GRA
Posts: 11381
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:28 pm

evnow wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:19 pm
GRA wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:34 pm
This has been the problem with most shorter-ranged BEVs used as CABs, which is why I suspect that PHFCEVs using fuel cells as range extenders may be more viable for that job at the moment. If the BEVs have the necessary range to make it through an entire shift without charging, which at least some Model 3s should have in dense urban areas, all is well.
LOL - after all these years you are still pushing fool cells !

I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it. That recommendation is subject to change based on technical/price improvements over time, just like any other product. At the moment, batteries are best for shorter range tasks like commuting and pickup and delivery, where you return to the same location and have a dedicated place to charge on a daily basis. A tech like FCEVs (or ICEs) with longer range and faster refueling is better suited to tasks that require those characteristics, such as road trips, and cabs can go either way depending on the specifics. Which is one reason why I'm a fan of PHFCEVs, as they cover both tasks using the most efficient ZEV tech (in energy and time) for the different tasks. And of course, the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure has to be available in either case.
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.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 709
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

Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:29 pm

GRA wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:28 pm
evnow wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:19 pm
GRA wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:34 pm
This has been the problem with most shorter-ranged BEVs used as CABs, which is why I suspect that PHFCEVs using fuel cells as range extenders may be more viable for that job at the moment. If the BEVs have the necessary range to make it through an entire shift without charging, which at least some Model 3s should have in dense urban areas, all is well.
LOL - after all these years you are still pushing fool cells !

I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it. That recommendation is subject to change based on technical/price improvements over time, just like any other product. At the moment, batteries are best for shorter range tasks like commuting and pickup and delivery, where you return to the same location and have a dedicated place to charge on a daily basis. A tech like FCEVs (or ICEs) with longer range and faster refueling is better suited to tasks that require those characteristics, such as road trips, and cabs can go either way depending on the specifics. Which is one reason why I'm a fan of PHFCEVs, as they cover both tasks using the most efficient ZEV tech (in energy and time) for the different tasks. And of course, the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure has to be available in either case.
That right there is pushing fuel cells. With the model 3 and soon model y, there's zero justification to consider any other fuel type except for the most extreme road-trip cases.

Mind you, you once advocated for fuel cells, because the damage from diesel was so bad that we absolutely had to get rid of fossil fuels at ALL costs.
:: 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!

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:46 pm

GRA wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:28 pm
I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it.
.
You are recommending vaporware based on vacuous notions.

"Better Fit" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 11381
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:48 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:29 pm
GRA wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:28 pm
evnow wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:19 pm

LOL - after all these years you are still pushing fool cells !

I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it. That recommendation is subject to change based on technical/price improvements over time, just like any other product. At the moment, batteries are best for shorter range tasks like commuting and pickup and delivery, where you return to the same location and have a dedicated place to charge on a daily basis. A tech like FCEVs (or ICEs) with longer range and faster refueling is better suited to tasks that require those characteristics, such as road trips, and cabs can go either way depending on the specifics. Which is one reason why I'm a fan of PHFCEVs, as they cover both tasks using the most efficient ZEV tech (in energy and time) for the different tasks. And of course, the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure has to be available in either case.
That right there is pushing fuel cells. With the model 3 and soon model y, there's zero justification to consider any other fuel type except for the most extreme road-trip cases.

Nope. Since a fair portion of the public sometimes make those road trips, and wants a car capable of them in any case, providing a ZEV that can do so is necessary, because they obviously aren't ready to accept the current capability of BEVs without being bribed/forced to do so. After all, every generation of BEVs has increased both battery capacity and charging rate, but we're still only at 2.3% take rate nationwide, around 8% in California, despite perks and subsidies, and sales have stagnated (PEV sales down Y-o-Y for July, August and September; IEVS is changing to a quarterly report so hasn't given numbers for October, but for Sep. sales were 33,128 vs. 44,544 a year ago; the Model 3 sold 19,100 vs. 22,250 last Sep.).

FCEVs remain even less cost-effective in the long-term at the moment due to high fuel costs, which (along with the vehicle cost and lack of infrastructure) would have to be improved before they can achieve mass market acceptance. But their operational characteristics are essentially the same as ICEs now, so we know the general public will be comfortable with them given the necessary improvements noted above. No BEV can say the same yet.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:29 pm
Mind you, you once advocated for fuel cells, because the damage from diesel was so bad that we absolutely had to get rid of fossil fuels at ALL costs.

