Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GRA said:
Not so bad? What happened to their inevitable upwards march to dominance?

You expect exactly consistent growth, just exactly why? Hasn't happened in the past with BEVs. Didn't happen in the past with other new technologies. Do you have a reason for this, or are you just trolling again? No need to answer, we all know the answer. Clear, isn't it?

2014 to 2015 had two down quarters. PEV sales were under 1%... until they were no longer under 1%, and I had to keep reminding you of that. I was interested in the next 1%, remember?

Remember that I'm not trying to solve the last 10% of the problem. Only the next 1% and perhaps the 2% after that. The next 1% doesn't need central unmanned recharging. Or retrofitting most of the parking spaces. Or hydrogen. Or self driving cars taking themselves to a central charging location. Or Buck Rogers. Most of the next 1% has a garage they can charge in.

I'm now interested in the next 2%.


GRA said:
The need is to grow the market, not just keep selling to the same limited one over and over.

This market is over twice the size it was a bit over two years ago.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Not so bad? What happened to their inevitable upwards march to dominance?

You expect exactly consistent growth, just exactly why? Hasn't happened in the past with BEVs. Didn't happen in the past with other new technologies. Do you have a reason for this, or are you just trolling again? No need to answer, we all know the answer. Clear, isn't it?


Which has been been of my points all along, and I'm glad to see that you are now onboard. Consistent growth doesn't happen, there are always ups and downs. In this case, it also illustrates another one of my points, which is that PEV sales remain dependent on subsidies, perks and mandates. We can hope that won't be the case in a few years, but it sure isn't the case now.


WetEV said:
2014 to 2015 had two down quarters. PEV sales were under 1%... until they were no longer under 1%, and I had to keep reminding you of that. I was interested in the next 1%, remember?

Remember that I'm not trying to solve the last 10% of the problem. Only the next 1% and perhaps the 2% after that. The next 1% doesn't need central unmanned recharging. Or retrofitting most of the parking spaces. Or hydrogen. Or self driving cars taking themselves to a central charging location. Or Buck Rogers. Most of the next 1% has a garage they can charge in.

I'm now interested in the next 2%.


GRA said:
The need is to grow the market, not just keep selling to the same limited one over and over.

This market is over twice the size it was a bit over two years ago.

Uh huh, and has now suffered two quarters of major reductions in both China and the U.S., the two biggest auto markets. Why? Because subsidies were reduced in both countries. See above.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Not so bad? What happened to their inevitable upwards march to dominance?

You expect exactly consistent growth, just exactly why? Hasn't happened in the past with BEVs. Didn't happen in the past with other new technologies. Do you have a reason for this, or are you just trolling again? No need to answer, we all know the answer. Clear, isn't it?


Which has been been of my points all along, and I'm glad to see that you are now onboard. Consistent growth doesn't happen, there are always ups and downs. In this case, it also illustrates another one of my points, which is that PEV sales remain dependent on subsidies, perks and mandates. We can hope that won't be the case in a few years, but it sure isn't the case now.

Higher priced EVs such as Audi and Tesla's sales in Washington State have no state subsidy, no perks and few mandates (cities have to buy some small but growing fraction of city vehicles as EVs, usually buy Chevy Bolts). Lower priced EVs get a sales tax break in Washington State. Tesla has no federal tax credit. Tesla is selling EVs in Washington State.

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Moore's law, for example. Wrong at high magnification. Very useful.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2018.png

EV doubling sales every 2-3 years is going to be wrong on a day by day basis, a month by month basis, a quarter by quarter basis. So far it looks useful. I predict we will be discussing how EVs have only a 4% market share in a few years.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
2014 to 2015 had two down quarters. PEV sales were under 1%... until they were no longer under 1%, and I had to keep reminding you of that. I was interested in the next 1%, remember?

Remember that I'm not trying to solve the last 10% of the problem. Only the next 1% and perhaps the 2% after that. The next 1% doesn't need central unmanned recharging. Or retrofitting most of the parking spaces. Or hydrogen. Or self driving cars taking themselves to a central charging location. Or Buck Rogers. Most of the next 1% has a garage they can charge in.

I'm now interested in the next 2%.


GRA said:
The need is to grow the market, not just keep selling to the same limited one over and over.

This market is over twice the size it was a bit over two years ago.

Uh huh, and has now suffered two quarters of major reductions in both China and the U.S., the two biggest auto markets. Why? Because subsidies were reduced in both countries. See above.

After two quarters well above trend. Actually look at this graph.
U.S.%20Plug-In%20Car%20Sales%20%E2%80%93%20Q4%202019.png
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
You expect exactly consistent growth, just exactly why? Hasn't happened in the past with BEVs. Didn't happen in the past with other new technologies. Do you have a reason for this, or are you just trolling again? No need to answer, we all know the answer. Clear, isn't it?


Which has been been of my points all along, and I'm glad to see that you are now onboard. Consistent growth doesn't happen, there are always ups and downs. In this case, it also illustrates another one of my points, which is that PEV sales remain dependent on subsidies, perks and mandates. We can hope that won't be the case in a few years, but it sure isn't the case now.

Higher priced EVs such as Audi and Tesla's sales in Washington State have no state subsidy, no perks and few mandates (cities have to buy some small but growing fraction of city vehicles as EVs, usually buy Chevy Bolts). Lower priced EVs get a sales tax break in Washington State. Tesla has no federal tax credit. Tesla is selling EVs in Washington State.

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Moore's law, for example. Wrong at high magnification. Very useful.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2018.png

EV doubling sales every 2-3 years is going to be wrong on a day by day basis, a month by month basis, a quarter by quarter basis. So far it looks useful. I predict we will be discussing how EVs have only a 4% market share in a few years.


Out of curiosity, how many years do you think that will be in the U.S., with subsidies decreasing manufacturer by manufacturer? Most predictions are that we won't hit ICE cost-comparability/capability until about 2025, which is the earliest that mainstream buyers will buy them bar mandates, but do you see 4% being reached before that, and have you allowed for the possibility/likelihood of the longest economic growth in U.S. history suffering a correction before then?

We know that people at the higher end of the income scale can still buy premium-priced cars regardless of subsidy, but in order to grow the market we have to have PEVs that the average car buyer can afford (and want's to). [Edit] IEVS:
UPDATE: AAA Says Owning An EV Costs More Than Having An ICE Car
https://insideevs.com/news/394141/aaa-says-owning-ev-costs-more/]


Anyway, it also says that ownership cures range anxiety.

Owning an EV is almost $600 more expensive every year than having a combustion-engined car. This is what the American Automobile Association found out with a recent survey. It just failed to mention in its press release what makes the EV experience more costly than that of regular vehicles. If it’s any comfort, the study indicates people are cured of range anxiety when they actually own an electric car.

