The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[AlexB23]

Something interesting I've learned about EV range in this discussion that I did not know is that the advertised range is probably irrelevant since you are not advised to charge your battery beyond 80% to help with its longevity. Also, I've noticed that most manufacturers cite the time to charge from 10% to 80%.

View attachment 345509

For those of you keeping score at home, that means that realistically, only 70% of the advertised range is usable. So if we consider the advertised 252 mile range of the EV6 AWD, if you're constantly running between 10% and 80% battery charge (as recommended), you're actually only getting 70% of the available range, or 176.4 miles. If you want to get daring and take that battery down to 1% before you recharge, you can squeeze another 22.68 miles out of the battery before its completely dead, bringing the total range up to just under 200 miles.

In case you missed it, I posted an article earlier that states that the reason for charging to only 80% is because while batteries can charge very rapidly to 80%, they take MUCH longer to charge from 80% to 100%. Here is the article again for reference, and the explanation:

Concerning charging rates, a good example is the Hyundai Ioniq 5 with the optional, long-range battery. This hatchback-like crossover can DC fast charge from 10 to 80% in an incredibly quick 18 minutes. But it needs an additional 32 minutes to go from 80 to 100% - almost twice as long as it took to go from 10 to 80.​

​

Why? Charging is not linear. Instead of batteries taking in energy at a constant, predictable rate, the rate actually changes based on a myriad of variables, though most importantly, the battery’s state of charge. Simply put, the fuller the battery is, the slower it absorbs energy. Imagine if a conventional car’s gas tank took longer and longer to fill up the closer it got to being full. It's kind of crazy.​

​

The 80% rule: Why you shouldn't charge your EV to 100%

Did you know that your EV's battery is improved when kept below 100%? Read to learn more about the optimal charging percentage.

witricity.com

​

So for those with range anxiety that are being accused of "vastly overstating" the issue, the reality is actually worse than advertised. If you stay within the 80% rule, you're reducing your range by at least 20% and perhaps by as much as 70% (if you like to keep your battery above 10%). In fact, most manufacturers will allow you to set a maximum charge level to ensure you don't charge to 100%, meaning that the max range is somewhere in the ballpark of 20% less than what you see advertised UNLESS you go against the recommendation and charge to 100%, which will take considerably longer and will take a toll on your battery's longevity.

Wow, 18 minutes to charge from 10% to 80%? When I was younger in the early 2010s, it took 8 hours to charge an EV such as a Nissan Leaf from 10% to 80% (1 hour for Level 2 public charging, and 8 hours for home charging). Even modern Nissan Leafs can not charge as quickly as the Hyundai Ioniq. Nowadays, level 3 charging is a thing. Man, innovation is real. Hopefully this charging time can be reduced to 5-10 minutes in the next few decades.

By the way, my Samsung Galaxy A54 phone has a setting to limit charge to 85%, and even slow charge. Hopefully I can get 6+ years out of the battery, instead of 2-4 years on my previous phone (Moto G7).

 

[wing2000]

Something interesting I've learned about EV range in this discussion that I did not know is that the advertised range is probably irrelevant since you are not advised to charge your battery beyond 80% to help with its longevity. Also, I've noticed that most manufacturers cite the time to charge from 10% to 80%.

View attachment 345509

For those of you keeping score at home, that means that realistically, only 70% of the advertised range is usable. So if we consider the advertised 252 mile range of the EV6 AWD, if you're constantly running between 10% and 80% battery charge (as recommended), you're actually only getting 70% of the available range, or 176.4 miles. If you want to get daring and take that battery down to 1% before you recharge, you can squeeze another 22.68 miles out of the battery before its completely dead, bringing the total range up to just under 200 miles.

