CARB Compliance Cars, Battery Costs, Etc

MOD NOTE: This thread split from here: Official Mercedes B-class EV thread -drees

lorenfb said:

"With the range extender the B-Class has 15-20 more miles (again depending on you driving habits)."

What a joke!

Click to expand...

Range at 65mph (100km ground speed) on dry, hard surface level road with no wind or cabin climate control with new condition battery at 70F, battery capacity is "useable" amount, not advertised amount. Ranges are at maximum available charge and EPA rating is the maximum published.


Nissan
LEAF - 4 miles per kWh (250 wattHours per mile) * 21.3kWh = 85.2 miles / EPA 84


GM / Chevrolet
Spark EV - 5 miles per kWh (200 wattHours per mile) * 19kWh = 95 miles / EPA 82


Mercedes
B-Class ED - 3.8*** miles per kWh (263 wattHours per mile) * 31.5kWh = 120 miles / EPA 104


Toyota
Rav4 EV - 3.4 miles per kWh (295 wattHours per mile) * 41.8kWh = 142 miles / EPA 113


*** Mercedes does some goofy BS with the economy meter... it's calibrated "from the wall", so 3.8 miles per kWh will show 3.2 on the dash

TonyWilliams said:

lorenfb said:

"With the range extender the B-Class has 15-20 more miles (again depending on you driving habits)."

What a joke!

Click to expand...

Range at 65mph (100km ground speed) on dry, hard surface level road with no wind or cabin climate control with new condition battery at 70F, battery capacity is "useable" amount, not advertised amount. Ranges are at maximum available charge and EPA rating is the maximum published.


Nissan
LEAF - 4 miles per kWh (250 wattHours per mile) * 21.3kWh = 85.2 miles / EPA 84


GM / Chevrolet
Spark EV - 5 miles per kWh (200 wattHours per mile) * 19kWh = 95 miles / EPA 82


Mercedes
B-Class ED - 3.8*** miles per kWh (263 wattHours per mile) * 31.5kWh = 120 miles / EPA 104


Toyota
Rav4 EV - 3.4 miles per kWh (295 wattHours per mile) * 41.8kWh = 142 miles / EPA 113


*** Mercedes does some goofy BS with the economy meter... it's calibrated "from the wall", so 3.8 miles per kWh will show 3.2 on the dash

Click to expand...

As most all are aware of, it's all a function of battery capacity and how much extra cost a BEV OEM
wants to add to the resale price. Nissan could easily add another 10 kWhrs and have a 150 mile range,
but that would add $3K plus ($300/kWhr) or more to the price. Just like with Tesla, it's all about
where you want to position your product based on costs to the consumer. It really doesn't take
any key competitive technology over another BEV OEM at the present state of technology.

Hardly any great technology advance made by these other BEVs! It's just another big 'yawn'.

I seriously doubt Nissan can add anything without modifying the car significantly. The battery they already have is huge. You wanna pay 3 grand to lose all your trunk space? Hopefully the 2016 sees a new design and/or better chemistry.

lorenfb said:

As most all are aware of, it's all a function of battery capacity and how much extra cost a BEV OEM
wants to add to the resale price. Nissan could easily add another 10 kWhrs and have a 150 mile range,
but that would add $3K plus ($300/kWhr) or more to the price.

Click to expand...

IMHO if it was that simple to add 60 miles of range to the LEAF Nissan is insane for not offering the expanded range as an upgrade. To me a LEAF with a 150 mile range is a game changer, I may or may not have gotten my Tesla but I certainly would have gotten another LEAF when my lease ends next april.
as of now there is no way I am getting another LEAF and am considering a Volt/ELR or if it hits the market next spring a Tesla model X

lorenfb said:

As most all are aware of, it's all a function of battery capacity and how much extra cost a BEV OEM
wants to add to the resale price. Nissan could easily add another 10 kWhrs and have a 150 mile range,

Click to expand...

No, they couldn't. Ignoring the weight and volume requirements as well as the cost, it takes them 21 kWh usable to get 84 miles EPA range; to get to 150 EPA would require 150/84 * 21 = 37.5 kWh usable (42.9 kWh total assuming they use the same proportion of the pack), and that's making the unrealistic assumption that the weight (and volume) of the battery pack won't increase likewise, i.e. higher specific energy will provide all the extra capacity for the same weight.

lorenfb said:

but that would add $3K plus ($300/kWhr) or more to the price. Just like with Tesla, it's all about
where you want to position your product based on costs to the consumer. It really doesn't take
any key competitive technology over another BEV OEM at the present state of technology.

