charge by chademo with the correct adapter.

I have to agree with those who say that most Tesla drivers use their Tesla's instead of using ICE for road trips. I myself, take many adapters but rarely have to use any of them.

No, L2 aren't at most campgrounds in National Parks and Forests let alone at trailheads, and at least in the parks there's usually no electricity and no desire to install any electrical service at them - quite the opposite. RV campgrounds, yes, but then the active outdoors demographic has absolutely no desire to spend time in RV campgrounds where the main point seems to be to bring your existing home with all its appurtenances with you, not forgetting dirt bikes and ATVs. That is not a group that wants to get out of their powered vehicles.

I agree that it's likely the majority of Model S/X owners probably aren't members of the active outdoor demographic, just as surveys showed they're much less 'green' than was typical for early 'affordable' PEV buyers, but Model 3 and especially Model Y customers (if it ever comes out) will have a much higher representation in that demographic.


Having driven my Leafs and Tesla to areas where some people may have feared to tread, I think maybe you might be making the idea of charging seem a bit too difficult. While sometimes it can be a diversion from a direct path, it can be thought of as an adventure. Just like the adventure of when you are hiking/biking on a not so beaten path. While the charging adventure may not be desired by you, it can be just as fun with the adventurous mindset. Somewhat like the first gas cars going cross country or even a wagon train. Those things also presented some of the same type of challenges and as we know, many more...

Mind you, I do not know where you traverse, but I am sure that you have a much more intimate knowledge of the areas that you like to go. I cannot assume that you do have absolute ability to utilize any charging relatively nearby. Of course, having a long range BEV makes a world of difference.
*2011 Leaf 1 bought 2/28/15 @ 28,000ish mi 10 bar (8 bars @ 11/25/15 @ 37,453 ) (New lizard @ 39,275 mi @ 1/20/2016) Now 52,166 mi.
*Tesla Model S 61,000 mi
*2011 Leaf 2 bought 4/28/15 @ 24,000ish mi 12 bar (new lizard Dec. 2014 @ 22,273 mi) Now 35,485 mi

SageBrush
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:06 pm

Wannabe nature people take their cars to within a couple miles of their hikes.
The real deal are happy to leave the car at an RV campground to charge and then go hiking for a couple days ... or much longer.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 9206
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:49 pm

WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:Then it would seem reasonable to orient a company's actions to try and serve a population which is predisposed to ZEVs as early as possible, as the potential market still remains limited absent a stronger economic incentive to switch at this time.


Really.
What advantages do BEVs have now?
Economic? Without the subsities, there are currently a few people in the USA that could drive a BEV cheaper than a ICE. More in Canada with expensive gasoline.
Convienience? For a purely commuter car with the range of the BEV, it is a pure joy to never need to interrupt your day for a stop at a smelly gas station. Might pay more for the joy, but so?
Performance/luxury? The Model S. Duh.

For a car that drives to remote trailheads? A BEV is at a huge disadvantage. Ditto for cross the USA drivers, most people that live in remote places, and so on.

Why should companies ignore markets where they have a technical advantage to focus on segments where they are at a huge disadvantage?

So where is the second percent of plug-in buyers?

You've just repeated many of the points I've been making about BEVs for five years or more. As this topic has veered far off the subject, I'm just going to concentrate on the fourth point, the (lack of) suitability of BEVs in remote areas/long drives. Compared to a car running on liquid fuels, a BEV is an inferior option for longer road trips given their respective current capabilities. However, for road trips that involve no more than a single enroute QC/SC, i.e. the typical weekend trip, the additional stop time enroute is rarely significant and can be combined with a meal, which is why IIRR five years ago I was opining in the Tesla Supercharger thread that they should be concentrating on building SCs that would enable weekend trips from major urban areas to common weekend recreation spots rather than rarely taken cross-country trips on the interstates. You'll note that all of the major N.P.'s I mentioned earlier (I should include Rocky Mountain N.P. in that list - been there too) are within one SC charging stop range of a major metro area, at least in big battery Teslas - small battery cars might need a second for some of them.

