[HN Gopher] Tesla Model S Goes 752 Miles with a Startup's Protot...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla Model S Goes 752 Miles with a Startup's Prototype Battery
Author : elorant
Score : 63 points
Date : 2022-01-10 20:12 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.caranddriver.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.caranddriver.com)
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| How long does it take to charge this thing?
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| Does it really matter if it has a range of 1200 kilometers ? I
| would have to charge this car once every 3-4 years or so.
| dempseye wrote:
| I would have to charge it every 3 weeks.
| imstil3earning wrote:
| sounds like you dont need a car
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| It'a convenient to have when I need it. I have a tiny car
| that cost me very little in taxes and insurance. Slightly
| more than a car sharing subscription would cost but
| available whenever I want without having to reserve it in
| advance.
| djrogers wrote:
| If you drive 300Km _per year_ , you probably shouldn't own a
| car.
| masklinn wrote:
| Twice the capacity, twice the charge time (more or less).
| mbauman wrote:
| ~700 miles is the magic point at which charging times can be
| significantly extended to simply be overnight.
| masklinn wrote:
| Problem's without fast charging many EVs are already there,
| even in europe.
|
| A standard plug is 3.6kW, overnight that's under 30kWh
| (probably significantly so as charging slows down a lot above
| 80%). To charge a model s 100 overnight you need a 22kW
| charger (3-phase 400V 32A). In europe that's the biggest you
| can get in a residential setting I think.
|
| For double that you'd need a fast DC charger, I don't think
| that'a available for residential use.
| whatever1 wrote:
| How much does it take to cool this thing is my question
| olyjohn wrote:
| Probably twice as long as the battery it replaced (assuming
| twice the range). You can still stop and recharge every 300
| miles if you want to. Ultimately you're gonna spend the same
| amount of time charging to get the same distance. This just
| means you could go out 300 miles and back without stopping for
| a charge at all. The advantage of this though is that you can
| at least start with 600 miles of range from your home. You'd
| probably only ever have to charge it overnight, because that's
| a solid 12 hours of driving. So long as your hotel has a
| charger you can use, you're basically never stopping to fuel up
| on a road trip as a single driver.
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| Charge current can be scaled with battery capacity, so it
| should be the same as any battery of the same chemistry if you
| have a powerful enough charger.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| With twice the energy density, what would its performance be like
| in a crash?
|
| Did they actually do tests to validate that the battery would be
| safe in the event of a minor crash, before driving it on public
| roads?
| [deleted]
| reportingsjr wrote:
| This battery probably doesn't have much in the way of safety.
| It's a one off prototype meant for PR, not for production.
| vkou wrote:
| As a limited set of tests, I don't think this is a huge issue.
| After all, there are hundreds of thousands of trucks full of
| petrol (Or other highly hazardous materials) driving around on
| highways and city streets (and occasionally getting into
| crashes) on a daily basis.
|
| It's more of a consideration when you put the car into the
| hands of consumers.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I'm trying to decide if this is anything special or just sleight
| of hand.
|
| I really do NOT know the figures, but I thought Tesla's only
| charged the cells to 80% and discharged to 20% to save battery
| life. If you are doing a one off test, you could go from 100%-0%
| to get 40% more battery life. And the article talks about fancy
| chemistries, but then says:
|
| "As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used in the
| demonstration was powered by different cells. The capacity of
| more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by high-energy cobalt-
| nickel cells, while those intended for the Gemini line are still
| under development."
|
| So they used what might be normal high capacity cells. Maybe
| their battery has fewer structural components so they can fit
| more cells in. Maybe Tesla uses a different chemistry for longer
| pack life.
|
| It seems like anyone could get maybe 40% more range doing nothing
| at all by simply fully charging and fully depleting the cells,
| and if you took the highest possible energy density cells and
| shoved them in to the same space with less structural members,
| maybe you could get the rest of the range they claimed. In fact
| it seems like that's what they did.
|
| But that's not an innovation if the pack will wear out in a year,
| or weaken the structure of the car.
|
| Like I said I am just speculating here and I don't really know,
| but so far this doesn't actually seem like the company has
| anything special. I have a feeling that if Tesla wanted to, they
| could do the same thing for a single demo, but that they have
| competing engineering requirements that mean they don't do this
| in production.
| robbiep wrote:
| Well the article says that the battery capacity has gone from
| ~100kWh to ~200kWh... so I think they're actually talking real
| increased battery capacity?
