Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Wed May 22, 2019 11:46 pm

lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lpickup wrote:
Actually, it's more like "hockey stick" growth, but exponential will be a suitable proxy.

My crystal ball? Battery costs. Battery costs have been falling at a very consistent 19% per year, and is forecast to continue this trend. Maybe you have a reason to believe this will not be the case, but with all the research going on in the battery world, I don't really see an end to this trend in the next 5 years.

Now so far, the cost savings on the battery side have not transitioned directly to cost savings on the vehicle. This is because automakers have focused on adding larger format batteries to address a perceived range limitation. But there have been significant increases in range over the past 8 years, while keeping the price constant. I believe that once we hit an affordable 300 mile (maybe 350) EV, that there will be little reason to keep adding more battery, and instead we will see a shift towards making vehicles more affordable. And eventually there will be a crossover point where the unsubsidized cost of an EV will be less than an equivalent ICE.

And at that point, to the buying public, it simply won't matter whether it's an EV or an ICE. That's the problem I have with people that are saying this or that about "EV demand". Most people are sticker-price focused. They don't necessarily care what's under the hood. They only care about what the sticker says. And the day the sticker on an EV is less than the sticker on an ICE, they are going to get the EV. At this point it stops being a ramp and turns a sharp corner.

Yes, EVs have to become available in the form factors they want. And yes, there will need to be education of the masses about how and where to charge their cars. But the growing number of EV owners are going to be the teachers. And the more EVs that people see on the road, the more people are going to be willing to ask their friends, neighbors and co-workers about them.

If you think any part of this "crystal ball" is wrong, let me know, but you'll be disagreeing with the technology adoption curve that has been repeated throughout history, so it's a tough argument to make. About the only legitimate difference of opinion we can have is the timescale. Yes, with falling battery prices, the percentage of the cost of the battery to the vehicle becomes smaller, so the gains in vehicle price become less significant. But I don't think this is going to take more than another 4-5 years. We now have 3 mass produces vehicles with ranges over 300 miles, with several more knocking on the door at 250 (unfortunately in somewhat limited quantities). 2020 should be a big year in terms of new EV releases. Once we get those vehicles with 300 miles on the market, we can start the process of driving the costs down.
Since lorenfb's looking for a crystal ball, how about hard data? https://www.cncda.org/wp-content/upload ... -1Q-19.pdf

It kinda mimics Norway's EV adoption doesn't it?

Edit: The relevant graph is on page 2.
The overall numbers are shewed because of the M3. We'll have to wait for the Q2 M3 data. Until Tesla can repeat 2018 Q4 thru 2019,
most OEMs would rather error on conservative BEV build forecasts for 2020, e.g. marginal 2019 Bolt & Leaf numbers.
ha! So, because it's tesla, the datum doesn't count?!

Alright, then I'll share with everyone my favorite statistician (jhm), and his plug-in EV predictive envelope model (based on historical data): https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/3683239/

If you believe nothing else of his, pay attention to how his model was more accurate than BNEF's (Bloomberg NEF), which many in the oil industry rely on to make their production plans on:
" In April, 2018, BNEF forecast 2018 to come in at 1.56M or about 1.67% share. The actual was 2.018M or 2.12% share. Let's what my method would have predicted using just 2012 thru 2015 data (a sample size of just 3). My 2015 forecast of 2018 would have centered on 2.2% with a 90% predictive interval from 1.3% to 3.5%. Yeah, a lot of uncertainty, but nailed it. My 2016 forecast of 2018 centered on 1.8% ranging from 1.3% to 2.5%. This was a little more pessimistic, but less uncertain. Then the 2017 forecast of 2018 centered around 2.0% ranging from 1.7% to 2.4%. So the predictive envelope nicely closed in on the actual. Meanwhile, BNEF low forecast was ruled out of the predictive interval by the time it was made using 2017 as the last historical datum. Presumably, BNEF's forecast had that benefit of highly granular data, their proprietary data, and a multi-industry team of analysts. Surely with all that going for them, they should have been able to produce a forecast with much less uncertainty, but in fact a sample size of 5 historical observations could have alerted them to the possibility that their prediction was high improbably. "

RTFA, he writes well and should open many people's eyes on their short-sightedness.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

lorenfb
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 3:57 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Since lorenfb's looking for a crystal ball, how about hard data? https://www.cncda.org/wp-content/upload ... -1Q-19.pdf

It kinda mimics Norway's EV adoption doesn't it?