Hardly any great technology advance made by these other BEVs! It's just another big 'yawn'.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware that anyone was claiming that the B-class was a 'great technology boost', just that it provided a very useful (and much desired) increase in realistic range to over 100 miles, which no other current BEV manufacturer is offering for less than $50k. Alternatively, the B-class can use a much smaller SOC % of its battery pack to achieve a bit more range than the LEAF, which along with its TMS improves the pack's longevity. There's nothing to stop other manufacturers from doing the same, provided their cars can take the weight and volume of a larger pack and retain their utility (currently, none except maybe the i3 can).

"There's nothing to stop other manufacturers from doing the same, provided their cars can take the weight and volume of a larger pack and retain their utility (currently, none except maybe the i3Visit the i3 Forum can)."

Actually there is; It's called price!

Again, it's all about price and where to position the product. The i3 and the B-Class won't achieve the
volume numbers of the Leaf because of price. Other than from a non-economic basis, e.g. to avoid fossil
fuels, most can't rationalize the purchase of either of those two which will result in a small niche market
like the Tesla MS but even smaller.

Bottom line: The volume is sub $35K and that determines the present less than 100 mile range for now.

I'm pretty sure California is why every EV right now has the same range.

pkulak said:

I'm pretty sure California is why every EV right now has the same range.

Click to expand...

please elaborate on your theory for those of us who aren't as erudite as to the CA politics as they relate to EV compliance cars

GRA said:

lorenfb said:

As most all are aware of, it's all a function of battery capacity and how much extra cost a BEV OEM wants to add to the resale price. Nissan could easily add another 10 kWhrs and have a 150 mile range,

Click to expand...

No, they couldn't. Ignoring the weight and volume requirements as well as the cost, it takes them 21 kWh usable to get 84 miles EPA range; to get to 150 EPA would require 150/84 * 21 = 37.5 kWh usable (42.9 kWh total assuming they use the same proportion of the pack), and that's making the unrealistic assumption that the weight (and volume) of the battery pack won't increase likewise, i.e. higher specific energy will provide all the extra capacity for the same weight.

Click to expand...

But important capacity and range improvements can be had for little or no cost, weight or volume increase. Carlos Ghosn has claimed (and I have confirmed) that Li-ion battery capacity improves at an average rate of about 8% per year. This trend has been consistent over the past couple of decades. So it is very reasonable to assume that after 4 years in active production, an upcoming LEAF can be produced with 25% more capacity than the current version, thus giving it an EPA rating of about 105 miles or more.

The point is that the sub-$30,000 BEV bracket will very likely not be limited to sub-100-mile EPA ranges for much longer. And at the $35,000 price point, I would not be surprised to see BEVs start to appear with EPA ranges of 150 miles or more within a few years.

I think you and I agree that a BEV with a 150-mile EPA range is an extremely useful vehicle which can address the needs of a very broad market.

apvbguy said:

pkulak said:

I'm pretty sure California is why every EV right now has the same range.

Click to expand...

please elaborate on your theory for those of us who aren't as erudite as to the CA politics as they relate to EV compliance cars

Click to expand...

Well, someone else can hopefully back me up on this, but CARB credits are tied to range, and I think they top out at 100 miles, but in some outdated test from years ago, that makes any car made today that gets 100 miles in that test, get about 80 miles current EPA. So, that's why every single car gets about 80 miles. Or at least that's my understanding.

pkulak said:

apvbguy said:

pkulak said:

I'm pretty sure California is why every EV right now has the same range.

Click to expand...

please elaborate on your theory for those of us who aren't as erudite as to the CA politics as they relate to EV compliance cars

Click to expand...

Well, someone else can hopefully back me up on this, but CARB credits are tied to range, and I think they top out at 100 miles, but in some outdated test from years ago, that makes any car made today that gets 100 miles in that test, get about 80 miles current EPA. So, that's why every single car gets about 80 miles. Or at least that's my understanding.

Click to expand...