In case you missed it, I posted an article earlier that states that the reason for charging to only 80% is because while batteries can charge very rapidly to 80%, they take MUCH longer to charge from 80% to 100%. Here is the article again for reference, and the explanation:

Concerning charging rates, a good example is the Hyundai Ioniq 5 with the optional, long-range battery. This hatchback-like crossover can DC fast charge from 10 to 80% in an incredibly quick 18 minutes. But it needs an additional 32 minutes to go from 80 to 100% - almost twice as long as it took to go from 10 to 80.​

​

Why? Charging is not linear. Instead of batteries taking in energy at a constant, predictable rate, the rate actually changes based on a myriad of variables, though most importantly, the battery’s state of charge. Simply put, the fuller the battery is, the slower it absorbs energy. Imagine if a conventional car’s gas tank took longer and longer to fill up the closer it got to being full. It's kind of crazy.​

​

The 80% rule: Why you shouldn't charge your EV to 100%

Did you know that your EV's battery is improved when kept below 100%? Read to learn more about the optimal charging percentage.

witricity.com

​

So for those with range anxiety that are being accused of "vastly overstating" the issue, the reality is actually worse than advertised. If you stay within the 80% rule, you're reducing your range by at least 20% and perhaps by as much as 70% (if you like to keep your battery above 10%). In fact, most manufacturers will allow you to set a maximum charge level to ensure you don't charge to 100%, meaning that the max range is somewhere in the ballpark of 20% less than what you see advertised UNLESS you go against the recommendation and charge to 100%, which will take considerably longer and will take a toll on your battery's longevity.

Hey, now you are informed.
btw, according to the advice from Telsa owners who rent their cars on Turo, 80% rule is ideal. However, if one is about to leave or already on a road trip, the advice is to charge to 100%. I'm going to rent a Telsa Model Y (extended range) for a 400 mile trip to Zion NP. It will work for our trip as we are breaking upt the trip anyway and, somewhat surprisingly, the Model Y is cheaper than a similarly sized crossover. Add in the gas savings and it's a no brainer.

I agree, EV's are certainly not ideal if you want to make time in a NY to FL run. And we simply don't drive enough daily to justify laying our 40-50k on a Tesla or *any other new vehicle*. But for shorter trips, it may make sense based on one's intinerary.

 

[probinson]

Man, innovation is real. Hopefully this charging time can be reduced to 5-10 minutes in the next few decades.

Those are the big hurdles. Longer range, faster charging times, competitive prices.

Anyone here old enough to remember the initial attempt at a transition away from incandescent light bulbs and the disaster of CFLs? I still have the very first, single $30 LED light bulb I bought. Of course now you can buy a pack of four LED light bulbs for about eight bucks.

The resistance to the change away from incandescent bulbs was because there was no viable alternative to what those bulbs provided. But as LED technology improved, color temperatures became comparable to incandescent bulbs and prices dropped, more and more people CHOSE to buy them. Why? Because they performed nearly identically to incandescent bulbs at a lesser price while consuming just 1/10 of the energy.

That's when mass adoption of EVs will happen. When there is a viable alternative to ICE vehicles for ALL use-cases, people will CHOOSE to buy them because they provide benefits.

The EV battery technology is still incredibly immature compared to ICE vehicles. I have no doubt it will continue to improve. But until such time that EVs provide comparable range and re-charge times at a comparable price to ICE vehicles, there will not be mass adoption.

 

[NxNW]

No, I've never used any EV charger, because I don't have an EV.

Ok, so we've established that you don't know what you're talking about.

Now will you answer my question; are the advertised charging times correct?

Charging times for what? Random information entered into a random website I haven't used?

There are two reasons: charging performance and battery longevity. Most of the time you should only charge an EV to 80% because charging rates slow down dramatically past the 80% mark. And two, the long-term health of your vehicle’s battery pack is improved when kept below 100%.​

Your point?

For example, if your EV has 300 miles of range when fully juiced up, that means it can go about 240 miles with an 80% state of charge. (Obviously, you’re going to stop and power up before hitting zero miles, but let’s keep things simple and say 240.) If the 0-to-80% recharge time is 40 minutes, you can hit the road in little more than half an hour. If you want to fully replenish the battery, it could realistically take an additional 90 minutes to go from 80 to 100%. In the time it took you to gain that extra range, you could be a hundred miles or more down the road and in the vicinity of another charger. That’s why stopping at 80% usually makes the most sense (though that is something YOU have to determine).​

Again, your point? This is consistent with what I already posted. Though I always start with a full charge. If it's an overnight trip, I start again with a full charge.

​

Not really. I am 100% certain I can drive considerably further in my ICE vehicle without stopping than you can in your EV.

Did I claim otherwise?

Let's assume I save $3,000 per year on fuel. That's really high for my situation, but we'll use the number anyway. If the Tesla Model S costs me $45k more than my ICE car, then it will take me 15 years before I break even on gas savings.