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I am wondering if, when Tesla sells a car as "100kWh", that
| is the available capacity (80%-20%) or if the total pack
| capacity. There would be reasons why they would want to go
| either way.
|
| But I think the biggest difference is probably that there are
| known high capacity chemistries with shorter longevity, which
| can be safely ignored for a one off test to drum up press for
| investors.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| You can set the charge amount, it's not just that percentage
| change. This isn't so hard to imagine. When I go on a long trip
| in my s85d car from 2015, I set it to charge to 100%. It hasn't
| hurt my battery life, model s that is 7 years old and 65k
| miles. I get ~5 miles less than original battery range at full.
| My day to day is 90%.
|
| You are exactly right that it's not an innovation if the
| battery can't last similar to almost 10 year's ago lithium
| batteries with heating and cooling of the battery packs.
|
| I think this is achievable today, just by doubling the battery
| pack (which would take some more space, so maybe these folks
| have something). Tesla's plan for the ever delayed new roadster
| was basically put two levels of their battery pack (double it)
| to get more energy to go faster, but all that energy made it go
| much further - not double range because of the added weight but
| a lot farther than a single battery pack.
| saas_sam wrote:
| Only 5 miles less? That's wild. I have a Model 3 and I get
| like... 30 miles less than the original 300 at 100%.
| vmception wrote:
| The key points:
|
| tests were averaging 55 mph
|
| the battery pack has twice the capacity and is twice as dense,
| allowing it to fit in the same space as the stock battery, and
| delivers the same performance
|
| so it is impressive and useful, not really much scifi here which
| is good, its just a double capacity battery in the same space
| that delivers the same performance
|
| definitely has now reached the range I'm looking for. make it
| happen, and somebody please just make classic car shells have
| these batteries in them. I don't understand why its just tesla, a
| couple of other luxury car brands that cost twice or thrice as
| much for worse charging service, or luxury car brands that
| decided to make a fugly tron-esque version of their car instead
| of just doing the same thing they're known for with a battery
| under the hood. intentionally ignoring the cheaper vehicles
| because they're not in the running either.
| ajross wrote:
| It's also much heavier and much more expensive. This really
| isn't a breakthrough more than it is a special case
| optimization. Any new design could easily have accommodated a
| similar capacity battery with traditional construction just by
| making the car 2cm taller or whatever.
|
| I mean, lithium batteries are already pretty space-efficient.
| This kind of optimization surely has a home in some application
| (to be clear: it already does in consumer electronics!). I'm
| just not sure cars are where it's best applied.
| joe-collins wrote:
| Numbers:
|
| Tesla Model S: 4600 lbs (Original battery: 1323 lbs)
| https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-weight/
|
| Gemini Battery: additional 730 lbs
| https://www.carhp.com/news/one-s-prototype-battery-
| registers...
| thedrbrian wrote:
| >1323 & 730 lb
|
| Jeeez. That's almost the curb weight of my Miata.
| iramiller wrote:
| Curious if they bothered to comply with the GVWR for the
| vehicle.
|
| An extra 730lbs is most of the typical payload capacity for
| a typical car.
|
| The model S has a GVWR of 5600lbs and weighs about 4600lbs
| meaning you can only put about 1000lbs of stuff in/on it
| safely.
|
| With this extra battery weight there isn't enough capacity
| left to carry more that two typical adults let alone any
| luggage.
| serverholic wrote:
| It's almost like Tesla has to optimize for more than just
| raw battery performance.