Starting in 2012, the "Large Vehicle Manufacturers" must sell a minimum number of California Air Resources Board - Zero Emission Vehicle (CARB-ZEV) qualifying vehicles for compliance in California:

• 
  Manufacturer - ZEV used for compliance:
  
  Ford - Focus EV
  Honda - Fit EV
  Chrysler/Fiat - 500e
  Toyota - Rav4 EV, iQ EV
  GM Chevrolet - Spark EV
  Nissan - LEAF

For model years 2015 and beyond:

• 
  BMW - i3
  Fiat/Chrysler - 500e
  Ford - Focus EV, hydrogen by 2018?
  General Motors - Spark EV, potential "200 mile EV moon-shot", hydrogen by 2018?
  Honda - absolutley hydrogen
  Hyundai - absolutley hydrogen
  Kia - Soul EV
  Mazda - Demio EV
  Daimler/Mercedes - B-Class ED, Smart ED, hydrogen by 2018
  Nissan - LEAF, eNV-2000
  Toyota - absolutley hydrogen
  Volkswagen - eGolf

Four additional manufacturers would also be required to comply with the ZEV requirements, but would be allowed to meet their obligation with Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV).

Model Year - ZEV Credit Percent Requirement

2012 ------------ 0.79%
2018 ------------ 2.00%
2019 ------------ 4.00%
2020 ------------ 6.00%
2021 ------------ 8.00%
2022 ----------- 10.00%
2023 ----------- 12.00%
2024 ----------- 14.00%
2025 ----------- 16.00%

*******

For 2012-2014 "Phase 3", 12% of production must meet Yearly ZEV requirements (including ZEV's, Enhanced AT PZEVs, ATPZEVs and PZEVs). Of that 12%, 0.79% must be ZEV.

Any type of ZEV may be used

Type V - 300+ miles range "hydrogen" - Credit per vehicle: 9 (2015-2017 only)
Type V - 300+ miles range "fast refueling" - Credit per vehicle: 7
Type IV - 200+ miles range "fast refueling" - Credit per vehicle: 5
Type III - 100+ miles range "fast refueling" - Credit per vehicle: 4
Type III - 200+ miles range -------------- Credit per vehicle: 4
Type II - 100+ miles range --------------- Credit per vehicle: 3
Type I.5 - 75-100 miles range ----------- Credit per vehicle: 2.5
Type I - 50-75 miles range --------------- Credit per vehicle: 2

After 2017, the credits for Type III, IV and V drop to 3

All manufacturers must report by May of the calendar year following the compliance model year; e.g., for 2008 model year, report is due may 1, 2009. Manufacturers may update reports until September. Manufacturers have two years to make up a ZEV deficit, or they are subject to penalties outlines in Health and Safety Code 43211:

$5000 penalty per vehicle CREDIT not produced

based on this info^^^^ the claim that 3 PEVs have similar sub 100 mile range because of CA regulations really isn't correct

apvbguy said:

based on this info^^^^ the claim that 3 PEVs have similar sub 100 mile range because of CA regulations really isn't correct

Click to expand...

No, they all probably have exactly 100 miles of range on whatever old test the EPA uses, which is about 80 miles real world. At the very least, it means that 100 miles is the max: after that you need to get to 200 miles and you only get one more credit.

pkulak said:

apvbguy said:

based on this info^^^^ the claim that 3 PEVs have similar sub 100 mile range because of CA regulations really isn't correct

Click to expand...

No, they all probably have exactly 100 miles of range on whatever old test the EPA uses, which is about 80 miles real world. At the very least, it means that 100 miles is the max: after that you need to get to 200 miles and you only get one more credit.

Click to expand...

help me out here, which one of these has 100 mile range, LEAF, I3, B class?

apvbguy said:

pkulak said:

apvbguy said:

based on this info^^^^ the claim that 3 PEVs have similar sub 100 mile range because of CA regulations really isn't correct

Click to expand...

No, they all probably have exactly 100 miles of range on whatever old test the EPA uses, which is about 80 miles real world. At the very least, it means that 100 miles is the max: after that you need to get to 200 miles and you only get one more credit.

Click to expand...

help me out here, which one of these has 100 mile range, LEAF, I3, B class?

Click to expand...

All do on the EPA LA-4 City Cycle. 19.59mph average speed.

TonyWilliams said:

All do on the EPA LA-4 City Cycle. 19.59mph average speed.

Click to expand...

is that the criteria used for the credits? who drives at that speed? why have a car? at those speeds a bicycle will do

apvbguy said:

TonyWilliams said:

All do on the EPA LA-4 City Cycle. 19.59mph average speed.

