[HN Gopher] Realistic daily range of an electric vehicle
___________________________________________________________________
Realistic daily range of an electric vehicle
Author : pforret
Score : 70 points
Date : 2023-01-15 17:58 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.forret.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.forret.com)
| greendave wrote:
| Despite the provocative headline, it's not a bad rule of thumb.
|
| But at least in the US, pretty much any new EV you can buy has a
| rated range of 200 miles or more. More than 100 miles of
| commuting per day is a lot! Also, workplace charging is becoming
| more of a thing, and would effectively double your range without
| any additional inconvenience.
|
| Ironically, the inefficiency of ICEV engines is what makes them
| less variable in their range. First, you get heating for free
| because the engine produces an abundance of excess heat. Second,
| since the engines are at best 30% efficient, the effect of things
| like drag and grade are far less noticeable in terms of fuel
| consumption.
| cs702 wrote:
| My experience with EVs (Teslas):
|
| EVERYDAY CITY DRIVING - I drive whenever I need or want, without
| ever worrying about range. If I notice the expected range has
| dipped below ~60 miles, give or take, I plug it in at home at the
| end of my day. I'm _delighted_ that I never have to go to a gas
| station, which reeks of all that smelly /poisonous/explosive
| stuff.
|
| LONG TRIPS - I charge to 100% the night before, get on the road,
| and stop to charge only if/when the software tells me I should.
| The longest trip I've taken is ~325 miles, and it requires only
| one 15-20 minute stop to get 150+ miles of range at a
| supercharger (I grab a snack and go to the bathroom). Whenever
| possible, I try to stay in/go to places with destination
| charging, so I can plug the EV and find it fully charged by next
| morning.
| msandford wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree that 325mi is a long trip. I used to live
| in FL and you can drive more than 600mi and stay in the state.
| I now live in Texas where that number jumps to about 900mi. I'm
| sure in California it's at least 500mi.
|
| EVs can be great if your commute is less than 30mi one way, but
| that doesn't make them good for road trips. At least in the US.
| ajross wrote:
| We've done 2x 700 mile and one 1200 mile trip in our Y. Hands
| down it's the most comfortable road trip vehicle we've ever
| owned.
| josephcsible wrote:
| 325 miles is a long trip to drive IMO. My threshold for when
| a road trip is "long" is 250 miles.
|
| As for commuting, your 30 miles number is way low. Even if
| you accepted this article's ridiculously low 50% as true,
| most modern EVs (think 300 mile range) would still be fine
| for a commute that's 75 miles each way even with no charging
| at work. And that's way further than most people commute (to
| put it in perspective, living in Philadelphia and commuting
| to Manhattan would be 75 miles each way).
| spenrose wrote:
| Automobile trip length follows a power-law distribution
| (above walking distance). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfo
| rmation/pubs/pl08021/fig4...
| cs702 wrote:
| It's the longest trip _I_ have taken in an EV. I 'm speaking
| only about my own experience.
| DeRock wrote:
| I've done >800 miles in a day a few times (San Jose <->
| Seattle) with my EV (Ioniq 5). It was fine, stopped every 2-3
| hours for 15-20 mins. Granted, it's one of the better
| supplied charging corridors in the US, so your
| hassle/overhead may vary depending on where you are going.
| Arainach wrote:
| 325mi is nearly 5 hours at 70mph. It's objectively a long
| trip.
| ciconia wrote:
| I have a small electric car, with a range of about 100km. From my
| experience it really depends on your driving style and speed.
| dheera wrote:
| Totally agree, EPA ranges are bullshit. The real world has these
| things called hills that they've probably never heard of in
| Washington DC. It also doesn't snow much in in DC so they
| probably don't know about that either.
|
| They really should be reporting 50% of their ranges as standard.
| When people get slightly better than that, they'll be pleasantly
| surprised and it will result in much more customer satisfaction
| across the board.
|
| ALWAYS underpromise and overdeliver if you want happy customers.
| rassimmoc wrote:
| >>ALWAYS underpromise and overdeliver if you want happy
| customers.
|
| not if you have customers comparing you promise to competitions
| promise. In this case you will never have option to deliver
| anything
| dheera wrote:
| The EPA doesn't have competitors, they can totally do this
| just to increase electric car satisfaction which will help
| drive adoption.
|
| Everyone will be all over social media with videos saying how
| their car was rated for 300km but they got 400km out of it
| and EVs will start getting very, very positive reviews.
| bilsbie wrote:
| That doesn't even factor in that you have to stop at a charger
| that's not always at the end of your range. You stop where the
| chargers are.
| manmal wrote:
| Author first assumes that only 60% of the available battery
| capacity is used (80% > 20%) and then arrives at the conclusion
| that the range is lower than expected. Well, no shit.
|
| I personally do charge my Ioniq BEV to 100%, and I often drive it
| to, say, 6%. In summer, I get a range of 220km, and in winter
| 160-180km, depending on temperature and number of cold starts
| (cold starts seem to trigger a battery warm-up). SOH is still at
| 100% after almost 3 years.
| michpoch wrote:
| What do you do when you arrive at the charger with 6% battery
| left and the charger doesn't work? Or if there's a significant
| queue?
| manmal wrote:
| I just don't. With 6% (sometimes less) I arrive only at home
| or at sites with multiple chargers. Apps in the EU can show
| operating status for individual points, but I've stopped
| looking that up at some point.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Same thing as you do with a gas car and you can't get gas for
| any reason. Call AAA/roadside services?
| josephcsible wrote:
| What do you do if your gas gauge is on E and the only gas
| station in the small town you're in is closed?
| sigio wrote:
| Select charge-locations with 4+ chargers available, and in
| the larger charge-locations along motorway/freeway
| intersections, there's usually chargers from multiple
| networks/suppliers, so even failures on a backend of one
| provider can be worked around by using another network. Doing
| 2000km this week, I only encountered 1 case where I had to
| use the 50kw charger, as it was the only one available (there
| were 2 300kw chargers, 1 in use and 1 in maintenance-mode).
| Most charge-locations had 4+ available and unused stalls,
| with various locations having 10+ 150kw+ stations.
|
| Availability can be seen in many charge-apps miles before you
| get to the location, so if you see it at 75%+ capacity,
| select a different location.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| This is a very nice theory. Does not work in practice.
|
| Got into France, north of Troyes in Enyaq, last 20km in
| battery. Only chargers there in 30km perimeter are
| Freshmile 22kW chargers, which won't charge my car (can't
| start session, car refuses charger, tested 3 of them). Was
| able to save myself in local PSA dealership, which got
| their own charger and gave me 20km more so I can get to
| Troyes to Ionity charger.
|
| What is extremely annoying is
|
| * This is a large network, yet not compatible and there is
| no way to figure that out.
