# Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

### Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
I have a couple of about 1 mile drives in 70F weather on today's schedule. Doesn't seem hopeful for learning much about the black box called a GOM.

So on the first drive, I turned the climate control off just after starting the car. AC off, heater off, fan speed 3. GOM increased by 2 miles.

Turned back on, went down by 2 miles. Tried fan speed 1 and fan speed 6, didn't change GOM.

After 1 miles, turn off again. GOM increased by 1 mile. Turned back on, GOM decreased by 1 mile.
Same after 2 miles.
Second trip, 1 mile GOM delta at start, midpoint 1 mile GOM delta, end 1 mile GOM delta.

Fan shouldn't draw enough to matter. And why is the first off-on 2 miles?

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
No cigar. No even close. If parked, the GOM doesn't read zero, which it would if the calculation was instantaneous. Try again.

Experience is a good teacher. It is good you are getting a little.

I was trying to take the short approach, but if you insist that I spell it all out, the DTE is based on an instantaneous calc of past driving conditions plus current temps, the length of the past driving window varying from model to model. Since we both know this, how about we skip the kindergarten stuff?

As you insist on arguing every point, why not?

The GOM is a black box. You don't know exactly how the GOM works. I don't know exactly how the GOM in any car does the calculation. Oh, sure, there are guesses. But the actual computations are unknown.

So you rely on a black box that you don't understand to produce an answer. What could possibly go wrong?

Of course not, it's just data, but the only data anyone's provided so far.

WetEV said:
One thing about the GOM you don't know is how climate control usage is predicted. I don't either, but before declaring a result maybe more experiments might might give you fewer giggles when you try to teach long time EV drivers how EVs work.

As we both agree, neither of us know the details of the algorithm used. My declared 'result' is the change in the GoM reading of the Niro plus seeing similar (but not recording) changes in the other two cars, no more or less, and to me those changes seem to correlate well with the observed differences in energy usage of the Ioniq 5 vs. the EV6 (assuming similar accuracy of the SoC reading in the Ioniq 5 and EV6, which seems reasonable absent evidence to the contrary, as the cars are corporate siblings sharing the same battery packs and much else), in what I consider essentially the same real-world conditions. Naturally, the variability and margin is greater than would be the case with reproducible lab conditions, but I don't know anyone who drives a car in a lab. Does anyone think EPA ranges are exactly what they will get in the real-world? I care about real-world trips, and having done at least a hundred on this route, I know when conditions are or aren't 'essentially the same' for my purpose. I imagine you have similar real-world experience that allows you to judge when you're likely to see results well outside the range you'd normally expect.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
I've driven this route in four different BEVs and posted the results, so feel free to post some of your own on a standard route for you.

I have a couple of about 1 mile drives in 70F weather on today's schedule. Doesn't seem hopeful for learning much about the black box called a GOM.

Indeed.

GRA said:
Of course not, it's just data, but the only data anyone's provided so far.

No, not data, it is just a guess. Why do people call it a Guess-O-Meter, after all? Data requires measurements carefully made to avoid fooling yourself, always the easiest person to fool.

I rolled down the windows, which would have a larger impact on range at usual speeds than running the fan, and the GOM didn't change at all. Why not?

GRA said:
seem to correlate well with the observed differences in energy usage of the Ioniq 5 vs. the EV6 (assuming similar accuracy of the SoC reading in the Ioniq 5 and EV6, which seems reasonable absent evidence to the contrary, as the cars are corporate siblings sharing the same battery packs and much else), in what I consider essentially the same real-world conditions. Naturally, the variability and margin is greater than would be the case with reproducible lab conditions, but I don't know anyone who drives a car in a lab. Does anyone think EPA ranges are exactly what they will get in the real-world? I care about real-world trips, and having done at least a hundred on this route, I know when conditions are or aren't 'essentially the same' for my purpose. I imagine you have similar real-world experience that allows you to judge when you're likely to see results well outside the range you'd normally expect.

