Official Tesla Model S thread

[GRA]

The really great thing about 300+ miles of range is that they *might* be able to bypass every other SuperCharger location, which are usually about 150 miles apart. There were many stops I made in my 70D that only required about 15-20 minutes of charge to get to the next SC, so a P100D could probably have just kept on driving.

Actually most are closer, 100-120 miles is the spacing that Tesla seems to be aiming for on the later installs, and which they'll need for S60s/Model 3s. Ultimately, to come close to duplicating the convenience and flexibility of gas, they'll need to be space no more than 1/2 hour apart, Still, longer range does allow some skipping.

Unfortunately, it seems that every Tesla I see on Route 95 is doing WAY over the speed limit. They must enjoy longer SC stops. My lifetime energy usage is around 285 watt hours per mile, or 3.5 miles/KwHr, which I think is pretty good. Its not as good as my Leaf, which is doing about 4.1 this summer, but my Tesla is much heavier and has wider tires. On my trip from Florida to PA and back, I actually averaged only 270 WHr (3.7 Miles/KwHr) running at the speed limit the whole time (65-70 mph). Pretty impressive for a 4800 lb vehicle.

Various owners have done the calcs which show that for an SC, at least with the bigger batteries it's quicker to drive faster and charge. The SCs are fast enough that there is no best overall time speed less than the speed limit ( if not above it). That's especially true with the bigger battery cars, which can take a higher charge rate for longer. ICEs have the same advantage, but obviously even more in their favor. It's probably going to take the 350kW chargers now being planned by various companies (and batteries that can accept that) to closely approach the convenience of liquid fuels. Going to 350 kW is really going to impact the grid, though.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Most people aren't going to need 300 miles of range on more than a handful of days per year. All they have to do is slow down a bit (e.g., 60 MPH) if they need a bit of extra range. Much ado about nothing.

I agree. More to the point: since Supercharger Stations are spaced at 80 miles to 150 miles, depending on terrain, a typical long distance trip doesn't need 300 miles of range. The fastest way to make a Supercharger trip is to stop at each one (at highway spacing) and charge just enough to make the next one plus a buffer for unexpected conditions, such as wind. This is because the car charges faster at a lower SOC and the charge speed tapers as the battery fills. Skipping a Supercharger stop is helpful when starting out with a full battery or when making a long meal stop means a nearly full battery, but it isn't otherwise a useful strategy for best trip time.

Where the range comes into play is when leaving the Supercharger network to get to outlying places. As the network expands to secondary roads this may become less important over time.

It isn't widely appreciated here at MNL, but a big advantage of the bigger batteries is charging speed. Bigger batteries charge faster, for longer, before the charge rate tapers as the battery fills. That means much shorter times at a Supercharger. My S60 is very slow to Supercharge compared to an 85 or 90 and the 100 figures to be even faster.

At a recent Supercharger stop in Grand Junction my S60 started out at 90 kW and in a minute or two that had dropped to the 70s. As the battery got over 50% I was down to about 54 kW. A 100 would charge at a much higher rate for longer.

So, it isn't the range so much as the Supercharging speed that makes the bigger batteries helpful. FWIW.

^Supercharging at Grand Junction CO on Monday, 6:30 PM. I was returning home from Salt Lake City.

 

[TonyWilliams]

We were talking specifically about the Tesla S100D here, and what kind of efficiency it could get.

Still pimping your hydrogen cars even on the Tesla Model S thread? I have to admit, I wasn't prepared for your "Debbie Downer" a few posts up on a car capable of over 300 miles with zero emissions! I see the Edmunds guys are getting less than 250 miles of "normal driving" on the hydrogen Toyota. I'm sure that's way better.

If the Performance version of the Tesla P100D (with big sticky tires) can bang our 315 EPA miles (roughly equivalent to 65mph down the freeway in the summer), then a non-performance version will likely be some value HIGHER than 315 miles.

The EPA miles of the closest comparison cars are:

270 miles - P90D

294 miles - 90D

Using the ratio of 294 / 270 = 1.0888, therefore I expect the Tesla Model S-100D to get:

1.0888 * 315 = 343 miles EPA

What does that mean? Yes, you could probably pass that first Supercharger (assuming you start with a full charge at the hotel) on your long trips in the summer. It's also WAY more miles than anybody really needs. Thankfully, folks don't just buy what they need, or there wouldn't be four wheel drive SUVs in suburban SoCal, or registered dogs in condos, etc.

FC OTOH, the trip is quick and convenient in my far less expensive ICE, thanks to more than a century of development of both technology and infrastructure. The hope is to get a ZEV/infrastructure with the same capabilities for about the same price, so we can ALL kick fossil fuels for good.

I'm glad you're supporting the cause with your gasoline or other fossil fuel vehicle. Bravo! It's odd that you would even mention affordability, with hydrogen cars costing so much more than comparable gasoline cars, plus the added kick in the nuts of $15 per kg fuel (approximately $7 per gallon gasoline equivalent).

FCEVs are just starting to be available in more than token numbers and have a nascent infrastructure, and they're also restricted to well-off owners, but they can be a family's sole car (albeit currently restricted to major metropolitan areas of California and a few in state get-away destinations), and with long-term fuel costs and ultimate success or failure unknown. I thin Gen 2 BEVs will have reached a stage where their success, although possibly remaining limited to a niche, is assured, although low fuel prices aren't helping matters.

Ya, a "sole car" that is severely limited on where it can go, but at least it's hydrogen, eh? That has to be way better than a Tesla Model S that can go virtually ANYWHERE, coast to coast, Gulf of Mexico to Canada, Mexico to Maine, all on the "Free-Forever" Supercharger network... ya, that's not a sole family car. No way.

It is some kind of fantasy that you live in.

