WetEV wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:21 pm
GRA wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:19 pm
For the general public, the
value for money barrier is at least 300 and probably 350+ miles while being affordable, which is why virtually every ICE will go at least that far with no worries.
For an ICE, adding range is almost free. So ICEs will likely have more range than needed, as the marginal return of value doesn't need to be large to repay the marginal cost of a larger gas tank.
More range than needed as determined by whom? I think how much range the typical customer wants (me too FTM, even though my use case isn't typical) is encapsulated in the article I linked above:
Some people such as Fred Lambert of Electrek argue that you don't need a 400+ mile range EV. I made some strong points in favor of longer range EVs in my previous article "Let The Tesla Bulls Rage On And Chuckle At The Bears." I would like to add two points.
First: the argument is made that what is needed is simply more charging infrastructure and faster charge times. If this is really true, then the question has to be asked, where are all the 200-mile range ICE vehicles? There is certainly plenty of infrastructure, and fueling such a vehicle would only take about 1 minute. Clearly greater range is very desirable to most people, even when infrastructure and fast fill times are there.
Second: when I go on a road trip (if I ever do again) I want to be the one that decides how often I take a potty break, NOT THE CAR.
In order for EVs to be taken seriously and widely adopted, they have to be a step forward, not a step backward, this includes overall range. A 400-mile range EV is what is needed in order for the masses to really want to adopt EVs.
A BEV's ability to charge at home or work and never need to visit a QC station for local use is typically cited by BEV advocates as a convenience advantage compared to driving to a gas station, and it is (for those who have that option). By the same token, the driver being able to decide when/where to use a bathroom, eat or sleep rather than the car forcing those decisions on them is just as much of a convenience/flexibility advantage on road trips. It certainly is for me, as my bladder has a 4-6 hour and my stomach a 6-8 hour range, both of which are much longer than an 80% QC'd BEV can provide in most cases, especially ones with 100% range of 200-250 miles, and that's before any allowances.
WetEV wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:21 pm
Most of the time, when comparing a BEV and an ICE with the same range, the BEV will be more convenient, as long as it has the range to be recharged only at home. For road trips, the ICE will be more convenient as fueling is faster than charging, and as there are many more gas stations than DCQCs.
See above, although we seem to be in agreement, but as long as many households only have and/or can only afford 1 car, that car will need to be able to perform all tasks, and even multi-car families sometimes need to be able to take long trips in different directions at the same time. Ideally, everyone would have (or have the ability to use a MaaS) smallish-battery BEV for routine use, and then rent long-range vehicles for trips, rather than paying for and hauling around a lot of battery that rarely gets used. Until most people are willing to adopt that pattern of use and they can be
guaranteed that the kind of car they want will be available when they want it, do-everything cars will be the norm. Which is of course why I favor PHEVs (and even better if they can work out the cost issues, PHFCEVs) for such cars until affordable (sub-$30k base) long-range BEVs arrive that don't pay a huge weight/space penalty for hauling around all that rarely-used battery capacity.