We have got in touch with AAA to discover why EVs charge more per year but got no reply so far. The association performs this study taking into consideration six factors: financing, depreciation, insurance, registration and associated expenses, maintenance, and fuel/charge costs. Yet, AAA only says that EVs charge less on these two last sorts of charges.

UPDATE: AAA gave us the data that we were missing. It deserved an entirely new article. Have a look at it right here.

The study measured how much a driver will spend on driving for five years and 75,000 mi. That said, the extra cost of an electric vehicle amounts to $3,000 in the period, which is quite a lot. Apparently, you get no relief from the lower expenses for charging ($709 less) or maintenance ($330 less). [chart and discussion about Tesla collision insurance costs]. . . .

AAA says that 77 percent of them [owners] are no longer concerned with range; 95 percent never ran out of charge. On average, 75 percent of their charging needs are solved at home. That leads to a rate of 96 percent of EV owners that would certainly buy or lease another electric car when the time comes.

Will EVs one day be cheaper to own and to drive than a combustion-engined vehicle? When that happens, electric car adoption will certainly get a boost: nothing speaks louder to consumers than saving money.

And also IEVS:
AAA Survey Shows EV Owners Should Be Concerned About Depreciation
https://insideevs.com/news/394513/aaa-survey-depreciation-ev-concern/


High battery pack prices and fast degradation have to be addressed for the sake of EVs.

AAA made a really positive press release on its latest survey about EV ownership. Anyway – and regardless of what the association decided to focus on, we had to cover the most critical info that it brought. As you already know, the survey revealed it is more expensive to own an electric vehicle than a regular car – even with tax credits. We asked them for the full data, and depreciation came up as the bad guy for this to happen – by a large margin. . . .

There are charts.

A Model Y AWD LR is apparently going to base at around $53K-$55K with no fed. credit, and we know from reservations for the Mach-E that the longest-ranged version of that with AWD is the one that people want. As both of these cars will run at least $15K and maybe $20K over the median U.S. sales price, neither of them has the ability to grow the market beyond the well-off.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
2014 to 2015 had two down quarters. PEV sales were under 1%... until they were no longer under 1%, and I had to keep reminding you of that. I was interested in the next 1%, remember?

I'm now interested in the next 2%.

This market is over twice the size it was a bit over two years ago.

Uh huh, and has now suffered two quarters of major reductions in both China and the U.S., the two biggest auto markets. Why? Because subsidies were reduced in both countries. See above.

After two quarters well above trend. Actually look at this graph.
U.S.%20Plug-In%20Car%20Sales%20%E2%80%93%20Q4%202019.png


I did look at it along with the individual sales numbers before posting the numbers several posts back, and you can see the effects of the loss of subsidies as well as the general lack of interest in PEVs beyond the (now-declining sales) Model 3. After all, the Model 3 sales should have spiked in Nov./Dec. as Tesla and most PEV sales have in past years, both for tax reasons and because the last of the fed. credit was going away for them. Instead, the increase was very modest (IEVS can no longer provide monthly sales for many vehicles) - certainly the Model 3's quarterly sales were down Y-o-Y, and almost flat compared to Q3.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Which has been been of my points all along, and I'm glad to see that you are now onboard. Consistent growth doesn't happen, there are always ups and downs. In this case, it also illustrates another one of my points, which is that PEV sales remain dependent on subsidies, perks and mandates. We can hope that won't be the case in a few years, but it sure isn't the case now.

Higher priced EVs such as Audi and Tesla's sales in Washington State have no state subsidy, no perks and few mandates (cities have to buy some small but growing fraction of city vehicles as EVs, usually buy Chevy Bolts). Lower priced EVs get a sales tax break in Washington State. Tesla has no federal tax credit. Tesla is selling EVs in Washington State.

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Moore's law, for example. Wrong at high magnification. Very useful.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2018.png

EV doubling sales every 2-3 years is going to be wrong on a day by day basis, a month by month basis, a quarter by quarter basis. So far it looks useful. I predict we will be discussing how EVs have only a 4% market share in a few years.


Out of curiosity, how many years do you think that will be in the U.S., with subsidies decreasing manufacturer by manufacturer? Most predictions are that we won't hit ICE cost-comparability/capability until about 2025, which is the earliest that mainstream buyers will buy them bar mandates, but do you see 4% being reached before that, and have you allowed for the possibility/likelihood of the longest economic growth in U.S. history suffering a correction before then?

If you don't bother to read what I write, I shouldn't bother to reply.

The median buyer will hit ICE cost-comparability/capability about 2025

Median.

Median.

Median.

To grow EVs now, we need the next 2% to go from 2% to 4%. Not 50%.

4% is not 50%.

4% is not 50%.

4% is not 50%.

Got that?

Battery manufacturing capacity is limited, and ramping up production without wasting a lot of money takes time. Double every 2-3 years on this end. So price to consumer will NEED to be higher to limit demand to about what can be produced.

GRA said:
We know that people at the higher end of the income scale can still buy premium-priced cars regardless of subsidy, but in order to grow the market we have to have PEVs that the average car buyer can afford (and want's to).

In order to grow the market, the cars need to appeal to the next slice of the market, the next 2%, not to "average" or "median" buyer.

GRA said:
After all, the Model 3 sales should have spiked in Nov./Dec. as Tesla and most PEV sales have in past years, both for tax reasons and because the last of the fed. credit was going away for them. Instead, the increase was very modest (IEVS can no longer provide monthly sales for many vehicles) - certainly the Model 3's quarterly sales were down Y-o-Y, and almost flat compared to Q3.

Why, when Tesla is sending USA production overseas? If Tesla wanted more sales in the USA they would reduce prices in the USA. Higher profit margin by selling overseas. USA competition is not strong, 80% market share, so go for profits.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Higher priced EVs such as Audi and Tesla's sales in Washington State have no state subsidy, no perks and few mandates (cities have to buy some small but growing fraction of city vehicles as EVs, usually buy Chevy Bolts). Lower priced EVs get a sales tax break in Washington State. Tesla has no federal tax credit. Tesla is selling EVs in Washington State.

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Moore's law, for example. Wrong at high magnification. Very useful.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2018.png

EV doubling sales every 2-3 years is going to be wrong on a day by day basis, a month by month basis, a quarter by quarter basis. So far it looks useful. I predict we will be discussing how EVs have only a 4% market share in a few years.