| vmception wrote:
| does the weight impact anything consequential? I guess
| _perhaps_ acceleration and handling? But I 'm not sure the
| article went into that
|
| I just want a car that does what is described, ideally
| without other tradeoffs. I would consider paying a premium
| for that, to an extent. I mean Tesla has been teasing
| Roadsters w/ 600 miles per charge at $250,000 for 5 years
| now. So someone just do the thing and make the option.
| fragmede wrote:
| Is range consequential to you? The battery pack's already
| quite heavy (>1,200 lbs) and it takes both power and energy
| to move that much weight around. The bigger the pack, the
| more of both it takes to move it. The 100 kWh battery
| already gets 400 miles per charge. Doubling the battery
| pack with existing technology isn't going to get double the
| range. At some point there are diminishing returns where
| adding more batteries _reduces_ the range due to the added
| weight.
|
| Also keep in mind that with an electric car, most users
| will use a home charger and start each day at full charge
| (even the slow charger can manage this if you're getting
| enough sleep). At the article's state 55 mph to get their
| range, it would take just over 7 hours of driving to go 400
| miles. That's _plenty_ for daily, non-fleet use.
| vmception wrote:
| I don't want double, I want 20-25% more. That will cover
| all my edge cases.
| serf wrote:
| weight impacts everything; acceleration, handling, braking
| performance, brake wear , tire wear, road wear, generally
| increased NVH if the weight gain isn't part of the
| superstructure, drive train loads, consumable suspension
| (bushings/wear items) wear ..
|
| the list goes on, but you get the point.
|
| it's all a cost/benefit ratio between
| duration/range/cost/marketability/reliability ; you can
| take care of the technical issues behind weight gain, but
| is there still a market there once you do and the cost to
| produce skyrockets?
| ksec wrote:
| Thx. I guess they were only interested in cars and not
| battery. Hence the article was rather poor. I was thinking
| where are you getting these data from as the article doesn't
| include much information. Some reply below showed added 700Lb
| to the car.
| deelowe wrote:
| Tesla designed the entire chassis around the battery pack (as
| in, it's structural component). Traditional car companies are
| going to have to do a lot of very expensive retooling to
| something similar.
| tw04 wrote:
| Traditional car companies moved to "platform" based vehicles
| 20 years ago and they refresh the entire platform every 5-ish
| years. This isn't really a big deal for any of them as
| evidenced by both Ford and GM already rolling out EV
| platforms.
|
| "There's no way GM can build a sub-$100k mid engine Corvette"
| was a common refrain too. They didn't get to that size by
| being bad at designing cars.
| deelowe wrote:
| They don't retool the factory every 5 years... I think
| you're underestimating things a bit.
|
| Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?
| GiorgioG wrote:
| They're constantly retooling their factories. My dad
| worked at several GM factories for nearly 40 years. I
| feel like every year or two GM would announce a huge
| spend per factory to retool/upgrade/etc.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| There are a lot of different things one can mean by that.
| that "structural pack" that elon has been talking about
| doesn't go live until the new Model Y chassis starts
| being built, which is maybe today?
|
| The current level of tesla's battery/chassis integration
| is not any more sophisticated than everyone else that I
| can see.
| tw04 wrote:
| >They don't retool the factory every 5 years... I think
| you're underestimating things a bit.
|
| I think you don't know what you're talking about.
|
| https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/trucks/a15539/rebui
| ldi...
|
| https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/ford-prepares-to-
| ret...
|
| >Did ford integrate the battery pack into the chassis?
|
| Yes, they did integrate the battery pack into the chassis
| on both the mach-e and the lightning.
|
| https://s3-prod.rubbernews.com/s3fs-
| public/styles/width_792/...
| tw04 wrote:
| I'm curious how they cool it under heavy performance load. I'm
| assuming they're making a significant performance compromise to
| extend range by limiting discharge speed/heat production.
| hawski wrote:
| There is Opel Corsa-e, its brother Peugeot e-208, there is VW
| e-Golf, Renault Zoe (a bestseller). The problem is they are
| much too expensive for their segment. So manufacturers try to
| make those fancy cars, because the price is easier to swallow.