Edit: The relevant graph is on page 2.
The overall numbers are shewed because of the M3. We'll have to wait for the Q2 M3 data. Until Tesla can repeat 2018 Q4 thru 2019,
most OEMs would rather error on conservative BEV build forecasts for 2020, e.g. marginal 2019 Bolt & Leaf numbers.
ha! So, because it's tesla, the datum doesn't count?!

Alright, then I'll share with everyone my favorite statistician (jhm), and his plug-in EV predictive envelope model (based on historical data): https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/3683239/

If you believe nothing else of his, pay attention to how his model was more accurate than BNEF's (Bloomberg NEF), which many in the oil industry rely on to make their production plans on:
" In April, 2018, BNEF forecast 2018 to come in at 1.56M or about 1.67% share. The actual was 2.018M or 2.12% share. Let's what my method would have predicted using just 2012 thru 2015 data (a sample size of just 3). My 2015 forecast of 2018 would have centered on 2.2% with a 90% predictive interval from 1.3% to 3.5%. Yeah, a lot of uncertainty, but nailed it. My 2016 forecast of 2018 centered on 1.8% ranging from 1.3% to 2.5%. This was a little more pessimistic, but less uncertain. Then the 2017 forecast of 2018 centered around 2.0% ranging from 1.7% to 2.4%. So the predictive envelope nicely closed in on the actual. Meanwhile, BNEF low forecast was ruled out of the predictive interval by the time it was made using 2017 as the last historical datum. Presumably, BNEF's forecast had that benefit of highly granular data, their proprietary data, and a multi-industry team of analysts. Surely with all that going for them, they should have been able to produce a forecast with much less uncertainty, but in fact a sample size of 5 historical observations could have alerted them to the possibility that their prediction was high improbably. "

RTFA, he writes well and should open many people's eyes on their short-sightedness.
Just another forecast based on historical data, e.g. predicting the future S&P price for 2020 without regard to market forces such as
the outcome of the trade war with China. There's no discussion of key factors that will motivate/influence the consumer's preference
for EVs over ICEVs in the next 10 years. Again, the key point:
There was a need in the early 2000s in search of a product, i.e. a mobile device that could not only provide cell communications, but also
internet access, a camera, and music storage. The product that fulfilled that need was the iPhone. Presently, the EV is a product in search
of a need
. The majority of consumers presently don't perceive any great need that an EV can provide versus an ICEV. Given that, the sales
growth of EVs will not significantly displace sales of ICEVs in the near term.
Here in CA we wasted tax money developing a product in search of a need, a partial rail system from SoCal to NorCal.
#1 Leaf SL MY 9/13: 76K miles, 47 Ahrs, 5.0 miles/kWh (average), Hx=70, SOH=78, L2 - 100% > 1000, temp < 95F, (DOD) > 20 Ahrs
#2 Leaf SL MY 12/18: 10.3K miles, SOH 109Ahrs/115Ahrs, 5.2 miles/kWh (average), DOD > 20%, temp < 105F

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 7:32 am

lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
The overall numbers are shewed because of the M3. We'll have to wait for the Q2 M3 data. Until Tesla can repeat 2018 Q4 thru 2019,
most OEMs would rather error on conservative BEV build forecasts for 2020, e.g. marginal 2019 Bolt & Leaf numbers.
ha! So, because it's tesla, the datum doesn't count?!

Alright, then I'll share with everyone my favorite statistician (jhm), and his plug-in EV predictive envelope model (based on historical data): https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/3683239/

If you believe nothing else of his, pay attention to how his model was more accurate than BNEF's (Bloomberg NEF), which many in the oil industry rely on to make their production plans on:
" In April, 2018, BNEF forecast 2018 to come in at 1.56M or about 1.67% share. The actual was 2.018M or 2.12% share. Let's what my method would have predicted using just 2012 thru 2015 data (a sample size of just 3). My 2015 forecast of 2018 would have centered on 2.2% with a 90% predictive interval from 1.3% to 3.5%. Yeah, a lot of uncertainty, but nailed it. My 2016 forecast of 2018 centered on 1.8% ranging from 1.3% to 2.5%. This was a little more pessimistic, but less uncertain. Then the 2017 forecast of 2018 centered around 2.0% ranging from 1.7% to 2.4%. So the predictive envelope nicely closed in on the actual. Meanwhile, BNEF low forecast was ruled out of the predictive interval by the time it was made using 2017 as the last historical datum. Presumably, BNEF's forecast had that benefit of highly granular data, their proprietary data, and a multi-industry team of analysts. Surely with all that going for them, they should have been able to produce a forecast with much less uncertainty, but in fact a sample size of 5 historical observations could have alerted them to the possibility that their prediction was high improbably. "