Here's a news flash... there won't be coast to coast hydrogen travel for decades, if ever. These things will certainly be around as long as governments support them with cash and favorable rules (like they get in California), and will NOT exist in states that don't do that.

The very minute that the subsidy train falls off the tracks, so will hydrogen for personal vehicle transport.

Nice job taking this thread and turning it into yet another hydrogen fantasy posting.

 

[WetEV]

OTOH, the trip is quick and convenient in my far less expensive ICE,

Only less expensive as you don't count the cost of the CO2 you dump into the air.

 

[DanCar]

OTOH, the trip is quick and convenient in my far less expensive ICE,

Only less expensive as you don't count the cost of the CO2 you dump into the air.

There are also the costs of the pollution created during refinement, pumping gas, emissions of NOx, volatile organic compounds, ozone, carbon monoxide, benzene, and particulate matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas#Main_motor_vehicle_emissions
I'll guess by 2025 this country will have its tobacco moment with respect to gas cars and the oil industry. Since many consider we don't have viable alternatives now we just tolerate the carcinogens.

 

[GRA]

We were talking specifically about the Tesla S100D here, and what kind of efficiency it could get.

Still pimping your hydrogen cars even on the Tesla Model S thread? I have to admit, I wasn't prepared for your "Debbie Downer" a few posts up on a car capable of over 300 miles with zero emissions! I see the Edmunds guys are getting less than 250 miles of "normal driving" on the hydrogen Toyota. I'm sure that's way better.

Tony, I wasn't the one who brought up FCEVs here. As I wrote in that thread when posting that info, I'm very curious to see what kind of real-world range they get on road trips.

If the Performance version of the Tesla P100D (with big sticky tires) can bang our 315 EPA miles (roughly equivalent to 65mph down the freeway in the summer), then a non-performance version will likely be some value HIGHER than 315 miles.

Which is why I was comparing it to the S90D.

The EPA miles of the closest comparison cars are:

270 miles - P90D

294 miles - 90D

Using the ratio of 294 / 270 = 1.0888, therefore I expect the Tesla Model S-100D to get:

1.0888 * 315 = 343 miles EPA

I'm assuming a bit less owing to the higher weight.

What does that mean? Yes, you could probably pass that first Supercharger (assuming you start with a full charge at the hotel) on your long trips in the summer. It's also WAY more miles than anybody really needs. Thankfully, folks don't just buy what they need, or there wouldn't be four wheel drive SUVs in suburban SoCal, or registered dogs in condos, etc.

Gee, and for a base MSRP of maybe $99.5k for an S100D. Yes, that's a LOT more affordable than a $57.5 Mirai. As to how many miles anyone needs, the real-world range is considerably less allowing for a reserve, elevation gain, winds, HVAC use, driving at realistic speeds etc. On the way to the east side I filled my Forester in Tracy (39 miles from home) with $2.30/gal. gas, as I hate to pay back of beyond gas prices ($3.85/gal. at the deli in Lee Vining on Saturday) if I have to divert due to road closures (fires have forced me to take Hwy 108 three times since 2009). My car has enough range to do the round trip from there to the east side and back home without refueling, including climbing from sea level over Tioga Pass (9,941 feet), doing about 50 miles of driving on the east side from 6.800 to 8,200 feet including about 15 miles on dirt roads,driving direct to the trailhead and parking there (no water let alone power), return over Tioga pass, and get home having driven 442 miles with probably another 20-30 left (low fuel light indicating nominally 2.4 gal. remaining, probably 50-60 miles although I only count on 30, went on at 421 miles), while using heat or A/C as needed, and not having to restrict my speed or plan my trip around fuel stops. If I'd only been going to Tuolumne Meadows I could have done the round trip by gassing at home, still with enough reserve to do the detour. No AFV provides the same kind of convenience or flexibility yet, as they lack both range and infrastructure, and BEVs have the additional disadvantage of long recharging times, which combined with the current low density and coverage of quick charging means that you aren't doing destination charging, the chargers have to BE your destinations, with the trip planned around them. Longer range and faster refueling reduces/eliminates the need to do this.

FC OTOH, the trip is quick and convenient in my far less expensive ICE, thanks to more than a century of development of both technology and infrastructure. The hope is to get a ZEV/infrastructure with the same capabilities for about the same price, so we can ALL kick fossil fuels for good.

I'm glad you're supporting the cause with your gasoline or other fossil fuel vehicle. Bravo! It's odd that you would even mention affordability, with hydrogen cars costing so much more than comparable gasoline cars, plus the added kick in the nuts of $15 per kg fuel (approximately $7 per gallon gasoline equivalent).

As I've said repeatedly, including in the post you're responding too, no AFV with comparable to ICE range is currently affordable, although a Mirai is at least $32,000 more affordable than the closest to same range BEV (S90D) at present. As to the price of H2, we've discussed that repeatedly in the H2 thread, what it will have to come down to to be competitive, and how no customer is actually paying for H2 for 3 years. As to supporting the cause, I do that by refraining from using my fossil fuel vehicle except for those trips where its capabilities are essential. Prior to this weekend's trip It sat on my parking pad for the previous 7 weeks, as all my weekends since have been local (been doing a lot of weekend bike riding).

FCEVs are just starting to be available in more than token numbers and have a nascent infrastructure, and they're also restricted to well-off owners, but they can be a family's sole car (albeit currently restricted to major metropolitan areas of California and a few in state get-away destinations), and with long-term fuel costs and ultimate success or failure unknown. I think Gen 2 BEVs will have reached a stage where their success, although possibly remaining limited to a niche, is assured, although low fuel prices aren't helping matters.

Ya, a "sole car" that is severely limited on where it can go, but at least it's hydrogen, eh? That has to be way better than a Tesla Model S that can go virtually ANYWHERE, coast to coast, Gulf of Mexico to Canada, Mexico to Maine, all on the "Free-Forever" Supercharger network... ya, that's not a sole family car. No way.