But even if they can get there, SCs are still needed in gateway towns to enable BEVs to move around inside the parks, reach unimproved trailheads/campgrounds and return, as charging inside the parks is either extremely limited or non-existent, and building the infrastructure that would enable inside the park charging is not desired by NPS. Back in 2015, I sent Tesla a list of suggested locations for gateway SCs, in hopes that they'd make a special effort to enable convenient travel from nearby metro areas to the major parks for the NPS centenary (2016). Sadly, the only one of those I suggested that they actually completed in time for the 2016 vacation season was West Yellowstone; Jackson, those serving Yosemite and others all finished after the summer was over. Which reminds me, I should send them another such email to nag them - people have been waiting on an SC in Kayenta for two years now.

So, while BEVs are still too short-ranged and take too long to charge on multi-day road trips for anyone whose free time is constrained, which is to say almost anyone who isn't retired, they can be suitable for the far more common weekend trips to such recreation areas, requiring a far smaller number of SCs to be built than is required to span the country via multiple routes, and which will serve another small but ideologically motivated group of buyers who are waiting for the opportunity to go emission free not just during their recreation activities, but while traveling to and from them. Until the infrastructure provides far more complete and dense coverage than it does now, the longer time-constrained trips will remain the domain of ICEs, HEVs and PHEVs, owned or rented, but that's okay. Some (including me) decided some time back that we'd put off those longer trips until we could do them in a ZEV, but until we can do them so we still need to reach our 'local' wilderness areas, and we dislike having to burn fossil fuels to do so when they are (would be) doable in a ZEV, IF the infrastructure was there and the car was otherwise suitable. I believe that this cohort can make up a substantial part of the next 1%, and heaven knows we're motivated.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9206
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:06 pm

Evoforce wrote:
GRA wrote:
Evoforce wrote:Since we are referring to charging a Tesla, Superchargers and home charging are not the only ways to charge. Level 2 are at most campgrounds and there are many other 240 volt outlets saturating this country. In addition to this, we can also charge by chademo with the correct adapter.

I have to agree with those who say that most Tesla drivers use their Tesla's instead of using ICE for road trips. I myself, take many adapters but rarely have to use any of them.

No, L2 aren't at most campgrounds in National Parks and Forests let alone at trailheads, and at least in the parks there's usually no electricity and no desire to install any electrical service at them - quite the opposite. RV campgrounds, yes, but then the active outdoors demographic has absolutely no desire to spend time in RV campgrounds where the main point seems to be to bring your existing home with all its appurtenances with you, not forgetting dirt bikes and ATVs. That is not a group that wants to get out of their powered vehicles.

I agree that it's likely the majority of Model S/X owners probably aren't members of the active outdoor demographic, just as surveys showed they're much less 'green' than was typical for early 'affordable' PEV buyers, but Model 3 and especially Model Y customers (if it ever comes out) will have a much higher representation in that demographic.

Having driven my Leafs and Tesla to areas where some people may have feared to tread, I think maybe you might be making the idea of charging seem a bit too difficult. While sometimes it can be a diversion from a direct path, it can be thought of as an adventure. Just like the adventure of when you are hiking/biking on a not so beaten path. While the charging adventure may not be desired by you, it can be just as fun with the adventurous mindset. Somewhat like the first gas cars going cross country or even a wagon train. Those things also presented some of the same type of challenges and as we know, many more...

Mind you, I do not know where you traverse, but I am sure that you have a much more intimate knowledge of the areas that you like to go. I cannot assume that you do have absolute ability to utilize any charging relatively nearby. Of course, having a long range BEV makes a world of difference.

You might want to check out the "Expanding EV charging in Yosemite" thread here, to get some idea of what I'm talking about, and how much effort I've put in to survey the charging options and opportunities in my 'local' N.P. alone: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=22595&hilit=yosemite+charging I haven't been able to devote anywhere near as much attention to charging at other locations for time-distance reasons, but you can be sure that wherever I've gone into the backcountry for the past 5 years or so, I've made an effort to check out the electric infrastructure and charging options. Trust me when I say that for backcountry users who drive direct to trailheads as well as the people who like to camp in unimproved campgrounds, destination charging opportunities are basically non-existent, as they should be, in N.P.s/N.F.s. What's needed to serve these people are enroute QCs in gateway communities.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9206
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:25 pm

SageBrush wrote:Wannabe nature people take their cars to within a couple miles of their hikes.
The real deal are happy to leave the car at an RV campground to charge and then go hiking for a couple days ... or much longer.