RTFA, he writes well and should open many people's eyes on their short-sightedness.
Just another forecast based on historical data, e.g. predicting the future S&P price for 2020 without regard to market forces such as
the outcome of the trade war with China. There's no discussion of key factors that will motivate/influence the consumer's preference
for EVs over ICEVs in the next 10 years. Again, the key point:
There was a need in the early 2000s in search of a product, i.e. a mobile device that could not only provide cell communications, but also
internet access, a camera, and music storage. The product that fulfilled that need was the iPhone. Presently, the EV is a product in search
of a need
. The majority of consumers presently don't perceive any great need that an EV can provide versus an ICEV. Given that, the sales
growth of EVs will not significantly displace sales of ICEVs in the near term.
Here in CA we wasted tax money developing a product in search of a need, a partial rail system from SoCal to NorCal.
As I said, you need to RTFA. He addressed your "issue".
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

webb14leafs
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:43 am
Delivery Date: 27 Mar 2017

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 7:44 am

I think the argument is a bit backward.

There IS A NEED for an automobile that does not destroy the planet. The Chevy Bolt was not that automobile because it was a dumb idea. I always thought it was strange to tout long range on a car with no cargo space. What's the point of travelling far if you can't take anything with you? The Nissan Leaf also has range and battery issues that will be difficult for the carmaker to shake. Not to mention the fact that dealer sales people are absolute morons when it comes to EVs, and they tend to steer people away from them.

lorenfb
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 8:52 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
ha! So, because it's tesla, the datum doesn't count?!

Alright, then I'll share with everyone my favorite statistician (jhm), and his plug-in EV predictive envelope model (based on historical data): https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/3683239/

If you believe nothing else of his, pay attention to how his model was more accurate than BNEF's (Bloomberg NEF), which many in the oil industry rely on to make their production plans on:
" In April, 2018, BNEF forecast 2018 to come in at 1.56M or about 1.67% share. The actual was 2.018M or 2.12% share. Let's what my method would have predicted using just 2012 thru 2015 data (a sample size of just 3). My 2015 forecast of 2018 would have centered on 2.2% with a 90% predictive interval from 1.3% to 3.5%. Yeah, a lot of uncertainty, but nailed it. My 2016 forecast of 2018 centered on 1.8% ranging from 1.3% to 2.5%. This was a little more pessimistic, but less uncertain. Then the 2017 forecast of 2018 centered around 2.0% ranging from 1.7% to 2.4%. So the predictive envelope nicely closed in on the actual. Meanwhile, BNEF low forecast was ruled out of the predictive interval by the time it was made using 2017 as the last historical datum. Presumably, BNEF's forecast had that benefit of highly granular data, their proprietary data, and a multi-industry team of analysts. Surely with all that going for them, they should have been able to produce a forecast with much less uncertainty, but in fact a sample size of 5 historical observations could have alerted them to the possibility that their prediction was high improbably. "

RTFA, he writes well and should open many people's eyes on their short-sightedness.
Just another forecast based on historical data, e.g. predicting the future S&P price for 2020 without regard to market forces such as
the outcome of the trade war with China. There's no discussion of key factors that will motivate/influence the consumer's preference
for EVs over ICEVs in the next 10 years. Again, the key point:
There was a need in the early 2000s in search of a product, i.e. a mobile device that could not only provide cell communications, but also
internet access, a camera, and music storage. The product that fulfilled that need was the iPhone. Presently, the EV is a product in search
of a need
. The majority of consumers presently don't perceive any great need that an EV can provide versus an ICEV. Given that, the sales
growth of EVs will not significantly displace sales of ICEVs in the near term.
Here in CA we wasted tax money developing a product in search of a need, a partial rail system from SoCal to NorCal.
As I said, you need to RTFA. He addressed your "issue".
In an effort to make a simple, but compelling forecast of plug-in EV market share, I have boiled things down to a random walk on a logit scale. May sound complex, but it actually makes very few assumptions. I examine market share from 2012 to 2018, computing the annual increase in logit market share (log(S/(1-S)). So I've got now 6 data points. I compute the mean and sample standard deviations. I make the assumption that future logit differences have the same distribution as was operative in the past. Thus, the future is modeled as a random walk with a certain mean and standard deviation. I can than predict the mean and variance (inclusive of parametric uncertainty) of the logit random walk. From this I can convert back into the market share scale, tracing out the mean path and a 90% predictive envelope.
It's total hyperbole to the max. Anyone who has studied finance theory and Fourier Analysis as applied to a random walk time series data
has learned that the predictive ability using that data is basically zero, i.e. it's a random noise signal with a variance of zero. Technical Analysis
theory of the stock market has attempted to forecast the overall stock market and individual stock prices for decades and has failed.