100 ICE trips don't teach much about EV driving.

If the variability is greater than the effect, the result might as well be a random number picked up off the street. The key factors to look at on a long trip are weather and speed. Wind, rain and snow can have huge effects on range. Likewise speed. Climate control is mostly a factor is short and/or lower speed trips. Drive an EV enough, you should understand. Experience can teach you, if you let it do so.

"Please don’t dominate the rap, Jack
If you’ve got nothing new to say"

WetEV said:
GRA said:
Of course not, it's just data, but the only data anyone's provided so far.

No, not data, it is just a guess. Why do people call it a Guess-O-Meter, after all?

Because the Leaf's DTM was notoriously inaccurate, owing to it being based on a short, immediately past time window. IIRR, when the Bolt was introduced it used a longer window, and people noticed it was more accurate for longer trips. The best DTM is obviously route-based, using something like ABRP. These trips didn't use any route info, so the question is how accurate or inaccurate is the DTM on these cars without such, and how accurately does it reflect the use of AC vs. fan-only. Was the effect of the small variability in real-world conditions so great that it alone was able to overwhelm the 21% greater efficiency (16% Hwy, both EPA lab tests) of the RWD EV6 compared to the AWD Ioniq 5, or was AC vs. fan the major contributor to the difference? My preliminary conclusion is that it almost certainly was.

WetEV said:
Data requires measurements carefully made to avoid fooling yourself, always the easiest person to fool.

I rolled down the windows, which would have a larger impact on range at usual speeds than running the fan, and the GOM didn't change at all. Why not?

Obviously, the algorithm in your car doesn't immediately detect whether the windows are down or not and factor that into its calculation. It obviously _does_ immediately detect whether you've got A/C on or just the fan, and factor that in. We've learned something about what conditions are and aren't immediately detectable by the algorithm, at least in your e-Tron and most likely in all these cars. Presumably the algorithm _would_ notice the extra energy use incurred by having the windows down over time, and incorporate that into its running range calculation.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
seem to correlate well with the observed differences in energy usage of the Ioniq 5 vs. the EV6 (assuming similar accuracy of the SoC reading in the Ioniq 5 and EV6, which seems reasonable absent evidence to the contrary, as the cars are corporate siblings sharing the same battery packs and much else), in what I consider essentially the same real-world conditions. Naturally, the variability and margin is greater than would be the case with reproducible lab conditions, but I don't know anyone who drives a car in a lab. Does anyone think EPA ranges are exactly what they will get in the real-world? I care about real-world trips, and having done at least a hundred on this route, I know when conditions are or aren't 'essentially the same' for my purpose. I imagine you have similar real-world experience that allows you to judge when you're likely to see results well outside the range you'd normally expect.

100 ICE trips don't teach much about EV driving.

To a point that's true, but they do teach about condition variability, i.e. the effects of terrain, winds, and temperature/density on range. I certainly don't expect the same range on this trip as I would tooling along I-5 in the central valley due solely to terrain, even if winds and temp/density were otherwise identical.

WetEV said:
If the variability is greater than the effect, the result might as well be a random number picked up off the street. The key factors to look at on a long trip are weather and speed. Wind, rain and snow can have huge effects on range. Likewise speed. Climate control is mostly a factor is short and/or lower speed trips. Drive an EV enough, you should understand. Experience can teach you, if you let it do so.

Uh huh, and so far the experience is indicating to me that the variability is so large that a large part of it is likely due to the effect of AC. Naturally, that's a preliminary conclusion based on limited data: two trips in essentially the same conditions in different cars with the same battery pack and the same (rear) motor, plus my experience of the effects of weather and driving conditions while driving this route numerous times in ICEs.

WetEV said:
"Please don’t dominate the rap, Jack
If you’ve got nothing new to say"

Right back at ya, and when can we expect you to provide some data of your own?

GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Of course not, it's just data, but the only data anyone's provided so far.
No, not data, it is just a guess. Why do people call it a Guess-O-Meter, after all?
Because the Leaf's DTM was notoriously inaccurate,

Any and every "DTM" (DTE?) is a GOM, for not one of them knows the future. What's the weather going to be like? What's traffic speeds going to be? How are your driving habits going to be today? Accidents? And so on. The GOM can't know any of these, accurately, and so must guess. Sure, there are better and worse GOMs, but they are all GOMs. Sure, route-based can be better, and could add in web based weather prediction, and so on. Still a GOM. Could be AI based, and observe your schedule and listen to your phone calls to guess at your mood, and thus how you might drive and to where. Still a guess. Still a GOM.

