Why 200 miles??

[eloder]

Do they make ICE cars with 5 gal tank? No.

original mini cooper 5.5 gal.

Cooper S had a twin tank option for rally use.

when was the last of those cars built and sold?

My smart was built in 2013, and current day smarts still have 8.X gallon fuel tanks.

The focus would be scale of economics on whatever battery tech does the 200-300 mile range so that it becomes cheaper to the point where it might even under sell a gas car for cost. Then the deluxe version (insert Car company) cost more for the 400-500 range version.

Don't bet the farm on that. Within a decade we'll see 500-mile ranges or more that charge in minutes.

I'd like to see anyone saying no to that, and instead prefer the degraded 50-mile Leaf because "most people drive on average only 40 miles per day."

Think of your Leaf as Apple II of yesteryear. You would not want one today because it's good for a door stop and not much more.

Well, yes and no.

There will still people who will want a 70 mile range car for a while simply due to cost. An electric car minus the battery has the potential to sell for a lot less than a gas car, thanks to the lack of a huge number of components/systems. If the Elio for example ever goes into production under its proper targets, you could see an electric version of that for probably $5-6k if the battery cost next to nothing.

Charging is also advancing. Tesla believes that within two decades, they'll be able to get charging down to under 10 minutes for ~200 miles at a next-gen supercharger. Even if batteries are 1/4th their current cost, I imagine the "sweet spot" still won't be far past 200-300 as you'd be adding a lot of extra weight and cost and the returns would diminish heavily. In many decades (or with a huge battery breakthrough), we'll be able to increase battery sizes as thoughtlessly as gas tank size, but by most realistic accounts that is a very long way off.

I'm sure you'll see 500-600 mile battery ranges, but only on Tesla-like cars that take every aspect to a premium level.

Sure, it'd be cool to be able to drive cross-country and still drive at home, but that wouldn't be realistic unless there's an incredible breakthrough on battery tech.

 

[minispeed]

Do they make ICE cars with 5 gal tank? No.

original mini cooper 5.5 gal.

Cooper S had a twin tank option for rally use.

when was the last of those cars built and sold?

October 2000. There's still a lot of them doing daily driving in the UK and a lot of the collectors/enthusiasts in North America still daily drive them. It's a great daily driver commuter car. You could tune them for 50mpg UK, so lets say 40 US gal, the tank is actually a big bigger than 5 but since it was rated by it's full volume and it's an old school design unless you were on a slope you couldn't fill it up all the way without it coming back out. There was no neck to fill it up, the opening was right into the tank. I have a fuel cell now but I remember filling it up and slowing pulling the pump handle out as it got to the top and acutally seeing the last few drops go in, if you relied on the click off you'd only be about 70% full. Full range would be around 200 miles.

My Miata with a 10 gal tank got about that when driven in the winter.

200 miles knowing you can fill anywhere with the same convenience as gas and get back up to full overnight every night at home is a TON of range!!!!! We're just not there for reliable public charging yet.

The focus would be scale of economics on whatever battery tech does the 200-300 mile range so that it becomes cheaper to the point where it might even under sell a gas car for cost. Then the deluxe version (insert Car company) cost more for the 400-500 range version.

Don't bet the farm on that. Within a decade we'll see 500-mile ranges or more that charge in minutes.

I'd like to see anyone saying no to that, and instead prefer the degraded 50-mile Leaf because "most people drive on average only 40 miles per day."

Think of your Leaf as Apple II of yesteryear. You would not want one today because it's good for a door stop and not much more.

Well, yes and no.

There will still people who will want a 70 mile range car for a while simply due to cost. An electric car minus the battery has the potential to sell for a lot less than a gas car, thanks to the lack of a huge number of components/systems. If the Elio for example ever goes into production under its proper targets, you could see an electric version of that for probably $5-6k if the battery cost next to nothing.

Charging is also advancing. Tesla believes that within two decades, they'll be able to get charging down to under 10 minutes for ~200 miles at a next-gen supercharger. Even if batteries are 1/4th their current cost, I imagine the "sweet spot" still won't be far past 200-300 as you'd be adding a lot of extra weight and cost and the returns would diminish heavily. In many decades (or with a huge battery breakthrough), we'll be able to increase battery sizes as thoughtlessly as gas tank size, but by most realistic accounts that is a very long way off.

I'm sure you'll see 500-600 mile battery ranges, but only on Tesla-like cars that take every aspect to a premium level.