| It will change, but cars in general will get more expensive.
| Maybe within 10 years it will get to some sensible
| stabilization.
| ww520 wrote:
| Are the safety parameters the same? Would it overheat more
| easily?
| tomohawk wrote:
| It's good to see some progress in this area, but
|
| Can it do that after 5 years of use? At 5 degrees F? Can it
| charge in 5 minutes? Even the cheapest gas powered cars can do
| this.
|
| This sort of performance may not matter to you if you only
| commute to work and back, but its the kind of performance that
| many people need on a day-to-day basis.
| kss238 wrote:
| Curious to see what a more realistic 75mph highway driving test
| would show. Guessing around 600 miles which is very impressive.
| Seems like a nobrainer for Tesla to acquire them if their claims
| pan out.
| ajross wrote:
| I found a chart once where someone measured efficiency of some
| EV or another. And the rule of thumb was that the cars hit peak
| energy/distance efficiency at 40-45mph and drop to about half
| that at 90mph.
|
| Which would amusingly put your 600 mile guess just about dead
| on.
| bell-cot wrote:
| I'd expect the Speed vs. MPG graphs for many conventional
| (gasoline or diesel engine) cars to be similar. Air
| resistance (of a given vehicle) is roughly proportional to
| the _square_ of the velocity. And air resistance (or drag, to
| be more technical) doesn 't care whether the car's wheels are
| being powered by batteries, burning fuel, or a wound-up giant
| spring.
| masklinn wrote:
| Air resistance starts very low though, until fairly high
| speeds other factors (e.g. rolling resistance) matter more.
| Weight is also relevant for climbing hills (more so for ICE
| which don't reclaim any energy on the other side), ...
| pbreit wrote:
| Founder came from A123 which Tesla indeed acquired. I wonder if
| Tesla already has the tech/know-how in-house?
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| I can't find any articles suggesting Tesla acquired A123.
| credit_guy wrote:
| It's not only the range that matters though. These batteries
| have a lot of cobalt, and Tesla is moving away from that.
| Moreover, we don't know how fast they charge, how many cycles
| they can be used, if they can be used in cold climates, how
| fire-prone they are, and maybe 10 other things that Tesla needs
| to consider for their production batteries.
|
| But yes, if all those other things are decent enough, Tesla
| obviously has the money to acquire this startup.
| danans wrote:
| > These batteries have a lot of cobalt
|
| Not according to the article:
|
| "In practice, that means lithium iron-phosphate (LFP)
| chemistry, which historically has energy density 30 percent
| lower than cobalt- or nickel-based chemistries (and,
| unfortunately, reportedly cold-weather issues). Its first
| product, Aries, will go into production late this year. It's
| a battery using prismatic LFP cells in a structural cell-to-
| pack architecture without separate modules, packing more
| cells into the pack to lower the energy disadvantage against
| cobalt cells."
| reportingsjr wrote:
| That statement is about the other battery mentioned on
| their website, the "aries". The "gemini" which is what is
| in the linked article is a combination LFP and NMC. NMC
| batteries are the ones with large amounts of cobalt.
| danans wrote:
| Now I see it:
|
| > "The cathode will be made of a proprietary material
| rich in manganese that ONE says can be sustainably
| sourced at low cost. (The company has so far applied for
| 14 patents related to the Gemini pack.) The LFP cells
| cover 99 percent of the vehicle's duty cycle, Ijaz told
| C/D, and the range extender is used for just 1 percent.
|
| > As a proof of concept, however, the prototype pack used
| in the demonstration was powered by different cells. The
| capacity of more than 200 kilowatt-hours was provided by
| high-energy cobalt-nickel cells, while those intended for
| the Gemini line are still under development."
|
| So this was just an energy density demonstration. It does
| sound like they plan to use LFP cells, not cobalt-nickel,
| for the production batteries.
| notjulianjaynes wrote:
| As I understand it, LFP cells have a lower energy density
| compared to cobalt. Is this company claiming they can
| build a 200kwh LFP battery that takes up the same amount
| of space as a stock model S battery?