Click to expand...

is that the criteria used for the credits? who drives at that speed? why have a car? at those speeds a bicycle will do

Click to expand...

Yes, it is, and no one drives that by choice, but that's the cycle used to claim 100+ mile range, and is, as Tony and others have said, the reason you have all these cars clustered around 75-87 miles EPA range (which is measured using a 5-cycle test, the LA-4 cycle being one of them). Actually, that's probably a bit high an average speed for urban driving, and on LA and many other urban freeways it's a higher average speed than is possible in stop and go traffic during rush hour, outside of the HOV lanes I've seen one study that measured I-10 westbound at something like 15 mph average.

RegGuheert said:

GRA said:

lorenfb said:

As most all are aware of, it's all a function of battery capacity and how much extra cost a BEV OEM wants to add to the resale price. Nissan could easily add another 10 kWhrs and have a 150 mile range,

Click to expand...

No, they couldn't. Ignoring the weight and volume requirements as well as the cost, it takes them 21 kWh usable to get 84 miles EPA range; to get to 150 EPA would require 150/84 * 21 = 37.5 kWh usable (42.9 kWh total assuming they use the same proportion of the pack), and that's making the unrealistic assumption that the weight (and volume) of the battery pack won't increase likewise, i.e. higher specific energy will provide all the extra capacity for the same weight.

Click to expand...

But important capacity and range improvements can be had for little or no cost, weight or volume increase. Carlos Ghosn has claimed (and I have confirmed) that Li-ion battery capacity improves at an average rate of about 8% per year. This trend has been consistent over the past couple of decades. So it is very reasonable to assume that after 4 years in active production, an upcoming LEAF can be produced with 25% more capacity than the current version, thus giving it an EPA rating of about 105 miles or more.

Click to expand...

I agree with your numbers, but believe that the claim is 6-8% year capacity or price improvement/yr, and all that ignores the fact that at some point the manufacturers need to make a profit on the cars. We still don't know if Nissan has done so (they've never claimed they have, and they've fallen far short of their original production forecasts), but they would be the only company who has (barring Tesla's non-GAAP profit on a much higher margin car). Even assuming that Nissan get's the full 8%/yr improvement in _both energy densities_ and price over a 5 year period, that would only gain them 40% of range at the same weight and price, or 117 miles EPA, so I have my doubts that we'll be seeing 150 EPA for $35k in the 2016 model year - they would need almost a 79% improvement to achieve that. They might just be able to do so on a barebones S.

RegGuheert said:

The point is that the sub-$30,000 BEV bracket will very likely not be limited to sub-100-mile EPA ranges for much longer. And at the $35,000 price point, I would not be surprised to see BEVs start to appear with EPA ranges of 150 miles or more within a few years.

I think you and I agree that a BEV with a 150-mile EPA range is an extremely useful vehicle which can address the needs of a very broad market.

Click to expand...

Sure, no argument from me. I think the Kia Soul will likely be the first of the sub-$40k (hopefully sub $35k) cars to reach or exceed 90 miles EPA range, and other will follow. Given somewhat better batteries the Spark could easily get to 100 miles EPA while maybe still managing to sneak in at $30k.

GRA said:

Even assuming that Nissan get's the full 8%/yr improvement in _both energy densities_ and price over a 5 year period,, that would only gain them 40% of range at the same weight and price, or 117 miles EPA, so I have my doubts that we'll be seeing 150 EPA for $35k in the 2016 model year - they would need almost a 79% improvement to achieve that.

Click to expand...

That does not compute. I claimed 105 EPA below $30K.

GRA said:

They might just be able to do so on a barebones S.

Click to expand...

That's the point. I claimed 150 miles below $35K. That allows $5000 for the additional battery capacity to get from 105 EPA to 150 EPA, which should be more than enough.

Getting below $30,000 with an EPA range of 150 miles will likely take until the end of this decade.

"Getting below $30,000 with an EPA range of 150 miles will likely take until the end of this decade."

But have you forgotten the Model X and the Giga-factory? I thought in 2016 that was going to be the
'end-all' BEV vehicle year and put an end to all other OEM BEV products, right?

Bottom line: Too much guessing, speculation, and ignorance as to what technology and market forces
will yield in as few as two to three years out. Lucky most that has been posted recently isn't the same
long term market outlook as most strategic marketing departments of the major automotive OEMs
have with regard to the future BEV marketplace.