Sure, it'd be cool to be able to drive cross-country and still drive at home, but that wouldn't be realistic unless there's an incredible breakthrough on battery tech.[/quote]


As much as charging advances we will have a bottle neck with home charging. There's still a lot of homes that won't be able to get past where current charging technologies are, especially if you want to start adding 2 EVSEs to a home panel. I have a pretty new home with 2 100 amp breakers and I put in 2 cables when I bought the leaf to be future proof. I have one on a 50amp and 1 on a 30amp. I was told if I wanted the second higher than 30 I should look at going with a gas dryer and eliminating that circuit or upgrading the panel.

Not many people will be willing to upgrade the panel. When we get to the point of a battery that won't charge above full overnight at home many people will question if they should be paying more for a battery that size.

 

[knightmb]

Not many people will be willing to upgrade the panel. When we get to the point of a battery that won't charge above full overnight at home many people will question if they should be paying more for a battery that size.

I think other than the physiological factor that the battery isn't 100% charged, that's a lot of daily miles to charge up overnight even with a Level 2, so said person must be driving a 200 mile round-trip commute to work everyday.

 

[eloder]

As much as charging advances we will have a bottle neck with home charging. There's still a lot of homes that won't be able to get past where current charging technologies are, especially if you want to start adding 2 EVSEs to a home panel. I have a pretty new home with 2 100 amp breakers and I put in 2 cables when I bought the leaf to be future proof. I have one on a 50amp and 1 on a 30amp. I was told if I wanted the second higher than 30 I should look at going with a gas dryer and eliminating that circuit or upgrading the panel.

That's only a big deal if people never sleep. 8 hours of 30A charging is quite a bit of mileage, especially if we have bigger batteries that have 200+ miles remaining at the 80% mark. The 30A chargers nowadays should be suitable for the vast majority daily charging. The key word is daily charging--daily refueling at home is something you can't do in gas car right now, but people get by fine without it. When 200-300 mile range cars are widespread, Teslas at the very least will have a very robust supercharger network. When 200-300 mile range cars are wide-spread, people who really need a gasoline-like refill can simply head out to their nearest commercial Level 3 charger.

 

[desiv]

Think of your Leaf as Apple II of yesteryear. You would not want one today because it's good for a door stop and not much more.

<Looks at his Apple ][c in the computer room and thinks about his Apple //e downstairs, both of which were used just this week; Karateka and Ultima V>

er.. wait, what?

:lol:

desiv

 

[minispeed]

Not many people will be willing to upgrade the panel. When we get to the point of a battery that won't charge above full overnight at home many people will question if they should be paying more for a battery that size.

I think other than the physiological factor that the battery isn't 100% charged, that's a lot of daily miles to charge up overnight even with a Level 2, so said person must be driving a 200 mile round-trip commute to work everyday.

I wasn't trying to say that they would do it everyday I am just saying there will be a point where people feel that they are being charged for more battery than they need and the market will prefer cheaper smaller batteries rather than overkill. I think part of what will convince people they are there is when they see charge times on current 240v that are unrealistic.

I for one want cheaper rather that more battery capacity. I think that 250 at 80% SOC (so that you have 200 after every quick charge session) is the sweet spot for road trips, that's 4 hrs at 60 mph. Considering that's for the second leg (after the QC) and the first leg was probably from 100% and more than 250 and 4 hrs not many people will want to drive more than that in a day. For a commute car 200 miles at 100% SOC is the sweet spot.

BEV's shouldn't start adding more range than that until the batteries come down so much in price that a shorter range one wouldn't be any cheaper to consumers but I doubt we'll get to that price point.

 

[GRA]

Not many people will be willing to upgrade the panel. When we get to the point of a battery that won't charge above full overnight at home many people will question if they should be paying more for a battery that size.

I think other than the physiological factor that the battery isn't 100% charged, that's a lot of daily miles to charge up overnight even with a Level 2, so said person must be driving a 200 mile round-trip commute to work everyday.

I wasn't trying to say that they would do it everyday I am just saying there will be a point where people feel that they are being charged for more battery than they need and the market will prefer cheaper smaller batteries rather than overkill. I think part of what will convince people they are there is when they see charge times on current 240v that are unrealistic.

I for one want cheaper rather that more battery capacity. I think that 250 at 80% SOC (so that you have 200 after every quick charge session) is the sweet spot for road trips, that's 4 hrs at 60 mph. Considering that's for the second leg (after the QC) and the first leg was probably from 100% and more than 250 and 4 hrs not many people will want to drive more than that in a day. For a commute car 200 miles at 100% SOC is the sweet spot.

BEV's shouldn't start adding more range than that until the batteries come down so much in price that a shorter range one wouldn't be any cheaper to consumers but I doubt we'll get to that price point.