That's a big 'if', and it's anecdotal. My Bolt cost me $42K.

I don't know where you're going to get gas that you'd be waiting all the time. Aside from my semi-local Sam's Club, which offers discounted fuel to its members, I almost never see lines at gas pumps. And I've driven over an awful lot of this great country.

Costco. If you want the cheapest gad in town, you wait in line.

It is cumulatively "hours" on a trip.

Depends on the trip and the charger and the elevation change.

You must not drive very long distances.

As stipulated.

Right. EVs actually perform better in the city than they do on the highway, which is the exact opposite for ICE vehicles.

99% of my driving is city. What's your percentage?

 

[probinson]

Hey, now you are informed.
btw, according to the advice from Telsa owners who rent their cars on Turo, 80% rule is ideal. However, if one is about to leave or already on a road trip, the advice is to charge to 100%. I'm going to rent a Telsa Model Y (extended range) for a 400 mile trip to Zion NP. It will work for our trip as we are breaking upt the trip anyway and, somewhat surprisingly, the Model Y is cheaper than a similarly sized crossover. Add in the gas savings and it's a no brainer.

I'm going to Maui in August, and I was actually thinking of renting an EV on that trip. However, EVs aren't even listed as an option on the mainstream rental sites I've checked. I'd never heard of Turo, so I just checked it out. There are some EVs for rent there that are comparable to the mainstream rental places. Although upon reading further, there are no Tesla Superchargers on Maui, so I'd have to rely on level 2 charging, which takes much longer, and I have no idea if I'd be able to plug in at the AirBnB we're staying at.

I agree, EV's are certainly not ideal if you want to make time in a NY to FL run. And we simply don't drive enough daily to justify laying our 40-50k on a Tesla or *any other new vehicle*.

Agreed. $30k is about my limit. I prefer to stay south of that.

But for shorter trips, it may make sense based on one's intinerary.

Also agreed.

My brother-in-law LOVES his Chevy Bolt. But then, he lives in Chicago and almost all of his driving is local. The one trip he took to visit his sister (my sister-in-law) in Greenville, SC required him to stop for nearly 4 hours to charge. One of those charing stops took nearly 90 minutes. He didn't think that was a big deal. I would beg to differ.

 

[NxNW]

Something interesting I've learned about EV range in this discussion that I did not know is that the advertised range is probably irrelevant since you are not advised to charge your battery beyond 80% to help with its longevity.

Not accurate. You can charge to 100% as necessary.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means that realistically, only 70% of the advertised range is usable. So if we consider the advertised 252 mile range of the EV6 AWD, if you're constantly running between 10% and 80% battery charge (as recommended), you're actually only getting 70% of the available range, or 176.4 miles. If you want to get daring and take that battery down to 1% before you recharge, you can squeeze another 22.68 miles out of the battery before its completely dead, bringing the total range up to just under 200 miles.

That claim is based on information that is inaccurate.

In case you missed it, I posted an article earlier that states that the reason for charging to only 80% is because while batteries can charge very rapidly to 80%, they take MUCH longer to charge from 80% to 100%. Here is the article again for reference, and the explanation:

Somewhat longer, but I wouldn't call it "much". I charge overnight so it's not a big deal. Note that the "reasoning" for 80% here is different from the "reasoning" in the first paragraph above. The first is based on a false claim of battery life, and the second is based on convenience.

Why? Charging is not linear. Instead of batteries taking in energy at a constant, predictable rate, the rate actually changes based on a myriad of variables, though most importantly, the battery’s state of charge. Simply put, the fuller the battery is, the slower it absorbs energy. Imagine if a conventional car’s gas tank took longer and longer to fill up the closer it got to being full. It's kind of crazy.​

What's crazy? Imagining that an apple is an orange?

So for those with range anxiety that are being accused of "vastly overstating" the issue, the reality is actually worse than advertised.

Only if you don't understand the information.

If you stay within the 80% rule, you're reducing your range by at least 20% and perhaps by as much as 70% (if you like to keep your battery above 10%).

As explained, the 80% rule means you don't leave it fully charged for long periods. Nobody is saying you should never charge to 100%.