Out of curiosity, how many years do you think that will be in the U.S., with subsidies decreasing manufacturer by manufacturer? Most predictions are that we won't hit ICE cost-comparability/capability until about 2025, which is the earliest that mainstream buyers will buy them bar mandates, but do you see 4% being reached before that, and have you allowed for the possibility/likelihood of the longest economic growth in U.S. history suffering a correction before then?

If you don't bother to read what I write, I shouldn't bother to reply.

The median buyer will hit ICE cost-comparability/capability about 2025

Median.

<snip repetition>

To grow EVs now, we need the next 2% to go from 2% to 4%. Not 50%.


4% is not 50%.

<snip repetition>

Got that?

Well aware of it, just as I'm aware that 2.3% (excuse me, 1.93% now) isn't 4%, but before you can get to 50% you first have to get to 4%, as we've both noted. And of course, cost comparability by 2025 is a forecast, not a guarantee. Could take longer, might even be less (unlikely). And we're talking about median price, not median buyer. So I'll ask again, when do you forecast 4% being reached?


WetEV said:
Battery manufacturing capacity is limited, and ramping up production without wasting a lot of money takes time. Double every 2-3 years on this end. So price to consumer will NEED to be higher to limit demand to about what can be produced.


Or the better option, which is to concentrate on smaller-pack PHEVs and even HEVs, to make AFV cost as affordable as possible and reduce GHGs as much as possible as early as possible, by not locking up the limited supply of batteries in cars which will rarely use most of the capacity, and which most people can't afford. But that will take a change in subsidies, especially lower max. price and max. income limits.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
We know that people at the higher end of the income scale can still buy premium-priced cars regardless of subsidy, but in order to grow the market we have to have PEVs that the average car buyer can afford (and want's to).

In order to grow the market, the cars need to appeal to the next slice of the market, the next 2%, not to "average" or "median" buyer.


See above.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
After all, the Model 3 sales should have spiked in Nov./Dec. as Tesla and most PEV sales have in past years, both for tax reasons and because the last of the fed. credit was going away for them. Instead, the increase was very modest (IEVS can no longer provide monthly sales for many vehicles) - certainly the Model 3's quarterly sales were down Y-o-Y, and almost flat compared to Q3.

Why, when Tesla is sending USA production overseas? If Tesla wanted more sales in the USA they would reduce prices in the USA. Higher profit margin by selling overseas. USA competition is not strong, 80% market share, so go for profits.


Tesla can just reduce prices in the US anytime they want? I thought they were trying to behave like a profit-making company now, instead of a faith-based cult. How are they going to help get to 4% share if they only sell even more expensive cars here?
 
GRA said:
Well aware of it, just as I'm aware that 2.3% (excuse me, 1.93% now) isn't 4%, but before you can get to 50% you first have to get to 4%, as we've both noted. And of course, cost comparability by 2025 is a forecast, not a guarantee. Could take longer, might even be less (unlikely). And we're talking about median price, not median buyer. So I'll ask again, when do you forecast 4% being reached?

Median price not the same as median buyer? Do explain.

4%? Before end of next year. This year: Tesla Y, VW ID.3, Byton M-Byte (unless trade war prohibits), Polestar (Volvo) Polestar 2, Volvo XC40 Electric, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Volkswagen ID Crozz, Rivian R1T Truck, BMW iX3 (maybe), Audi ETron Sportback and another rumored from Audi. I've probably missed a few.

I'd bet one or more is a hit. Some will not arrive in volume, such as Rivian and the Etron Sportback. Mandates and subsidies in Europe are going to suck up batteries. Production ramp times will slow others.

GRA said:
Or the better option, which is to concentrate on smaller-pack PHEVs and even HEVs, to make AFV cost as affordable as possible and reduce GHGs as much as possible as early as possible, by not locking up the limited supply of batteries in cars which will rarely use most of the capacity, and which most people can't afford. But that will take a change in subsidies, especially lower max. price limits.

Better in some ways, worse in others. PHEVs are often bought for two reasons. Wanted an EV, but not sure about range. Owning an PHEV seems to cure range anxiety. Next car bought is often a BEV. Or wanted the car pool perk and never plugged it in.

High end cars don't need subsidies or mandates. That's better.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
In order to grow the market, the cars need to appeal to the next slice of the market, the next 2%, not to "average" or "median" buyer.
See above.
See what above? The call for mandates and subsidies for PHEVs and HEVs? Perhaps counter productive in the long term.

GRA said:
After all, the Model 3 sales should have spiked in Nov./Dec. as Tesla and most PEV sales have in past years, both for tax reasons and because the last of the fed. credit was going away for them. Instead, the increase was very modest (IEVS can no longer provide monthly sales for many vehicles) - certainly the Model 3's quarterly sales were down Y-o-Y, and almost flat compared to Q3.

That is Model 3 US sales.


GRA said:
Tesla can just reduce prices in the US anytime they want? I thought they were trying to behave like a profit-making company now, instead of a faith-based cult. How are they going to help get to 4% share if they only sell even more expensive cars here?

No law preventing Tesla from reducing prices anytime they want. They are in the happy place of selling every car they can make, at least with the Model 3. So "where to sell for the best profit" is the question. And how to price so as to get the sales you want for the largest profit.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Well aware of it, just as I'm aware that 2.3% (excuse me, 1.93% now) isn't 4%, but before you can get to 50% you first have to get to 4%, as we've both noted. And of course, cost comparability by 2025 is a forecast, not a guarantee. Could take longer, might even be less (unlikely). And we're talking about median price, not median buyer. So I'll ask again, when do you forecast 4% being reached?

Median price not the same as median buyer? Do explain.


Simple. Not everyone buys the car they could theoretically afford. They may (like me) buy cheaper cars because they don't see any (or enough of an) advantage to buying a more expensive one, or (a smaller number) may stretch to buy a more expensive one. What matters is the median price of cars people buy, not what they could theoretically buy.



WetEV said:
4%? Before end of next year. This year: Tesla Y, VW ID.3, Byton M-Byte (unless trade war prohibits), Polestar (Volvo) Polestar 2, Volvo XC40 Electric, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Volkswagen ID Crozz, Rivian R1T Truck, BMW iX3 (maybe), Audi ETron Sportback and another rumored from Audi. I've probably missed a few.

I'd bet one or more is a hit. Some will not arrive in volume, such as Rivian and the Etron Sportback. Mandates and subsidies in Europe are going to suck up batteries. Production ramp times will slow others.