That assumes that improved RV campgrounds are

1. Located anywhere near the trailheads you want.

2. Accept non-RVs

3. Have space during the high season.

Re #1, rarely; #2, varies, and #3, almost never. I can't remember if I described one such RV campground on the east side of the Sierra (Silver Lake RV resort and Campground on the June Lake Loop, located adjacent to the trailhead I was planning to hike) that I examined which actually met the first two requirements, but as for #3, it was fully occupied well into September when I was there. I'd also talked to the owner of the RV campground in Lee Vining (10-12 miles and several thousand feet of climb by road from the trailheads of interest), and according to her the park was completely booked for the summer season months in advance with long term stay RVs, so although they had no objection to parking a car there if I was willing to pay the full fee, as a practical matter it wasn't suitable for a short-notice weekend getaway.

Unimproved (no hookups) RV campgrounds may be closer to trailheads, but in my limited experience (I can't get away fast enough) they're also populated by kids and adults riding motorcycles and ATVs during the day, and blaring their TVs and stereos at night while lighting up the area as if it were downtown Vegas. In any case, as a backpacker/X-C skier I rarely camp in official campgrounds, improved or otherwise; I just walk into the woods and put down a groundcloth/pad/sleeping bag, or else sleep in my car after driving direct to the trailhead if I need the earliest possible start, then head out on foot first thing in the morning.

I think the last official campground I spent a night in was the free one at Walker Lake Trailhead, which consisted of about 1/2 dozen sites each 'improved' by a table, flattened tent spot and a bear box, plus the luxury of a pit toilet about a 50 yard walk out to the parking lot. There was no electrical infrastructure, naturally, and I was the only person staying there that night. Up at first light, day hiked up Bloody Canyon to Mono Pass and back, then headed off to a different trailhead for that night and hike that trail the following day. If I'd been backpacking instead of day hiking it would have been the same without the move - either way, no charging was possible where I parked the car or within miles.
Last edited by GRA on Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:41 am

GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:For a car that drives to remote trailheads? A BEV is at a huge disadvantage. Ditto for cross the USA drivers, most people that live in remote places, and so on.

Why should companies ignore markets where they have a technical advantage to focus on segments where they are at a huge disadvantage?

So where is the second percent of plug-in buyers?

You've just repeated many of the points I've been making about BEVs for five years or more. As this topic has veered far off the subject, I'm just going to concentrate on the fourth point, the (lack of) suitability of BEVs in remote areas/long drives.


Of course. And the answer is hydrogen, right? :roll: Even though it is far more expensive, less convenient, and so forth. Sigh. :(

The second 1% is not likely to come because of new DCQC/SC stations near weekend recreation spots. Destination chargers at expensive resorts, perhaps. Mostly likely, the second 1% will come from existing markets: continued expansion into the performance/luxury space such as the Porsche Mission E; continued expansion into the commuting market due to convenience needing almost no public charging; continued expansion into the cheap transportation segment due to increasing numbers of used EVs and likely rising gasoline prices again. The cheap transport segment is more likely to gain from utility controlled home charging.

Compared to a car running on liquid fuels and/or hydrogen, a BEV is an superior option for commuting and shorter around town trips given their respective current capabilities. The convenience of a charged car every morning needs to be experienced to understand the joy of never needed to stop at a gasoline station ever again... unless to buy a snack or use the washroom. To get to the next doubling of market share for commuting cars, increasing range and reducing cost are probably both important. Eventually, the problem of charging for those without owned garages or parking spots will need to be addressed. Not a problem for 2%, or 4%, or 8% and probably not a real issue to get to 16%. Beyond that, however, it will be.

Remember, I'm interested in only the next doubling of market share.

GRA wrote:I believe that this cohort can make up a substantial part of the next 1%, and heaven knows we're motivated.


I doubt it. Until you buy a BEV, that is. As I pointed out, your use model is at severe cost disadvantage. Compare with a commuter: you need multiple DCQC stations that are expensive, need maintenance, need redundancy vs the commuter's wall outlet or at worst a home L2 station; you need a long range expensive BEV vs a simple and cheap shorter range BEV that has enough range for the commute plus a reserve; you have little hope of spending less money relative to gasoline vs the commuter's near break even now and likely cheaper electric commute than with $4 gasoline. You also don't have home charging, right?
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

GRA
Posts: 9206
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:22 pm

WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:For a car that drives to remote trailheads? A BEV is at a huge disadvantage. Ditto for cross the USA drivers, most people that live in remote places, and so on.