| danans wrote:
| That's their goal as I understand from this paragraph:
|
| > "The company dubs its prototype a proof of concept. The
| point is to show that real-world ranges far longer than
| an average driver's endurance (pit stops, ahem) can be
| achieved in the near future. The next step is for it to
| evolve into a new battery called Gemini, intended to go
| into production after 2023."
|
| They don't say whether it is LFP based though.
| tssva wrote:
| They just completed a significant distance test in Michigan
| during December so I'm guessing they operate ok in cold
| weather.
| travisporter wrote:
| The website didn't load for me for some reason
| https://outline.com/pdWGMH
| jjk166 wrote:
| Super high capacity batteries are just a poor solution to the
| range problem. How often are you going to drive 750 miles without
| stopping? Maybe a few times a year tops, likely less. The
| overwhelming majority of driving is over dramatically shorter
| distances - the average American motorist drives a little under
| 30 miles per day, and typically they're driving less than half
| that between long periods of being parked. It doesn't make sense
| to pay for 20 times more battery than you need just to use it <1%
| of the time. Further, batteries are low energy density, and
| you're just lugging all that excess weight around everywhere. And
| remember, battery production produces CO2: producing an extra 100
| kwh of battery is equivalent to about 27,000 miles of driving on
| gasoline.
|
| Plug in hybrids let you drive around emission free for the
| overwhelming majority of situations at a fraction of the cost,
| but without the range anxiety. You only burn gas on long trips,
| and you can go as far as you want with easy refueling. Combustion
| fuels have immensely greater energy density than batteries, so
| carrying a few hundred miles of extra range around, either in
| your main tank or in a jerrycan, doesn't have a serious impact on
| weight, and ICEs are not nearly as temperature sensitive as
| batteries so you don't get screwed over in the winter. And for
| series hybrids like the chevy Volt, you get both the handling and
| efficiency of an electric vehicle even when on gasoline power.
| With federal tax credits plug in hybrid versions of many cars are
| actually cheaper than gasoline-only versions of the same models.
|
| There may be a serious argument for people who don't need long
| range (for example those buying a second car) to forego the
| engine altogether and just get an electric vehicle with a little
| longer range, but if ~200 miles isn't enough range for you then
| just go with the hybrid.
| zozin wrote:
| Increased energy density is great, but what's the point of
| carrying an extra 600-1,000lb of batteries around when for the
| vast majority of people the extra range is only used in a handful
| of cases per year, if that.
|
| Lots of consumers seem to be waiting on the sidelines until some
| magic range number is achieved (500? 1,000?), when in practice
| that range is unneeded on a daily basis. It's like demanding a
| all-day battery from a laptop, only to leave it plugged in all
| day long anyway.
| andrewia wrote:
| Increased density could help with packaging. You can already
| see this with the Lucid Air, which has a very deep frunk and
| trunk, as well as deep footwells. The Air also has full-size
| interior volume but with the vehicle length of a mid-size car.
| Better packaging enables sedan-shaped EVs, and also can enable
| crossover EVs with better ride height (since their skateboard
| can be thinner).
|
| This could also enable removable battery modules. I could
| envision an EV with 150-200 mile range for everyday driving,
| with additional batteries kept at home connected to energy
| storage (like a Tesla Powerwall). When you want to go on a road
| trip, you just disconnect the modules and install them in the
| lower part of the frunk and trunk. The packs could also have
| other uses - you could load one into an electric motorcycle
| (much like the Zero Motorcycle already can). If you're
| desperate for a charge but don't have a plug near a parking
| spot, you can lug a module to a wall outlet. And we've seen how
| additional batteries enables additional current (and therefore
| performance), so EV sports cars could be lower-horsepower
| "daily drivers" until you install the batteries for a weekend
| drive.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| If you're using a car for everyday _short_ trips then, unless
| you have some kind of mobility impediment, you 're doing it
| wrong.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Haha I drive my car to my San Francisco office for a quick 10
| min ride. It isn't that I can't bike there (I have a carbon
| fiber aero bike with zipps and dura-ace throughout). I often
| take my motorcycle there because it cuts the commute to 6
| min.