I was referring to the U.S., so we can eliminate the ID.3 and a few others, but most of these cluster well above the median price so I think it virtually impossible we'll see another 2% (In the U.S.) by next year, especially as many of these will just shift sales from the Model 3/S/X. Europe's getting serious about emissions now, but China will have to goose things somehow to get the adoption rate climbing again, and as they want to decrease subsidies it will have to be via ZEV zones or some perk.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Or the better option, which is to concentrate on smaller-pack PHEVs and even HEVs, to make AFV cost as affordable as possible and reduce GHGs as much as possible as early as possible, by not locking up the limited supply of batteries in cars which will rarely use most of the capacity, and which most people can't afford. But that will take a change in subsidies, especially lower max. price limits.

Better in some ways, worse in others. PHEVs are often bought for two reasons. Wanted an EV, but not sure about range. Owning an PHEV seems to cure range anxiety. Next car bought is often a BEV. Or wanted the car pool perk and never plugged it in.

High end cars don't need subsidies or mandates. That's better.


Not if you want to boost the adoption rate while also dealing with a limited supply of batteries, it isn't. A 250 mile Model 3 SR+ has around 54.5kWh usable, maybe 60 total and has a U.S. base MSRP of $38,990. A Prius Prime has an AER of 25 miles, a total capacity of 8.8 kWH (not sure of usable), and has a base U.S. MSRP of $27,900, $11,090 less (and you can fully charge such a PHEV via L1 overnight), spreading the same battery cells as an SR+ (or a Bolt etc.) over 6+ cars instead of one. As the size of the potential market is said to double for every $5k reduction in price, there are a lot more people out there who can seriously consider such a car. The fact that such a car can be fully charged overnight using only L1 is another point in its favor, as people lower down the income demographic are more likely to be renters, and not have the ability to install L2, and it saves them the price/hassle of doing so even if they could.

The Ionic PHEV is even cheaper than the Prius Prime, but Hyundai doesn't advertise it and they don't have the large pool of satisfied Prius owners to draw on that Toyota does. As the average U.S. round-trip commute is 34 miles, most of the SR+/Bolt battery is wasted most of the time. 25 miles daily times 8-12% of the 227.5 million licensed U.S. drivers is a lot more GHG reduction than 34 miles daily times 2% of those same drivers, and you're prepping a lot more people for the move to full ZEVs once they can meet their requirements.

Of course, the Prime suffers from its looks (although better than the regular Prius) and also its limited cargo space and performance, but the RAV4 Prime is an improvement on all of those and hopefully will take off among all the people who can't or won't buy a Model Y/Mach-E (we'll have to see how the Crozz/XC-40 go pricewise); the 2019 Hybrid RAV4 version has been selling well here (and Toyota's hybrids have been selling very well in Europe now that diesel is dying), and as long as its price and features are acceptable I expect the RAV4 Prime to do very well - it certainly should be far more affordable than a Model Y/Mach-E.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
In order to grow the market, the cars need to appeal to the next slice of the market, the next 2%, not to "average" or "median" buyer.
See above.
See what above? The call for mandates and subsidies for PHEVs and HEVs? Perhaps counter productive in the long term.


I'm not talking about the long-term, I'm talking about the "limited-battery production, limited-charging infrastructure, let's reduce GHGs and other emissions as much as possible now" near term. HEV/PHEVs are transitional techs until batteries/fuel cells/biofuels improve enough to completely replace them.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
After all, the Model 3 sales should have spiked in Nov./Dec. as Tesla and most PEV sales have in past years, both for tax reasons and because the last of the fed. credit was going away for them. Instead, the increase was very modest (IEVS can no longer provide monthly sales for many vehicles) - certainly the Model 3's quarterly sales were down Y-o-Y, and almost flat compared to Q3.

That is Model 3 US sales.


GRA said:
Tesla can just reduce prices in the US anytime they want? I thought they were trying to behave like a profit-making company now, instead of a faith-based cult. How are they going to help get to 4% share if they only sell even more expensive cars here?

No law preventing Tesla from reducing prices anytime they want. They are in the happy place of selling every car they can make, at least with the Model 3. So "where to sell for the best profit" is the question. And how to price so as to get the sales you want for the largest profit.


The wait time for the Model 3 has dropped to nothing in the U.S., and the same will happen in Europe in the not too distant future; IIRR it's already happening in a few markets. China should grow for awhile, but the Chinese want CUVs almost as much as the rest of the world, so that's going to be Model Ys or something else. And the Model Y will have direct competition, unlike the Model 3. Do you see Tesla finally managing a profit for an entire year this FY?
 
IEVS:
Chinese NEVs Market Slightly Declined In 2019: Full Report
https://insideevs.com/news/396291/chinese-nevs-market-slightly-declined-2019/


Six months of decline caused a small sales drop for the full year.
According to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), the total New Energy Vehicle (NEV) production and sales (including cars, buses, commercial vehicles) continue to decline since subsidies were cut in summer.

In December, the drop was still significant, especially for the plug-in hybrid vehicles, which are, by the way, just a tiny fraction of the overall plug-in market:


  • Total NEVs: production of 151,000 (down 33%) and sales of 163,000 (down 30%)
    BEVs: production of 133,000 (down 27%) and sales of 145,000 (down 26%)
    PHEVs: production of 16,000 (down 62%) and sales of 17,000 (down 53%)

Because of the weak second half of the year, the overall NEV market in 2019 declined by some 4.0% to 1.2 million.


  • Total NEVs: production of 1,242,000 (down 2.3%) and sales of 1,206,000 (down 4.0%)
    BEVs: production of 1,020,000 (up 3.4%) and sales of 972,000 (down 1.2%)
    PHEVs: production of 220,000 (down 22.5%) and sales of 232,000 (down 14.5%)
    FCVs: production of 2,833 (up 85.5%) and sales of 2,737 (up 79.2%)

The hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were the only one that expanded, but the volume is still meaningless.

Hopefully, China as the biggest EV market in the world will rebound in 2020.

There are graphs.
 
GRA said:
You ignored all of mine, which is that we're a long way away from mass-market BEVs that will provide ranges comparable to ICEs, or having charging infrastructure that is as dense and reliable as gas stations, or that a lot of people traveling to and staying in national parks don't stay in concessioner lodgings, and the people who don't are often those with the strongest motivation to use ZEVs.
We need as much outside the park FCs and (where possible/allowed) inside the park L1/2 as we can build, ASAP, but FCs are usable by and valuable to _all_ BEV park visitors, and L1/2 only at lodgings isn't.

Nice rant, why did you reply with this rant in this topic, rather than in the right place?

Mass market meaning 50% comes after 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 5.6% market share in Q2 2022, and so on.

Range may never match ICE ranges, different economics and user experience.

Charging infrastructure is growing, as is the number of BEVs on the road. Will never be as dense as gas stations, different economics and user experience.