GRA said:
Was the effect of the small variability in real-world conditions so great that it alone was able to overwhelm the 21% greater efficiency (16% Hwy, both EPA lab tests) of the RWD EV6 compared to the AWD Ioniq 5, or was AC vs. fan the major contributor to the difference? My preliminary conclusion is that it almost certainly was.

You would get rather more respect if you bother to verify before writing. Run the test at least twice, and see if you get the same results. Make sure you are correct. Read some other opinions before writing your own. Listen when people disagree rather than just keep pushing the same point out over and over and over again.

Data requires measurements carefully made to avoid fooling yourself, always the easiest person to fool.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
I rolled down the windows, which would have a larger impact on range at usual speeds than running the fan, and the GOM didn't change at all. Why not?

Obviously, the algorithm in your car doesn't immediately detect whether the windows are down or not and factor that into its calculation. It obviously _does_ immediately detect whether you've got A/C on or just the fan, and factor that in.

Obviously. The fan isn't a major power draw, and should have far less than 1 mile impact on range. The windows should have a large impact on range, and are not considered. It's a GOM.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
100 ICE trips don't teach much about EV driving.
To a point that's true, but they do teach about condition variability, i.e. the effects of terrain, winds, and temperature/density on range.

Most ICEs didn't have a GOM. Even where they do, most drivers seem to ignore it. Even if observed, the energy use of an ICE isn't the same as an EV.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
If the variability is greater than the effect, the result might as well be a random number picked up off the street. The key factors to look at on a long trip are weather and speed. Wind, rain and snow can have huge effects on range. Likewise speed. Climate control is mostly a factor is short and/or lower speed trips. Drive an EV enough, you should understand. Experience can teach you, if you let it do so.

limited data: two trips in essentially the same conditions in different cars

Hmm. I commuted to work for years, in all weather, tried all sorts of climate control variations, in the same car, but somehow you learned more in two trips in two different cars. Simply Amazing.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
"Please don’t dominate the rap, Jack
If you’ve got nothing new to say"

Right back at ya, and when can we expect you to provide some data of your own?

How many people in this forum have taken three trips in an EV? Most don't seem to write as much as you.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
No, not data, it is just a guess. Why do people call it a Guess-O-Meter, after all?
Because the Leaf's DTM was notoriously inaccurate,

Any and every "DTM" (DTE?) is a GOM, for not one of them knows the future. What's the weather going to be like? What's traffic speeds going to be? How are your driving habits going to be today? Accidents? And so on. The GOM can't know any of these, accurately, and so must guess. Sure, there are better and worse GOMs, but they are all GOMs. Sure, route-based can be better, and could add in web based weather prediction, and so on. Still a GOM. Could be AI based, and observe your schedule and listen to your phone calls to guess at your mood, and thus how you might drive and to where. Still a guess. Still a GOM.

Yet some DTEs (DTM was a typo) are considerably more accurate that others. Some even take account of how you normally drive (aggressive/normal/eco). And some may be accurate enough in the real world, given its variability compared to a lab, as to no longer be GOMs for practical purposes. Personally, I'd consider that point to be +-5% accuracy, maybe as much +-10%. Or you can have something like the Bolt, which gives you high/median/low estimates, and you can pick the one that from experience best matches your driving in given conditions.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
Was the effect of the small variability in real-world conditions so great that it alone was able to overwhelm the 21% greater efficiency (16% Hwy, both EPA lab tests) of the RWD EV6 compared to the AWD Ioniq 5, or was AC vs. fan the major contributor to the difference? My preliminary conclusion is that it almost certainly was.

You would get rather more respect if you bother to verify before writing. Run the test at least twice, and see if you get the same results. Make sure you are correct. Read some other opinions before writing your own. Listen when people disagree rather than just keep pushing the same point out over and over and over again.