I supported (and support) any ZEV or at least zero-carbon tech that has the potential to get us off fossil fuels soonest, BEVs and fuel cells being two of them, and will recommend whichever one best fits the specific operational requirements. In the case of over-the-road trucking, that's FCEVs for now, but P&D and (shorter distribution runs) are a good match for pure BEV capability. Local/express buses can go either way depending on requirements, emergency vehicles shouldn't be BEVs, and so on.

Similarly, if someone needs a car primarily for shorter-range commuting, then a BEV is probably right for them if they have convenient, dedicated charging. If not, then an FCEV may be a better fit, and for an all-around ZEV, I believe a PHFCEV with the stack used as a fuel extender is generally the best-suited given the necessary infrastructure to support both modes (with improvements as above). If BEVs, their price. infrastructure and operational characteristics improve to the point that the general public is willing to accept them for all-around use, great.

Note that the above ignores the possible effects of resource limitations on both techs which may retard or limit their growth, which is another reason why I think we should proceed with both, as their critical resource requirements aren't identical.
Last edited by GRA on Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:38 pm, edited 2 times 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.

User avatar
EVDRIVER
Moderator
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:51 am

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:59 pm

Do you have much experience driving a fuel cell vehicle?

GRA
Posts: 11381
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:03 pm

SageBrush wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:46 pm
GRA wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:28 pm
I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it.
.
You are recommending vaporware based on vacuous notions.

"Better Fit" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you have an operational requirement to go x number of miles/ during a driver's service hours while carrying Y weight, which is a better fit: a truck that has more range and can be refueled in a fraction of the time, or one that has a shorter range, has to make more stops because of it, replenishes energy slower so each stop is for a longer period of time, and weighs more so has to reduce its payload?

At the moment, both BEV and FCEV semis are essentially still vaporware, albeit both are approaching deployment, and I expect each to be used for those tasks best suited to it, with some overlap.
Last edited by GRA on Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:36 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: 11381
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:09 pm

EVDRIVER wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:59 pm
Do you have much experience driving a fuel cell vehicle?

Very little, and less than I have driving a BEV, but yeah, I've done the obligatory test drive with a sales critter, FWIW (not much). Haven't driven a Nexo, which is the only one of the three cars currently available I'd be interested in - the Mirai and Clarity are both sedans with restricted trunk space, the Clarity especially so.

Depending on how careful I wanted to be, I could probably get a Nexo to do the un-refueled round trip on my typical weekend trip to the Yosemite high country, although I need a fueling station at least 40 miles east of home to make the round-trip easy.

I've also done the calcs for BEVs and monitored the development of charging stations along the route (see the "Electrify America" and "Expanding EV Charging in Yosemite" topics for my reports of same), and have been trying for some time to find a convenient Bolt (as a reasonable stand-in for a Niro) to rent on Turo to do the trip for real, now that there's an open charger in Lee Vining. Haven't been able to find one yet (they're all in the South Bay, I'm in the East Bay), but it doesn't take any experience with either to determine that a Nexo with 380 miles of range, all of which can be used on every fill without damage, is going to be a lot more suitable for that trip than a 238 mile Bolt which will need to be charged to 80% at least once enroute, and which will also need to use some of its energy to provide heat/defrost.

I've also read numerous test drive reviews and specs for both cars and commercial trucks, so I'm aware of the performance characteristics of the vehicles (as I have with BEVs). How about you?
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.

User avatar
EVDRIVER
Moderator
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:51 am

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:42 pm

No interest in a fuel cell vehicle in its present form or design.

GRA
Posts: 11381
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Official Tesla Model 3 thread

Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:46 pm

Which is fine, no one's going to force anyone to get one. I'm interested in both BEVs and FCEVs, even though none of them currently meet all my major requirements, but if I think one or both may meet someone else's I'm happy to recommend it/them.
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.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 709
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

Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:57 pm

GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:48 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:29 pm
GRA wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:28 pm



I've never pushed fuel cells (or batteries), but if one's a better fit for a specific job, then sure, I'll recommend it. That recommendation is subject to change based on technical/price improvements over time, just like any other product. At the moment, batteries are best for shorter range tasks like commuting and pickup and delivery, where you return to the same location and have a dedicated place to charge on a daily basis. A tech like FCEVs (or ICEs) with longer range and faster refueling is better suited to tasks that require those characteristics, such as road trips, and cabs can go either way depending on the specifics. Which is one reason why I'm a fan of PHFCEVs, as they cover both tasks using the most efficient ZEV tech (in energy and time) for the different tasks. And of course, the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure has to be available in either case.
That right there is pushing fuel cells. With the model 3 and soon model y, there's zero justification to consider any other fuel type except for the most extreme road-trip cases.