Why should companies ignore markets where they have a technical advantage to focus on segments where they are at a huge disadvantage?

So where is the second percent of plug-in buyers?

You've just repeated many of the points I've been making about BEVs for five years or more. As this topic has veered far off the subject, I'm just going to concentrate on the fourth point, the (lack of) suitability of BEVs in remote areas/long drives.


Of course. And the answer is hydrogen, right? :roll: Even though it is far more expensive, less convenient, and so forth. Sigh. :(

No, a possible answer is H2, if they can work out all the cost issues that will prevent that from happening, a caveat I've been stating for years now as you should know. As I've also been pointing out, the convenience of the central point refueling system has proven adequate for the public for a century now, given the other advantages that accrue. But I've also said that for those who could benefit from it, a PHFCEV is the best of both worlds (assuming the cost issues are solved as above): the convenience of home charging for routine use, and the convenience of long (esp. winter) range/fast refueling for road trips. I do see a lot of BEV growth potential in the near mid-term with shared AV BEVs. GM obviously saw this as a large potential market for the Bolt and has acted accordingly, e.g.
GM Commits $100 Million To Produce Autonomous Chevy Bolts
https://insideevs.com/gm-commits-100-million-to-produce-autonomous-chevy-bolts/. Whether shared AV BEVs for urban use need to have that much range for the lowest TCO remains to be seen.

WetEV wrote:The second 1% is not likely to come because of new DC QC/SC stations near weekend recreation spots. Destination chargers at expensive resorts, perhaps.

Which will continue to limit BEV markets to those people who can afford to stay at those resorts. Put QCs at them or on the way, and just as with gas stations, the type of housing you occupy is irrelevant to the type of car that you drive, allowing more people to consider BEVs.

WetEV wrote:Mostly likely, the second 1% will come from existing markets: continued expansion into the performance/luxury space such as the Porsche Mission E; continued expansion into the commuting market due to convenience needing almost no public charging; continued expansion into the cheap transportation segment due to increasing numbers of used EVs and likely rising gasoline prices again. The cheap transport segment is more likely to gain from utility controlled home charging.

Sure, but again, why limit your market? Absent an economic or other incentive, it's already obvious that the general public simply doesn't care enough to switch, so why ignore those who do want to but can't for eminently solvable practical reasons?

WetEV wrote:Compared to a car running on liquid fuels and/or hydrogen, a BEV is an superior option for commuting and shorter around town trips given their respective current capabilities. The convenience of a charged car every morning needs to be experienced to understand the joy of never needed to stop at a gasoline station ever again... unless to buy a snack or use the washroom. To get to the next doubling of market share for commuting cars, increasing range and reducing cost are probably both important. Eventually, the problem of charging for those without owned garages or parking spots will need to be addressed. Not a problem for 2%, or 4%, or 8% and probably not a real issue to get to 16%. Beyond that, however, it will be.

Remember, I'm interested in only the next doubling of market share.[

Fair enough, we agree in general terms, just differ on the best pathway forward.

WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:I believe that this cohort can make up a substantial part of the next 1%, and heaven knows we're motivated.

I doubt it. Until you buy a BEV, that is. As I pointed out, your use model is at severe cost disadvantage. Compare with a commuter: you need multiple DCQC stations that are expensive, need maintenance, need redundancy vs the commuter's wall outlet or at worst a home L2 station; you need a long range expensive BEV vs a simple and cheap shorter range BEV that has enough range for the commute plus a reserve; you have little hope of spending less money relative to gasoline vs the commuter's near break even now and likely cheaper electric commute than with $4 gasoline. You also don't have home charging, right?

Right, which is why I see eVgo's price drop (and California's recent higher gas prices; avg. $3.505 in Ca. today. Maintain that level or above for 6 months and it will start to affect people's buying decisions again) as so significant for people like me, assuming eVgo can be profitable at those prices. Of course, they still need to build public L2 chargers closer than the 2.7 miles their nearest ones are to me, instead of the 0.4 mile distant Blinks, but I can dream.