Looking to rent the EV6 again, if the weather doesn't change too much. It'll be cooler, but I intend to do the run without AC this time in any case to see if I get a significant range bump. The cooler temps usually mean the air's denser (assuming no radically different high or low pressure), so if anything the drag effect should be greater. Which leaves similar winds, and that's harder to find this time of year than a month ago. Then there's speed. But the ID.4 drive comes first, and then I'll see if I can squeeze another trip in with the EV6 before we get the first snow and they close the road for the season.

As to listening before pushing the same point over and over again, how about taking your own advice? Oh, and provide some data of your own.

WetEV said:
Data requires measurements carefully made to avoid fooling yourself, always the easiest person to fool.

Uh huh. How about providing some?

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
I rolled down the windows, which would have a larger impact on range at usual speeds than running the fan, and the GOM didn't change at all. Why not?

Obviously, the algorithm in your car doesn't immediately detect whether the windows are down or not and factor that into its calculation. It obviously _does_ immediately detect whether you've got A/C on or just the fan, and factor that in.

Obviously. The fan isn't a major power draw, and should have far less than 1 mile impact on range. The windows should have a large impact on range, and are not considered. It's a GOM.

Sure, the fans maybe 30W or so (found some data on an ID.4 forum). But while a GOM which doesn't detect whether or not the windows are open won't change the initial, instantaneous range estimate, it certainly will detect the greater energy use due to the extra drag of open windows as the trip continues, and can/should update the range estimate due to that effect. Which is totally different from the info available about AC energy draw, both initial and long-term. The question in that case is whether or not the DTE's initial range prediction when using AC is based on known AC energy use over time, or if it just works the same way as if the windows are open, i.e. based solely on actual usage as you go.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
100 ICE trips don't teach much about EV driving.
To a point that's true, but they do teach about condition variability, i.e. the effects of terrain, winds, and temperature/density on range.

Most ICEs didn't have a GOM. Even where they do, most drivers seem to ignore it. Even if observed, the energy use of an ICE isn't the same as an EV.

Certainly not identical, but that's not the same as saying that terrain, HVAC use,air density, winds etc. won't have the same type of effects; the magnitudes (for heat, say) may be very different. I've never had a GoM in any car I've owned, but I can tell you to an accuracy of 10% or better what kind of mileage I'll get in a variety of common conditions. Or uncommon, FTM. For example, the worst highway trip mileage I ever got in my Forester was while carrying three people and luggage in cool conditions, with intermittent heavy rain showers and strong, gusty headwinds - 26.5 mpg. And the best I've ever gotten was 32.0 mpg, cruising along very flat freeway at 70 (I-5 IIRR, I'd need to check), just me, calm, warm day, no AC. More typically I get 28-30 mpg (EPA HWY is 27), varying up or down due to terrain, winds, temp, speed and loads.

The furthest I ever drove before the low fuel light came on (supposedly 2.4 gal. remaining) was on the trip where I got 32 mpg - and was either 466 or 468 miles. I'm in bed so aren't going to go out to the car and look it up in the log book to refresh my memory, but it's one or the other. I've never been tempted nor have I needed to see just how much of that supposed 2.4 gallons is usable in varying conditions, given that I drive on roads with steep slopes so much, but I know when the light comes on I've got 30 miles reserve for sure, probably 50 and maybe 60 or even a bit more. Taking all the accumulated knowledge together, I know that unless conditions are extreme my no-worries range is at least 400 miles plus at least a 30 mile reserve, which provides me ample time between stops.