|
| * The car was actually trying to lead me on those charger
| via its own internal navigation, so even somebody who was
| creating this map believed that those chargers are
| compatible, yet they aren't.
|
| * I could never get into such situation with gas. In the
| most extreme case, I could have just use funnel to get the
| gas into the tank if hose would not be compatible with my
| car.
|
| So the fact that there are chargers around you means
| nothing at all if you don't know if they are working and
| are compatible without your car.
| manmal wrote:
| Try the ,,A better route planner" app if you haven't. It
| should give you routes that have plenty of error margin.
| limitedsupply wrote:
| Not OP and drive a Tesla. Charging stations are pretty large
| at least where I live. 10-15 chargers minimum and the Tesla
| nav system tells you in advance how many are available to
| use.
| xwdv wrote:
| [flagged]
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| You shake your fists at the cloud... and wait your turn.
| mateo- wrote:
| Personally I've never run into this but -- a long queue
| would be fine, the car doesn't eat up much electricity
| idling. As for charger status, I mostly use the Electrify
| America app for finding a charging station (i get 2 years
| free with my car) and it's good for showing charger count
| and availability. So, if a charger was out of commission,
| it would just show 3/4 available.
|
| Google maps will actually show similar availability of
| various other company stations.
| LBJsPNS wrote:
| Your gas gauge is pegged on E. There's no other gas
| station for miles. There's a significant queue. What do
| you do?
|
| How about shut up, get in line, and remind yourself next
| time not to be stupid and run out of gas? Or electricity?
| Or diesel?
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| Your car breaks. What. Do. You Do.
|
| The guy replying to you said it's a pretty unlikely
| situation, so you treat it the same as other unlikely,
| but always present, issues that your car might have. You
| accept his answer.
|
| Or you don't, and argue with him and say that you think
| he's wrong and it's going to happen too often, that's a
| fine reply too.
|
| Adding more punctuation doesn't help.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| How is there a queue for a broken charger?
|
| 6% is likely enough to get you to another charging site,
| or a regular outlet for a slower charge. I'd expect AAA-
| style roadside assistance to deal with these scenarios in
| the near future, as well.
| toast0 wrote:
| I mean, you can't walk to the nearest working charger
| with a gas can, but if you have your level 1 charger with
| you, you can probably find an outlet nearby. Utility
| electricity is nearly ubiquitous along highways. Any sort
| of building near a highway is bound to have electric
| service; the question is if you can convince the
| occupants to let you charge for a couple hours.
|
| If there's a big queue, you just wait. Same as if there's
| a big queue at the fueling station.
| [deleted]
| pforret wrote:
| I see colleagues that have to choose a new EV and use the EPA
| rating as an actual distance ("Oh I can drive to Paris in 1
| go"). They don't know that you normally don't start from 100%,
| and you don't go down to 0%. Your 94% range usage is
| impressive, but not the norm for daily usage. Most people
| follow their vendor's recommendations for battery longevity.
| davedx wrote:
| When I drove from NL to Paris of course I charge to 100%
| first.
|
| There's some rational logic in the article and comments but
| there's also some nonsense.
| pforret wrote:
| My article talks about daily usage. For long distance
| travel, obviously I charge to higher % and I use
| Superchargers. Although even in those circumstances, I
| never reach 400km between charges, more like 300-350km.
| Never the ilusive 533 km.
| manmal wrote:
| Oh the 94% is the vendor's recommendation. Hyundai recommends
| to charge to 100%, displays the first warning at 13%, and
| enters ,,turtle mode" at 5-6%.
|
| Why don't you start with 100% if you want to go to Paris in
| one go?
| tensor wrote:
| Most people also don't drive 400km+ in "daily usage." When
| they do they charge to 100%. Just like in a gas car you don't
| fill the tank 100% every day. But you do before a long trip.
| Can you imagine the article "well acshually, your gas car
| daily range is much lower because you don't usually start
| with a full tank!"
| manmal wrote:
| We went on several long trips with this car (600-800km),
| with all the bathroom breaks we didn't really notice the
| charging much. Took maybe half an hour longer than with an
| ICE. And that's with the first gen Ioniq, with quite low
| range. I bet with an Ioniq 5 we wouldn't notice any
| difference at all.
| tensor wrote:
| If you preheat the battery I've noticed far better winter driving
| range. In fact, I only recently noticed because I always preheat
| the cabin which preheats the battery. Recently I didn't do that
| and was pretty surprised at how much energy it used while it
| warmed up.
|
| If you typically plug in at home you should always be preheating
| the car before going out.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I charge my Bolt EV to 100% every day. Most manufacturers provide
| some headroom so rated capacity is less than actual and you
| aren't hitting 100% SOC, just what the car reports.
|
| What the OP also omits is that you gain range during fair
| weather. My Bolt EPA rating is 255 miles, but I've gotten 303
| miles in the summer and as low as 191 in the winter.
| pforret wrote:
| This is the first time I've heard anyone exceed their EPA
| range. 303 miles is impressive!
| cperciva wrote:
| I have the same experience with my Kona EV. Official range
| 415 km, but in the summer it's actually ~450 km. (Not that I
| ever run 100%-0% of course, but I get 90 km going from 80%
| down to 60%.)
| dashundchen wrote:
| Same with a Kia Niro EV I had, which is on a shared
| platform with the Kona. I think it was 239 miles EPA rated,
| in the summer it was quite easy to exceed. I don't have a
| lead foot and drive pretty efficiently though.
|
| Great car, good space, level 2 driver assists and very
| efficient which offset the slow DC charge speed. Relatively
| lightweight for an EV at 3800lbs as well.
| gcheong wrote:
| "In my case, I typically charge the car to 80%"
|
| My understanding is that the preservation of the battery is built
| into the charge controller and you shouldn't have to worry about
| it. In other words when your car says it's fully charged it's
| only "really" charged to 80% or some other cutoff as determined
| by the charge controller. I don't drive a Tesla so my only point
| of reference is my Fiat 500e which doesn't have as far as I know
| a setting to limit battery charging to a certain percentage and I
| would think most consumers just plug in overnight without thought
| to this.
| pornel wrote:
| Charging above 80% is also a complete waste of time, unless
| you're charging overnight.
|
| The fuller the battery is, the slower it charges. 10%-80%
| charge often takes same or less time than the final 80%-100%,
| so when road tripping it makes much more sense to make a few
| short top-ups than wait forever for last percent to trickle-
| charge.
| colordrops wrote:
| The Tesla notifies you that you will be shortening the life of
| the battery if you regularly charge to 100.
| sowbug wrote:
| Many Teslas being produced today use lithium-iron phosphate
| batteries, which can be charged to 100% without degradation.