Tony, from 2012 on I've been monitoring the number of PEVs I've seen anywhere from Crane Flat east to Lee Vining on Hwy 120. I've probably taken 8 trips along that route over that period. The active outdoors demographic is a natural fit for PEVs, as they are environmentally motivated. Do you know how many out of the thousands of cars I've seen on the road or parked at trailheads etc. were PEVs over that period? ONE, a Volt in September 2012. I know of one LEAF that made the trip up to Tuolumne in September 2012, but that was possible only because I'd made special arrangements with the campground ranger to allow the owner to charge there as a test (see http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9965&hilit=fresno+tuolumne+meadows ).

Part of the issue is that PEVs aren't yet offered in the right type of car: small AWD CUVs (Foresters/CR-Vs/RAV4s) and small wagons/liftbacks with lots of carrying space (Outback/Impreza/Jetta/Prius etc.) rank #1 & 2 in popularity among that demographic, as can be judged by looking at any group of cars parked in the area. Mid-size CUVs probably come next, followed by pickups w/wo shells, minivans and somewhat surprisingly, Ford Transit Connect/Mercedes/Ram high roof panel trucks, probably for people living in them full time. Mitsubishi could have cleaned up if they'd brought the Outlander PHEV here when they'd originally said they would. I was on the lookout for A3 e-Trons this trip, but didn't spot any. I did see one PiP inside the park west of Crane Flat, but odds are they were heading to the Valley, and that's the only one I've ever seen along 120. The PiP's feeble AER undoubtedly makes it seem a pointless extra expense compared to the regular Prius among this demographic, although the 22 mile AER of the new one may make it more worthwhile. OTOH, the reduced cargo space due to the battery may be a serious negative.

It is some kind of fantasy that you live in.

See above as to which of us is living in a fantasy if you believe that AFVs are widely used for these trips currently . I did see one Model S at the deli in Lee Vining (where we'd been lobbying Tesla for an SC) Saturday, who'd most likely come from Mammoth or maybe down from Topaz Lake. Although it's possible for a big battery S to get to Lee Vining from the Manteca SC under ideal conditions, it can't return (at least, EV Trip Planner doesn't think so), which is why I and other Bay Area TMC members have been lobbying Tesla for an SC in Groveland for the past 4 years, which they're finally about to do. We still want another in Lee Vining. They chose Mammoth instead, and while there's nothing wrong with having one there, the one in Lee Vining is wanted for people traveling between the Bay Area and the east side, especially for S60s and Model 3s.

Here's a news flash... there won't be coast to coast hydrogen travel for decades, if ever. These things will certainly be around as long as governments support them with cash and favorable rules (like they get in California), and will NOT exist in states that don't do that.

The very minute that the subsidy train falls off the tracks, so will hydrogen for personal vehicle transport.

That may or may not be true, although as I've pointed out elsewhere a manufacturer like Toyota could certainly do it for the same cost as they've already spent in California. In any case, I don't care. I have no desire to drive any further east than I-25; I'll fly for any distance beyond that, and since the majority of my road trips are in state, I could see renting on the rare occasions I take a long out of state trip. Not ideal, but doable. BTW, let's not forget that all public charging to date has been equally reliant on subsidies, because no one has figured out how to make it profitable. After all, the federal govt's recent decision to provide $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for such charging is another way of saying "regular banks won't make such loans by themselves because there's no profitable business case, so we have to give them security."

Nice job taking this thread and turning it into yet another hydrogen fantasy posting.

As for taking this thread off-track, I was replying to rcm4453 who introduced FCEVs into the discussion, so direct your complaints to him.

 

[GRA]

Most people aren't going to need 300 miles of range on more than a handful of days per year. All they have to do is slow down a bit (e.g., 60 MPH) if they need a bit of extra range. Much ado about nothing.

I agree. More to the point: since Supercharger Stations are spaced at 80 miles to 150 miles, depending on terrain, a typical long distance trip doesn't need 300 miles of range. The fastest way to make a Supercharger trip is to stop at each one (at highway spacing) and charge just enough to make the next one plus a buffer for unexpected conditions, such as wind. This is because the car charges faster at a lower SOC and the charge speed tapers as the battery fills. Skipping a Supercharger stop is helpful when starting out with a full battery or when making a long meal stop means a nearly full battery, but it isn't otherwise a useful strategy for best trip time.

Where the range comes into play is when leaving the Supercharger network to get to outlying places. As the network expands to secondary roads this may become less important over time.

Agree, and that's the problem now for outdoorsy types, even here in California where Tesla has put more SCs off interstates than anywhere else. They've done a fair job for U.S. 101 (finishing that once Crescent City opens, although with a too-long leg between Ukiah and Eureka) and U.S. 395 south of Reno, although they could certainly use more dense coverage, and are working on 101 in Oregon. Outside of that, there's a few in Utah (Price/Moab/Blanding) and a couple of others scattered around other states. I've been lobbying Tesla to place a higher priority on providing access to national parks, especially in this NPS centennial year, but all they did this year was finally build one in W. Yellowstone and the interstate SCs in Pocatello and Idaho Falls to provide access to it. They still need Jackson and others, and the list of National Parks you still can't get to other than by using L2s and/or taking long detours to SCs remains the majority.

It isn't widely appreciated here at MNL, but a big advantage of the bigger batteries is charging speed. Bigger batteries charge faster, for longer, before the charge rate tapers as the battery fills. That means much shorter times at a Supercharger. My S60 is very slow to Supercharge compared to an 85 or 90 and the 100 figures to be even faster.

At a recent Supercharger stop in Grand Junction my S60 started out at 90 kW and in a minute or two that had dropped to the 70s. As the battery got over 50% I was down to about 54 kW. A 100 would charge at a much higher rate for longer.

