this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
207 points (97.3% liked)
[Dormant] Electric Vehicles
3207 readers
1 users here now
We have moved to:
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion.
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling.
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was found recently that most trips were less than three miles, with only 2% of all trips made are more than 50 miles.
That number is a little misleading as it counts every stop as a "new trip." I could leave my house and drive 60 miles, stopping every 10 minutes, and they'd count that as 20 trips of 3 miles or less. Meanwhile a car with a 120 mile range probably wouldn't have enough juice to make it back home depending on how far away my last stop is from the house.
I see your point, though my own experience is similar to @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world, and perhaps just as anecdotal as yours, is that people more often take trips that are A-B-A, A-C-A, A-D-A, than they do A-B-C-D-A.
I suppose it's just a matter of convenience or time constraints, but running more errands in one trip is an overall time save in many occurrences, and more people should do that.
Makes me wonder how many of these 'trips' are one stop then back home and is many contain multiple stops. Or if it would drastically change the average to remove the multiple stop trips.
Thanks for raising that point, I hadn't considered it before.
Even A-B-A is counted as "two trips" which immediately doubles the number of trips and halves the distance of each. I have no idea what the rates of A-B-A versus A-B-C-D-A trips are, but their methodology here makes the entire study seem almost pointless, at least when trying to gauge the average mileage people are driving per day in reference to EV range.
Even using average yearly mileage can be misleading as almost nobody drives a fixed number of miles 7 days a week. I have a fairly long commute at 100 miles round trip, but my average daily mileage over a year is only 60 miles, or 60% of what I actually drive when I'm going to work. Someone telling me that a 120-mile range vehicle would work just fine for me based on my daily average would be completely wrong in that assessment when you account for efficiency losses and extra load from things like highway speeds, using the heater, or me having to make side trips somewhere on a work day.
That's another good point. I guess I assumed that A-B-A was a trip to the grocers and back, for example, but a trip out to the countryside to see the inlaws for the weekend would count as two trips, the A-B and the B-A. Counting the grocery trip as two trips doesn't seem right to me, I don't take hours in there.
For what it's worth, the various electrification plans I've been involved with all assume that these 'long stops' being the employment location, the hotel, the theatre, the doctors offices, all have charging on site. If this were the case - even just at the workplace - it would be a big help for electric vehicles that have small capacity batteries.
That's because people leave their house an insane number of times to go buy one thing at the store and come back. I swear my neighbors leave the house and come home again 10-15 times per day.
Obviously people often don't drive very far for work or shopping, but many do maybe every weekend or once or twice per month take a longer trip to visit family or for leisure.
The car needs to be able to handle that, without being a huge pain to have to charge all the time.
The idea that 90% of trips are short is a moronic argument for selling EV with small batteries, unless people have multiple cars, which most people don't unless they need to, and even then short range can be a problem, because dependency on the cars, means that both cars need to be able to fulfill the required tasks.
Edit:
Funny how this is downvoted, when mostly everybody agree the FIAT 500 sell badly because it has too little range for the price.
Even if only a few percent are short trips, it's a pain to have to charge multiple times on a single trip occasionally, like once per week.
Visiting family out of town every weekend is 104 trips a year. Commuting each work day is 520 trips. That's 16% of all those trips that are long distance.
Once you add in the grocery getting; the drives to school (only 10% of children walk or ride bikes); the doctors appointments; the local leisure related trips; I can see how 90% of trips could be short range - and that's still accounting for taking a long weekly trip, which I don't think most people do.
From the way you wrote, "The car needs to be able to handle that, without being a huge pain to charge all the time," gives me the impression you don't like electric vehicles and might not be open to any of these conversations without it turning into an argument. I could be misinterpreting your tone, and if so I apologise, but I don't think the content nor the conclusion of that study should be called moronic.
I'm not disputing the 10% maybe even 2% short trips is true, I'm arguing it's a bullshit argument for making cars with short range.
Which is false, I'm all for electric, and my next car will definitely be an electric. But not one that can't handle what I do in weekends, which would be ridiculous.
For me that means 450 km range minimum. Which I may only need once per month, but the alternative would be to rent a car once per month, which is obviously idiotic, because it's extra hassle and more expensive than buying the proper car to begin with.
Alternatively having to charge on the way, but the 450 km is for charging once, so less than that would mean charging twice or more, and I don't want that extra time added on a trip that is already long.
Cars with smaller batteries, very often also charge slower.
I suppose that makes me an idiot?