Given current BEVs' shorter range and greater variability due to HVAC use, speed, regen etc., the possible % range variation is wider. BEV range could vary more depending on terrain, but as I'm going to drive like myself not that much from trip to trip on the same or a similar route. unlike in an ICE, heavy, slow traffic including stop and go will affect the range favorably thanks to differences in max. efficiency speed plus regen, and there are some other notable differences, but it's certainly possible to know within reasonably tight parameters what your range will be and what will affect it. Naturally, the more experience you have with a given car the more accurate your knowledge will be.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
If the variability is greater than the effect, the result might as well be a random number picked up off the street. The key factors to look at on a long trip are weather and speed. Wind, rain and snow can have huge effects on range. Likewise speed. Climate control is mostly a factor is short and/or lower speed trips. Drive an EV enough, you should understand. Experience can teach you, if you let it do so.

limited data: two trips in essentially the same conditions in different cars

Hmm. I commuted to work for years, in all weather, tried all sorts of climate control variations, in the same car, but somehow you learned more in two trips in two different cars. Simply Amazing.

Four trips on this particular route (plus a hundred or so more in ICEs, and my own years of car commuting before I switched to a bike). Naturally, more trips and data gathered in BEVs will improve the accuracy. But please do provide us with some of your data from your experience.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
"Please don’t dominate the rap, Jack
If you’ve got nothing new to say"

Right back at ya, and when can we expect you to provide some data of your own?

How many people in this forum have taken three trips in an EV? Most don't seem to write as much as you.

Four on this route plus some shorter ones, but certainly not hundreds. But how much I choose to write is up to me, and how much you choose to write is up to you. And its then up to every individual to decide what they read, and how much value to place on it. And now, I'm done with this particular thread until such time as I've done another trip on this route and post the results. I look forward to you posting some data of your own.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
Any and every "DTM" (DTE?) is a GOM, for not one of them knows the future. What's the weather going to be like? Still a guess. Still a GOM.

Yet some DTEs (DTM was a typo) are considerably more accurate that others. Some even take account of how you normally drive (aggressive/normal/eco). And some may be accurate enough in the real world, given its variability compared to a lab, as to no longer be GOMs for practical purposes. Personally, I'd consider that point to be +-5% accuracy, maybe as much +-10%. Or you can have something like the Bolt, which gives you high/median/low estimates, and you can pick the one that from experience best matches your driving in given conditions.

Then you will never see a DTE that isn't a GOM.

I was taking a drive that I had taken many (20+) times before, about 75 miles. I usually arrived at home at about LBW (17%), often getting LBW going up the very last little hill on to my street, and even more amusingly getting LBW while driving into the garage. Never before or later had to stop for a charge on this route.

Ran into a thunderstorm this time. Energy use soared due to rain, wind, a bit of hail and standing water on road. I reached a decision point where I could turn and go miles out of my way and get a charge. I thought wasn't going to make it home. I turned and went to the charger. Got home later. LeafSpy log, analyzed later confirmed that I was not making it home without a charge stop, even if conditions moderated.

There isn't a "DTE" that could predict the exact path of a thunderstorm. So I think it clear that any and every "DTE" is a GOM, even by the +-10% standard you propose. Until one can predict every variation in weather.

You don't have much experience. Don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Was the effect of the small variability in real-world conditions so great that it alone was able to overwhelm the 21% greater efficiency (16% Hwy, both EPA lab tests) of the RWD EV6 compared to the AWD Ioniq 5, or was AC vs. fan the major contributor to the difference? My preliminary conclusion is that it almost certainly was.

You would get rather more respect if you bother to verify before writing. Run the test at least twice, and see if you get the same results. Make sure you are correct. Read some other opinions before writing your own. Listen when people disagree rather than just keep pushing the same point out over and over and over again.

and provide some data of your own.

Data is repeatable. Data needs thought and care. Data needs all even possible sources of variability at least recorded, and minimized to the extent possible. Stories accurately told are useful, but are not data.

Unrepeatable experiments produce unrepeatable data. You can publish unrepeatable data:

https://improbable.com/

I highly suggest the column on bedbugs.

GRA said:
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ornians-back-gasoline-car-ban-highly-partisan
A majority of Californians support the state's goal of banning sales of new internal-combustion vehicles by 2035, but opinions are highly partisan, according to a new poll conducted by UC Berkeley.

:roll:

A gas car ban in 2035 does nothing other than annoy people.

Doesn't grow the supply chain, which has often been the global limit for the past decade. Doesn't get more charging locations installed.