|
| It's just that I'm eager to not spend time not on the prime
| activity.
| nomel wrote:
| Or, you perception is only specific to your limited
| experience.
|
| My "every day" short trips (I claim that's < 100 miles total)
| are, going to work (70 miles round trip), going out on the
| weekends (almost always < 60 miles, to get to the beach)
| going to the grocery store (5 miles, with ~40lbs of
| groceries, with steep hills).
|
| Maybe this is a US thing, but I definitely can't do _any_ of
| these things with my feet, in a reasonable amount of time. I
| also can 't afford to live anywhere closer to work (getting
| within biking distance means a few million dollars, for a
| home, or my three bedroom mortgage for a single bedroom
| apartment), or next to a grocery store (there's no housing
| available there).
|
| But, I can easily do all of this within the range of my 100
| mile electric car, that I purchased for $8k.
|
| Is it affordable to live close to work, in other countries?
| In the US, if you're in tech, you're paying a significant
| portion of your income to be within biking distance.
| throwaway27727 wrote:
| What electric car in the US costs 8k? I assume that is
| used, but even then that sounds cheap.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Maybe not in today's market, but you could probably get a
| used Leaf for around that a couple of years ago.
| nomel wrote:
| You can find used Nissan Leaf and used Fiat 500e for
| pretty cheap. I bought mine midway through this used car
| price increase (about one year ago). A year before, they
| were selling for $5k. People don't seem to want the low
| mileage cars, even though most people would be fine with
| a low mileage car, as a secondary vehicle.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _Is it affordable to live close to work, in other
| countries?_
|
| Not really. Before COVID, I generally took a 15 minute run
| to the train station, then took the train for about hour,
| then took another 20 minute run to get to work. If I had a
| fold-up bike, it would be a lot quicker, because there are
| bicycle paths. (In theory, I could've worked remotely, but
| it was easier to get stuff done with access to a whiteboard
| and the person in charge of systems architecture. I could
| also take a regular bike on the train, but if everyone did
| it that would be a mess, so I don't.)
|
| I do stand by my "doing it wrong" remark - though I'll have
| to apply it to whoever designed your cities. That situation
| is awful (though good on you for using an electric car).
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Are you in the US? Because even if I wanted to walk/bus to
| the grocery store near me it would take almost 4x longer one-
| way (46 mins vs 12) and I'd also be subject to the maybe-
| once-per-hour schedule of the bus.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I'm not in the US, but I didn't know the US was _quite_
| that bad. Can 't you cycle?
| noahtallen wrote:
| Cycling is normally very dangerous in North America
| (outside of certain urban cores and small towns), due to
| the road design and zoning laws. This channel is helpful
| in understanding the problem: https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-
| Ac
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 99% of the US by land area is that bad; somewhat less so
| by population since NYC is navigable without a car and
| that's 8M people alone. There are approximately zero
| cities outside of New York where public transit is viable
| competition to cars.
|
| Weather permitting, cycling is doable in some places.
| Most places however have narrow (or no!) bike lanes with
| automotive surface traffic moving at least 48kph and
| drivers having zero clue how to drive around bicycles. In
| urban areas there are usually cars parked directly next
| to the bike lane, with drivers opening doors into the
| bike lane. Many commercial delivery vehicles park in bike
| lanes as well; in the places where that is forbidden
| (fewer than you would think) the laws against it are
| typically unenforced.
|
| [edit]
|
| To give you an idea, I drive my 13y.o. daughter to
| school. It takes about 10 minutes. This is ridiculous.
| However the other options are:
|
| - Walk (no place to leave bike near bus stop) a bit over
| 2km to nearest bus stop, take 45 minute bus ride.