| If you have an LFP-based Tesla, you won't get the
| notification.
| inciampati wrote:
| The author assumes that all EVs behave like Teslas. Other car
| manufacturers are aiming for simpler UI, and the charging
| system itself is meant to deal with the oddities of deciding
| exactly how much to charge the car to. For instance the often
| don't show a charge percentage but an estimated range with
| bounds.
|
| I apologize for not bringing a link but there is a beautiful
| story of real world range that shows that Teslas are
| systematically over reporting their range. It was posted
| recently. The author should probably read it before
| generalizing...
| pforret wrote:
| It doesn't matter if the 80/90% charging is hidden in the
| UI or not. The EPA uses a 100% -> 0% range, and all vendors
| use this range in their marketing material.Of course they
| do, because people compare product sheets when choosing.
|
| The actual range you will use day-to-day is way less.
| That's what I wanted to point out.
| ajross wrote:
| > The author assumes that all EVs behave like Teslas.
|
| It's not a Tesla thing, it's just battery chemistry.
| Virtually all EVs are being sold with NMC batteries which
| don't like sitting at 100%. We're starting to see a few
| LiFePO4 cars arrive on the market, which is a heavier but
| much more durable chemistry. Most of those are BYD cars,
| with a few other Chinese brands.
|
| Ironically the most common iron phosphate car to be seen on
| western roads is... a batch of chinese-made Tesla Model 3
| RWD's that reached the US market last year.
| pforret wrote:
| The Tesla app asks you how high the battery should charge
| (where I choose 80% for daily use), and it will warn you no to
| take higher than 90% except for sporadic long-distance
| travelling.
| sigio wrote:
| Just did a 1000km (and back) drive this week, using a Kia Niro,
| which does about 400km on 64kWh. Was amazed I actually managed to
| drive this distance with 4 charges one way, and just 3 on the way
| back, reaching almost 400km actually on the first leg of the
| return trip (though this was downhill from the Alps). With longer
| roadtrips you want to go way below 20% remaining charge. With the
| quality of the charging-network in western-europe, and using
| ABetterRoadPlanner I managed to get a charge at 2% and a second
| one at 8% remaining, thus giving you 25% more capacity than re-
| charging at ~20% (~4-80 compared to 20-80). And this was with
| winter-tires and a full car. Sure, the actual range is still
| lower than the EPA / WLTP / NEDC range, but very usable and
| predictable.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| That's not really amazing. That's a massive waste of time. I
| got 260km per charge in Enyaq iv80 going 130km/h on highway so
| cca same as you. That's 2 hours of driving and 1 hour of
| charging on 150kW+ charger.
| [deleted]
| bluecalm wrote:
| The author says his average mileage is 184Wh/km. I've seen
| similar numbers in other sources: about 200Wh/km.
|
| I am an avid cyclist. When I output 200W for an hour I can go
| 20-30km depending on the terrain. Maybe 15 if it's steep uphill
| all the way. Cyclists are not very aerodynamic. They sit high and
| have boxy shape. A small vehicle can be much more efficient (the
| reason recumbents beat standard bikes on a track).
|
| It all seems so wasteful to me. It's true sometimes you need to
| carry load or more people, or go to very steep uphill, or maybe
| sometimes you really need to go fast. In vast majority of cases
| though, especially inside populated areas it's one person and a
| short trip. You carry your 2 ton metal box with you, use 20-30x
| more energy than a cyclist would and take so much space traffic
| jams are inevitable.
|
| True innovation those electric cars. The very definition of
| missing the forest for a tree.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Wouldn't you rather want to compare manually operating a
| bicycle to an electric bicycle? They've basically taken over
| China for more than a decade now, so it's not like they are
| uncommon.
| bluecalm wrote:
| E-bikes are fine. My point was that bikes are not very
| efficient because of shitty aerodynamics. A light, low and
| narrow electric vehicle would be more efficient and more
| palatable to a lot of people than bikes.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Bikes aren't typically going at speeds where aerodynamics
| is very relevant. Even E-bikes, maybe e-motorcycles have
| that problem?
| stefap2 wrote:
| So basically wait until the epa range of an electric car is 1600
| miles. Then you may get 400 miles in cold weather comparable with
| an ice car.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Impossible due to laws of physics surrounding diffusion based
| batteries. The vehicle would be so big to accommodate the
| heavier and heavier battery it would not be street legal.
|
| Green hydrogen will be an eventual solution for those use
| cases.
| limitedsupply wrote:
| Or just read the article and realize that the author doesn't
| fully charge their car?..
| pforret wrote:
| Tesla advises 90% max, other sources advise charging to 80%
| to save battery performance. I use 80% for day-to-day, 90%
| for longer day trips, 100% for international travel.
| [tesla.com/support/home-charging-
| installation/faq](https://www.tesla.com/support/home-
| charging-installation/faq)
| limitedsupply wrote:
| I am aware of that. I charge my Tesla to about 50-70% as
| most of my infrequent trips are short. But I also don't
| write articles complaining about low mileage.
| pforret wrote:
| This article was inspired by colleagues who are choosing
| their first EV and use the EPA range as an actual
| distance. I have colleagues that live > 100km from work.
| I wanted to point out that an EPA rating of 350km doesn't
| mean the car is a good match.
| limitedsupply wrote:
| Good point. For daily long range commute EVs are not the
| best option right now. Even if you add some charge
| midway, it still takes 20-30 minutes, so not ideal.
|
| (Saying that, if gas prices are a major concern then EVs
| could still be the preferred choice.)
| esturk wrote:
| "Cold weather has an influence on the battery capacity too."
|
| I take this to mean that the author acknowledges GAS cars are
| also affected by cold weather. There's just no escaping
| thermodynamics. It's also like pointing out GAS cars' MPG is
| reduced by 20%+ in cold weather. While it's true, it's like
| pointing out a gotcha edge case for all cars. So the conclusion
| can also apply the same way to GAS cars. 'Next time you estimate
| the mileage, take a 20% discount!'
|
| According to energy.gov[1]:
|
| Cold weather and winter driving conditions can significantly
| reduce fuel economy. Fuel economy tests show that, in city
| driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is roughly 15%
| lower at 20degF than it would be at 77degF. It can drop as much
| as 24% for short (3- to 4-mile) trips.
|
| [1] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/fuel-economy-cold-
| weather....
| fwungy wrote:
| I can fill up the gas car quickly almost anywhere if I'm
| running low on fuel.
|
| Also, survival time in a stuck ICE in Winter is much higher.
| jtc331 wrote:
| Actually the "stuck in winter" problem for EVs is a myth:
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38883045/electric-cars-
| sn...