Charging reliability needs to improve. Score 1 for team GRA. Too bad no one is seriously disputing this, and reliability of stations vary from very good to very bad.

I'm sure you will ignore all these points. I'll try again in advance with bolding.

Mass market meaning 50% comes after 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 5.6% market share in Q2 2022, and so on.

Range may never match ICE ranges, different economics and user experience. Which you don't understand even when explained as you have your own agenda.

Charging infrastructure is growing, as is the number of BEVs on the road. Will never be as dense as gas stations, different economics and user experience.

Driving a BEV for a long period of time might help. Perhaps you should take a break from replying, lease a BEV, and learn.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
You ignored all of mine, which is that we're a long way away from mass-market BEVs that will provide ranges comparable to ICEs, or having charging infrastructure that is as dense and reliable as gas stations, or that a lot of people traveling to and staying in national parks don't stay in concessioner lodgings, and the people who don't are often those with the strongest motivation to use ZEVs.
We need as much outside the park FCs and (where possible/allowed) inside the park L1/2 as we can build, ASAP, but FCs are usable by and valuable to _all_ BEV park visitors, and L1/2 only at lodgings isn't.

Nice rant, why did you reply with this rant in this topic, rather than in the right place?

Not a rant, a statement of facts. And why did you reply OT in the EA topic?


Mass market meaning 50% comes after 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 5.6% market share in Q2 2022, and so on.

Q2 new car sales in CA were over 16% PEV/FCEV, over 27% in the Bay Area. But then their avg. sale price was $66k. vs. an already well beyond mass market avg.price of $48k for ICEs. Good thing we've got all those people working in Silicon Valley and San Francisco who can afford them.


Range may never match ICE ranges, different economics and user experience.

Uh huh, which leaves us with forcing people to buy them if they don't need their needs.


Charging infrastructure is growing, as is the number of BEVs on the road. Will never be as dense as gas stations, different economics and user experience.


Of course it's growing, the issue is whether it's growing fast enough in the right places, and of the right types. Public charging infrastructure is key to mass market viability, especially for those people who'd get the greatest health benefit. See:

Communities of color are
burdened by air pollution but lag in EV adoption; study looks at how to fix this

. . . the study highlighted several issues that might limit EV adoption in communities of color. Home charging is currently the most affordable way to charge an EV, but it's not always possible for renters and residents of multi-family dwellings, Consumer Reports noted. The study recommends specifically boosting charging accessibility for these living situations, as well as increased affordable public charging. . . .

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...lor-affected-by-pollution-ev-adoption-study


Charging reliability needs to improve. Score 1 for team GRA. Too bad no one is seriously disputing this, and reliability of stations vary from very good to very bad.

I'm sure you will ignore all these points. I'll try again in advance with bolding.

Mass market meaning 50% comes after 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 5.6% market share in Q2 2022, and so on.

Range may never match ICE ranges, different economics and user experience. Which you don't understand even when explained as you have your own agenda.


Of course I have my own agenda - who doesn't, including all the other people who won't buy BEVs now because they fail to match their requirements for price, range and charging speed, charging infrastructure and longevity.

Here in California we're simply going to force people to switch from 2035, with the hope that by then tech and infrastructure will have improved to the point that these issues will be eliminated or at least minimized for almost everyone, and we plan to spend a lot of time and tax money to help things along. Here's hoping that comes true.

One of the most important things we're doing in California to help mass-market viability is instituting requirements for both range and battery capacity retention over a longer period of time, which is essential for making BEVs viable for the used car market.


Charging infrastructure is growing, as is the number of BEVs on the road. Will never be as dense as gas stations, different economics and user experience.

Driving a BEV for a long period of time might help. Perhaps you should take a break from replying, lease a BEV, and learn.


Please explain how driving a BEV for a long period will increase its range, charging speed and battery longevity (or the density & reliability of charging infrastructure in places I have traveled to in the past and/or want to travel to now). I could just about live with the Ioniq 5/EV6 for a lease (or at least I could have before they no longer qualified for the federal tax credit and lease prices sky-rocketed), at least for weekend and shorter road trips, say 450 up to _maybe_ 600 miles max/day.

OTOH the Niro BEV, which is far closer to the size and features I want (bar AWD), takes at least three times longer to charge than its bigger siblings, and that's totally unacceptable to me. How is leasing one going to change that - will it magically give me more vacation time, or increase my patience while sitting in places I have no desire to spend time at while waiting for it to charge?

Right now, it looks like my best option is to keep renting BEVs for trips where they're suitable; although the individual trip cost is higher, as long as I don't take them too frequently it's still less expensive than a lease.

I'll keep the ICE for the others, and hopefully in a few years Li-Si, solid-state or what have you will have improved the cars and their prices enough for them to pass the value for money test for me, or FCEVs and their infrastructure will have done so. Until then they remain over-priced cars and (BEVs) lack the capability and longevity I require. Off to do trip prep.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Mass market meaning 50% comes after 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 5.6% market share in Q2 2022, and so on.

Q2 new car sales in CA were over 16% PEV/FCEV, over 27% in the Bay Area. But then their avg. sale price was $66k. vs. an already well beyond mass market avg.price of $48k for ICEs. Good thing we've got all those people working in Silicon Valley and San Francisco who can afford them.

Suppose some new widget came out. Where do you think sales would rise first? Silicon Valley or Tie Siding, Wy?


GRA said:
Uh huh, which leaves us with forcing people to buy them if they don't need their needs.

A big assumption on your part, now isn't that? Or do you understand that only a small minority will find a BEV less attractive than an ICE?

As you seem to be part of that small minority, I'd guess you don't.


Consider that range has a cost, in a BEV, and doesn't in an ICE. If range is free, why not offer as much as almost anyone would want?


BEVs will win the high end first, as BMW, Audi, Rolls Royce, Cadillac and such would like to eat lunch. And not have to watch Tesla eat it in front of them. BEVs have basically already won this market slice. So move on the the very bottom end. Consider the following options, for an basic basic entry level transportation car.

  1. A basic ICE (range 600 miles) for say $15k. Oh, and gasoline, and oil changes and so on.
  • A limited range (25kWh... 80 miles) basic BEV for say $11.2k.

Funds are limited. Less cash, less operating expense, but there is a trade-off of range... If the buyer doesn't absolutely need the range, then the BEV is the clear choice, correct? Why would anyone ever pick the ICE?

Even if some need for longer trips, the choice between cash now and needed to take a 10 minute stop every hour a few times a year is pretty clear, right? Cash now wins. Even if that's a 20 minute stop every hour of driving, like the LEAF.

Sure, need to have at home charging. Perhaps apartment parking lot charging. Perhaps curbside charging. Perhaps driveway charging. Or carport charging. Perhaps even garage charging.