Oh, hell, I can't resist. The highlighted section may be adequate for Canada, but not for the U.S. Most states west of the Mississippi have 75 mph speed limits on rural interstates, and most people drive 4-5 mph over the limit. Four (Utah/Idaho/Wyoming/Texas) now have 80 mph limits with more possibly to follow, with Texas also having at least one toll road at 85 mph. We agree that four hours (plus a reserve) is what's needed, but 4 x 75 = 300, call it 330 with a reserve, and 4 x 80 = 320, 350 w/reserve. And that's before you start taking account of degradation, colder temps, heater/defroster use, hills, headwinds etc. Even if a Tesla S had double its current rated range, 530 miles instead of 265 (and that's at 65 mph), it would barely have enough to meet the 80 mph requirement in other than ideal conditions. At the battery's EoL, forget it: 530 x 0.7 (EoL) = 371 miles, x 0.9 ('normal' range charge %) = 333.9 before any other reductions. More efficient heating and/or better insulation, or else much reduced drag, will be required to give any BEV the sort of road trip range that most ICEs can do now, and that's assuming no great decrease in charging times; faster battery charging will require storage at site, because otherwise the demand charges will be huge.

Barring the arrival of such a battery, battery leasing with battery swap would be the only way to provide ICE like road trip capability, and that will require that multiple manufacturers agree to use standardized battery packs, which isn't likely anytime soon. If you did have such swapping, most people would be comfortable with a two hour range plus reserve at the above speeds, because they'd only be off the highway for 5-10 minutes at a time, not so much that they have to find something to do while they wait. This would allow most weekend getaways with no more than a single swap (or charge of the same time limit). You can do those weekend getaways now with an S85 if you're willing to stop for 30 minutes or so once, which is generally not a problem as most people can schedule a meal during them. You can even do them with 60s, if it's not too mountainous/cold. But for multi-day road tripping where you've got to cover serious distances, much bigger batteries/swapping will be required to replace ICEs.

 

[minispeed]

Oh, hell, I can't resist. The highlighted section may be adequate for Canada, but not for the U.S. Most states west of the Mississippi have 75 mph speed limits on rural interstates, and most people drive 4-5 mph over the limit. Four (Utah/Idaho/Wyoming/Texas) now have 80 mph limits with more possibly to follow, with Texas also having at least one toll road at 85 mph. We agree that four hours (plus a reserve) is what's needed, but 4 x 75 = 300, call it 330 with a reserve, and 4 x 80 = 320, 350 w/reserve. And that's before you start taking account of degradation, colder temps, heater/defroster use, hills, headwinds etc. Even if a Tesla S had double its current rated range, 530 miles instead of 265 (and that's at 65 mph), it would barely have enough to meet the 80 mph requirement in other than ideal conditions. At the battery's EoL, forget it: 530 x 0.7 (EoL) = 371 miles, x 0.9 ('normal' range charge %) = 333.9 before any other reductions. More efficient heating and/or better insulation, or else much reduced drag, will be required to give any BEV the sort of road trip range that most ICEs can do now, and that's assuming no great decrease in charging times; faster battery charging will require storage at site, because otherwise the demand charges will be huge.

Barring the arrival of such a battery, battery leasing with battery swap would be the only way to provide ICE like road trip capability, and that will require that multiple manufacturers agree to use standardized battery packs, which isn't likely anytime soon. If you did have such swapping, most people would be comfortable with a two hour range plus reserve at the above speeds, because they'd only be off the highway for 5-10 minutes at a time, not so much that they have to find something to do while they wait. This would allow most weekend getaways with no more than a single swap (or charge of the same time limit). You can do those weekend getaways now with an S85 if you're willing to stop for 30 minutes or so once, which is generally not a problem as most people can schedule a meal during them. You can even do them with 60s, if it's not too mountainous/cold. But for multi-day road tripping where you've got to cover serious distances, much bigger batteries/swapping will be required to replace ICEs.

I get everything you are saying, I know it can be done. I wasn't trying to come off saying it couldn't be done. I just don't see it happening in this market before there are other things that the general population gets use to such as fuel cells, either as a pure fuel cell car or a PHEV fuel car or sticking with gasoline PHEV. I think the typical type of person who would demand what you asked with your math above would never settle for a pure BEV ever and if they built one for him/her they would laugh at the price and walk away. Once we get over the average compact BEV at 200 miles and the avg Family BEV at 250@80% I think the mass market for pure BEV, at least without gasoline being regulated out and hydrogen failing, will be dominated by people wanting to save money on the purchase price of the car over extending the range. I think Tesla will continue with a niche of $100,000 cars that never change much in price but get very long range and the Germans will probably follow suit with s class, A8s and 7 series models but it will eventually reach a point where there's no more money to be made in adding more battery capacity. There has to be a saturation point for everything. After all we could easily put a tank in a car that lets it go 2000 miles but no one does because the trade offs aren't worth it, it won't help them sell cars. BEVs will have something similar and I think that the price and weight of the pack to get them to the point of where people don't think about range will be crazy high when compared to alternative energy sources.