In fact, most manufacturers will allow you to set a maximum charge level to ensure you don't charge to 100%, meaning that the max range is somewhere in the ballpark of 20% less than what you see advertised UNLESS you go against the recommendation and charge to 100%, which will take considerably longer and will take a toll on your battery's longevity.

There is no such recommendation, as I keep explaining. I suspect you're deliberately pretending to not understand it.

There is a meme floating around social media combining fast charging prices, which are higher than level 2, but quoting level 2 charging times, which are much longer, and coming up with an outrageous amount of money and time for a charge. They've deliberately used wrong information to disseminate a lie, which (as the saying goes), gets halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on. Your post here is leaning on that direction.

 

[AlexB23]

Those are the big hurdles. Longer range, faster charging times, competitive prices.

Anyone here old enough to remember the initial attempt at a transition away from incandescent light bulbs and the disaster of CFLs? I still have the very first, single $30 LED light bulb I bought. Of course now you can buy a pack of four LED light bulbs for about eight bucks.

The resistance to the change away from incandescent bulbs was because there was no viable alternative to what those bulbs provided. But as LED technology improved, color temperatures became comparable to incandescent bulbs and prices dropped, more and more people CHOSE to buy them. Why? Because they performed nearly identically to incandescent bulbs at a lesser price while consuming just 1/10 of the energy.

That's when mass adoption of EVs will happen. When there is a viable alternative to ICE vehicles for ALL use-cases, people will CHOOSE to buy them because they provide benefits.

The EV battery technology is still incredibly immature compared to ICE vehicles. I have no doubt it will continue to improve. But until such time that EVs provide comparable range and re-charge times at a comparable price to ICE vehicles, there will not be mass adoption.

I remember the LED tech when it released in 2010-12 in the stores or so, as I am 24. In 2010, an LED bulb would cost $50 and had a harsh white color. Nowadays, one can get smart LEDs for $10, and simple LEDs for $2. The colors are now closer to 2700K compared to the old ones. Yeah, EVs will not be comparable to ICE cars for a few decades, and certainly not by 2035, especially with Tesla charging $50K for an EV. The same is true for AI. A few years ago, AI was super expensive and only used in labs. Now, I can run it on my laptop.

A kilolumen (1000 lumens) in this graph is roughly equivalent to a 90W light bulb. Shame the graph only goes to 2015.

 

[probinson]

Ok, so we've established that you don't know what you're talking about.

I can tell time. I know how long 30 minutes is. It's hilarious that you think because I've not used an electric charger that there's no way for me to know how long it will take to charge.

Charging times for what? Random information entered into a random website I haven't used?

No, how long it takes you to charge. You keep saying the numbers I've provided from ABRP are "ridiculous" and that I don't know what I'm talking about. So are the advertised charging times on manufacturers websites wrong? Why so you suppose they providing me with bad information?

Your point?

Again, your point? This is consistent with what I already posted. Though I always start with a full charge. If it's an overnight trip, I start again with a full charge.

This goes against Tesla's recommendations of charing to 80% for "optimal" performance. One must wonder why Tesla only recommends 80% if 100% is OK.

That's a big 'if', and it's anecdotal. My Bolt cost me $42K.

You're not seriously trying to compare the cost of a Tesla Model S and a Chevy Bolt, are you?

Costco. If you want the cheapest gad in town, you wait in line.

It's the same way at Sam's Club. But see, here's what I do. If I pull up to Sam's club and there is no waiting at the pumps, I'll get gas there, because it's usually $0.20 or more cheaper than the Sheetz across the driveway. But if there is a line (as there often is), I just pull into Sheetz, because I'm not going to sit in line to save, at most, $5.00. That's why yesterday it only took me 5 minutes to fill my tank and get back on the road. I always do some quick math if I go to Sheetz, and I would have saved a whopping $4.00 if I went to Sam's Club for gas. But to your point, I would have had to wait upwards of 30 minutes to get to the pump. Thankfully, I have many choices to get gas, and if one station has a line, I just drive a few blocks and go where there is no line.

99% of my driving is city. What's your percentage?

Almost all of my driving is distance driving. I WFH so I do not drive at all most days. On the days where I drive the kids to school or go to church, I put just a few miles on the car. But the vast majority of my driving are trips well over 60 miles. I also take multiple vacations per year. That's why despite not driving at all on most days, I still have 30k miles on my K5 in two years.