Re longer range BEVs for my demographic, I have hopes for the Kia Niro/Hundai Kona depending on the price. They lack AWD which is a problem for winter enthusiasts like me, but have the range of the Bolt, are bigger (saw my first HEV Niro the other day) and should QC faster. Electrify America, the CEC and others need to build the necessary infrastructure (been scheduled for over a year now) to allow Bay Areans to get to Yosemite easily, and southern Californians to get to Mammoth and Vegas. As CA makes up something like 45% of the U.S. PEV market and we love small CUVs, all the above factors should boost BEV sales considerably.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Evoforce
Posts: 827
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Feb 2015
Location: Fountain Hills Arizona

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:46 pm

Still off posted subject but... I wouldn't pick KIA yet. The battery cooling system is not good for hot climates. They are having battery degradation issues with their current setup. Hyundai is going to suffer the same problem and has a similar setup. As far as your camping/hiking goes, maybe you could choose to try different remote areas that would be compatible for EV. You know, try a different mindset. If you are planning on being off the beaten path for days, that is when a 120 volt outlet, anywhere close to your starting point, really works well. Too bad you can't set up a solar trailer. I know, that can have its own set of problems including being stolen... and more expense...
*2011 Leaf 1 bought 2/28/15 @ 28,000ish mi 10 bar (8 bars @ 11/25/15 @ 37,453 ) (New lizard @ 39,275 mi @ 1/20/2016) Now 52,166 mi.
*Tesla Model S 61,000 mi
*2011 Leaf 2 bought 4/28/15 @ 24,000ish mi 12 bar (new lizard Dec. 2014 @ 22,273 mi) Now 35,485 mi

WetEV
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:23 am

GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:Of course. And the answer is hydrogen, right? :roll: Even though it is far more expensive, less convenient, and so forth. Sigh. :(

No, a possible answer is H2, if they can work out all the cost issues


If wishes are fishes we would all cast nets. Hydrogen is still less convenient even after the cost problem is solved, for most driving.
Hydrogen is a battery. An expensive, inconvenient and very inefficient battery. Unlikely to improve much, as hydrogen is already widely produced as an industrial gas.

Batteries have been improving at a rapid rate since the invention of the pocket calculator.


GRA wrote:the convenience of the central point refueling system has proven adequate for the public for a century now,


Shouldn't that be in inconvenience of a central point refueling system?

Gasoline is nasty stuff. Flammable, explosive and smelly. To avoid nastiness that near the home, an inconvenient central fueling system developed.

Before gasoline, horses were not centrally fueled.

After gasoline, BEVs will not be centrally fueled.

Unless there are strong reasons to centralize fueling, it is more convenient to fuel at home. This is just one of the many strikes against hydrogen.


GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:The second 1% is not likely to come because of new DC QC/SC stations near weekend recreation spots. Destination chargers at expensive resorts, perhaps.

Which will continue to limit BEV markets to those people who can afford to stay at those resorts. Put QCs at them or on the way, and just as with gas stations, the type of housing you occupy is irrelevant to the type of car that you drive, allowing more people to consider BEVs.


DCQCs are expensive and inconvenient and likely to stay that way. I'd glad to see Porsche acknowledge that by pricing DCQC at a more realistic level. Sure, the cost and price might be less than gasoline in the future. But will always be less convenient. Yes, DCQCs are needed for long distance travel. For huge numbers of people to consider BEVs long term, charging at parking garages, city streets, apartment parking lots and workplace is what is needed. The convenience factor is important. Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. Almost never need to bother with lines, waiting and expensive charging.

If you had practical experience driving a BEV for an extended period of time, a lot of this would be clear and we wouldn't keep hashing over it.


GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:Mostly likely, the second 1% will come from existing markets: continued expansion into the performance/luxury space such as the Porsche Mission E; continued expansion into the commuting market due to convenience needing almost no public charging; continued expansion into the cheap transportation segment due to increasing numbers of used EVs and likely rising gasoline prices again. The cheap transport segment is more likely to gain from utility controlled home charging.

Sure, but again, why limit your market?


Remember, I want the second 1% of market share? Again: Where are BEVs winning?

1) Performance/luxury. No subsidies needed. Win on power, smoothness, torque, low center of gravity and better design. Did I mention power and torque? That new Jag I-Pace is very pretty. It better be, Jaguar's future might just depend on it. Selling rocks in the iron age is a limited market. Buggy whips are not in much demand these days.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/287 ... ed-states/


2) Convenience. For the commuter car in a two or more car household. Subsidies can phase out. Win on Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. No oil changes. Far less maintenance needed. Almost never need to bother with lines.