IMHO all that is why people are backing hydrogen. I know it's not a popular topic here, I think BEVs are best but when you throw all that out there the best answer to satisfy the fill anywhere go as far as you want is a dense liquid or gas energy source that doesn't change in size/weight/price in direct relationship to range added. It also doesn't have diminishing total efficiency every time you extend the range by a new amount.

As the cost per kWh of batteries comes down the bottom line is that max range can only really be extended in the numbers we are talking about here by adding more kWh storage capacity. Aero drag, weight, electrical efficiency, charging efficiency, heater use, rolling resistance. None of the potential of improving that stuff added up could double the range. The more battery you add the less efficient the car gets due to weight so the more $/mile range it costs you. A range extender of any type on liquid/gas energy is the cost and weight of the system for infinite range. The time cost of that infinite range is total_trip_distance/range_of_on_board_fuel*(2 to 10 min).

With your numbers if we are talking BEVs capturing a large market share in the future and getting more reliable and cheaper enough to go those ranges one of the things you have to factor in is for them to make it they need to improve EOL. 70% is not going to cut it.

How often do you think people take drives like that, 2 x 4 hr legs at 85 mph? How much do you think being able to do that in the car they also commute to work in is worth to them? Once you hit 200 mile range in a $20,000 car what do you think the cost increase to go 400 miles will be vs. a back up energy source, either ICE or fuel cell? Once(if) we get the hydrogen network up for fuel cell we can also use hydrogen in an ICE if the fuel cell stacks don't come down in price.

And FYI while Canada does have a 62 mph (100 km/hr) limit (some at 68 I think but not around me), we are pretty lax on speeding in Ontario. 75 is the norm and there's a good chance you won't get pulled over until you go over 81. Pre my prius/leaf days I drove an 80 mile commute at 90 mph for 5 years and never got pulled over once. I knew all the spots the cops liked and would slow down under 80 around them, went by many. We also just went to a higher highway speed (80mph max I think) on our 2015 fuel economy tests.

 

[caffeinekid]

I am certainly an EV advocate, but at the same time I understand what is happening in America right now. On that note, I keep hearing and reading about how "when the cost per kWh of batteries comes down...." and I would like to believe it, but I don't see it happening in any meaningful way in the near or not-too-distant future. Why? Because I see the cost of living (via inflation) rising to meet it at best. And that hardly spells mass adaptation without a valid definition of "mass." If by "mass" you mean enough of the wealthy buying them to keep the manufacturer putting them out, then you might have something. But if you are referring to the mass that will have any real positive impact on the environment, then you couldn't be further from the reality of it. In fact, despite all the positive hype we (who are attuned to that particular frequency) have been hearing about Apple, Tesla, etc., we are still talking about cars for the "wealthy." Even the subsidized Leaf is pretty far above and beyond the 'average' driver's budget. Yes. Some can make it happen due to generous government subsidies and lease arrangements (read as payout to the corporations), but even then you have to wonder how many of these folks are saving adequately or properly funding retirements, education, etc.. I know some people would say that this is neither here nor there and point to how we are talking about the new car market that already exists. Just keep in mind that for many of the AT VERY MOST 20-30% of western car buyers that buy new, an "average" cost of $30K is still technically unaffordable while maintaining a solvent budget. And people know this. When they do buy, they simply cannot afford a plaything that cannot handle distances relative to their unforeseen needs or environment. And without the expensive infrastructure that would most certainly rely on a large degree of federal subsidy, there will be no practical EV application. It will remain a niche- just like most of the best tech.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Personally, if I'm going to rent something for needed range..
It'll probably be a full car, not some trailer or something that takes up trunk space (and adds weight) to the Leaf.

The assumption is that it costs less to rent a range extending trailer than to rent a car. Also a trailor has the added convenience that you don't have to transfer you belongings from one car to another and then forget to transfer them back, like a camera. Ideally the trailer would have extra space for holding luggage.

You won't see range extender trailer on cars from auto manufacturers, it's not going to happen.

 

[Deleted member 14724]

You won't see range extender trailer on cars from auto manufacturers, it's not going to happen.

Completely agree. Upgradability for the masses is largely a product of the computer age and companies which specialize in technology. At best, I think we *will* see software upgradeability, for security flaws if for no other reason. That would become a liability issue if we have drive-by-wire cars.

 

[DanCar]

Within a decade we'll see 500-mile ranges or more that charge in minutes.

2 or maybe 3 decades. But a single decade? No way. It's been half a decade since the Leaf's introduction and things have not progressed that much since in regards to either the price of the battery or the speed in which it can be charged.

