GRA
Posts: 12288
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:38 pm

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... -avoid-evs


The more things change . . . The exact same story could of (and has) been written at any time over the past 9 years. The same factors were cited as the most important atrributes for buying, but price moved ahead of range.
. . . When Autolist asked consumers for the minimum range they’d accept in a $35,000 electric vehicle, the leading answer was “between 250 and 300 miles”—stipulations perhaps most closely met by the Hyundai Kona Electric, with its $37,995 base price and 258-mile EPA-rated range. The Chevrolet Bolt EV and Kia Niro EV are also close to meeting those expectations. . . .
You can add the 2020 Bolt to the 250+ range list.
But when Autolist asked the same about a $70,000 EV, the responses, the most common response was “more than 500 miles. . . .”

There's apparently a strong correlation between the age of the respondent and the required range, with older drivers demanding more. Also see:
OVERCOMING THE HURDLES TO WIDESPREAD ELECTRIC VEHICLE ADOPTION
https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/ov ... e-adoption
Last edited by GRA on Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:24 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.

Titanium48
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:33 am
Delivery Date: 25 Jan 2019
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:58 pm

How much of the range expectation is being driven by unaffordable pricing? 95% of your trips might be under 100 miles and/or served by good DCFC infrastructure, but you still need another car for the other 5% and then you need to divide your budget accordingly. People want a do-everything vehicle if they are going to spend $35,000, but I suspect that if Nissan revived the 24 kWh Leaf and sold it for $15,000 they would be very popular despite the sub-100 mile range.
2016 SL

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 15517
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:11 am

Maybe EV manufacturers need to add a feature they've avoided: a real Max Eco mode (aka "Get There Mode") that limits both maximum and average motor and heater consumption, producing adequate but sluggish performance - but with another 20-30% range, for longer trips in which the driver just wants to get there, not get there in a sporty fashion. You could even tell the car how far you needed to go, with power then limited according to that goal, or the car just telling you "Fast Charge at xx miles" if necessary. Instead of watching meters and doing tiring, careful operation of the accelerator pedal, you just select Max Eco, turn on some music, and take a relaxed long drive, with the car doing the conservation, including setting the ACC to the appropriate highway speeds and directing climate controlled air at the driver only, or driver and front passenger only.
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

GRA
Posts: 12288
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:45 pm

Titanium48 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:58 pm
How much of the range expectation is being driven by unaffordable pricing? 95% of your trips might be under 100 miles and/or served by good DCFC infrastructure, but you still need another car for the other 5% and then you need to divide your budget accordingly. People want a do-everything vehicle if they are going to spend $35,000, but I suspect that if Nissan revived the 24 kWh Leaf and sold it for $15,000 they would be very popular despite the sub-100 mile range.

You sure you're not reprinting some of my old posts? :lol: Yeah, a city car makes a lot more sense at $15k than it does at $30k+. Even better at $10k-$12k, which is what I told the guy test-marketing Think Citys (think a Smart with a Lexan body) after renting and driving it for a week in the bay area back in '98 or so.
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: 12288
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:47 pm

LeftieBiker wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:11 am
Maybe EV manufacturers need to add a feature they've avoided: a real Max Eco mode (aka "Get There Mode") that limits both maximum and average motor and heater consumption, producing adequate but sluggish performance - but with another 20-30% range, for longer trips in which the driver just wants to get there, not get there in a sporty fashion. You could even tell the car how far you needed to go, with power then limited according to that goal, or the car just telling you "Fast Charge at xx miles" if necessary. Instead of watching meters and doing tiring, careful operation of the accelerator pedal, you just select Max Eco, turn on some music, and take a relaxed long drive, with the car doing the conservation, including setting the ACC to the appropriate highway speeds and directing climate controlled air at the driver only, or driver and front passenger only.

Most of the Eco+ modes do so limit the car, but I don't think that's the problem. It's range (driving the way people want to, not what the car wants to force them to do) @ price, with infrastructure in third place.
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.

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 15517
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:07 pm

Most of the Eco+ modes do so limit the car, but I don't think that's the problem.
I don't know of any EV that limits the power available if you floor the accelerator in Eco. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But cars that adjust energy consumption to get you to a stated destination do not, AFAIK, exist yet.
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

Oilpan4
Posts: 1731
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:06 am

I think a 62kwh battery leaf will do everything I need aside from pull my 18'x99'' flat bed trailer and go on a long road trip.

Diesel fired heaters will make all the difference where it's cold.
"THE ABOVE POST CONTAINS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. PLEASE CONSIDER IT OPINION, NOT FACT". -someone who I offended and is unable to produce the facts in question.

GRA
Posts: 12288
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:28 pm

LeftieBiker wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:07 pm
Most of the Eco+ modes do so limit the car, but I don't think that's the problem.
I don't know of any EV that limits the power available if you floor the accelerator in Eco. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But cars that adjust energy consumption to get you to a stated destination do not, AFAIK, exist yet.
I should have been clearer. I wasn't saying that any cars exist now that include ALL the features you mentioned, just most of them in various combinations. But my point stands - most customers aren't willing to buy a car that forces them to drive a certain way to meet the CAR's needs rather than their own - we know that from the constant increase in BEV range. Which is why city cars with sub-100 mile EPA ranges just don't cut it in the U.S. Once you allow for HVAC use, load, wet roads, reserve and especially degradation, the range becomes too limited and the car is too much of a hassle to appeal to most people. We've got ample experience with the LEAF and other such limited-range BEVs to confirm this.