 

[AlexB23]

That's a big 'if', and it's anecdotal. My Bolt cost me $42K.

Wow, only $42K for a Chevy Bolt? Nice stuff, that's a steal in the market of the 2020s. It makes me wonder why more people did not buy the Chevy Bolt instead of the overpriced Tesla. Tesla fanboys get the Tesla for the status symbol sadly.

 

[probinson]

Not accurate. You can charge to 100% as necessary.

Sure, if you want to shorten the life of your battery.

There's a reason Tesla (and most other manufacturers) recommend you only charge your battery to 80%.

That claim is based on information that is inaccurate.

That claim is based on information ascertained from the article I posted which I have no reason to doubt.

Somewhat longer, but I wouldn't call it "much".

Why do you think Hyundai and Kia advertise their 10%-80% charge times? It's because they charge very quickly. But the last 20% of that charge takes more than TWICE as long as the first 70%.

I charge overnight so it's not a big deal.

That's not really applicable when on a road trip.

Note that the "reasoning" for 80% here is different from the "reasoning" in the first paragraph above. The first is based on a false claim of battery life, and the second is based on convenience.

Here is yet another article that explains why you should only charge your battery to 80%

Why giving 80% is the best result for your electric car | Electrifying

We've teamed up with Shell Recharge to solve the mystery of why you should try to only charge an electric car to 80% | Read more on Electrifying.com | Read more on Electrifying.com

www.electrifying.com

Are all of these articles wrong?

What's crazy? Imagining that an apple is an orange?

I'm not sure what you're responding to here. That was a direct quote from the article I posted.

Only if you don't understand the information.

I understand it quite clearly. If you charge your battery to 80%, you have 20% less range. It's not exactly rocket science.

As explained, the 80% rule means you don't leave it fully charged for long periods. Nobody is saying you should never charge to 100%.

Actually, they are. In fact, most EVs allow you to set a charge limit so that your car NEVER charges above the limit you set. Bonus points if you can guess the percentage that most manufacturers you recommend as the percentage limit..

There is no such recommendation, as I keep explaining. I suspect you're deliberately pretending to not understand it.

Tesla actually tells you directly in their app what the charging percentage recommendation is.

There is a meme floating around social media combining fast charging prices, which are higher than level 2, but quoting level 2 charging times, which are much longer, and coming up with an outrageous amount of money and time for a charge. They've deliberately used wrong information to disseminate a lie, which (as the saying goes), gets halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on. Your post here is leaning on that direction.

Wow! There's misinformation on social media?! Do tell!

Cost to charge an electric car at a public charging station​

Overall, charging your car at a public EV charging station is more expensive than charging at home. Public charging systems that charge based on kWh average anywhere between $0.30 and $0.60 per kWh compared to $0.16 per kWh at home. The exact amount depends on local electricity cost and regulations, as well as the type of charger. Level 2 chargers generally cost between $0.20 and $0.25 per kWh, while Level 3 chargers, which are more common in public, range from $0.40 to $0.60 per kWh.​

​

Home - Juicebox North America | Enel X Way USA

UPDATE: November 27, 2024 We are pleased to share that VoltiE Group Inc. has been engaged to provide a path forward through brand stewardship and end-user support for the Enel X Way North America EV charging network. This transition follows the closure of Enel X Way USA on October 11, 2024...

www.enelxway.com

​

 

[probinson]

I remember the LED tech when it released in 2010-12 in the stores or so, as I am 24. In 2010, an LED bulb would cost $50 and had a harsh white color. Nowadays, one can get smart LEDs for $10, and simple LEDs for $2.

I have smart LED bulbs through my entire house. I haven't touched a light switch in 4 years.

The colors are now closer to 2700K compared to the old ones.

2700k is my preferred color temp for living spaces. I shoot for 3000k in task areas, like kitchens and bathrooms.

The thing that most irritates me about the artifacts from the incandescent era is that now light bulbs are sold as "60 watt equivalent" and meaningless marketing jargon like "bright white". It's like the manufacturers don't think we can understand the objective measures lumens and color temperature. It's maddeningly frustrating when I go to buy a bulb and the only thing I can go on is "bright white" or "soft white" or "daylight", and each manufacturer means something different with those terms. There's not even a standard. I so wish that they would just tell me how many lumens (an actual measure of brightness) the bulb is and get away from the antiquated "wattage equivalent" nonsense.