We go out of town every few months for a weekend, and when we go somewhere that doesn't have train service, I rent a car to make the trip. It's around $100 (not including fuel) for the two days depending on which model they have at the time. Even if we did this every month, it's a bit silly to suggest that it's cheaper to have bought a vehicle with double the range for these infrequent occurrences of long distance travel. Especially so considering the largest cost of manufacturing an electric vehicle by a hefty margin is the battery pack.
From this list of the 19 vehicles with over 450km range, 10 of them are trucks or SUVs so we can ignore them from this discussion. Of the 9 remaining, only 4 of them cost $60k CAD or below:
This year's Nissan Leaf can go 240km, at $28k. At your minimum, you're looking to spend double the money to get a car that can go double the range. For the extra $28k spent on an Ioniq 6 or Model 3 over the Leaf, you could rent a car for the weekend getaway every single month for the next two decades.
Some years ago, I wanted to know if an electric car would fit my lifestyle. I drove a gasoline sedan at the time. I decided to refuel my car at the end of every day, and take notes on the distance I had driven and where the needle was on the gas gauge. I did this for two months in the summer, when I knew I did most of my driving. The data I collected about my own habits showed me I didn't really drive a lot most days. There were only a handful of times I went over 100km in a day. The gas needle rarely dipped below three quarters full, and never below half.
There's about 12,000 gas stations in Canada, and nearly 9,000 charging stations - up 30% last year. If you're able to plug in for fifteen minutes or so at a destination you're already stopping at, that really helps with the longer distance issue. It's only getting easier to have a low range car as the years go by.
Regarding charging times
I wouldn't say batteries charge slower because of their smaller capacity. The lower charging speed is probably a cost saving measure which makes it incompatible with the fastest charging stations around. The Nissan Leaf will gain 190km of range in 40 minutes, or 5km per minute. Tesla's can get 280km in 15 minutes, or 18km per minute. That's about a 4x difference, but it costs so much more to get there.
The Leaf has a capacity that per kilowatt provides 6km of range. The Model 3 gets 7km per kilowatt. Is one extra kilometre per kilowatt worth buying the equivalent of two Nissan Leafs? Not to me it isn't.
In my view, driving out of town every other week is a poor argument for buying a vehicle with twice the range than it needs the other 339 days of the year.
Absolutely not. All the cars you list have decent to excellent range.
The argument was primarily used early on in marketing to try to sell cars that were basically only fit as city cars. Cars with LESS than 100km range.
Obviously they didn't sell well, and this was tried for years until Tesla came out with the model S.
Then the competition scrambled, and made semi real cars, but still with less than 200km range. For instance Nissan Leaf and Renault Fluence, Even BMW came out with an i3 model as recently as 2020 that had below 200km range, despite being quite expensive!
Today most even cheap EV cars have better than 200km range, and that may be more relevant, but the batteries have gotten cheaper, so I'm not sure it makes sense to make cars with below 300 km range anymore.
With Your Ioniq 6 the small version has 55 Kwh battery, which AFAIK is the lowest on your list with about 400km range. The models with the bigger77 kWh have about 600 km range. More than enough and would be absolutely fantastic for me.
The 400km is just short of what I want, which can usually be done with about 60 kWh battery.
AFAIK all the cars you list also have decent fast charging, something small battery cars like Stelantis have been behind on too. So if the battery isn't big enough for your trip, you are likely to spend way more time charging, than just the difference in battery size.
Despite there is truth in what you write, we see the FIAT 500 which is probably about the cheapest EV in Denmark currently, it doesn't sell probably because of its sub 300km range. The same is true for every other Stelantis EV that should be pretty popular if you look at how the brands have usually sold here.
I wouldn't call a single car you list short range, and even the shortest range on your list as far as I can tell, exceeds your daily needs by a factor 4.
Basically all your listed cars would be good enough. I could probably live with 400km instead of 450km if it was a good deal.
Obviously other people have other use cases, and maybe 300km is good enough for most, once they get used to it. It could even be less, if/when charging becomes as fast and easy as filling gas (gasoline).
So which of the Ioniq 6 was it? 53 or 77 kWh?
Edit PS:
Another reason for longer range than needed for daily use, is that on Motorway (highway with 130 km/h speedlimit) the range is shorter by as much as 30%, and in Winther it's also shorter by about as much. So in Winter on Motorway you risk having only half the rated range. That would require 3 charges for my longest monthly trip of about 500km. And compared to our ICE car, it would take more than an hour extra to make the drive, because your have to drive slower to not use too much battery, and you need to stop about 3 times 15 minutes for charging.