Total naivete and laughable!
#1 Leaf SL MY 9/13: 76K miles, 47 Ahrs, 5.0 miles/kWh (average), Hx=70, SOH=78, L2 - 100% > 1000, temp < 95F, (DOD) > 20 Ahrs
#2 Leaf SL MY 12/18: 10.3K miles, SOH 109Ahrs/115Ahrs, 5.2 miles/kWh (average), DOD > 20%, temp < 105F

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 9:14 am

lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
Just another forecast based on historical data, e.g. predicting the future S&P price for 2020 without regard to market forces such as
the outcome of the trade war with China. There's no discussion of key factors that will motivate/influence the consumer's preference
for EVs over ICEVs in the next 10 years. Again, the key point:



Here in CA we wasted tax money developing a product in search of a need, a partial rail system from SoCal to NorCal.
As I said, you need to RTFA. He addressed your "issue".
In an effort to make a simple, but compelling forecast of plug-in EV market share, I have boiled things down to a random walk on a logit scale. May sound complex, but it actually makes very few assumptions. I examine market share from 2012 to 2018, computing the annual increase in logit market share (log(S/(1-S)). So I've got now 6 data points. I compute the mean and sample standard deviations. I make the assumption that future logit differences have the same distribution as was operative in the past. Thus, the future is modeled as a random walk with a certain mean and standard deviation. I can than predict the mean and variance (inclusive of parametric uncertainty) of the logit random walk. From this I can convert back into the market share scale, tracing out the mean path and a 90% predictive envelope.
It's total hyperbole to the max. Anyone who has studied finance theory and Fourier Analysis as applied to a random walk time series data
has learned that the predictive ability using that data is basically zero, i.e. it's a random noise signal with a variance of zero. Technical Analysis
theory of the stock market has attempted to forecast the overall stock market and individual stock prices for decades and has failed.

Total naivete and laughable!
He's a seasoned statistician, whose analysis (the ones that I haven't linked to) have been far more accurate than anything published out there. Anyway, I've provided the reference. You just chose to mock it.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

lorenfb
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 9:39 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
He's a seasoned statistician, whose analysis (the ones that I haven't linked to) have been far more accurate than anything published out there. Anyway, I've provided the reference. You just chose to mock it.
Do some reading yourself about random walk theory, and not focus on "He's a seasoned statistician".

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... lk-theory/
#1 Leaf SL MY 9/13: 76K miles, 47 Ahrs, 5.0 miles/kWh (average), Hx=70, SOH=78, L2 - 100% > 1000, temp < 95F, (DOD) > 20 Ahrs
#2 Leaf SL MY 12/18: 10.3K miles, SOH 109Ahrs/115Ahrs, 5.2 miles/kWh (average), DOD > 20%, temp < 105F

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 1:07 pm

lorenfb wrote:
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
He's a seasoned statistician, whose analysis (the ones that I haven't linked to) have been far more accurate than anything published out there. Anyway, I've provided the reference. You just chose to mock it.
Do some reading yourself about random walk theory, and not focus on "He's a seasoned statistician".

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... lk-theory/
You truly are in your own little world! Here's a better reference and far more relevant to my post about PEV adoption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

What the freak does the stock market have to do with exponential growth of BEV's, which is what you asked the data for?!
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

GRA
Posts: 11662
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 5:20 pm

webb14leafs wrote:
GRA wrote:
lpickup wrote: Actually, it's more like "hockey stick" growth, but exponential will be a suitable proxy.

My crystal ball? Battery costs. Battery costs have been falling at a very consistent 19% per year, and is forecast to continue this trend. Maybe you have a reason to believe this will not be the case, but with all the research going on in the battery world, I don't really see an end to this trend in the next 5 years.