So, it isn't the range so much as the Supercharging speed that makes the bigger batteries helpful. FWIW.

Right. I've always felt that you can trade off range against charging speed. I think a real-world, no-worries range of 2 hours at the freeway speed limit (i.e. up to 80 mph) with a reserve year-round would probably be acceptable to most people given adequate SC/QC density and coverage, provided that they could charge to the same level again in 10 minutes or less, so that where they choose to eat or stay isn't determined by where they need to stop to charge. That would also probably require something like 350kW or higher charging; 10 minutes gets you 58.33 kWh, which may not be enough to do that in winter or at higher speeds. But that range has to be achievable for a minimum of a decade (preferably the life of the car) on the original battery, and absent some chemistry that radically reduces degradation, you have to buy and haul around a much bigger battery to allow for that. Realistically, it probably takes a 90kWh or larger battery Model S to meet those requirements. When someone offers a BEV with that capability for say 1/3rd or better yet 1/4 of the $89.5k base price of the S90D, that will do it.

 

[GRA]

OTOH, the trip is quick and convenient in my far less expensive ICE,

Only less expensive as you don't count the cost of the CO2 you dump into the air.

Sure, which is why I devote so much effort to reducing my CO2 production and leave my car parked the rest of the time (7 weeks before this trip). Once there's a practical, affordable ZEV with its accompanying infrastructure that will let people like me take these sorts of trips, we'll buy one. Or maybe by then I'll have convenient car-sharing for rare local use and just rent for trips, eliminating any need to own a car at all. It's mobility that matters to me, not ownership, although ownership can provide the maximum convenience, but at an increasingly high price. In the interim, my 13.5 year-old ICE can still take me to any place it would when new, at the same speed, and without having to worry that HVAC use or adverse winds will leave me stranded somewhere.

 

[GRA]

OTOH, the trip is quick and convenient in my far less expensive ICE,

Only less expensive as you don't count the cost of the CO2 you dump into the air.

There are also the costs of the pollution created during refinement, pumping gas, emissions of NOx, volatile organic compounds, ozone, carbon monoxide, benzene, and particulate matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas#Main_motor_vehicle_emissions
I'll guess by 2025 this country will have its tobacco moment with respect to gas cars and the oil industry. Since many consider we don't have viable alternatives now we just tolerate the carcinogens.

Uh huh, and also costs with building cars, PV modules, wind turbines, batteries etc. Everything you buy or make has these costs; some are better than others, but none of them are free of impact.

 

[WetEV]

As I've said repeatedly, including in the post you're responding too, no AFV with comparable to ICE range is currently affordable, although a Mirai is at least $32,000 more affordable than the closest to same range BEV (S90D) at present.

An ugly econobox compared with a Tesla Model S? Buys a Model S to save money... Or a Maserati Quattroporte GTS? A joke or what?

City range BEVs have more than enough range for commuting. As the use case has a home and/or work charging station, fueling is convenient and cheap where electric rates are cheap. Need to refuel every day, but it is in the comfort of your garage. Sure isn't for the whole USA, only covers a subset. Still millions of cars would be as economical if BEVs, and only counting the direct costs. Sure a niche car, but a real niche with comparable cost, and a list of benefits you don't get in a gasoline car. Note that more range can be a "nice to have", once the needed trips can be easily reached.

Compare a Mirai with a more convenient and more economical BEV of more similar visual and driving appeal, the Mitsubishi iMiev. Probably more iMievs will be sold. At least $33,000 more affordable, before incentives. Just think of all the time not spent driving 30+ miles round trip to fuel up at the few hydrogen stations, while standing outside in the heat and the sun or the wind and the rain or the snow and the cold. And not only that, I could buy an iMiev, unlike the Mirai, sold only in limited areas of California.

Or the Chevy Bolt, with more usable range than the Mirai. More usable range, as you can recharge the Bolt almost anywhere, unlike the Mirai where you will be driving miles to refill, and will need enough range in reserve to drive even more miles if the first hydrogen station is down. Oh yes, and at least $20,000 more affordable.

Or the Chevy Volt, with the mobility of a gasoline car and the ability to be mostly electric.

Sorry, the Mirai is overpriced, ugly, slow, and not a Tesla Model S.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Sorry, the Mirai is overpriced, ugly, slow, and not a Tesla Model S.

The last published COST (not price) of the Mirai was nearly $100,000 per vehicle, and I seriously doubt that is amortizing the BILLIONS that Toyota has spent in research. That means that the RETAIL price would be well over $100,000.

I doubt Toyota will subsidize this car forever. Yes, they will want governments to do so, and I think the important governments will for at least 10 more years (California and Japan). Beyond that, I expect MILLIONS of far lower cost EVs, with order of magnitude cheaper fuel costs to exist in 2025, and the hydrogen pipe dream to be exposed, even to governments.

 

[GRA]

As I've said repeatedly, including in the post you're responding too, no AFV with comparable to ICE range is currently affordable, although a Mirai is at least $32,000 more affordable than the closest to same range BEV (S90D) at present.

An ugly econobox compared with a Tesla Model S? Buys a Model S to save money... Or a Maserati Quattroporte GTS? A joke or what?

City range BEVs have more than enough range for commuting. As the use case has a home and/or work charging station, fueling is convenient and cheap where electric rates are cheap. Need to refuel every day, but it is in the comfort of your garage. Sure isn't for the whole USA, only covers a subset. Still millions of cars would be as economical if BEVs, and only counting the direct costs. Sure a niche car, but a real niche with comparable cost, and a list of benefits you don't get in a gasoline car. Note that more range can be a "nice to have", once the needed trips can be easily reached.