Nope. Since a fair portion of the public sometimes make those road trips, and wants a car capable of them in any case, providing a ZEV that can do so is necessary, because they obviously aren't ready to accept the current capability of BEVs without being bribed/forced to do so. After all, every generation of BEVs has increased both battery capacity and charging rate, but we're still only at 2.3% take rate nationwide, around 8% in California, despite perks and subsidies, and sales have stagnated (PEV sales down Y-o-Y for July, August and September; IEVS is changing to a quarterly report so hasn't given numbers for October).

FCEVs remain even less cost-effective in the long-term at the moment due to high fuel costs, which (along with the vehicle cost and lack of infrastructure) would have to be improved before they can achieve mass market acceptance. But their operational characteristics are essentially the same as ICEs now, so we know the general public will be comfortable with them given the necessary improvements noted above. No BEV can say the same yet.
Again with your mindless prose. How far does this "fair portion of the public" need to go? By deliberately avoiding specifics, you're hiding behind glittering generalities. Citing BEV sales numbers is a non-sequitor about a BEV's capabilities.

I regularly make my LA-SF road trip (~400 miles) in roughly the same time as a combustion car (since I don't have to get gas before driving, and I still need to eat along the way). That sure does sound like a BEV that handles a road trip that a fair number of the public takes. Not to mention that I can drive east towards destinations that an FCEV can NOT make, contradicting your below point about supporting "any ZEV or at least zero-carbon tech that has the potential to get us off fossil fuels soonest". Anyone can see that an H2 infrastructure will take the most money and the most amount of time to deploy to any state remotely resembling a "road-tripable" infrastructure. You're well aware that you need at least half as many H2 stations as gas stations, otherwise consumers have to drive significantly out of their way just to find a refilling station.

GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:48 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:29 pm
Mind you, you once advocated for fuel cells, because the damage from diesel was so bad that we absolutely had to get rid of fossil fuels at ALL costs.

I supported (and support) any ZEV or at least zero-carbon tech that has the potential to get us off fossil fuels soonest, BEVs and fuel cells being two of them, and will recommend whichever one best fits the specific operational requirements. In the case of over-the-road trucking, that's FCEVs for now, but P&D and (shorter distribution runs) are a good match for pure BEV capability. Local/express buses can go either way depending on requirements, emergency vehicles shouldn't be BEVs, and so on.

Similarly, if someone needs a car primarily for shorter-range commuting, then a BEV is probably right for them if they have convenient, dedicated charging. If not, then an FCEV may be a better fit, and for an all-around ZEV, I believe a PHFCEV with the stack used as a fuel extender is generally the best-suited given the necessary infrastructure to support both modes (with improvements as above). If BEVs, their price. infrastructure and operational characteristics improve to the point that the general public is willing to accept them for all-around use, great.

Note that the above ignores the possible effects of resource limitations on both techs which may retard or limit their growth, which is another reason why I think we should proceed with both, as their critical resource requirements aren't identical.
Local busses are already BEV (many municipalities are switching to them). And there's no reason why emergency vehicles should NOT be BEV.

Ambulances don't travel very far and are parked when not traveling between sites. And they're usually traveling 65mph or less on the highways. Having fast chargers at the hospital for their use should help extend the range. FireTrucks always return back to their home station and operate locally. The only reason battery-powered emergency vehicles aren't available yet, is because they haven't been designed and built yet.

Also, your proselytizing the fuel cell alter by blindly panning the actual capabilities of BEV's. Saying that you recommend "whichever one best fits the specific operational requirements", while downplaying the capabilities of a BEV and promoting the capabilities of FCEV's despite a significant lack of infrastructure (that's an operational requirement no matter how you want to spin it), is pulling a Sarah Huckabee Sanders - you're saying things that don't match your actions.

Lastly, you haven't lived with a BEV, so you still carry the mis-perceptions of what BEV's can do. Can you really say that you're effective at convincing people to get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible when you don't know the products you're selling?
:: 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!

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