Sure, battery prices need to fall to under $100 per kWh. I'm assuming $50 per kWh, likely not true until the supply chain for BEVs catches up... like in 2030 or so. Battery energy density is projected to double in this time period as well.


  1. A basic ICE (range 600 miles) for say $15k. Oh, and gasoline, and oil changes and so on.
  • A longer range basic BEV (100kWh... 320 miles) for say $15k.

Funds are limited. Same upfront cash, less operating expense, but there is a trade-off of range. Now we are talking about roughly 4 hours of driving. Almost everyone has a lunch stop. Sure, an ICE might be just a little better on long trips, but very marginally so. On the other hand, the BEV wins big at home. Much more convenient, lower operational cost and just plain nicer to drive.

Why would anyone pick the ICE? Only if lots of long distance driving was planned, and very little short distance driving was planned. Like your driving pattern.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Charging infrastructure is growing, as is the number of BEVs on the road. Will never be as dense as gas stations, different economics and user experience.


Of course it's growing, the issue is whether it's growing fast enough in the right places, and of the right types. Public charging infrastructure is key to mass market viability, especially for those people who'd get the greatest health benefit. See:

Advancing social policy is a herring. Not sure the color, but I recognize the smell. Basically is not relevant to the market choice between BEV vs ICE.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Here is a hint.

Rather than worrying about running the AC, find out about the winds first.

Try this for starters:

https://www.windy.com/

Remember that at 75 MPH, a 1 MPH difference in wind speed is as much as running the AC or not.


Again, very little of the trip up was at 75 mph, in fact I only would have hit that during a couple of passes and a brief period on I-205. Traffic was heavy and most of the trip up was at 60 or less, often well less. That's the main reason I hate driving up during the day.

Unfortunately, given the current reservation system just to drive through the park between 6-4 (and the convoying through the one-lane road section at speeds well below the 45 mph limit until 5), I need to be at the entrance as close after 4 p.m. as possible if I want to get to the east side at a halfway reasonable hour.

So exactly what wind speed difference equals the AC at 55 MPH?

About 2 MPH. Would you notice a 2MPH difference in wind speed?

How about 35 MPH? About 5 MPH wind speed.

If you drive really really slow, then AC matters more than wind speed most of the time.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Wind Beaufort 1-2 covers the range of 1 to 7 MPH. Add calm and Beaufort 3 and that covers 0 to 12 MPH.

A 12 MPH difference in wind speed is much more than enough to make your observations meaningless. Meaningless isn't information.

Been house/dog sitting again so busy and haven't been reading, and heading out of town tomorrow on another trip to the same area in a Niro this time, but wanted to post a short reply. As noted, Force 3 was only the case for an occasional gust. BTW, I'm used to using Beaufort in knots, i.e. 1 = 1-3, 2 = 4-6, 3 = 7-10 etc.

Once again you don't have a good record of wind speed. Can't change that as you didn't measure it.

"Using Beaufort in knots" is like saying "using MPH in furlongs per fortnight". Beaufort scale is a way of measuring wind velocity. Sure, could be translated to knots, MPH, meters per second , but that doesn't change either the wind speed or anything other than the measurement unit.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Likewise traffic speed. Average doesn't count, the average of speed squared is needed. You can have a low average speed, consisting of 75 MPH for an hour and 5 MPH for an hour, and your energy use will be rather higher than just driving at 40 MPH for the whole trip. Ditto for wind speed. A 20 MPH headwind for half the trip and 20 MPH tailwind for the other half does not average to zero.

I noted that both trips involved average speeds and a mix of speeds that were very similar, somewhat slower than is typical for me In this trip owing to the time I was driving. But I've been making this drive for 45 years now, so I know how long it takes in a variety of conditions as well as when there are any major deviations from same.

Once again you don't have a good log of car speeds for your two trips. If trying to measure something as small as AC use impact on driving, you need to have accurate log of speeds, as the average isn't good enough, the average of air speed squared is needed. Car speed plus wind speed, then square, and record the average.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
Generally, you need more experience than your audience to have useful information to give. You do have more information on the Kia EV6 than I do, so there was some value to what you wrote. But firstly putting a howler comment in on climate control vs range, and then not accepting feedback is annoying. Do feel free to drop being annoying at any time. We will like you more if you do.


I'm curious, just how much of a difference in energy use between two cars with the same battery pack in essentially the same real-world conditions do you think would be significant enough to conclude that A/C vs. fan-only use is reflected by the results, when the car which gets 21% more EPA combined range still manages to uses 2% more energy for the same trip while using A/C than the less-efficient car not using it?

Different EPA tests (2 cycle vs 5 cycle), different aerodynamics, different tires, perhaps different motors and so on.

Consider tire pressure. Did you match the tire pressures?

Consider tire wear. Were the tires equally worn?

Consider types of tires. Were the tires identical brands and models?

And so on.

AC usage has a tiny effect on range. Not zero, sure. But fairly tiny, unless sitting in stopped traffic for hours. Lots of other things usually matter more. Like speed, wind, tire pressure, tire wear, and so on.


GRA said:
As to your comments about being annoying, were you shaving at the time you wrote them?

I'm being fairly nice to you. You can take the advice or not, your choice.
 
Took a Niro up on the same route last week. Traffic was lighter so I could drive at higher speeds, although still a fair amount slower than is typical at night. Just to see, checked and recorded GoM ranges fan-only and then A/C several times both ways . I'd done this a few times with the Ioniq and EV6 and saw similar range drops, but didn't record them.

I did this both while the car was underway and also while the car was parked, the latter eliminating any possibility of speed, wind or terrain affecting the results. The range difference varied from 5 miles (~8%) less at 20% SoC (61 miles GoM down to 56, while driving) to 11 miles (~5%) less @ 80% SoC (215 miles down to 204, while parked), with other range losses, as you'd expect, falling in between those two depending on the SoC. So, a minimum 5% decrease per the car's own software.

Note that the hottest OAT experienced on this trip was only 83 deg. F. and most of the time I was driving it was in the low to mid-'70s, and when I flipped the A/C on momentarily (just to check range loss, as I had no need to use A/C) I had the temp set at 72, so considerably less extra energy/range loss for A/C on this trip than would have been the case on the two previous ones, where most of the high-speed portions of the trip were at OATs in the mid to upper '90s, i.e. a greater outside/inside temperature delta.