| cbsmith wrote:
| That article seems a bit misleading. I have to think the impact
| of cold weather on an ICE vehicle is highly variable on other
| factors. It certainly wasn't quite so bad when I was growing up
| in Canada, and most of the variance was attributable to
| differences in winter vs. summer fuel mixes.
|
| Most of the effects it describes are only in effect while the
| car is warming up, and given that say, engine oil typically
| warms up to around 70C when operating, it's hard to believe
| that the difference between starting at say -10C vs 20C is
| really going to add up for anything more than a VERY short
| drive (one that, if you cared about fuel economy or
| environmental impact, you'd probably just make on foot).
|
| Sure, if you have electric seat warmers and the like, that
| could add up, but one of the "advantages" of an ICE car is
| their inefficiency leads to lots of waste heat, so they can
| keep the car cabin warm just from that, without needing to use
| electric heaters at all (keeping the interior cabin warm is one
| of the primary factors that sucks up EV range in cold weather).
| esturk wrote:
| No where did the energy.gov article nor parent article
| mention interior heating. The discussion was always about
| battery performance vs ICE performance degradation under cold
| weather.
| pforret wrote:
| Actually I wasn't referring to ICE, just that the climate
| influenced the realistic daily range too. But your remark is
| very interesting, I would have thought that combustion did not
| suffer much from the cold.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Maybe it's air density with coefficient of drag that worsens
| in cold air.
| cbsmith wrote:
| I believe those were factors once upon a time, but modern
| cars tend to heavier and more aerodynamic than they once
| were, so drag is less of a factor... and the air gets
| warmed up prior to combustion, which minimizes the impact
| of its initial temperature.
| roamerz wrote:
| I thought this was a great real world analysis taking many
| factors into consideration.
| simonjgreen wrote:
| Calling out an enormous assumed fact in this article that I very
| much doubt is the case. Author claims people don't charge to
| 100%: they absolutely do.
| sam345 wrote:
| This just shows another reason EVs are unrealistic at least in
| rural USA. 200 km or 125 miles in cold weather. And that's for a
| Tesla a top of the line EV. Even if you live in the city most
| people want ability to travel long distances. I just reviewed
| consumer reports reviews of EVs. Not at all impressed. Overall
| ratings were very low for most cars. Charging is proprietary for
| the most part or slow or just in general a hassle. To get decent
| reviews you need to spend $50k at minimum. The tax rebate may
| help to extend the fantasy for a while but even Tesla owners are
| getting disillusioned. For the most part Tesla has saturated the
| market for high end EVs and the rest are low quality or suffer
| technical problems. I mean the vision is enticing but most
| Americans won't put up with the expense and hassle. And attempts
| to legislate the hassle won't bode well for politicians or will
| result in the predictable deadline extensions. And this is not
| even taking into consideration the extreme burden it will put on
| the grid which is not at all prepared for hundreds of millions of
| electric vehicles.
| jabart wrote:
| If you are driving an hour both ways every day in a cold
| climate, yeah, EV probably isn't the right fit for another
| couple of years. It's also an extreme end of usage. I imagine
| that a large portion of those people in a rural community don't
| drive more than 60 miles a day. It is also why the average
| commute per a person is not 125 miles but substantially less in
| the US.
|
| For reference, 125 miles is about Louisville, KY to
| Indianapolis, IN.
| sam345 wrote:
| 125 miles is nothing in the US. It's not about commuting,
| it's about road trips to the next city, the next state. Sure
| most people are not doing that every day but they are doing
| that a few times a year to visit friends, family, and for
| business. And then what? Meticulouly planning your charges
| and timing your breaks? or taking a bus or a plane? If you've
| just spent $50,000 on an EV I would imagine you want to drive
| not worry about whether you are going to be stuck without a
| charge. EV success is about selling to the average driver,
| not EV and green enthusiasts.
| pornel wrote:
| It's the range between charging stops, not the range until
| you abandon the car and walk.
|
| With the current 800V battery tech you need to spend 20-30
| minutes charging per 2-3 hours of driving. It's not as fast
| as a pee-in-the-bottle cannonball run, but only about 10%
| slower than a normal ICE car trip time.
|
| Check out actual times with https://abetterrouteplanner.com
| with a fast-charging car like a recent Tesla model or Kia
| EV6/Ioniq 5/GV60.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| If by meticulously planning you mean using a navigation
| system that most EVs come with, I don't see why this is
| hard? Sure, Tesla provides better routing software than EV
| manufacturers, but this isn't a hard problem (this is HN,
| so we should have some affinity for software).
| michaelteter wrote:
| For occasional commutes, 115km one way is ok (not for me, but
| it's not unthinkable).
|
| But 115km each way (230km round trip) 5 days per week is a
| problem. We should not be doing this, at least not in individual
| cars. That electric car is still creating a lot of particulate
| pollution from the tires on the road, not to mention its
| contribution to general traffic.
|
| The focus should be on how to reduce the commute distance (or
| eliminate it as often as possible), and to build/use efficient
| mass transit systems.
|
| So much of our intellectual and financial energy seems to be
| directed toward overclocking the horse and buggy - with
| diminishing returns. At some point it's time to step back and
| rethink the greater system. (I believe that point was 20+ years
| ago, when it became clear that cities would continue to become
| the population growth centers.)
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > So much of our intellectual and financial energy seems to be
| directed toward overclocking the horse and buggy
|
| I don't personally think it's realistic to expect everybody/all
| people (who mainly work for a living/work hard) to ask them to
| give up the luxury of spending their hard earned money on being
| able to transport themselves (to and from their job) in
| something other than the comfort of their own car. I think
| you're suggesting "we should all be doing public transport,
| it's more efficient."
|
| You aren't wrong, but there's a human/emotional element/aspect
| here.
| pizza234 wrote:
| > I don't personally think it's realistic to expect
| everybody/all people (who mainly work for a living/work hard)
| to ask them to give up the luxury of spending their hard
| earned money on being able to transport themselves (to and
| from their job) in something other than the comfort of their
| own car
|
| Societies don't need to ask citizens to choose a given mean
| of transport; they can route their choices them by making
| some means more convenient and other ones less.
|
| Increasing car costs and reducing lanes/streets/parkings,
| while making the public transport more
| frequent/extensive/comfortable, will make citizens choose
| public transport (or more sustainable means) themselves.
|
| On the other hand, when cities are developed (in certain
| cultures or at least areas) with private transport in mind,
| and it can be hard or impossible to redesign for public
| transport.
| generalizations wrote:
| > Societies don't need to ask citizens to choose a given
| mean of transport; they can route their choices them by
| making some means more convenient and other ones less.
|
| I'm reading that as, "we don't need to _ask_ , we can just
| make them do it." Which to me is pretty arrogant.