Compare a Mirai with a more convenient and more economical BEV of more similar visual and driving appeal, the Mitsubishi iMiev. Probably more iMievs will be sold. At least $33,000 more affordable, before incentives. Just think of all the time not spent driving 30+ miles round trip to fuel up at the few hydrogen stations, while standing outside in the heat and the sun or the wind and the rain or the snow and the cold. And not only that, I could buy an iMiev, unlike the Mirai, sold only in limited areas of California.

Oh please, no one is driving 30 miles locally to refuel, because the manufacturers won't sell/lease you the car if you need to do that. Here's how edmunds describes their experience:

The Mirai is easy enough to fuel up. It takes about as long as a gasoline fill-up — five minutes — and the equipment isn't hard to use. And although hydrogen cars are still in their infancy, finding a station hasn't been too much of a problem. There are two near the office, one about halfway along my commute home, one near the John Wayne Orange County airport I frequent and another out near where we test cars. I have a decent array of choices, in other words, and I've never encountered a wait at any of them.

So refueling hasn't been a huge issue, Jay's saga notwithstanding. . . . Through the end of July we've amassed over 5,000 miles and refueled our Mirai 24 times using six different stations — the five I rattled off plus another one closer to downtown LA.

See "2016 Toyota Mirai: Failure To Refuel" for the account referred to as "Jay's Saga": http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/mirai/2016/long-term-road-test/2016-toyota-mirai-failure-to-refuel.html

As to being out in the sun/wind/rain/snow, oh my, how ever have we survived the past 100+ years of fueling ICEs (back of hand held dramatically to forehead)? If you've got a dedicated place to charge and low-price electricity, then BEVs with adequate range are a good choice; if you don't, they aren't, and you need something else.

Or the Chevy Bolt, with more usable range than the Mirai. More usable range, as you can recharge the Bolt almost anywhere, unlike the Mirai where you will be driving miles to refill, and will need enough range in reserve to drive even more miles if the first hydrogen station is down. Oh yes, and at least $20,000 more affordable.

Or the Chevy Volt, with the mobility of a gasoline car and the ability to be mostly electric.

Sorry, the Mirai is overpriced, ugly, slow, and not a Tesla Model S.

I had written a long reply but MNL ate it, so I'll just restrict myself to saying that I agree (and have said so numerous times) that PHEVs are the current road trip answer, and the active outdoors demographic is just waiting for an small, affordable PHEV CUV or wagon, preferably AWD. Gen 2 BEVs like the Bolt will handle all but the longest mega-commutes as well as most regional trips and short (1 QC each way) road trips, but they simply can't currently handle trips such as the one I just took, owing to the fact that you can't charge the Bolt 'almost anywhere' along it, never mind the additional time suck; feel free to check Plugshare to confirm (and I know of a couple of receptacles that aren't shown there). I surveyed the length of Hwy 120 between Groveland and Lee Vining in 2012 looking for potential places to charge, and they mostly don't exist. Those that do are generally limited to a single L1 receptacle, and use of them is bootleg. In fact, most places I parked on the trip lack electrical service. Only some RV parks have L2, and they were all full, as were all campgrounds, but the campgrounds don't have electricity in any case. A Tesla with an 85kWh or larger battery would be only marginally better, because in order to recharge it I would have had to go 28 miles RT out of my way from June Lake to the Mammoth Lakes SC.

To repeat, no one is buying/leasing an FCEV or a Model S/X because it's the most economical option. And the Mirai is fugly, but slow? Compared to what? My model year Forester was tested by C&D and had a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds; IIRR the Mirai has been tested at 8.9 to 9.4 seconds depending on who's doing the test, and I've always found the Forester to have more than adequate acceleration; I was able to pass easily this weekend on winding two lane at altitudes over 8,000 feet. Quicker is nice but unnecessary, and unlike the Model S/X demographic it's a question of how much extra I have to pay for it. Certainly I'm not willing (and have no need) to pay $10,000 on top of $89.500 just so I can reduce my 0-60 acceleration by another 0.3 seconds, when it's already far lower than anybody needs.

 

[GRA]

Sorry, the Mirai is overpriced, ugly, slow, and not a Tesla Model S.

The last published COST (not price) of the Mirai was nearly $100,000 per vehicle, and I seriously doubt that is amortizing the BILLIONS that Toyota has spent in research. That means that the RETAIL price would be well over $100,000.

I doubt Toyota will subsidize this car forever. Yes, they will want governments to do so, and I think the important governments will for at least 10 more years (California and Japan). Beyond that, I expect MILLIONS of far lower cost EVs, with order of magnitude cheaper fuel costs to exist in 2025, and the hydrogen pipe dream to be exposed, even to governments.

If that indeed happens, and people are adopting BEVs with sufficient capability in large numbers, fine by me.

 

[EVDRIVER]

To repeat, no one is buying/leasing an FCEV or a Model S/X because it's the most economical option. And the Mirai is fugly, but slow? Compared to what? My model year Forester was tested by C&D and had a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds; IIRR the Mirai has been tested at 8.9 to 9.4 seconds depending on who's doing the test, and I've always found the Forester to have more than adequate acceleration; I was able to pass easily this weekend on winding two lane at altitudes over 8,000 feet. Quicker is nice but unnecessary, and unlike the Model S/X demographic it's a question of how much extra I have to pay for it. Certainly I'm not willing (and have no need) to pay $10,000 on top of $89.500 just so I can reduce my 0-60 acceleration by another 0.3 seconds, when it's already far lower than anybody needs.

Move to the city, you will see why you need faster 0-60. 9 seconds is really slow when you need to get out of the way or get past some of our more gifted drivers. 6-8 covers most practical-plus needs, sub 6 is all about fun. If you live in Berkeley 20 seconds is fast for them.