In 6 years we went from 73 mile range car to 200, if you believe the Bolt, for about the same price. 2.74x in 6 years. What will happen 6 years after the Bolt is released? 200x2.74 = 548 mile range. Made possible by the billions of dollars in battery research.

Charging in minutes is easy. One example is battery swap. Without battery swap you just need to apply enough power to the battery cells connected in parallel. Both of which cost money.

 

[GRA]

Oh, hell, I can't resist. The highlighted section may be adequate for Canada, but not for the U.S. Most states west of the Mississippi have 75 mph speed limits on rural interstates, and most people drive 4-5 mph over the limit. Four (Utah/Idaho/Wyoming/Texas) now have 80 mph limits with more possibly to follow, with Texas also having at least one toll road at 85 mph. We agree that four hours (plus a reserve) is what's needed, but 4 x 75 = 300, call it 330 with a reserve, and 4 x 80 = 320, 350 w/reserve. And that's before you start taking account of degradation, colder temps, heater/defroster use, hills, headwinds etc. Even if a Tesla S had double its current rated range, 530 miles instead of 265 (and that's at 65 mph), it would barely have enough to meet the 80 mph requirement in other than ideal conditions. At the battery's EoL, forget it: 530 x 0.7 (EoL) = 371 miles, x 0.9 ('normal' range charge %) = 333.9 before any other reductions. More efficient heating and/or better insulation, or else much reduced drag, will be required to give any BEV the sort of road trip range that most ICEs can do now, and that's assuming no great decrease in charging times; faster battery charging will require storage at site, because otherwise the demand charges will be huge.

Barring the arrival of such a battery, battery leasing with battery swap would be the only way to provide ICE like road trip capability, and that will require that multiple manufacturers agree to use standardized battery packs, which isn't likely anytime soon. If you did have such swapping, most people would be comfortable with a two hour range plus reserve at the above speeds, because they'd only be off the highway for 5-10 minutes at a time, not so much that they have to find something to do while they wait. This would allow most weekend getaways with no more than a single swap (or charge of the same time limit). You can do those weekend getaways now with an S85 if you're willing to stop for 30 minutes or so once, which is generally not a problem as most people can schedule a meal during them. You can even do them with 60s, if it's not too mountainous/cold. But for multi-day road tripping where you've got to cover serious distances, much bigger batteries/swapping will be required to replace ICEs.

I get everything you are saying, I know it can be done. I wasn't trying to come off saying it couldn't be done. I just don't see it happening in this market before there are other things that the general population gets use to such as fuel cells, either as a pure fuel cell car or a PHEV fuel car or sticking with gasoline PHEV. I think the typical type of person who would demand what you asked with your math above would never settle for a pure BEV ever and if they built one for him/her they would laugh at the price and walk away. Once we get over the average compact BEV at 200 miles and the avg Family BEV at 250@80% I think the mass market for pure BEV, at least without gasoline being regulated out and hydrogen failing, will be dominated by people wanting to save money on the purchase price of the car over extending the range. I think Tesla will continue with a niche of $100,000 cars that never change much in price but get very long range and the Germans will probably follow suit with s class, A8s and 7 series models but it will eventually reach a point where there's no more money to be made in adding more battery capacity. There has to be a saturation point for everything. After all we could easily put a tank in a car that lets it go 2000 miles but no one does because the trade offs aren't worth it, it won't help them sell cars. BEVs will have something similar and I think that the price and weight of the pack to get them to the point of where people don't think about range will be crazy high when compared to alternative energy sources.

IMHO all that is why people are backing hydrogen. I know it's not a popular topic here, I think BEVs are best but when you throw all that out there the best answer to satisfy the fill anywhere go as far as you want is a dense liquid or gas energy source that doesn't change in size/weight/price in direct relationship to range added. It also doesn't have diminishing total efficiency every time you extend the range by a new amount.

As the cost per kWh of batteries comes down the bottom line is that max range can only really be extended in the numbers we are talking about here by adding more kWh storage capacity. Aero drag, weight, electrical efficiency, charging efficiency, heater use, rolling resistance. None of the potential of improving that stuff added up could double the range. The more battery you add the less efficient the car gets due to weight so the more $/mile range it costs you. A range extender of any type on liquid/gas energy is the cost and weight of the system for infinite range. The time cost of that infinite range is total_trip_distance/range_of_on_board_fuel*(2 to 10 min).

With your numbers if we are talking BEVs capturing a large market share in the future and getting more reliable and cheaper enough to go those ranges one of the things you have to factor in is for them to make it they need to improve EOL. 70% is not going to cut it.