Now so far, the cost savings on the battery side have not transitioned directly to cost savings on the vehicle. This is because automakers have focused on adding larger format batteries to address a perceived range limitation. But there have been significant increases in range over the past 8 years, while keeping the price constant. I believe that once we hit an affordable 300 mile (maybe 350) EV, that there will be little reason to keep adding more battery, and instead we will see a shift towards making vehicles more affordable. And eventually there will be a crossover point where the unsubsidized cost of an EV will be less than an equivalent ICE.

And at that point, to the buying public, it simply won't matter whether it's an EV or an ICE. That's the problem I have with people that are saying this or that about "EV demand". Most people are sticker-price focused. They don't necessarily care what's under the hood. They only care about what the sticker says. And the day the sticker on an EV is less than the sticker on an ICE, they are going to get the EV. At this point it stops being a ramp and turns a sharp corner.

Yes, EVs have to become available in the form factors they want. And yes, there will need to be education of the masses about how and where to charge their cars. But the growing number of EV owners are going to be the teachers. And the more EVs that people see on the road, the more people are going to be willing to ask their friends, neighbors and co-workers about them.

If you think any part of this "crystal ball" is wrong, let me know, but you'll be disagreeing with the technology adoption curve that has been repeated throughout history, so it's a tough argument to make. About the only legitimate difference of opinion we can have is the timescale. Yes, with falling battery prices, the percentage of the cost of the battery to the vehicle becomes smaller, so the gains in vehicle price become less significant. But I don't think this is going to take more than another 4-5 years. We now have 3 mass produces vehicles with ranges over 300 miles, with several more knocking on the door at 250 (unfortunately in somewhat limited quantities). 2020 should be a big year in terms of new EV releases. Once we get those vehicles with 300 miles on the market, we can start the process of driving the costs down.
I agree with almost all of this, except the bolded section. When people say they want/need a 300+ mile car, what they mean by that isn't a 300 or 350 mile BEV, before all the subtractions you need to know about and allow for as regards speed, climate, and degradation, but a 300 or 350 mile range like an ICE. Now, if you were to say 300 or 350 miles including all of the above at the end of the car's life, I'd agree with you, but we all know that requires a range at least 1/3rd and maybe 1/2 or more greater than the nominal range when new. The average age of the fleet is I believe now up to 11.8 years, so EoL battery range should be for at least 12 and probably 15 or 20 years.

I've done this calc for my own requirements. I need a car for roadtrips, and keep them until they no longer function (current car is 16 y.o. and still going strong). I've decided that for a BEV to be reasonably useful and cost-effective for me, at a minimum I want to be able to drive from home to Lee Vininga typical weekend trip, without recharging, a distance of 207 miles on freeway and highway, and which requires climbing from about 100 ft. sea level over 9,941 ft. Tioga Pass 193 miles out before descending 14 miles and 3,160 feet to Lee Vining at 6,780 ft., any time of the year and in any conditions when the road's open (which can range from late April to late Nov., but is usually less). I want to be able to do it for at least 12 years and prefer longer, jut as I prefer longer range and faster recharging. I want to be able to do it driving just as I do in my ICE,at the same speeds while freely using heat/AC as desired, and with at least a 30 mile reserve under the same conditions. Having played around with EV tripplanner, there's not a single BEV (including the longest-ranged Teslas) now available that can meet those requirements for that length of time, although some of them can do the trip for part of the time and/or under more restrictive conditions. I've been fairly interested in the)a Kia Niro, but its ability to make the trip is questionable even when new, and would be impossible with degradation. That QCs will eventually be built along the way is true, but irrelevant to my needs, which include time limitations as well as flexibility.

By comparison, my 16 y.o. ICE can still do the trip to Lee Vining and return un-refueled basically free of care, as it has essentially the same range as when it was new, and should I need to refuel it due to unusual circumstances I can do so lots of places in no more time than it takes to use the bathroom. I paid something over $24k cash for it out the door, including TTL, so BEVs have a long way to go before they can meet the same value/capability, even if QCing gets cheaper than gas, and even with the current high gas prices in California that's at best a marginal cost advantage over my 28-30 mpg real world hwy ICE, and still at a disadvantage compared to a moderately-high mpg HEV.

And that's just for my basic weekend trip, not the extended road trips that I want to be able to take again in a ZEV, which require even more range and even faster charging

So, while I agree with you that prices will only start to drop when the range is adequate, how much range will be adequate depends heavily on extending the guaranteed, no worries EoL range of BEVs, and that currently requires such large, heavy and expensive battery packs that I don't see the cross-over point happening until sometime beyond the 4-5 years you suggest.
I would expect anyone interested in an EV would be willing to slightly inconvenience themselves out of interest in the technology and/or reducing environmental impact.

