WetEV wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:40 pm
GRA wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:50 pm
WetEV wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:21 pm
For an ICE, adding range is almost free. The whole fuel tank costs a few hundred dollars, and So ICEs will likely have more range than needed, as the marginal return of value doesn't need to be large to repay the marginal cost of a larger gas tank.
More range than needed as determined by whom?
Distribution of customers wants and needs.
Uh huh, and the typical customer values range for convenience, flexibility and peace of mind.
WetEV wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:40 pm
Incremental cost of adding 1 mile of range to an ICE is tiny, less than a dollar. So if the manufacturer is economically efficient, they add range until the marginal value added is roughly equal to the marginal cost of adding range.
As the marginal cost is tiny, the equilibrium will be out where the marginal value added is tiny. Only a few people care a little about adding a mile of range to a 250 mile range ICE. But that's enough.
A BEV has different economics. Adding range isn't almost free, so BEVs are likely to have lower ranges than ICEs. Even after they have almost totally displaced ICEs.
Yes, the incremental cost of more range in an ICE is small, unlike a BEV, but it's not zero. However, manufacturers have almost every reason to minimize the size of the tank in an ICE,. as it boosts internal pax/cargo capacity, reduces price (and fairly minimally, weight), and makes protection in crashes easier. But there's one overwhelming reason why they don't do that, and that's because the majority of their customers demand more range, not less. How do you think they settled on 300+ miles in the first place? Or look at this recent J.D. Power survey:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/1 ... 3-jdp.html
. . . Following are key findings about battery-electric vehicles:
Mobility Confidence Index remains neutral for battery-electric vehicles: With an overall score of 55, confidence about the future of battery-electric vehicles remains neutral. Attributes scoring lowest include likelihood of purchasing an electric vehicle and reliability of electric compared to gas-powered vehicles.
Challenges for acceptance: Industry experts say that consumer affordability and trust remain the top challenges for battery-electric vehicle acceptance. They also recognize that the cost to produce electric vehicles and the development of a charging infrastructure are critical challenges that must be addressed.
EV ownership affects battery-electric vehicle purchase consideration: More than half (60%) of those who have owned a battery-electric vehicle are “extremely likely” or “very likely” to repurchase a similar vehicle. Conversely, 59% of those who have never been in such a vehicle are “not too likely” or “not at all likely” to purchase or lease one. However, more than three-fourths (77% of owners and 76% with no experience) say tax credits or subsidies would factor into their purchase decision. J.D. Power also noted that a mere 4% of respondents have owned a battery-electric vehicle while 68% say they have never been in a battery-electric vehicle.
Pros and cons: Nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents say battery-electric vehicles are better for the environment. Half of respondents also believe the cost of charging compared with the cost of gas will be advantageous. However, 65% are concerned about the availability of charging stations. More than half (60%) of respondents are concerned about driving range, with 76% of those with no battery-electric vehicle experience expecting vehicles to have a driving range of 300 miles or more. . . .
These survey results are quite typical of the general public. Here's another:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... -avoid-evs
. . . When Autolist asked consumers for the minimum range they’d accept in a $35,000 electric vehicle, the leading answer was “between 250 and 300 miles”—stipulations perhaps most closely met by the Hyundai Kona Electric, with its $37,995 base price and 258-mile EPA-rated range. The Chevrolet Bolt EV and Kia Niro EV are also close to meeting those expectations.
But when Autolist asked the same about a $70,000 EV, the most common response was “more than 500 miles. . . .”
There’s a riptide beneath these impressions, and that’s age. The survey found a direct and pronounced correlation between age and the importance of EV range. For instance, 32 percent of those 18-23 years old listed range among the top three avoidance issues, while for those over 76 years old it was in the top three for 60 percent. Autolist reports that there was a similar trendline created between age and the importance of the charging network, although that one had an inflection point around age 45. . . .
It seems that consumers who know how expensive BEV batteries are may be willing (for now) to accept a bit less range, but they obviously would want the same range as in a luxury vehicle; they just know they can't afford it even if it were available. Meanwhile, Toyota runs TV ads touting their various HEV models with ranges of 500, 600 or 700 miles. If no one cared, why would they be spending money promoting this? They could build a Prius with a half-size tank, and plenty of PHEV basic conversions like the Fusion & C-Max Energis/Subaru Crosstrek HEV wouldn't need to have their cargo or passenger space compromised.
The age trends should also be taken into consideration with who's buying cars (in th U.S.) now, and that's predominantly older buyers: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30575#p572151
<Snip anecdotal accounts of extreme ends of range needs or more importantly, wants. FWIW, my dad had a 25 gal. aux. tank dealer-installed in the trunk of his '76 Peugeot 504D, which added to the 15 gal. standard tank gave that car a highway range of 1,200 miles. The reason? He was concerned about running out of diesel on a road trip if truck stops wouldn't serve him - at the time, few gas stations sold diesel, and IIRR there was an issue of the price at truck stops w/wo tax, plus the quantity of fuel was so low that many truck stops didn't want to have space taken up by cars. When you bought the car Peugeot gave you a book that listed all the gas stations that sold diesel in the U.S. - think of it as a pre-internet version of Plugshare).
Besides, he drove a truck for a living and AFAICT had a cast-iron ass and a huge bladder, because on a trip he stopped for my needs or the car's, not his. I seem to have inherited some of that, or maybe the cars I drive now just have generally better seats: the '65 Impala's were awful, but his Peugeot was just about the most comfortable riding car I've ever been in, with seats that were light years ahead of the Impala's and would match up pretty well with some of the best today. A terrifically comfortable suspension too, with a soft compression stroke and a firm rebound on the shocks, although like most French cars of the era with that combo and no anti-roll bars it "cornered on its door handles".>