How often do you think people take drives like that, 2 x 4 hr legs at 85 mph? How much do you think being able to do that in the car they also commute to work in is worth to them? Once you hit 200 mile range in a $20,000 car what do you think the cost increase to go 400 miles will be vs. a back up energy source, either ICE or fuel cell? Once(if) we get the hydrogen network up for fuel cell we can also use hydrogen in an ICE if the fuel cell stacks don't come down in price.

And FYI while Canada does have a 62 mph (100 km/hr) limit (some at 68 I think but not around me), we are pretty lax on speeding in Ontario. 75 is the norm and there's a good chance you won't get pulled over until you go over 81. Pre my prius/leaf days I drove an 80 mile commute at 90 mph for 5 years and never got pulled over once. I knew all the spots the cops liked and would slow down under 80 around them, went by many. We also just went to a higher highway speed (80mph max I think) on our 2015 fuel economy tests.

We're in agreement that non-fossil liquid or gas fuel is more likely to be cost, space and weight effective to provide real road trip range and rapid refueling capability sooner than batteries get there, and elsewhere I've mentioned that for those who can afford and benefit from it, a PHFCEV is probably the way to go, the battery for commuting and local errands, H2 for road trips. I expect we'll see BEVs, FCHVs and PHFCVs (and possibly biofuels as an outside chance) all available to provide cars for all needs in a variety of price ranges, unless one or the other technology surges ahead and can do everything at an affordable price.

As to how often people take such road trips, well, if you do them, that's what you need. If you live in a large, low density western state, you're far more likely to need them frequently than if you live in a small, high density state in the Northeast. Horses for courses. The majority of my weekend trips are on a freeway/highway radius of 3-4 hours and often involve thousands of feet of climb and heater-defroster use (where a BEV falls far short at the moment), but 3 day weekends may go out to a 6 hour radius with similar climbs, and week long trips may go as far east as the Rockies from California, i.e. 1,200+ miles one-way. Naturally, those are much less common than the weekend trips, but anything that can shorten the travel and dead times on those trips makes a huge difference. An ICE lets me do any trip I want with maximum utility, flexibility, speed and comfort, and any replacement tech will need to come very close to those capabilities at a comparable or lower price while providing a significant something extra that I value, to make me (a proxy for mainstream customers, even if I'm not one) switch. People with lesser needs may well be satisfied with something significantly less capable (and hopefully much less expensive).

 

[minispeed]

I am certainly an EV advocate, but at the same time I understand what is happening in America right now. On that note, I keep hearing and reading about how "when the cost per kWh of batteries comes down...." and I would like to believe it, but I don't see it happening in any meaningful way in the near or not-too-distant future. Why? Because I see the cost of living (via inflation) rising to meet it at best. And that hardly spells mass adaptation without a valid definition of "mass." If by "mass" you mean enough of the wealthy buying them to keep the manufacturer putting them out, then you might have something. But if you are referring to the mass that will have any real positive impact on the environment, then you couldn't be further from the reality of it. In fact, despite all the positive hype we (who are attuned to that particular frequency) have been hearing about Apple, Tesla, etc., we are still talking about cars for the "wealthy." Even the subsidized Leaf is pretty far above and beyond the 'average' driver's budget. Yes. Some can make it happen due to generous government subsidies and lease arrangements (read as payout to the corporations), but even then you have to wonder how many of these folks are saving adequately or properly funding retirements, education, etc.. I know some people would say that this is neither here nor there and point to how we are talking about the new car market that already exists. Just keep in mind that for many of the AT VERY MOST 20-30% of western car buyers that buy new, an "average" cost of $30K is still technically unaffordable while maintaining a solvent budget. And people know this. When they do buy, they simply cannot afford a plaything that cannot handle distances relative to their unforeseen needs or environment. And without the expensive infrastructure that would most certainly rely on a large degree of federal subsidy, there will be no practical EV application. It will remain a niche- just like most of the best tech.

If all cars were forced to get a PIP like 11 miles of pure EV range we would see a much better impact on the environment. Instead of pushing for longer BEV ranges and pushing more people into BEV when they might not be comfortable with the limits yet it would be much easier to transition them. That's why I feel the push down in cost from cheap batteries will trickle a small bit into every car and affordable BEVs that are still only 2nd car or city car use getting cheaper and gaining market share before we see it being invested in average cars that go 400+ miles. This also gives the car makers a better avg for CAFE and will allow them to still sell high profit items like sports cars and SUVs that guzzle gas. If you only give people in the sub $18,000 market choice hybrids then they will buy a hybrid and not complain enough to create demand for a non hybrid.

We're in agreement that non-fossil liquid or gas fuel is more likely to be cost, space and weight effective to provide real road trip range and rapid refueling capability sooner than batteries get there, and elsewhere I've mentioned that for those who can afford and benefit from it, a PHFCEV is probably the way to go, the battery for commuting and local errands, H2 for road trips. I expect we'll see BEVs, FCHVs and PHFCVs (and possibly biofuels as an outside chance) all available to provide cars for all needs in a variety of price ranges, unless one or the other technology surges ahead and can do everything at an affordable price.