3) Cost. Few yet. The low end of the market is going to see only a small number of BEVs. Might change with rising gas prices.


General public. Remember, I'm mostly interested in the next 1%. The time for the general public will come, but is likely a decade or more in the future. It is really too early for the general public to care.

GRA wrote:but can't for eminently solvable practical reasons?


Make my day. Yet I doubt it. My problem is that you don't really understand the real attractions of BEVs, as you are not a long term driver of one.


GRA wrote:
WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:I believe that this cohort can make up a substantial part of the next 1%, and heaven knows we're motivated.

I doubt it. Until you buy a BEV, that is. As I pointed out, your use model is at severe cost disadvantage. Compare with a commuter: you need multiple DCQC stations that are expensive, need maintenance, need redundancy vs the commuter's wall outlet or at worst a home L2 station; you need a long range expensive BEV vs a simple and cheap shorter range BEV that has enough range for the commute plus a reserve; you have little hope of spending less money relative to gasoline vs the commuter's near break even now and likely cheaper electric commute than with $4 gasoline. You also don't have home charging, right?

Right, which is why I see eVgo's price drop (and California's recent higher gas prices; avg. $3.505 in Ca. today. Maintain that level or above for 6 months and it will start to affect people's buying decisions again) as so significant for people like me, assuming eVgo can be profitable at those prices. Of course, they still need to build public L2 chargers closer than the 2.7 miles their nearest ones are to me, instead of the 0.4 mile distant Blinks, but I can dream.

Re longer range BEVs for my demographic, I have hopes for the Kia Niro/Hundai Kona depending on the price. They lack AWD which is a problem for winter enthusiasts like me, but have the range of the Bolt, are bigger (saw my first HEV Niro the other day) and should QC faster. Electrify America, the CEC and others need to build the necessary infrastructure (been scheduled for over a year now) to allow Bay Areans to get to Yosemite easily, and southern Californians to get to Mammoth and Vegas. As CA makes up something like 45% of the U.S. PEV market and we love small CUVs, all the above factors should boost BEV sales considerably.


You don't get it still. DCQCs are always going to be more expensive and more bother than home charging. DCQC doesn't integrate well into the electric grid. While DCQC is important for long distance travel, that will likely be the LAST market for BEVs to win in.

1) Performance/luxury. BEVs are winning.

2) Convenience. With home charging, BEVs are winning.

3) Cost. BEVs will win as the cost of batteries decrease. Might be a decade out, maybe less with gasoline price spike, maybe more.

Long distance travel isn't a big win for as far out as I can see. DCQC will likely always take more time than liquid refueling. Cost will be much higher than home recharging as DCQC isn't easy on the grid. Lines, crowding at peak days, etc. At best, might match liquids fuels for people not in a hurry. Maybe. Note, however, that this is the last 10% of driving, at most.

For this market, I'd bet on aluminum - air batteries. Or a liquid electrolyte battery. Or methanol produced from hydrogen. Or maybe even hydrogen.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

lorenfb
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: IEVS: PORSCHE SAYS NO TO FREE FAST CHARGING, COST CLOSE TO GASOLINE

Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:34 am

WetEV wrote:2) Convenience. For the commuter car in a two or more car household. Subsidies can phase out. Win on Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. No oil changes. Far less maintenance needed. Almost never need to bother with lines.
3) Cost. Few yet. The low end of the market is going to see only a small number of BEVs. Might change with rising gas prices.

General public. Remember, I'm mostly interested in the next 1%. The time for the general public will come, but is likely a decade or more in the future. It is really too early for the general public to care.

1) Performance/luxury. BEVs are winning.
2) Convenience. With home charging, BEVs are winning.
3) Cost. BEVs will win as the cost of batteries decrease. Might be a decade out, maybe less with gasoline price spike, maybe more.


Good summary.
Leaf SL MY 9/13: 66K miles, 50 Ahrs, 5.2 miles/kWh (average), Hx=70, SOH=78, L2 charges to 100% > 1000, max battery temp < 95F (35C), min discharge point > 20 Ahrs

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”