| sagarm wrote:
| Society has made the choice so far to make owning a car
| as convenient and inexpensive as possible, while
| allocating almost no resources to other options. And no,
| usage fees including gas taxes don't cover the cost of
| roads -- let alone the land usage, externalities, and
| supporting infrastructure like drainage.
| janef0421 wrote:
| I don't think most people see car commuting as a luxury. It's
| very stressful.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Tough to say "most". You're probably right but a non-zero
| amount of people who pay luxury cars like Mercedes/BMW want
| a) status symbols but b) the time they spend in their
| vehicles as enjoyable.
| entropicgravity wrote:
| And not to mention the epidemiological aspect, hello covid. A
| compromise situation could be individual transport but much
| smaller than current cars. Because EV's scale much more
| easily than ICE technology it's practical to have EV's with,
| say, a three person occupancy that take up half of a current
| car lane. This is the best of both worlds. Single occupancy
| vehicles and a city's transportation infrastructure doubles
| at zero cost.
| janef0421 wrote:
| E-bikes are quite close to what you are describing, and are
| already remarkably popular.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| There's a lot of ways to describe commuting in traffic jams,
| but the word "comfort" is probably not in the top ten.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| Personally, my time in my car is some of the only pure "me"
| time I have, and I would hazard a guess that it is the same
| for many others.
|
| A car to me is a personal, climate controlled cocoon, where I
| can turn on whatever music I want, have a coffee or a snack,
| and escape for the 30 minutes or however long it takes to
| reach my destination...without the chance of being bothered
| by anyone else, much less any of the other belligerents that
| you are sure to find on public transit from time to time.
|
| I will continue to own and drive my own car for this simple
| fact...
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I love driving as much as the next person but being on the
| roads at commuting time is hell on earth. Battling all of
| the other sleep deprived idiots to travel 3 miles in an
| hour. It's awful.
| dzikimarian wrote:
| For me it's 15 minutes in pretty relaxed traffic and
| music/audiobook. Garage to office door + easy detour to
| shop if necessary.
|
| In the summer bike is nice alternative, but during bad
| weather there's nothing comparable to the comfort of car.
|
| Please remember not everyone lives in bay area with long
| commute and mild weather all year long :-)
| Tade0 wrote:
| > That electric car is still creating a lot of particulate
| pollution from the tires on the road
|
| I hear this a lot, but how much pollution is it really? It
| surely doesn't register on any municipal particulate
| measurement station.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I worked in a temporary office for a summer next to a large
| overpass. It had no AC so we had the windows open most
| afternoons. The amount of particulate that would coat
| everything in just a single afternoon shocked me.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I had a link once to a government paid for study that claimed
| tire and brake dust were about 5-10% of the dust produced by
| light cars. The rest being tailpipe emissions. Of course
| brake dust, tire dust, and exhaust PM2.5 aren't the same
| types of dust. So feels to me like grasping for straws
| especially considering no one makes the same arguments
| against large SUV's and trucks.
| replygirl wrote:
| https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-
| tyre...
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Interesting that driving style has such an outsized impact.
| Perhaps aggressive driving and tire composition should be
| regulated.
| dashundchen wrote:
| I think auto infrastructure should be designed around
| lower steady speeds with roundabouts and stop signs and
| lights, at least in the US. Right now we have high speed
| limits, wide roads which encourage speeding, but a lot of
| stop signs, long stop lights and driveway filled stroads
| that are terrible for everyone.
|
| I'd like narrower lanes, bump outs raised intersections
| and crosswalks to slow traffic. Reduce curb cuts and
| driveways to cut down on conflicts - thinking Dutch style
| access streets and alleys that connect to the less
| interrupted travel lane.
|
| The added benefit of lower speeds would make it safer for
| bikes and pedestrians and reduce auto crash fatalities.
|
| Slower steady speeds would reduce stooa go, dropping
| noise and particulate emission from acceleration.
| replygirl wrote:
| probably more effective to regulate the weight of
| vehicles by use than to broaden the definition of
| reckless driving. for safety, too
| adrianN wrote:
| Cars should be smart enough to automatically adapt the
| allowed driving style to their surroundings. There is no
| reason why cars should be able to accelerate at maximum
| torque on normal city roads. Or go their max speed.
| xnx wrote:
| or tax tires
| reducesuffering wrote:
| CA does have a tire tax of $1.75 per tire.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| According to the linked article excluding some compounds
| would be lower hanging fruit. Though I agree tires could
| use a higher tax given how much of a problem they
| produce.
| ogzk wrote:
| [flagged]
| replygirl wrote:
| proximity to public transportation is one of the strongest
| indicators of economic mobility
| hammock wrote:
| > We'll never have public transport because
|
| Wait, we...do...have public transport. Effective and useful
| public transport. In NYC 60% of people commute with it.
| Boston, DC, SF, Chicago, Philadelphia... You might have a
| specific gripe because it doesn't take you exactly where you
| want to go with exactly the comfort you think you need, but
| these places have public transit that is good enough for
| hundreds of thousands or even millions to use every day
| ericd wrote:
| Having lived in a few of those cities, I'd say NYC is very
| much the exception. It'd be great if every major city's
| public transit was as good, but it's inadequate or barely
| adequate for a large percentage of the area of those other
| cities.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| London has fantastic public transport.
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| If you look outside of the USA lots of cities have good
| public transport systems that aren't plagued by poverty,
| crime, homelessness and mental illness. Just because
| Americans have decided to optimize their society to maximize
| misery of a minority for the benefit of an even smaller
| minority doesn't make it necessary.
| blfr wrote:
| It's the other way round: cities that aren't plagued by
| homelessness, rampant drug use, and criminality can have
| good public transit. Middle class people simply won't pay
| (in taxes or directly) for public transit that acts as a
| homeless shelter and routinely features crimes against
| them.
| bluGill wrote:
| Transit isn't plagued by those here either, but a tiny
| minority gets a lot of attention.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Western European countries are also much stricter on law
| and order via transit. Brussels, for example, deploys
| heavily armed police to check fares on the metro often. And
| Switzerland...you really don't want to break the laws there
| even if you have nothing to lose.
| landemva wrote:
| I had three interactions with Swiss police in various
| cities, and they were all ok. Maybe it depends on the
| person?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Well, it also depends if you can speak a national
| language. Nothing beats getting chewed out by a Swiss cop
| for only speaking English.
| dehrmann wrote:
| You're getting downvoted to hell, but there's some truth to
| this. No one wants to ride Hotel 22 as a passenger, and
| homeless people on Bart is at least a small negative for
| ridership. Caltrain doesn't have this problem because they do
| fare enforcement, a ticket only gets you one ride, and its
| mostly a commuter train. Caltrain even lets people drink on
| the train and its not a problem, but it's because of the
| crowd they serve.