 

[GRA]

Move to the city, you will see why you need faster 0-60. 9 seconds is really slow when you need to get out of the way of get past some of our more gifted drivers. 6-8 covers most practical needs, sub 6 is all about fun. If you live in Berkeley 20 seconds is fast

I've always lived in a city, and have always been able to drive safely with acceleration not being a safety issue, including when driving my dad's '76 Peugeot 504 Diesel (0-60 in 28.1 seconds; loaded semis could out-accelerate me from a stop light). That car was definitely too slow for the one time that 0-60 matters for safety; accelerating from an on-ramp metering light to merge into fast moving freeway traffic. It could be a white-knuckle event, even with perfect timing. I never had any safety issues with my '88 Subaru, which had a 0-60 time in the mid-13 second range, and I suspect 15 and maybe even 20 seconds or less is probably adequate for merging, given reasonable skills and reaction times. Cars have been getting a lot quicker over the past decade, but it's not as if that acceleration is needed, just wanted. I want it too, but also want to know just how much extra it's going to cost me, and can then decide if it's worth it.

Of course, most of my city 'driving' nowadays is done on my bicycle, and 0-60 is both irrelevant and impossible! :lol: Keeping a good lookout and making myself as visible as possible is far more important.

 

[TonyWilliams]

....my 13.5 year-old ICE can still take me to any place it would when new, at the same speed, and without having to worry that HVAC use or adverse winds will leave me stranded somewhere.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're even here on a forum devoted to electric cars in general, and the Nissan LEAF in particular. Ya, the HVAC is going to leave you stranded. Why not go to a Trump rally with your nonsense? They'll love that.

I would be embarrassed to spout the rubbish that you do while owning ONLY a purely fossil fuel powered car. Obviously, you like oil and gasoline, and EXXON likes lemmings like you, too. Keep supporting them for your personal convenience, and the hell with anything else.

Since it sounds like you're retired, it's even more pathetic. You should have all the time in the world to go any place you want to go with a Nissan LEAF (what this forum is about). Yes, you'd have to actually experience EVs, which you seem so adverse to, and maybe scrounge up some electricity here and there.

I've lost track of how many times that I've driven my RAV4 EV up and down the state, with an official 103 miles of EPA range. No, it's not as fast as your beloved oil car, but there are principles beyond serving myself that actually matter.

I'm loath to hear the sniveling that my missive will produce from you, but honestly, I think you should take your gasoline car that you love so much and go find a gasoline forum to tell everybody how awesome it is, as well as bemoan how EVs will leave you stranded if you turn on the HVAC.

You are the broken record that folks like EXXON pay to be on this forum.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The EPA miles of the closest comparison cars are:

270 miles - P90D

294 miles - 90D

Using the ratio of 294 / 270 = 1.0888, therefore I expect the Tesla Model S-100D to get:

1.0888 * 315 = 343 miles EPA

I'm assuming a bit less owing to the higher weight.

It weighs 4% more for 11% plus in stored energy. That's about 50 pounds, nearly insignificant for highway range. The battery has gotten 17% bigger with the 18650 cells. I expect another 5 -10% improvement just by switching to the 2170 cells.

Like it or not, a Tesla Model S is kicking the crap out of all the hydrogen cars (the very advantage that a hydrogen car should have).

Gee, and for a base MSRP of maybe $99.5k for an S100D. Yes, that's a LOT more affordable than a $57.5 Mirai.

No vehicle can compete on par with the car with such gross subsidies. The information provided by Toyota says that the Toyota hydrogen car cost about $100,000 each, not including several billion dollars of research. The Tesla Model S is profitable at its current selling price with about a 20 to 25% margin. Obviously, you don't like to talk about the Tesla Model 3 that is due out in just a bit over a year, since that car will likely have a minimum 215 mile range and likely a maximum range of something close to 300 miles, all for the sticker price of about what a subsidized hydrogen car sells for. It also has the luxury of worldwide fast refueling at a cost that is lower than purchasing hydrogen or gasoline / diesel. You can't get hydrogen at any price in the vast majority of US states and Canadian provinces. There are no plans underway to make that a reality.

The actual price of gasoline doesn't reflect the cost of the environmental damage or defense by the U.S. Navy, and the largest oil producing companies that pay no US taxes while receiving all these subsidized costs.

As to how many miles anyone needs, the real-world range is considerably less allowing for a reserve, elevation gain, winds, HVAC use, driving at realistic speeds etc.

With the exception of HVAC, those issues apply to all vehicles regardless of the type of stored energy that is consumed. HVAC has a very simple solution should that issue be a bona fide one. Burning hydrogen or some other carbon free and pollution free heat source eliminates the problem altogether. It won't take very much of that stored energy to power a heater. The air-conditioners on modern EV's are extremely efficient already. As batteries get larger the percentage of range impact from heating becomes less and less. Any 300 mile range car that is impacted by 50 miles of range by heating the cabin is not that much of an issue. Obviously an 80 mile range car has a far greater impact to the overall range.

On the way to the east side I filled my Forester in Tracy (39 miles from home) with $2.30/gal. gas... although I only count on 30, went on at 421 miles), while using heat or A/C as needed, and not having to restrict my speed or plan my trip around fuel stops. If I'd only been going to Tuolumne Meadows I could have done the round trip by gassing at home, still with enough reserve to do the detour. No AFV provides the same kind of convenience or flexibility yet, as they lack both range and infrastructure

Yep, you should have gasoline cars, congratulations! We wouldn't want to inconvenience you and your busy schedule by having to charge an electric car. I'm sure it's more important to just buy gasoline and support the oil industry. They love you for it, and you love them.