My conclusion is that 5% is pretty much a floor for A/C vs. fan-only range loss for these cars, which may or not be significant for someone depending on the trip. In the Niro for this outward trip, given the location of the existing chargers and its range it doesn't much matter, nor is it likely to in AWD versions of the Ioniq 5/EV6 (e.g. fan-only in the Ioniq 5 I used 77% to get to Tioga Pass while driving slower than normal), so it's very borderline). OTOH, for the RWD versions of the above two cars which have an extra 36-47 miles of EPA range it could well be the difference between being able to make it un-recharged from home the ~194 miles/9,800' of climb to Tioga Pass, and thus Lee Vining where there are L2 chargers (and hopefully in the not too distant future FCs), using a start SoC of 90% and a reserve of 20% SoC. 70% is the greatest non-emergency SoC range I'd use in a new battery if it were my car, reserving the upper 10% to replace degradation as the car ages over the first few years. I was able to regen 3% on the descent to Lee Vining in all three cars in the prevailing conditions, and worst case I'd at least break even, so as expected Tioga Pass is the critical point.

Coming back in the Niro via 108/Sonora Pass (300' lower) rather than 120/Tioga Pass I was able to make it from the Bridgeport EA @80% un-recharged the 199 miles to the EA chargers two miles from home @20%. The Niro charges a lot slower than the '800V' (697V actual) cars, 16 min. from 80-90% (which would be added to the 32 min. I'd already spent charging from 43-80%) vs. 6-7 min. for the 800V cars ditto (11 min. 43-80%, a couple of minutes more at a 150 vice 350kW charger), so not using A/C would matter for that trip as well if you want to minimize both the number of as well as time spent at charging stops.
 
GRA said:
Took a Niro up on the same route last week. Traffic was lighter so I could drive at higher speeds, although still a fair amount slower than is typical at night. Just to see, checked and recorded GoM ranges fan-only and then A/C several times both ways . I'd done this a few times with the Ioniq and EV6 and saw similar range drops, but didn't record them.

I did this both while the car was underway and also while the car was parked, the latter eliminating any possibility of speed, wind or terrain affecting the results. The range difference varied from 5 miles (~8%) less at 20% SoC (61 miles GoM down to 56, while driving) to 11 miles (~5%) less @ 80% SoC (215 miles down to 204, while parked), with other range losses, as you'd expect, falling in between those two depending on the SoC. So, a minimum 5% decrease per the car's own software.

Note that the hottest OAT experienced on this trip was only 83 deg. F. and most of the time I was driving it was in the low to mid-'70s, and when I flipped the A/C on momentarily (just to check range loss, as I had no need to use A/C) I had the temp set at 72, so considerably less extra energy/range loss for A/C on this trip than would have been the case on the two previous ones, where most of the high-speed portions of the trip were at OATs in the mid to upper '90s, i.e. a greater outside/inside temperature delta.

Still wrong, but less wrong. I'm happy to see progress, wrong is relative. Maybe if you lease an electric car and drive it a few years you might get even closer to correct. I actually don't know how the GOM calculates range, and how that computation uses climate control energy use, so I can't directly criticize. It isn't public information, and every car is different.

I've learned by experience that the GOM, while useful, is often wrong. @SageBrush seems to have learned something similar. Hmm... I'd bet most long term EV drivers have noticed this.

I suspect that the GOM might be using the current climate energy use, which is much higher just when turned on briefly, rather than a predicted energy use. The GOM might give a different delta answer if you had the AC on, and turn it off briefly. I might try that experiment, if I have a chance.

I seen GOMs do some funny things, like decrease range when going from heater "off" to the heater set at 60F with an OAT of 70F. Zero heat is required, but that impacts the range? Really?? How come? Go figure. It made sense in the 2012 LEAF as heater on meant that the heater tank was being heated, but everything more modern has had a heat pump and/or resistance heat, which are drawing zero power unless actually heating.

GRA said:
My conclusion is that 5% is pretty much a floor for A/C vs. fan-only range loss for these cars,

Consider the impact of vehicle speed. Based on 1 kW climate usage and the LEAF.

At 75 MPH steady, calculated to be 1/75 or less than 1.5%
At 55 MPH steady, calcuated to be 2/55 or less than 4%
At 35 MPH steady, calculated to be 5/35 or less than 15%
At 12 MPH steady, traction power is about the same as climate.

While this calculation isn't exact even for the LEAF, the general trend should be carefully noted. The faster you are driving, the less climate control use matters.

I calculate you were driving at less than 55 MPH average and at more than 35 MPH average to get the answer of 5-8%.

You are not in the 1% crazy early adopters, or even the 5% early adopters. In the first 10% should be available for maybe a few years. Maybe time for a lease?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Took a Niro up on the same route last week. Traffic was lighter so I could drive at higher speeds, although still a fair amount slower than is typical at night. Just to see, checked and recorded GoM ranges fan-only and then A/C several times both ways . I'd done this a few times with the Ioniq and EV6 and saw similar range drops, but didn't record them.

I did this both while the car was underway and also while the car was parked, the latter eliminating any possibility of speed, wind or terrain affecting the results. The range difference varied from 5 miles (~8%) less at 20% SoC (61 miles GoM down to 56, while driving) to 11 miles (~5%) less @ 80% SoC (215 miles down to 204, while parked), with other range losses, as you'd expect, falling in between those two depending on the SoC. So, a minimum 5% decrease per the car's own software.

Note that the hottest OAT experienced on this trip was only 83 deg. F. and most of the time I was driving it was in the low to mid-'70s, and when I flipped the A/C on momentarily (just to check range loss, as I had no need to use A/C) I had the temp set at 72, so considerably less extra energy/range loss for A/C on this trip than would have been the case on the two previous ones, where most of the high-speed portions of the trip were at OATs in the mid to upper '90s, i.e. a greater outside/inside temperature delta.

Still wrong, but less wrong. I'm happy to see progress, wrong is relative. Maybe if you lease an electric car and drive it a few years you might get even closer to correct. I actually don't know how the GOM calculates range, and how that computation uses climate control energy use, so I can't directly criticize. It isn't public information, and every car is different.

I've learned by experience that the GOM, while useful, is often wrong. @SageBrush seems to have learned something similar. Hmm... I'd bet most long term EV drivers have noticed this.


Of course the GoM is often wrong, it's an instantaneous calculation based on current conditions, which can change radically during the drive. It doesn't take years of experience to figure this out.


I suspect that the GOM might be using the current climate energy use, which is much higher just when turned on briefly, rather than a predicted energy use. The GOM might give a different delta answer if you had the AC on, and turn it off briefly. I might try that experiment, if I have a chance.


That's possible, so please run the experiment and provide the data. I do wonder why, if the engineers just wanted to find a quick and dirty method that wasn't particularly accurate, that they didn't just pick a single (conservative) % to reduce the range by, rather than a varying %.