Yeah, EVs will not be comparable to ICE cars for a few decades, and certainly not by 2035, especially with Tesla charging $50K for an EV.

Agreed. Unless there is some major breakthrough in battery tech, it's going to be a while before we have 400-mile range batteries that can charge in 5 minutes.

 

[probinson]

Wow, only $42K for a Chevy Bolt? Nice stuff, that's a steal in the market of the 2020s. It makes me wonder why more people did not buy the Chevy Bolt instead of the overpriced Tesla. Tesla fanboys get the Tesla for the status symbol sadly.

Actually, that's a pretty expensive Bolt. Chevy advertises the Bolt starting at just $26.5k. I think my brother-in-law paid $28k for his last year.

 

[AlexB23]

I have smart LED bulbs through my entire house. I haven't touched a light switch in 4 years.



2700k is my preferred color temp for living spaces. I shoot for 3000k in task areas, like kitchens and bathrooms.

The thing that most irritates me about the artifacts from the incandescent era is that now light bulbs are sold as "60 watt equivalent" and meaningless marketing jargon like "bright white". It's like the manufacturers don't think we can understand the objective measures lumens and color temperature. It's maddeningly frustrating when I go to buy a bulb and the only thing I can go on is "bright white" or "soft white" or "daylight", and each manufacturer means something different with those terms. There's not even a standard. I so wish that they would just tell me how many lumens (an actual measure of brightness) the bulb is and get away from the antiquated "wattage equivalent" nonsense.



Agreed. Unless there is some major breakthrough in battery tech, it's going to be a while before we have 400-mile range batteries that can charge in 5 minutes.

My LED smart light bulbs by Sengled (the app is a pile of junk) that I got in 2022 say the color, wattage equivalent and the lumens. The box is covered with information. My Wiz bulb that can change color also has this info.

For battery breakthroughs, Toyota will try and get solid-state batteries released before the decade ends, and promises faster charging and longer ranges. Mmm, Japanese innovation. Innovation, something that America does not have enough of.

 

[probinson]

Tesla charging times, when charging to nearly 100%, are WAY longer than the advertised 15 minutes for 200 miles.

Tesla's brand of DC fast-charging stations, known as Superchargers, offer the quickest way to recharge a Tesla. Tesla claims that 15 minutes of charging will add 200 miles to a vehicle's range. This depends on a few factors, including the battery's state of charge, whether the battery was preconditioned, and the ambient air temperature. In MotorTrend testing, a Tesla Model S Plaid needed 51 minutes to charge from 5 to 95 percent with a V3 Supercharger and a preconditioned battery pack. Tesla's latest lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, found in some Model Y and Model 3 vehicles, have been shown to charge from 0 to 100 percent in almost exactly an hour.​

​

https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-long-does-it-take-to-charge-a-tesla/

​

 

[AlexB23]

Actually, that's a pretty expensive Bolt. Chevy advertises the Bolt starting at just $26.5k. I think my brother-in-law paid $28k for his last year.

Yeah, @NxNW must have a decked out Bolt with all the features and optional extras. A decked out Bolt is still more affordable compared to a bare bones Tesla. (you can tell my disdain for Tesla). Chevy had plans to discontinue the Bolt, but backtracked. A new Bolt will be released in 2025. Woo, yeah. Take that, Elon. Chevy for the win, bro.

 

[probinson]

For battery breakthroughs, Toyota will try and get solid-state batteries released before the decade ends, and promises faster charging and longer ranges. Mmm, Japanese innovation. Innovation, something that America does not have enough of.

Yeah, they've been saying that for a while now. When they actually release one, that's a different story.

Also, there are plenty of challenges yet to be overcome in solid state battery tech.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/solid-state-ev-car-batteries-challenges/

It's definitely intriguing, but as of now no one has figured out how to harness the solid-state tech for EVs or overcome the challenges they present. If/when they do, it will be a game-changer for sure.

 

[AlexB23]

Yeah, they've been saying that for a while now. When they actually release one, that's a different story.