As to how often people take such road trips, well, if you do them, that's what you need. If you live in a large, low density western state, you're far more likely to need them frequently than if you live in a small, high density state in the Northeast. Horses for courses. The majority of my weekend trips are on a freeway/highway radius of 3-4 hours and often involve thousands of feet of climb and heater-defroster use (where a BEV falls far short at the moment), but 3 day weekends may go out to a 6 hour radius with similar climbs, and week long trips may go as far east as the Rockies from California, i.e. 1,200+ miles one-way. Naturally, those are much less common than the weekend trips, but anything that can shorten the travel and dead times on those trips makes a huge difference. An ICE lets me do any trip I want with maximum utility, flexibility, speed and comfort, and any replacement tech will need to come very close to those capabilities at a comparable or lower price while providing a significant something extra that I value, to make me (a proxy for mainstream customers, even if I'm not one) switch. People with lesser needs may well be satisfied with something significantly less capable (and hopefully much less expensive).

We're all just guessing here but what I think you'll see is the only product offered in the market to satisfy your needs in pure BEV fashion will be luxury, on par with Tesla. The auto makers will probably look at buyers like you and say we can give them 100% of what they need all of the time (go anywhere, refuel, use heat at will) with 100% of what they want (BEV only 0 emissions) for 90% of the time (in the city). That same product fills the wants and needs of a much larger market 100% of the time. To invest in building a car, or optioning an existing one to satisfy that very small change in demand will probably put the idea on the shelf for most car makers. As you said "if you do them, that's what you need" doesn't guarantee that someone will fill that need with a product especially since the fall back option for all of those people is to buy a different product from possibly the same company.

Another thing to consider is for the BEV to evolve to this sweet spot range to do everything we will need cars that continually push the boundary. As we push that boundary we will continue to rely on public L3 charging to support BEV drivers and make the experience painless, easy and cheap. If a non 0 emissions committed persons first BEV isn't painless they are more likely to demand a range extended version for the next car. We are already seeing a lot of problems with public L3s and once we get the next wave of 200 mile cars it will essentially mean every single L3 charge made so far(short of Tesla, people doing more than 1 per day and other 1 off situations) would no longer be needed. That will be a big change in the business plan of making L3s viable. Reliability and upgrades as faster chargers come up are issues and they will relate directly to the profitability of running an L3 for profit. Once we reach BEVs with 400 miles of range again every single quick charge that had been done up to 1 per day will no longer be needed. How will the companies change their business model to still bring in a steady stream of funds? Will the per kWh rate go up? If so then it might be even less cost effective to double the range on a BEV and use it for road trips with pay for L3 than using a range extender? We might see people putting so little juice into the cars at pay for L3s that the profit isn't there. So maybe the companies switch to pay per charge. That may lead to people parking for the full amount to get the best bang for the buck and cause reliability frustration for other drivers again supporting the buy a range extender crowd.

There's a lot of questions and I am not trying to say I know the answer to any of them I just think that there is still a big gamble in any public quick charge networks long term future that isn't set up by either an automaker (ie Tesla) or a power company (sounds like what PG&E is doing now) and is run at a loss only to support the sales of their other products. In those cases the cars or power to you buy at your home every night. I think it will be answered by seeing what the truckers go with. If they go BEV then there will be profit to be made in public chargers and the only place you will probably see them is along truck routes. I personally think they will go hydrogen since there are many truckers working in teams and the truck is on the road pretty much 23hrs a day. Also if a trucker has to refuel during their 10 hr window to drive (I think that's what it is) they will be unwilling to spend time charging. This is an industry that has so many people going to the bathroom in bottles and plastic bags (yes #2) while driving to save on time that it has caused problems for clean up crews and health risks. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/rant/pee.html However they may stick with a liquid gas and then we are probably still going to see that as our car range extender fuel option for a long time.

 

[evnow]

If all cars were forced to get a PIP like 11 miles of pure EV range we would see a much better impact on the environment. Instead of pushing for longer BEV ranges and pushing more people into BEV when they might not be comfortable with the limits yet it would be much easier to transition them.

But that is not how the market or the world works.

You can't force every car to be like PIP - you can't force everyone to charge, even if they had pip type plugins. These things are better done with carbon tax etc.

We are going to have a range of plugins - no need to have a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Going back to the question - of the reasons why we need more "100 miles" is the "buffer". People feel safer with a good deal of buffer (30 to 50 miles). If the EPA 200 mile EV gives close to 150 miles in winter / free way driving - then people feel safe enough to use it for 100 mile round trips.