| nsenifty wrote:
| > Caltrain even lets people drink on the train and its not
| a problem, but it's because of the crowd they serve.
|
| Even Caltrain gets rowdy on the game days, particularly
| with people on the bike cars refusing to give way to bikers
| boarding/deboarding in the intermediate stops. While this
| only happens occasionally, it made me miss my stop enough
| times (in addition to lack of safety with last mile biking)
| to completely give up on Caltrain.
| landemva wrote:
| > Being poor in a city
|
| Homeless are attracted to free services, which are often
| abundant in cities.
|
| > the worst way to try to climb out of poverty.
|
| I disagree, as anyone who wants to work can find more help
| wanted signs in cities than along interstate in rural
| Nebraska.
| hammock wrote:
| > That electric car is still creating a lot of particulate
| pollution from the tires on the road
|
| And brake dust, which includes a lot of metal
| ceejayoz wrote:
| EVs make substantially less of that, due to regenerative
| braking.
| hammock wrote:
| What portion of drivers use one pedal?
| potatochup wrote:
| The EPA uses whatever the default settings for the car
| are, so it's usually on my default. Anecdotally most
| people I know use it
| limitedsupply wrote:
| Are there EV drivers that do not? I don't think I could
| ever go back to using 2 or 3 pedals.
| roland35 wrote:
| I only use one pedal in stop and go or city driving.
| Otherwise it's harder to maintain smooth speeds and is
| less efficient than just coasting.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Cruise control should solve that problem no?
| revscat wrote:
| My Model S is approaching 90k miles and I have not needed
| to replace the pads. It has two pedals.
| shever73 wrote:
| Most EV drivers, I'd say. My sample size is small, but me
| and my friends who have EVs all drive with one pedal.
| gambiting wrote:
| You don't need to have the one pedal driving enabled to
| reap the benefits. In all EVs and PHEVs you brake with
| the electric motors first even when using the actual
| pedal - normal brakes are engaged only past a certain
| threshold.
|
| Also to give a personal anecdote, in my Volvo XC60 PHEV,
| I've just had the inspection done and after 24k miles the
| brake pads are 5% worn. That's insane for a 2.2 tonne SUV
| with 400bhp. If it wasn't a PHEV I can guarantee that the
| pads would be nearly worn by now.
| potatochup wrote:
| > you brake with the electric motors first
|
| This is not true. At least for Teslas, the brake pedal
| only controls the friction brakes (they are hydraulically
| coupled). Same with a Chevy bolt. Unsure on other EVs
| [deleted]
| josephcsible wrote:
| In Teslas, any time your foot is completely off the
| accelerator, you're getting maximum regenerative braking.
| If you then press the brake pedal too, you're getting
| maximum regenerative braking plus friction braking.
| potatochup wrote:
| I think I misunderstood your use of "actual pedal" in the
| GP comment. You meant accelerator by that? I assumed
| brake pedal
| josephcsible wrote:
| My point was that unless you do something bizarre or go
| out of your way to make regeneration not happen (e.g.,
| hit both pedals at once, or shift into neutral while
| braking), the friction brakes will never get used except
| for when full regen is already getting used.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Yes, Tesla is an outlier in the EV business. They only
| have one-pedal driving with regen or fully friction
| braking with the brake pedal. That is not true of the
| Chevy Bolt.
|
| Almost every other EV (and hybrid) on the market does
| blended regen with the brake pedal. Regen is applied when
| you first press on the brake pedal. As long as the
| pressure is mild to moderate, regen is used. If you press
| hard (as in emergency braking) the friction brakes are
| engaged. When you get below about 10mph the friction
| brakes are also applied as regen is minimal at that
| speed. The result is that these cars will do regen
| whether you are using one pedal driving or not and their
| brakes will wear much less often.
|
| I'm not sure why Tesla doesn't do blended regen. Early
| one the manufacturers didn't have the algorithms tuned
| and you could feel the transitions but that has not been
| the case for several year. It seems that Tesla just never
| bothered. They seem to expect you to only use one-pedal
| driving and some people do.
|
| One think to watch for if you only use one-pedal driving,
| your friction brake pads can get rusty from disuse. Then
| when you do press on the brake pedal, the brakes may grab
| or may not decelerate as quickly as expected. Some people
| find that their brake pads are actually frozen from rust
| and don't work at all. It is a good idea to once in a
| while use those friction brakes to scrub off the surface
| rust.
| [deleted]
| bluGill wrote:
| While EVs do use less brakes than ICE, they still should
| last a lot longer than you give them credit for.
|
| Of course it's depends on how you drive, but if you are
| not getting 100k miles out of your brakes the problem is
| not the car but the driver.
| gambiting wrote:
| Sure. My last car was a Mercedes AMG that needed new pads
| every 8-10k miles, so I might be a bit biased. But TBF my
| car before that was a Land Rover Discovery 3 and that was
| eating pads like crazy despite not driving it
| aggressively at all - I attributed it to the weight of
| the vehicle.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Most of them as far as I can tell. It's one of the main
| buying points to getting an EV.
| ericd wrote:
| I assume most Tesla drivers, at least, it's definitely
| the happy path. I probably use my brake pedal once every
| few hundred miles.
| philshem wrote:
| One-pedal driving does minimize the use of the brakes by
| using the motor to decelerate.
|
| I can't find an English wiki article, but here is German
|
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Pedal-Driving
| pelasaco wrote:
| My curiosity here, but is it true as well for bikes (e-bikes
| or not) using disc brakes? As fair as I understand they are
| really similar with car's one...
| longitudinal93 wrote:
| Judicious use of regenerative braking practically eliminates
| brake dust.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Almost all EVs that are not Teslas, use blended regen with
| the brake pedal. When you press on the brakes, regen is used
| for light to moderate braking and the friction brakes only
| come into play on hard braking. Most EVs product little brake
| dust and their brakes last a long time due to this regen.
| Teslas are the anomaly here.
| amelius wrote:
| And their increased weight makes them much harsher on roads
| than normal cars. They wear down roads faster, and I suppose
| they also produces more particle pollution than normal car
| for this reason.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Threads like this read like EVs are double or more the
| weight of an ICE car.
|
| EVs are a couple hundred pounds heavier in average than an
| equivalent ICE car. In terms of road wear, it's still a
| rounding error compared to industrial trucks.
| cbsmith wrote:
| "couple of pounds heavier"??!?! That's understating it.
|
| Seriously, a Model 3 is ~500 lbs heavier than Honda
| Accord, and a Model Y is significantly heavier than a
| Model 3.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Typo, fixed. I could have sworn I typed "couple hundred
| pounds".
|
| But to your point, a bmw 430 is also around 500 pounds
| heavier than a Honda Accord. Nobody sees a BMW and freaks
| out about tire wear. But people seem to hyperfixate on
| any small negative of EVs.
| cbsmith wrote:
| > But to your point, a bmw 430 is also around 500 pounds
| heavier than a Honda Accord.
|
| At the heaviest weights, yes, but the heaviest Accord
| weight and the lightest 430i weight are only 148 lbs
| apart... and the Model Y can weigh in almost 400 lbs
| heavier than the heaviest of 430i's.
|
| > Nobody sees a BMW and freaks out about tire wear.
|
| You mean, so long as it's not an EV? ;-)
|
| Seriously, nobody freaks out about a BMW 430i's tire
| wear, because that of the branding of the car. It's like
| freaking out over coffee increasing your heart rate.
|
| > But people seem to hyperfixate on any small negative of
| EVs.
|
| We're obviously talking to different people. At least the
| folks I know talk about how crazy heavier cars keep
| getting across the board (case in point:
| https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-
| car/...).