EVs are just better, for almost everyone, long term. Not even counting the cleaner air. Sure, a lot of infrastructure needs to be built ranging from DCFC locations to street side and apartment parking lot L2 or L1 charging. A better driving experience, less needed maintenance, more convenient as long as you can L2 or at least L1 charge in your usual parking spots (home or work). Oh, and cleaner air and less greenhouse gases.

Without any ban, EV (BEV + PHEV) sales are likely to double every roughly 2-3 years as they have in the past.

Yet look at the edge cases. Think about that. It is going to come down to use cases. The hard to reach corner of the market for EVs is those that don't care about quality of driving, need extreme range, and/or need remote fueling.

Norway, for example, EV marketshare has been stuck at about 90%. Who is still buying a new gas car in Norway?

The last 10% is going to be harder. The last 1% harder still. And that's not counting the oil guy that wants a gas car because anything EV will get him laughed at when he goes to the drilling rig.

Used gas cars are going be useful for decades later. For a car driven a thousand miles a year, buying a cheap but sound ICE is going to be cheaper... until there are no longer cheap but sound ICE cars left. Or you can't get parts to fix it, even at junk yards. Even still, there will be old cars driving in the 4th of July parade for very much longer, even if they need to buy a jug of Everclear to fuel them.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Any and every "DTM" (DTE?) is a GOM, for not one of them knows the future. What's the weather going to be like? Still a guess. Still a GOM.

Yet some DTEs (DTM was a typo) are considerably more accurate that others. Some even take account of how you normally drive (aggressive/normal/eco). And some may be accurate enough in the real world, given its variability compared to a lab, as to no longer be GOMs for practical purposes. Personally, I'd consider that point to be +-5% accuracy, maybe as much +-10%. Or you can have something like the Bolt, which gives you high/median/low estimates, and you can pick the one that from experience best matches your driving in given conditions.

Then you will never see a DTE that isn't a GOM.

I was taking a drive that I had taken many (20+) times before, about 75 miles. I usually arrived at home at about LBW (17%), often getting LBW going up the very last little hill on to my street, and even more amusingly getting LBW while driving into the garage. Never before or later had to stop for a charge on this route.

Ran into a thunderstorm this time. Energy use soared due to rain, wind, a bit of hail and standing water on road. I reached a decision point where I could turn and go miles out of my way and get a charge. I thought wasn't going to make it home. I turned and went to the charger. Got home later. LeafSpy log, analyzed later confirmed that I was not making it home without a charge stop, even if conditions moderated.

There isn't a "DTE" that could predict the exact path of a thunderstorm. So I think it clear that any and every "DTE" is a GOM, even by the +-10% standard you propose. Until one can predict every variation in weather.

You don't have much experience. Don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs.

A thunderstorm is well outside typical conditions in my book, falling towards extreme with the rapid changes in conditions likely, and so I'd allow for that based on my experience just as you did. Of course, any DTE will notice the extra energy use and re-calculate as it goes, but barring real-time weather radar and a pre-planned route, sure, it won't account for it in advance. So what? That's what reserves are for, to handle the outliers. We obviously disagree on where the dividing line is between a DTE and a GoM, so no point in beating that dead horse any more.

GRA said:
A thunderstorm is well outside typical conditions in my book, falling towards extreme with the rapid changes in conditions likely, and so I'd allow for that based on my experience just as you did. Of course, any DTE will notice the extra energy use and re-calculate as it goes, but barring real-time weather radar and a pre-planned route, sure, it won't account for it in advance. So what? That's what reserves are for, to handle the outliers. We obviously disagree on where the dividing line is between a DTE and a GoM, so no point in beating that dead horse any more.

A DTE is a GOM. By definition.

A "DTE" can not know the future. So any DTE needs to guess. No choice, guesses are needed. Weather, traffic, driver behavior, things that will be tied on the roof at the next stop. The DTE software can't know any of these.