Any Tesla, the Chevy Bolt and Nissan+ could easily fit your need with a 20 minute charging stop on the uphill portion of your drive. It's likely no charging would be needed on the return drive.
There's nothing 'slight' about the level of inconvenience. Unfortunately, the available charging stops are too far away, and the charge rates too low to make that work, even if I were willing to accept a further inconvenience beyond the 50% range reduction I already am. And that ignores the fact that Just getting to Lee Vining is often just the first stop if I'm going south to Mammoth (28 miles), Bishop (64 miles), or Lone Pine (125 miles beyond L.V.), and getting to the the trailheads that are typically 10-15 miles and several thousand feet above those towns, and return to the nearest QC. The number of required QC stops each way grows beyond one, which is about the limit of additional inconvenience I or most people will accept for a weekend trip, as you can combine that stop with a meal.

To use the Niro as an example, you suggest a 20 min. QC would be adequate on the way up. Not a chance. Kia says it will take 42 minutes to charge from 20 to 80%, and 54 minutes to charge from an unstated but presumably low single digits % to 80%, in both cases from a QC rated for 100kW or more. I haven't seen the Niro's EPA Hwy range stated anywhere, but its combined range is 239 vs. the Bolt's 238, and the latter has a HWY range of 217 miles. The Niro's probably a bit more aerodynamic, so let's assume 220 miles Hwy @ 100%. 80% is 176 miles, then we need to subtract 30 miles as a reserve (nowhere near enough given the current spacing of QCs, but hopefully at some future point their density will increase to approach that of gas stations), plus allowances for HVAC use, wind, temps, elevation gain, etc. Figure no more than 130 miles Hwy, and possibly 120 or less is the real 'guaranteed' range after a QC to 80%, which will take a significant portion of an hour. and all that is only possible with a new rather than a degraded battery. At the moment the best capacity warranty I'm aware of is 70% after 8 years, so instead of starting from 220 miles we're now down to 156 miles Hwy before all the other necessary subtractions.

Oh, and I picked Lee Vining because it's the major crossroads and shortest route for trans-Yosemite traffic to 395, and I hoped that EA would build a QC there; instead, they chose to start building one 25 miles north in Bridgeport, which helps me not at all unless I take a different, longer route across the Sierra, so I'd actually need to be able to reach Bishop (once it's built), another 64 miles south of Lee Vining. Presumably someday Lee Vining will get some QCs, but as I've already been waiting over 8 years for (non-Tesla) QCs enroute to and across Yosemite and then down 395, I'm not going to hold my breath expecting its early arrival. It's only sometime later this year that such a trip will even be possible in a non-Tesla BEV.

But those are my particular needs, and say nothing about what limitations a member of the general public will be willing to put up with, which is likely to a lot less than I am as they have zero ideological motivation. We know what the major issues preventing them from getting a BEV are: MSRP, range and charging sites.
Last edited by GRA on Thu May 23, 2019 5:38 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: 11662
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Thu May 23, 2019 5:36 pm

WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:I've done this calc for my own requirements. ...

So, while I agree with you that prices will only start to drop when the range is adequate, how much range will be adequate depends heavily on extending the guaranteed, no worries EoL range of BEVs, and that currently requires such large, heavy and expensive battery packs that I don't see the cross-over point happening until sometime beyond the 4-5 years you suggest.
GRA, you are a corner case. As are my former neighbors in Boston area who had once taken a road trip... to Springfield MA. A 60kWh Chevy Bolt, LEAF+ or similar could do this trip with ease.

Most people are between these extremes. Remember we don't need to put everyone in an electric car. Just the next 2% over the next 3 years. Then the next 4% over the 3 years after that.
I recognize that my particular usage case is skewed almost entirely towards road trips, but the average person doesn't buy a car based on their routine needs, they buy one based on what Waymo CEO John Krafcik calls "The Occasional Use Imperative," which is why most people drive around in 5-8 pax. vehicles when the avg. occupancy per trip is 1.7, and only 1.1 during commutes. The potential advantage of ride-shared AVs
is that most of the cars can be small, light 1-2 pax. BEVs with batteries sized for local use instead of what cwerdna calls BRoD-class 4WD SUVs that people may only need once a year. IOW, Smarts, not Expeditions.
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.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”