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| The road wear is said to be proportional to the fourth
| power of axle load. http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/fourth-
| power-rule-road-tax/
|
| That means you deal twice the damage by increasing weight
| by only 20%. Seems in line with electric car weight
| difference.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Yeah, that's my point. A single garbage truck is going to
| do more wear on the roads than thousands of passenger
| vehicles. Anything besides industrial vehicles is
| negligible.
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| A garbage truck has many tires to distribute the load.
| Also they accelerate/decelerate differently.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Yeah turns out an electric drive train is much lighter
| than a gasoline one which offsets the battery weight
| somewhat. Gasoline engines aren't light, nor are the
| transmissions. Currently I think the weigh penalty is
| about 15-20%.
|
| My guesstimate is if they can increase the energy density
| of batteries by 30-50% the weight penalty will disappear.
| Some of the reduction is the weight reduction of the
| battery and some is due to cascading effects on the rest
| of the car.
| ericd wrote:
| Because of the weight scaling characteristics (damage done
| corresponds to fourth power of axle weight), it's
| irrelevant if trucks are allowed on the same roads. The
| damage increase done by EVs is probably not even worth
| considering.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Model Y in cold climate here.
|
| While the sticker estimates of range are probably advertising,
| and the % battery to range meter you get in the app / dashboard
| is junk, _the drive estimates are spot on_.
|
| When you enter a destination, it will tell you very precisely how
| much energy it will take, accounting for every current condition,
| including temp. This must surely be data driven because it is
| alarmingly good. So your day to day use will not involve these
| guessing games, imho
| jvanderbot wrote:
| For example, when driving a long distance (150m+), it told me
| that I could have saved X miles if my tires were inflated
| another 5psi, and saved Y miles if I had used less cabin
| heating.
| jaggederest wrote:
| That's impressive. I can see accounting for the state of the
| world, weather, and the elevation change and cornering
| between A and B, but being able to generate counterfactuals
| "if X were true or Y were true" is strong stuff.
| SaintSeiya wrote:
| the problems are not the cars, but the entitled excess of humans
| that thinks they deserves a car for them alone or at most their
| spoiled child and pet. We need feudalism back, when people knew
| their place as peasants.
| gambiting wrote:
| So you deliberately don't charge the battery to 100% then
| conclude the realistic range is shorter than advertised? I get
| you don't charge to 100% every day, but if you know you're going
| to drive further then....you do. Or just do what I do and charge
| to max each time, the battery is warrantied for 8 years, it's
| going to be fine.
|
| >>Imagine your daily commute is 115 km (e.g. Roeselare-Brussel
|
| That would be an _extremely_ unusual commute to be doing by car
| in Europe, people do it but it 's very rare. If you're going to
| be covering over 1000km a week(!!!!) Then get a good diesel, not
| a brand new EX90.
| dheera wrote:
| Read the fine print, battery being under warranty often means
| they can replace your battery with a USED one with upto 30%
| range degradation.
| richwater wrote:
| That's a fantastic way to crater your cars resale value.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Yes, putting a lot of miles on any car is going to affect
| resale value.
| dheera wrote:
| Why do Americans care so much about resale instead of just
| using the stuff you bought?
|
| If I ever buy a house it'll be to actually live life in it,
| not to nickel-and-dime some poor college student.
| colordrops wrote:
| It's double edged, the first edge is selfish, maximum
| extraction of value. The second is definitely not exclusive
| to Americans - taking care of your belongings and reducing
| the rate of sending things to landfill.
| sicp-enjoyer wrote:
| I agree this is a cultural problem. Houses are seen as
| retirement vehicle, etc. I think it's partially a sales
| tactic, to switch your brain into "investing" mode and
| willing to fork up a lot of cash and leverage (I'm
| "investing" in a Tesla, see how much gas i'll save?).
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Why do Americans care so much about resale instead of
| just using the stuff you bought?
|
| I expect that you throw your old car away whenever you get
| a new one?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Many of us do, yes. Drive it until it's primary worth is
| scrap.
| pacerwpg wrote:
| But that doesn't make a very good mobile status symbol.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Many of us do, yes.
|
| I doubt it, because
|
| > Drive it until it's primary worth is scrap.
|
| But that means selling it for scrap, which is still not
| "throwing it away".
|
| Besides, a car that's 30 years old _is still worth more_
| than scrap, and even then, scrapped cars _are still sold
| for money_.
|
| So, no, there are very few people either throwing or
| giving their cars away after driving it for however long
| it lasted.
| bluGill wrote:
| Because the better the resale, the nicer the car you can
| afford to replace it. Most new cars are kept for 3 years
| and traded in, (or leased) so the better the resale the
| more money to put into your next car. Or if you lease the
| less your lease will be.
|
| Those who buy used cars keep their cars longer, and are
| willing to pay more for a car they think will last longer.
| gambiting wrote:
| How so, exactly? There's no way for anyone to check how much
| a battery was charged regularly, just like there's no way to
| check if a car was only used to drive to church once a week
| or driven like a hooligan hitting redline all the time - I'm
| not suggesting fraud of course, far from it - just that
| buyers have to assume the worst possible use case, and if so
| I don't see how actually regularly charging the battery to
| max affects the resale value at all. Besides, I don't expect
| the resale value to be very high after 8 years(realistically
| more) anyway.