Next trip I take in one of these or a similar car, assuming it's hot (or cold) enough I'm going to play around with driver-only vs. not to see how much effect that has on the DTE, and maybe Eco vs. Normal as well.


I seen GOMs do some funny things, like decrease range when going from heater "off" to the heater set at 60F with an OAT of 70F. Zero heat is required, but that impacts the range? Really?? How come? Go figure. It made sense in the 2012 LEAF as heater on meant that the heater tank was being heated, but everything more modern has had a heat pump and/or resistance heat, which are drawing zero power unless actually heating.

GRA said:
My conclusion is that 5% is pretty much a floor for A/C vs. fan-only range loss for these cars,

Consider the impact of vehicle speed. Based on 1 kW climate usage and the LEAF.

At 75 MPH steady, calculated to be 1/75 or less than 1.5%
At 55 MPH steady, calcuated to be 2/55 or less than 4%
At 35 MPH steady, calculated to be 5/35 or less than 15%
At 12 MPH steady, traction power is about the same as climate.

While this calculation isn't exact even for the LEAF, the general trend should be carefully noted. The faster you are driving, the less climate control use matters.

I calculate you were driving at less than 55 MPH average and at more than 35 MPH average to get the answer of 5-8%.

Actually, when I checked it (and wasn't stationary) was when I was cruising on the freeway/highway using cruise control in light or no traffic; driving slower on twistier roads and/or with other cars, I wasn't goofing around playing with switches or writing anything down. The 8% loss was one such case, while the 5% loss was while stationary, and I saw numbers in between those in both conditions.

You are not in the 1% crazy early adopters, or even the 5% early adopters. In the first 10% should be available for maybe a few years. Maybe time for a lease?

See the Niro EV topic. Close, but no cigar.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Still wrong, but less wrong. I'm happy to see progress, wrong is relative. Maybe if you lease an electric car and drive it a few years you might get even closer to correct. I actually don't know how the GOM calculates range, and how that computation uses climate control energy use, so I can't directly criticize. It isn't public information, and every car is different.

I've learned by experience that the GOM, while useful, is often wrong. @SageBrush seems to have learned something similar. Hmm... I'd bet most long term EV drivers have noticed this.


Of course the GoM is often wrong, it's an instantaneous calculation based on current conditions, which can change radically during the drive. It doesn't take years of experience to figure this out.

No cigar. No even close. If parked, the GOM doesn't read zero, which it would if the calculation was instantaneous. Try again.

Experience is a good teacher. It is good you are getting a little.


GRA said:
WetEV said:
I suspect that the GOM might be using the current climate energy use, which is much higher just when turned on briefly, rather than a predicted energy use. The GOM might give a different delta answer if you had the AC on, and turn it off briefly. I might try that experiment, if I have a chance.

That's possible, so please run the experiment and provide the data. I do wonder why, if the engineers just wanted to find a quick and dirty method that wasn't particularly accurate, that they didn't just pick a single (conservative) % to reduce the range by, rather than a varying %.

The nice thing about good experiments is that others can do them, and in different cars. Looking at the schedule, will be a few weeks before I'm doing a longer drive. Doing it yourself has the side benefit of reducing internet traffic.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Still wrong, but less wrong. I'm happy to see progress, wrong is relative. Maybe if you lease an electric car and drive it a few years you might get even closer to correct. I actually don't know how the GOM calculates range, and how that computation uses climate control energy use, so I can't directly criticize. It isn't public information, and every car is different.

I've learned by experience that the GOM, while useful, is often wrong. @SageBrush seems to have learned something similar. Hmm... I'd bet most long term EV drivers have noticed this.


Of course the GoM is often wrong, it's an instantaneous calculation based on current conditions, which can change radically during the drive. It doesn't take years of experience to figure this out.

No cigar. No even close. If parked, the GOM doesn't read zero, which it would if the calculation was instantaneous. Try again.

Experience is a good teacher. It is good you are getting a little.

I was trying to take the short approach, but if you insist that I spell it all out, the DTE is based on an instantaneous calc of past driving conditions plus current temps, the length of the past driving window varying from model to model. Since we both know this, how about we skip the kindergarten stuff?

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
I suspect that the GOM might be using the current climate energy use, which is much higher just when turned on briefly, rather than a predicted energy use. The GOM might give a different delta answer if you had the AC on, and turn it off briefly. I might try that experiment, if I have a chance.

That's possible, so please run the experiment and provide the data. I do wonder why, if the engineers just wanted to find a quick and dirty method that wasn't particularly accurate, that they didn't just pick a single (conservative) % to reduce the range by, rather than a varying %.

The nice thing about good experiments is that others can do them, and in different cars. Looking at the schedule, will be a few weeks before I'm doing a longer drive. Doing it yourself has the side benefit of reducing internet traffic.

I've driven this route in four different BEVs and posted the results, so feel free to post some of your own on a standard route for you. I had planned to head up again later this week for another trip in either a Mach-E or ID.4, but managed to injure a big toe somehow and have been just lying in bed popping ibuprofen instead, so the next trip will have to wait until I'm not hobbling around. Too bad, as conditions are nice right now, and we're just starting to see fall colors in the eastern Sierra. I couldn't take most of the mountain trips I would have been taking the past two years, partly due to Covid shutdowns but mostly due to wildfire smoke, so I've been anxious to make up the ones I've been missing.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Of course the GoM is often wrong, it's an instantaneous calculation based on current conditions, which can change radically during the drive. It doesn't take years of experience to figure this out.

No cigar. No even close. If parked, the GOM doesn't read zero, which it would if the calculation was instantaneous. Try again.

Experience is a good teacher. It is good you are getting a little.

I was trying to take the short approach, but if you insist that I spell it all out, the DTE is based on an instantaneous calc of past driving conditions plus current temps, the length of the past driving window varying from model to model. Since we both know this, how about we skip the kindergarten stuff?

As you insist on arguing every point, why not?

The GOM is a black box. You don't know exactly how the GOM works. I don't know exactly how the GOM in any car does the calculation. Oh, sure, there are guesses. But the actual computations are unknown.

So you rely on a black box that you don't understand to produce an answer. What could possibly go wrong?


One thing about the GOM you don't know is how climate control usage is predicted. I don't either, but before declaring a result maybe more experiments might might give you fewer giggles when you try to teach long time EV drivers how EVs work.


GRA said:
I've driven this route in four different BEVs and posted the results, so feel free to post some of your own on a standard route for you.

I have a couple of about 1 mile drives in 70F weather on today's schedule. Doesn't seem hopeful for learning much about the black box called a GOM.
 
Back
Top