What's really needed is a battery chemistry/tech which experiences no degradation for the life of the vehicle (15-20 years), as is the case with ICEs. Allowing for degradation, along with climate effects, are the largest contributors to excess cost/weight/hassle and the largest variable, which people hate having to think about/calculate. The only way to get that now is the brute force method, over-sizing the battery and limiting the usable capacity while gradually opening up more and more of the total to maintain the same usable. But that's too expensive (among many other drawbacks) for a cheap city car.
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.

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 15517
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:39 pm

Gra, you are just brimming with reasons not to buy an EV, and also with impossible conditions that EVs must meet in order to be acceptable - to you. Range anxiety is the issue for most prospective EV drivers, not some libertarian opposition the the car limiting acceleration on long trips. Women, especially, want to GET THERE, and I think that most would happily allow the car to do what I proposed as long as it accomplishes that goal.

Why not just change your signature to read "I'm going to use every sneaky, passive-aggressive way I can to slow the adoption of EVs, because I like my gas-powered Subaru." Between you and the guy who'd rather burn gas to cook because he likes the way it roasts peppers, This place is starting to resemble a very sophisticated troll farm. :(
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

GRA
Posts: 12288
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCR: Survey: Range, cost, infrastructure sum up why shoppers avoid BEVs

Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:01 pm

LeftieBiker wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:39 pm
Gra, you are just brimming with reasons not to buy an EV, and also with impossible conditions that EVs must meet in order to be acceptable - to you. Range anxiety is the issue for most prospective EV drivers, not some libertarian opposition the the car limiting acceleration on long trips. Women, especially, want to GET THERE, and I think that most would happily allow the car to do what I proposed as long as it accomplishes that goal.
I'm brimming with reasons not to buy an BEV? You mean the general public is brimming with reasons not to do so, as every survey to date including the one at the head of this topic has shown. My specific requirements are way on one side of the curve, and not generally relevant to the typical consumer, but that's not to say that many of the same considerations don't apply to them - they obviously do. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was specifically focused on accel limitation, although that's a factor for some. No, I'm focused on price, range and charging limitations and the compromises which may be required (such as the one you mention) to overcome them.

LeftieBiker wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:39 pm
Why not just change your signature to read "I'm going to use every sneaky, passive-aggressive way I can to slow the adoption of EVs, because I like my gas-powered Subaru." Between you and the guy who'd rather burn gas to cook because he likes the way it roasts peppers, This place is starting to resemble a very sophisticated troll farm. :(

Because that wouldn't represent my views, in fact it's diametrically opposed to them. As I've stated numerous times, I want us to get off fossil fuels ASAP, and I limit my own use of same as much as possible while meeting my other requirements, just as anyone who's concerned by this will do. I mean, anyone here want to give up both gas and induction ranges as well as fires, and rely on solar ovens exclusively for cooking? After all, that's the lowest cost and most environmentally benign cooking solution. I used to sell those, and will be happy to point you to such products or plans for building your own. Sure, compromises have to be made, but after all, the true believers are willing to do what's best for the environment regardless of the limitations it forces on them. So what if you have to do without cooked food for much of the year, it will take much longer to prepare, and you can never be sure just when a meal will be done?

I insist on looking rationally at what will prevent or slow down the shift from fossil fuels, and from the time I began posting here I've always tried to remind people that the general public's priorities aren't the same as early adopters, because the latter group tends to believe the public only needs to be shown the true and righteous path to see the light, and that it will be easy to convince them to have the same priorities as the early adopters do. Based on your knowledge of human behavior, does this seem realistic to you? If I'd been in any doubt, I confirmed that wasn't the case when I was selling off-grid AE systems a quarter century ago, where the same early adopter/general public divide existed. You can only persuade people to change if they want to change, and that requires that you give them a better option. And that's better according to THEIR priorities, not yours. Maybe you can convince them to adopt your priorities, but odds are you can't.

Compared to ICEs, BEVs currently don't match the priorities of the general public in the U.S., and most other countries for that matter, That's a fact, confirmed by the need to directly bribe or coerce people to buy them everywhere, except at the top end of the range where people can ignore rational calculations of transportation value for money. Which is why almost 9 years after production BEV introduction here we're at about 2% take rate, and that's driven almost entirely by cars at the higher end of the price range (which also come closest to meeting people's operational requirements) as well as perks like HOV access.

As the topic survey shows, the general public's concerns about BEVs have remained essentially unchanged all this time, so barring large-scale coercion of individual consumers here, we'll have to give them what they want if that's to change. That's an affordable car which requires minimal thinking or planning to use, i.e. has acceptable operating range over the necessary life when driven by the majority of drivers, and an extensive and ideally ubiquitous and affordable charging infrastructure, as is the case with gas stations. Neither of these conditions is present as of yet although we're getting closer with cars, but until charging infrastructure is actually profitable to build and the electricity can be sold at a similar or lower price than gas, we're not going to see lots of QC sites, and the public won't be saying "Gee, a BEV really is better, and I'm buying one". Do you disagree?

While some government mandates may be acceptable here (I'm a big fan of congestion pricing and emission-free zones), the sort of dictatorial "you will do this or else" approach possible in China just isn't going to happen. Even in China, NEV sales rates have fallen a lot since they reduced the subsidy, and we've got a lot more choices than they have, not to mention far more leverage over the government. So why would you expect rapid movement on our part, barring some catastrophic event like Greenland's glaciers all melting in the next 5-10 years, and large parts of Houston, Miami, NYC etc becoming permanently flooded, serving to concentrate the public's mind on an immediate threat which will undeniably affect them, in their taxes if not physically, rather than some uncertain, diffuse future threat that may not happen until after they're dead?
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 “Business / Economy and Politics”