|
| - Bicycle along a road with 72kph speed limit; bike lane
| is not separated and is as narrow as 20cm(!!) in places
| with cars that are alternating between going above the
| speed-limit and stopped (with cars turning across traffic
| in gaps while stopped; I have personally witnessed 2 car
| vs car collisions where the two cars couldn't see each
| other due to stopped lane of traffic between them. A
| bicyclist would have been killed. Most bicyclists
| (including me) avoid this road, though enough travel on
| it for one to get hit by a car roughly annually (only 1
| fatality in the past 3 years that I can remember though).
|
| - Bicycle an extra 3km (6 vs 9), crossing the above
| death-trap road, but not cycling along it. This still
| travels along a road with a 72kph speed limit, but
| traffic is much lighter and shoulders are much wider.
| There is one intersection that is a bit nuts, but can be
| traversed by hopping off the bicycle and using the cross-
| walks.
| com2kid wrote:
| > There are approximately zero cities outside of New York
| where public transit is viable competition to cars.
|
| Significant swaths of Boston.
|
| But, except for that, completely agree.
|
| :)
|
| A lot of people outside the US don't realize how new all
| our city layouts are. The majority of American cities
| were built out after cars came onto the scene. Did the
| cities exist before cars? Sure, but except for a few east
| coast cities, only with population numbers that could
| best be described as laughable.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >There are approximately zero cities outside of New York
| where public transit is viable competition to cars.
|
| It's viable in San Francisco proper as well.
| motoxpro wrote:
| Most places in the US don't have cycling infrastructure.
| i.e. bike lanes or shoulders.
| travisporter wrote:
| Oh yea - I actually got yelled by a truck in Houston for
| biking on a side street on a Saturday morning
| masklinn wrote:
| > when in practice that range is unneeded on a daily basis
|
| Which is great if you have space for and can afford two cars.
|
| But if you don't and / or can't, you need your one car to
| handle both your daily driving needs and the odd long range
| trip.
|
| > It's like demanding a all-day battery from a laptop, only to
| leave it plugged in all day long anyway.
|
| Which i'm reasonably sure is what's happening to many MBPs, but
| if you do actually meed the odd all-day battery... then you do
| need it.
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| I understand that most people just wait for their peers to
| switch to EV first and they'll only make the move when >X
| persons around them place an order and confirm from experience
| that EVs are the way to go. They avoid taking risk with what
| appears to be "unproven" technology that happens to cost a
| significant % of their household's wealth.
|
| I've never owned (or needed a car) so I can't speak for myself,
| but my family and friends are 100% convinced that BEV are the
| future, and they also have the means to buy one now. They just
| tell themselves that they must wait for their neighbors to buy
| an EV first and hear first hand that charging is indeed not an
| issue before making the switch. It's a chicken or the egg
| problem and in the meantime, they're fine with purchasing
| plugins (even though they know it's a worse choice and that the
| plugin will depreciate faster)
|
| Most people are simply risk-averse and they are enough early-
| adopters queuing for a Tesla delivery. So EV adoption can't go
| faster than Tesla can build factories and pump out cars. The
| early majority will follow suit.
| noahtallen wrote:
| I don't think it's quite that. Gas cars have a typical range
| near 400mi. From what I can tell, most electric cars are under
| that, or just very recently getting to that number. (So I guess
| we can say range is solved now!)
|
| Having recently explored it, electric cars are very nearly but
| not quite ahead in a few areas:
|
| - Electric or plug-in hybrids are still typically a more
| expensive option. For example, the RAV4 has a plug-in hybrid
| option, or just hybrid, but both of those are a fair amount
| more expensive than competing compact SUVs.
|
| - Infrastructure. Electric cars become practical when you can
| charge overnight at home. For many people, the cost of getting
| electric service retrofitted is too expensive, and many others
| are renters with no way to charge at home. Beyond that,
| charging on roadtrips is very hit or miss unless you have a
| Tesla. (And as a side note, with poor charging infra, longer
| range becomes more important.)
|
| Of course, both of these problems are close to being solved,
| but they add extra considerations that people don't have to
| make with gas cars.
|
| Anyways, main point: I think consumers are waiting for other
| reasons than 500mi range.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-10 23:01 UTC)