Tony, from 2012 on I've been monitoring the number of PEVs I've seen anywhere from Crane Flat east to Lee Vining on Hwy 120. I've probably taken 8 trips along that route over that period. The active outdoors demographic is a natural fit for PEVs, as they are environmentally motivated. Do you know how many out of the thousands of cars I've seen on the road or parked at trailheads etc. were PEVs over that period? ONE, a Volt in September 2012. I know of one LEAF that made the trip up to Tuolumne in September 2012, but that was possible only because I'd made special arrangements with the campground ranger to allow the owner to charge there as a test (see http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9965&hilit=fresno+tuolumne+meadows ).

I suspect if you really gave a crap about the environment you would make it work. You're just taking the easy way out.

Part of the issue is that PEVs aren't yet offered in the right type of car: small AWD CUVs (Foresters/CR-Vs/RAV4s) and small wagons/liftbacks with lots of carrying space (Outback/Impreza/Jetta/Prius etc.) rank #1 & 2 in popularity among that demographic, as can be judged by looking at any group of cars parked in the area. Mid-size CUVs probably come next, followed by pickups w/wo shells, minivans and somewhat surprisingly, Ford Transit Connect/Mercedes/Ram high roof panel trucks, probably for people living in them full time. Mitsubishi could have cleaned up if they'd brought the Outlander PHEV here when they'd originally said they would. I was on the lookout for A3 e-Trons this trip, but didn't spot any. I did see one PiP inside the park west of Crane Flat, but odds are they were heading to the Valley, and that's the only one I've ever seen along 120. The PiP's feeble AER undoubtedly makes it seem a pointless extra expense compared to the regular Prius among this demographic, although the 22 mile AER of the new one may make it more worthwhile. OTOH, the reduced cargo space due to the battery may be a serious negative.

It is some kind of fantasy that you live in.

See above as to which of us is living in a fantasy if you believe that AFVs are widely used for these trips currently . I did see one Model S at the deli in Lee Vining (where we'd been lobbying Tesla for an SC) Saturday, who'd most likely come from Mammoth or maybe down from Topaz Lake. Although it's possible for a big battery S to get to Lee Vining from the Manteca SC under ideal conditions, it can't return (at least, EV Trip Planner doesn't think so), which is why I and other Bay Area TMC members have been lobbying Tesla for an SC in Groveland for the past 4 years, which they're finally about to do. We still want another in Lee Vining. They chose Mammoth instead, and while there's nothing wrong with having one there, the one in Lee Vining is wanted for people traveling between the Bay Area and the east side, especially for S60s and Model 3s.

Here's a news flash... there won't be coast to coast hydrogen travel for decades, if ever. These things will certainly be around as long as governments support them with cash and favorable rules (like they get in California), and will NOT exist in states that don't do that.

The very minute that the subsidy train falls off the tracks, so will hydrogen for personal vehicle transport.

That may or may not be true, although as I've pointed out elsewhere a manufacturer like Toyota could certainly do it for the same cost as they've already spent in California. In any case, I don't care. I have no desire to drive any further east than I-25; I'll fly for any distance beyond that, and since the majority of my road trips are in state, I could see renting on the rare occasions I take a long out of state trip. Not ideal, but doable. BTW, let's not forget that all public charging to date has been equally reliant on subsidies, because no one has figured out how to make it profitable. After all, the federal govt's recent decision to provide $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for such charging is another way of saying "regular banks won't make such loans by themselves because there's no profitable business case, so we have to give them security."

Nice job taking this thread and turning it into yet another hydrogen fantasy posting.

As for taking this thread off-track, I was replying to rcm4453 who introduced FCEVs into the discussion, so direct your complaints to him.[/quote]

 

[GRA]

....my 13.5 year-old ICE can still take me to any place it would when new, at the same speed, and without having to worry that HVAC use or adverse winds will leave me stranded somewhere.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're even here on a forum devoted to electric cars in general, and the Nissan LEAF in particular. Ya, the HVAC is going to leave you stranded. Why not go to a Trump rally with your nonsense? They'll love that.

I would be embarrassed to spout the rubbish that you do while owning ONLY a purely fossil fuel powered car. Obviously, you like oil and gasoline, and EXXON likes lemmings like you, too. Keep supporting them for your personal convenience, and the hell with anything else.

Since it sounds like you're retired, it's even more pathetic. You should have all the time in the world to go any place you want to go with a Nissan LEAF (what this forum is about). Yes, you'd have to actually experience EVs, which you seem so adverse to, and maybe scrounge up some electricity here and there.

I've lost track of how many times that I've driven my RAV4 EV up and down the state, with an official 103 miles of EPA range. No, it's not as fast as your beloved oil car, but there are principles beyond serving myself that actually matter.

I'm loath to hear the sniveling that my missive will produce from you, but honestly, I think you should take your gasoline car that you love so much and go find a gasoline forum to tell everybody how awesome it is, as well as bemoan how EVs will leave you stranded if you turn on the HVAC.

You are the broken record that folks like EXXON pay to be on this forum.

Hey, you win the prize for being the first person this year to accuse me of being anti-EV or an oil company shill. Congratulations!

 

[GRA]

The EPA miles of the closest comparison cars are:

270 miles - P90D

294 miles - 90D

Using the ratio of 294 / 270 = 1.0888, therefore I expect the Tesla Model S-100D to get:

1.0888 * 315 = 343 miles EPA

I'm assuming a bit less owing to the higher weight.

It weighs 4% more for 11% plus in stored energy. That's about 50 pounds, nearly insignificant for highway range. The battery has gotten 17% bigger with the 18650 cells. I expect another 5 -10% improvement just by switching to the 2170 cells.

Like it or not, a Tesla Model S is kicking the crap out of all the hydrogen cars (the very advantage that a hydrogen car should have).

Ah, crap, MNL ate my long reply again (if you've been typing for awhile, even though you're already signed in, if you go to post it sends you to a sign-in page and when you return, everything you've written is gone, just the post you're replying to remains). I'd written a long response quoting real world ranges including degradation etc., but I'm not going to do it again.