GRA said:
Unfortunately PEVs sales price was an average of \$18k more than the average ICE in the U.S., \$66k vice \$48k, so unless/until manufacturers are forced to stop loading the cars up with extra cost options and supply issues ease, it'll be impossible to meet the goals. To bring that about, the first thing that needs to change is the max. price allowed to still qualify for subsidies; that needs to be reduced radically. We need more Bolts/Niros, fewer Tesla/Porsche/Audi/Mercedes/Genesis.

A classic remark: "the best solution to high oil prices is high oil prices." Far older than this source, but this is the oldest I could find with a web search:

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnnitm/date/2011-04-17/segment/01

Basic Supply and demand.

When the supply is less than demand, the price rises. Basic. When the price rise, marginal projects become profitable projects. Production expands as it is profitable. Expanding production will reduce prices. Oh, not right away, takes time. If the price of Lithium stayed as high as it is, extraction from ocean water is profitable. And that resource is enormous, compared with potential uses.

By imposing your social goals on economics, everything breaks.

Low priced EVs will not appeal at production cost today, so would need to be massively subsidized. High priced EVs do, so would need to be banned. All of this intervention will be massively unpopular.

GRA said:
^^^You're free to post a reply wherever you wish; I'll stay in this topic. Meanwhile, via CNN:
Chevrolet To Boost Bolt Production After Price Cuts Drive Demand
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/10/chevrolet-to-boost-bolt-production-after-price-cuts-drive-demand/

General Motors will ramp up production of the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV following strong sales of both models after their starting prices were slashed in June.

Off topic there, but never off topic here.

GRA said:
I have no idea if GM is making any money off the Bolt and EUV at the current prices (I suspect not), but clearly there's a market for BEV basic transportation; the Niro and Kona have also been selling well. So let's cut the price cap for a rebate for cars to say \$40k instead of \$60k, and the one for 'trucks' (which includes CUVs/SUVs) to say \$50k from \$80k, and see if the manufacturers start offering more BEVs without bundling them with all the extra-cost 'features': 12-way power leather seats, with massage! Power, hands-free liftgates! Panoramic glass roofs! Multi-color interior and exterior lighting!

They'll have to if they want to meet the sales mandates. A soft cap (every non-governmental fee \$1 over the cap subtracts \$1 from the rebate amount) would be okay, to give some option choice. Decrement the cap amount every year or two. Same for the income caps, so the money goes further and gets to the people who really need it.

Playing games with rebate rules isn't useful, just makes the rebate more complex. Your examples of the Bolt and Niro and Kona are more mid-priced than low priced.

To get most of the market, some EVs need to be selling for less than ICE. for example: the ICE Chevy Spark.

https://www.truecar.com/best-cars-trucks/cars/cheapest/

Currently about \$15,000. Of which the gas power train is about \$5000.

Suppose you could make an EV with \$50/kWh batteries, likely before 2030. Add modest electric motor, inverter and such, how cheap could it get? No power mirrors and other options, just like the Spark. Passive cooling to minimize cost, Rest of car can be simpler as no engine to work around. Likely would be thousands less than the ICE.

Sure, not performance. Long trips wouldn't be easy.... But a Spark isn't exactly a performance car, and any long trip in a Spark would be a bother, at best.

Assuming that home or workplace charging is available at a realistic cost, the running expenses will be much less. Put yourself in the place of a lower income new car buyer in 2035 or so...why would you not buy the EV?

The car companies have long known how to get people to spend: appeal to emotions. Are large pickups really necessary for suburbanites to commute? Many, if not most of the shiny pickups and luxury SUVs that dominate our roads cost way more than our Leaf.

The big price problem for EVs is, of course, the battery. Big companies don't like risk so they use what has been proven, lithium ion technology. They all want better, cheaper, lighter batteries but they want someone else to fund the R and D and prove that it works. So, for now we are stuck with lithium.

Toby said:
The big price problem for EVs is, of course, the battery. Big companies don't like risk so they use what has been proven, lithium ion technology. They all want better, cheaper, lighter batteries but they want someone else to fund the R and D and prove that it works. So, for now we are stuck with lithium.