 

[nerys]

"The thing is, people whose optimal range is 200 are in a minority."


I do not agree. I don't need 200 miles because I want to go 200 miles.

I need 200 miles because I want to make sure I CAN ALWAYS GO 75 miles.

take a 200 mile range car. add 10'f winter. add heater. add 5 years of degredation.

what is your range? see what I mean.

it is not the "Best" range that concerns me. even my 2012 leaf is pretty much enough for that.

it is WORST CASE range that concerns me. THAT is the reason we need 200 miles.

I can EASILY drive my leaf in such a way that I only get 40 miles of range. Delivery pizza and turn on the heater when its 14' out.

yep. about 40 miles range. even with charging at 20amps between deliveries.

heater off? about 60 miles. add charging inbetween and its 90 to 140 miles a day.

if the car had 200 miles range I could probably do 75 miles of delivery with the heat without even charging add charging and I have zero concerns and would not need to keep my metro at work as a backup.

just barely made it today. last delivery. 9 miles left. I sat at work for 45 minutes after I clocked out to juice up enough to I could use the heater on the trip home and have a safety margin.

one more delivery and I might have had to switch to the metro.

AGAIN. it is not the "max range in summer and perfect temps and perfect speed" we have to worry about.

it is the "drop dead" range we have to worry about and THAT is what they should disclose and aim for.

75 miles drop dead range. I think a 200mile range car would do that under most conditions INCLUDING after years of degredation.

I don't care what the range is on day 1. what is the range at year 3? at year 5? at 50,000 miles? at 150,000 miles?

a 200 mile range car would ALSO turn a leaf into a 200,000 mile or more range car instead of a "maybe if I am lucky" 100,000 mile range car.

that alone would be a huge savings. huge huge huge savings. I would not have to replace the battery every 3 years. but instead every 6 years or 7 years.

regular person might get 20 years out of a leaf before needing a battery replacement.

that would also be HUGE for the resale value.

a used leaf now with 30% of its battery gone is nearly useless.

a 200 mile range leaf with 30% of its battery gone still has more range than a BRAND NEW leaf does today. that is huge.

 

[minispeed]

If all cars were forced to get a PIP like 11 miles of pure EV range we would see a much better impact on the environment. Instead of pushing for longer BEV ranges and pushing more people into BEV when they might not be comfortable with the limits yet it would be much easier to transition them.

But that is not how the market or the world works.

You can't force every car to be like PIP - you can't force everyone to charge, even if they had pip type plugins. These things are better done with carbon tax etc.

We are going to have a range of plugins - no need to have a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Going back to the question - of the reasons why we need more "100 miles" is the "buffer". People feel safer with a good deal of buffer (30 to 50 miles). If the EPA 200 mile EV gives close to 150 miles in winter / free way driving - then people feel safe enough to use it for 100 mile round trips.

They've forced stability control and TPMS and will be forcing reverse cameras. Just like TPMS you can't force everyone to keep it as you can't force everyone to plug in a car. You can easily force the PHEV on everyone, it would be a very tough sell but you could do it. Carb has forced a lot of BEVs to the market, the same legislation could say that all vehicles, or a very high % must have at least 11 miles of 0 emissions available. CAFE in a way may force a lot of hybrid to the market and some of that may be PHEV. Yes the ultimate goal of something like that would be achieved if everyone plugs in but even the prius plug in is reported to get better real world MPG in a non charged plug in than the regular prius does.

My point wasn't to say that it was the best but that if the advancement in battery tech is spread to more cars and making it cheaper it's better off for the environment than giving cars more range than they need.

 

[nerys]

incorrect. forcing all cars to get 100 miles 0 emissions won't force ANY battery research. the reason is simple.

it is easy to get 11 miles of battery into a car and buying an off the shelf battery is cheaper than R&Ding a new one.

 

[apvbguy]

You can't force every car to be like PIP - you can't force everyone to charge, even if they had pip type plugins. These things are better done with carbon tax etc.

you can't force everyone to change?? why not?? TVs are a great example of how the government mandated and forced a change in the way TV outlets broadcast and how people receive the signal. calling for more taxes is just a typically vapid method of inducing change.

 

[Deleted member 14724]

You can't force every car to be like PIP - you can't force everyone to charge, even if they had pip type plugins. These things are better done with carbon tax etc.

you can't force everyone to change?? why not?? TVs are a great example of how the government mandated and forced a change in the way TV outlets broadcast and how people receive the signal. calling for more taxes is just a typically vapid method of inducing change.

You could force it, but to say that it would hurt people is putting it mildly. What would happen to the few new models that low-income people can afford (such as the Versa)? Is forcing people to go without even more basic stuff (or forcing even more people to become dependent on government handouts) a good thing?