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| I believe the SoC (state of charge) history is recorded for
| Teslas and other EVs. There is a company called Recurrent
| [1] which uses this data to estimate battery degradation. I
| think the idea is to generate something like a Carfax
| report for used EV battery packs.
|
| [1] https://www.recurrentauto.com/
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| This is not uncommon for people in Belgium to commute that far,
| especially in software.
| gambiting wrote:
| Sure, there will be groups of people who are doing that. But
| to commute 200km a day? That will be something like 0.0001%
| of all workers, I cannot imagine it's any more than that.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| You'd be surprised. Belgium is weird. Lots of companies in
| Brussels, which is central in Belgium. And lots of people
| commute in. Every day, going and coming back.
|
| The freeways are clogged every morning going towards
| Brussels and every evening leaving Brussels.
| gambiting wrote:
| I can believe the motorways are clogged, it's a capital
| city after all - but who lives 100km away from their
| workplace, and why? I knew someone who did this in
| Germany, but his argument has always been that actually,
| this is "only" 30-60 minutes away on the autobahn
| depending on conditions(which I still think was nuts),
| but from what you're saying people accept 2-3 hours per
| day(!!!!) In a car just to get to work? That's nuts, and
| again, I really doubt it's common in any way shape or
| form.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Even if you do 100%, with just 1 year of used, my Tesla battery
| on 100% charge shows 320 miles, which is a far cry from 358
| advertised.
|
| Plus the other estimates are correct. The range drops if it's
| too cold, or if it is too hot, or if you use any of the
| features that the car advertises, or if you're driving on a
| freeway, or if it is a stop and go traffic, or if you gain
| elevation, or basically if you use your car as a car.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I still love my car and I would never drive
| an non EV again, and a non Tesla EV at the moment. But calling
| out the marketing bs is totally fair.
| ajross wrote:
| My Y is showing about 93% of rated range after 19k miles,
| FWIW.
|
| > The range drops if [...] you gain elevation
|
| That's true, but unless you're driving inexorably up into the
| Himalayas, you're going to come down that hill. EVs have a
| magic trick they can play in that situation. :)
|
| In point of fact regenerative braking makes EV's equivalent
| range penalty in hilly terrain much (MUCH) better than any
| fuel-burning vehicle.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| EVs do much better in stop and go traffic. I wouldn't be
| surprised if some even exceeds EPA range estimates in those
| cases.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| My experience has been that the car does best when you're
| driving at a steady speed of 25mph without having to stop.
| This is based on the internal chart that Tesla provides.
|
| When you're in stop and go, you actually use a lot more
| energy to go from 0->X but do not regenerate back enough
| when you come down to 0. On the other hand, maintaining a
| steady 25mph uses a lot less energy as compared to 0->X.
| Again, this is based on the Tesla energy usage data that
| they themselves show in car.
| landemva wrote:
| USA traffic engineers love stop lights which force idling.
| Fortunately some European tech to stop/start the engine is
| arriving in USA. In isolated cases, some USA intersections
| are being converted to traffic circles. Installation of new
| stop lights should require a giant pollution fine paid by
| government.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| My 2018 Ford escape has auto-stop/start when stopped. But
| it almost never works. No idea why. It worked for the
| first year maybe, then disappeared.
| falcolas wrote:
| It can be turned off, and there's very little visual
| indication that this has happened. The feature bugs some
| drivers, so if you have a second driver, they could have
| easily done it.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| I've toggled it many times to no avail.
| jtc331 wrote:
| I doubt it would outperform EPA estimates (you can only
| recapture energy not create it afresh with regenerative
| braking), but compared to ICE cars the percentage of stated
| range would be very high.
| josephcsible wrote:
| The Chevy Volt PHEV had an estimated 53-mile all electric
| range. During the summer, I routinely got 56-60, and once
| got 67.5 miles before the engine had to kick in.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It's because air resistance is a much bigger drag on
| efficiency for an EV, so stop and go traffic is a bit
| more closer to its ideal efficiency (which is going slow
| without stopping).
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| I used a Nissan Leaf as my thrice weekly commuter vehicle
| for several months. It couldn't quite make the full round
| trip on a 100% charge and there was nowhere to plugin at
| work. For a while, I'd go to Ikea at lunch and charge there
| during my lunch break. That was enough extra charge to make
| it all the way home but going to Ikea each day for lunch
| got old fast. Instead, I started stopping at charge point
| near a Fry's on the way home but even Fry's got boring
| after a few days. Then I discovered if I got off the
| freeway about fifteen miles earlier than my usual exit and
| used surface streets, I could make it home even though it
| was a bit longer distance and plenty of stop lights, stop
| signs, and traffic slower than the highway. I suspect the
| lower wind resistance at the slower speed is what provided
| the extra bit so I could get home with about nine miles of
| range showing on the dash. Probably wasn't good for the
| battery but it was the last few months of a lease and never
| ended up losing any bars of range. The anxiety sure was
| real.
| pforret wrote:
| > What percentage should I charge the battery to? > > For
| regular use, we recommend keeping your car set within the
| 'Daily' range bracket, up to approximately 90%. Charging up to
| 100% is best saved for when you are preparing for a longer
| trip. You can adjust how full the battery charges from the
| charge settings menu. > [tesla.com/support/home-charging-
| installation/faq](https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-
| installation/faq)
|
| > There are two reasons: charging performance and battery
| longevity. Most of the time you should only charge an EV to 80%
| because charging rates slow down dramatically past the 80%
| mark. And two, the long-term health of your vehicle's battery
| pack is improved when kept below 100%. > [witricity.com](https:
| //witricity.com/newsroom/blog/the-80-rule/)
| jtc331 wrote:
| The "charging slows down" is only true for DC fast charging.
| If you're charging at home it doesn't have an effect because
| the ratio of input energy to battery size is already so
| small.
| josephcsible wrote:
| That's only true of NMC batteries, not of LFP ones, which
| their Model 3 SR now ships with. With LFP batteries, it's
| better for them to charge them to 100%.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > That would be an extremely unusual commute to be doing by car
| in Europe, people do it but it's very rare. If you're going to
| be covering over 1000km a week(!!!!) Then get a good diesel,
| not a brand new EX90.
|
| Aren't they in the middle of outlawing them?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| More than a decade from now, and that's assuming the EV
| market continues to advance the technology as much as is
| predicted.
| gambiting wrote:
| There's no talk of outlawing any vehicles people already own.
| You won't be able to buy a brand new one in a decade, but
| there's no indication you won't be able to use one you
| already own.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >Imagine your daily commute is 115 km (e.g. Roeselare-Brussel)
| and you can't charge at the office. _Then you need 230km
| realistic daily range, and probably more like 300km._ The only
| cars that come near that, are the Volvo EX90 or the BMW i7. Those
| are not cheap cars.
|
| Realistic daily range is a bullshit phrase that assumes you will
| never have access to a fast charger. I understand realistic
| range, e.g. you can not go as far in cold, and daily range, e.g.
| you need to go 230km every day. I'm calling out how a combination
| of the two terms somehow excludes the ability to refuel when
| needed on that 230km commute. If you're going to be realistic, be
| realistic.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-15 23:01 UTC)