Lithium is only part of any battery. Anode material shifting from carbon to silicon to lithium metal is likely over the next decade. Likewise new cathode materials and solid state dielectrics. Car makers are spending money on this, mostly be investing in battery startups.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
^^^You're free to post a reply wherever you wish; I'll stay in this topic. Meanwhile, via CNN:
Chevrolet To Boost Bolt Production After Price Cuts Drive Demand
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/10/chevrolet-to-boost-bolt-production-after-price-cuts-drive-demand/

General Motors will ramp up production of the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV following strong sales of both models after their starting prices were slashed in June.

Off topic there, but never off topic here.

Seeing as how I started that topic that's my call, not yours, but I'll play here for a bit.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
I have no idea if GM is making any money off the Bolt and EUV at the current prices (I suspect not), but clearly there's a market for BEV basic transportation; the Niro and Kona have also been selling well. So let's cut the price cap for a rebate for cars to say \$40k instead of \$60k, and the one for 'trucks' (which includes CUVs/SUVs) to say \$50k from \$80k, and see if the manufacturers start offering more BEVs without bundling them with all the extra-cost 'features': 12-way power leather seats, with massage! Power, hands-free liftgates! Panoramic glass roofs! Multi-color interior and exterior lighting!

They'll have to if they want to meet the sales mandates. A soft cap (every non-governmental fee \$1 over the cap subtracts \$1 from the rebate amount) would be okay, to give some option choice. Decrement the cap amount every year or two. Same for the income caps, so the money goes further and gets to the people who really need it.

Playing games with rebate rules isn't useful, just makes the rebate more complex. Your examples of the Bolt and Niro and Kona are more mid-priced than low priced.

To get most of the market, some EVs need to be selling for less than ICE. for example: the ICE Chevy Spark.

https://www.truecar.com/best-cars-trucks/cars/cheapest/

Currently about \$15,000. Of which the gas power train is about \$5000.

Suppose you could make an EV with \$50/kWh batteries, likely before 2030. Add modest electric motor, inverter and such, how cheap could it get? No power mirrors and other options, just like the Spark. Passive cooling to minimize cost, Rest of car can be simpler as no engine to work around. Likely would be thousands less than the ICE.

Sure, not performance. Long trips wouldn't be easy.... But a Spark isn't exactly a performance car, and any long trip in a Spark would be a bother, at best.

Assuming that home or workplace charging is available at a realistic cost, the running expenses will be much less. Put yourself in the place of a lower income new car buyer in 2035 or so...why would you not buy the EV?

You wouldn't buy such an EV for the same reason most people won't buy a car now that can't meet all of their needs, even though they rarely and often never use their full capabilities. They want the peace of mind knowing that if they need a car to do something, it can. That's especially important for those who can't afford to specialize, but need one car to do it all. If cheap specialty BEVs for routine use were really desired, the Smart ED would have sold like a Model 3.

Personally, if we're going to subsidize cars I'd prefer even lower caps than I mentioned above: either a Soft cap of \$30k or at most \$35k, or a hard one of say \$33 -\$37.5k, decrementing annually or bi-annually as before. Of course I've been saying that for years, yet we still are giving rebates to individuals making less than \$150k, when the U.S. median income this year is \$44,225. To me that's ridiculous and obscene. No one making \$150k is worrying about having a roof over their head or food on the table.

One thing California is doing right with our mandate is requiring battery packs to be warrantied both for more capacity retention and range for longer, so that BEVs will retain more usefulness for the used market. But as all current BEVs bar a model or two with astronomical prices still lack the practical range of inexpensive ICEs, those cars used still aren't going to be very desirable just because they must retain 80% of their inadequate capacity/range after 10, 12, or 15 years instead of 70% after 8.

Just came across this at Clean Technica - I could have written it: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/10/14/we-should-oppose-the-rise-of-the-80k-compliance-car/

FWIW, she's the same person who dumped ice on top of her pack thru the service plug hole in the hump.

https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=586171#p586171
https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=546024#p546024

^^^ And? She's concerned about battery lifetimes, and the cost of BEVs. Lots of people share those concerns, indeed they feature as some of the key roadblocks to general adoption of BEVs in survey after survey, along with range and charging time.