Gee, and for a base MSRP of maybe $99.5k for an S100D. Yes, that's a LOT more affordable than a $57.5 Mirai.

No vehicle can compete on par with the car with such gross subsidies.

BEV's don't get huge subsidies? Check out Norway; it's amazing that 70% of the cars sold there are still ICEs.

The information provided by Toyota says that the Toyota hydrogen car cost about $100,000 each, not including several billion dollars of research.

Yup, Toyota is losing money on each and every Mirai they sell. Fortunately, they can afford it while they work to get the cost down.

The Tesla Model S is profitable at its current selling price with about a 20 to 25% margin. Obviously, you don't like to talk about the Tesla Model 3 that is due out in just a bit over a year, since that car will likely have a minimum 215 mile range and likely a maximum range of something close to 300 miles, all for the sticker price of about what a subsidized hydrogen car sells for.

Not at 35k it won't. Tesla's already said the battery will be smaller than 60kWh (total capacity), so what kind of efficiency at freeway speeds would it take to get 300 miles of range? BTW, I'm happy to talk about the Model 3, although it isn't for me. My TMS sig says "Model S/X are too big and expensive for me. I'm waiting for a small AWD CUV [Model Y or whatever] on the Model 3 platform. And lose the Falcon Wing doors - some of us have to carry kayaks." That being said, the Model 3/Y range is problematic. I could make it work for many trips, but unless the infrastructure is much increased in both coverage and density by the time it actually comes out, it would be anything but convenient. First ZEV which gives me the capabilities I want at an affordable price with the necessary infrastructure gets my money, whether it's FCEV or BEV.

It also has the luxury of worldwide fast refueling at a cost that is lower than purchasing hydrogen or gasoline / diesel. You can't get hydrogen at any price in the vast majority of US states and Canadian provinces. There are no plans underway to make that a reality.

Sure, that's true now, but that can change. If H2 comes down enough to compete with gas and FCEVs take off, it will, and if they don't it won't.

The actual price of gasoline doesn't reflect the cost of the environmental damage or defense by the U.S. Navy, and the largest oil producing companies that pay no US taxes while receiving all these subsidized costs.

I know, Tony, I was making those points as long ago as the run-up to Desert Storm. Does the general public know or care? They do not.

With the exception of HVAC, those issues apply to all vehicles regardless of the type of stored energy that is consumed.

As I've said repeatedly.

HVAC has a very simple solution should that issue be a bona fide one. Burning hydrogen or some other carbon free and pollution free heat source eliminates the problem altogether. It won't take very much of that stored energy to power a heater.

We've previously agreed that auxiliary heaters would be desirable, until batteries get big enough (or more efficient electric heating is developed), but so far no BEV car manufacturer has seen fit to do so, so we don't know just how simple of costly it might be.

The air-conditioners on modern EV's are extremely efficient already. As batteries get larger the percentage of range impact from heating becomes less and less. Any 300 mile range car that is impacted by 50 miles of range by heating the cabin is not that much of an issue. Obviously an 80 mile range car has a far greater impact to the overall range.

MY original post included the range effects for the Tesla Model S60 and 90D in winter, including after degradation and with allowances for realistic use (i.e. not using 100% of the battery, but charging to 90% (home, for longevity purposes) or 80% (SC) plus maintaining at least a 10% reserve (pretty minimal in winter, given the possibility of long delays or detours due to road closures), but that all disappeared. Feel free to use the ranges on Tesla's Model S calculator for 32 deg. with heat on, and multiply them by .8 and .7. Oh. and also by .85 first, to represent 15% degradation over 10 years, which is only half the degradation that any company is currently willing to warranty a battery to. I used 15% because earlier this year a poster on TMC provided a graph stating that the average degradation reported to him was 6%. The oldest Model S was less than 4 years old at the time, but I rounded up to 4 years for all, and assumed that the rate of 1.5%/yr. would stay linear rather than increase).

Yep, you should have gasoline cars, congratulations! We wouldn't want to inconvenience you and your busy schedule by having to charge an electric car. I'm sure it's more important to just buy gasoline and support the oil industry. They love you for it, and you love them.

Well, no I don't but you know that, (or should). But I am being practical. I'm not willing to devote so great a portion of my recreational time to waiting for a car to charge, in a place I have no desire to be, and which is probably miles out of my way, or in many places I go, non-existent and likely to stay that way. And if I'm not willing to do that, when I've made so many changes to my own lifestyle to reduce my impact, what makes you think the general public will see any reason to do so? After all, what a single person does or doesn't do is irrelevant, it's only what happens en masse that will have any significant effect.

 

[rcm4453]

Hey, you win the prize for being the first person this year to accuse me of being anti-EV or an oil company shill. Congratulations!

He's not the first I've been saying you're against BEVs for a while now, everyone here knows you are. As I've said before I don't understand why you're on a Nissan Leaf electric car forum? You have nothing but negative things to say about them and all you do is continuously post about FCEVs. It's like HELLO! You're on the wrong forum to be promoting FCEVs! Nobody but you keeps those threads going, why do you suppose that is?!? Nobody cares! Most people come here because they're BEV enthusiasts so why are you here?!? We are tired of hearing you say that a BEV must do EVERYTHING an ICE vehicle can do to be successful. How long has the modern day BEV been around? 6 years only and it's already up to 300 miles per charge. How long have ICE vehicles been around? over 100! Kind of silly to expect 6 year old tech to be at parity with 100 year old tech don't you think? Can you imagine where BEVs would be if they would have been evolving for over 100 years like ICEVs? We know the average Joe isn't going to run out and buy a BEV right now....so what! The tech will continue to improve over time, cost will come down then the average Joe will start to take notice.