Also, there are plenty of challenges yet to be overcome in solid state battery tech.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/solid-state-ev-car-batteries-challenges/

It's definitely intriguing, but as of now no one has figured out how to harness the solid-state tech for EVs or overcome the challenges they present. If/when they do, it will be a game-changer for sure.

Agreed. I'll get back to you on the solid-state batteries in 2030, or 2032-2035. Man, that is only 6-11 years from now. But yeah, as of 2024, no one has overcome the issues with solid-state batteries. Cos, if folks did, phones would come with solid-state batteries. Smaller tech would release first.

 

[SimplyMe]

I'm not sure why you keep pretending like range isn't an issue. It is. It's not vastly overstated. For people who drive long distances, it ranks in the top two reasons for why people aren't converting to EVs nearly as quickly as the industry had hoped.

It is not vastly overstated for you, I understand that. For the average American, it really is. The issue is that Americans seem to be convinced that they have to have a car that can go 500 miles or they're going to get stranded somewhere, when they might drive 500 mile in a day once a year; that there are people who will overpay for their car by thousands of dollars; such as the guy that buys a high end pickup with the heavy duty tow package, because he might help a neighbor move (once in five years). Range is exactly like that for most Americans -- I showed you the numbers.

I understand it isn't overstated for you but it is for most.

Yes, energy subsidies exist on most all energy sources.



Sure. If it takes me many hours longer to get to Florida after leaving Pennsylvania at 10PM, I'll be less tired when I get there. Where on earth do you come up with this nonsense?

More like a couple of hours -- more time that it would take to charge a Tesla (or the EV6 once the fast chargers are working in WV).

If I ever get to a point where I am uncomfortable driving for 4-5 hours at a time on a long road trip, then I will fly to my destination. I won't "understand" that taking LONGER to get where I'm going is in any way relaxing.



I'm not sure why you're hyper-focused on West Virginia. The simple fact is that the EV6 takes 9x longer to charge to 80% capacity than it does to fully fill my gas tank. Period.

Yes, it would normally take all of 1 hour and 15 minutes in charging sessions on your 16 hour trip (except for WV, which adds about 4 hours currently).

And my original calculations assumed no membership nor session fees, and clocked in just $10 less than the cost of gas for the trip. Public charging is currently on par with gas prices. In some cases, it is more expensive.

Great, and anytime you charge at home (and it sounds like at least 50% of your driving is at home), its about 9x cheaper -- especially if you are paying those extra dollars to gas up at Sheetz -- not to mention that it doesn't require the extra 5 minutes to do, like you mentioned filling your tank does.

That car isn't available in my area.

Here is the ONLY new Blue Model 3 Long Range in available inventory that I could get in my area (if I were willing to drive nearly 100 miles to pick it up). MSRP $50,240.

View attachment 345499


Even if I spot you the after-incentives price of $46,860 and the $7,500 tax credit, It's $39,360. Maybe nearly $10k is "a bit more" in your world, but that's substantially more.

I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend like the K5 GT-Line and Model 3 are even remotely close in price. They are not.

I'm not, my claim was always that an EV is currently about $10K more. Though, honestly, the Model Y is the better value at the moment -- which is why that is what I linked; but apparently types 3 by accident (I was in a hurry).

My K5 has "Smart Cruise Control w/ Stop and Go and Highway Driving Assist" that sounds an awful lot like Tesla's basic autopilot. My K5 will maintain a specified following distance and keep me centered in my lane, which is exactly what Tesla's basic autopilot feature offers. In addition, the HDA will automatically slow down for curves. And If I set the cruise at the posted speed limit, it will automatically adjust to follow speed limit changes.

According to Tesla:

Basic Autopilot includes Traffic-Aware Cruise Control and Autosteer.

• Traffic-Aware Cruise Control: Maintains your speed and an adjustable following distance from the vehicle in front of you, if there is one (see Traffic-Aware Cruise Control).
• Autosteer: Maintains your speed and distance from a leading vehicle while also intelligently keeping Model 3 in its lane (see Autosteer).

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-101D1BF5-52D2-469A-A57D-E7230BBEE94B.html

So my K5 does most everything that Tesla's Basic Autopilot does. From what I can tell, the Tesla basic autopilot may also be able to change lanes automatically just by signaling. If that's the case, my K5 can't do that. I actually have to grab the wheel and change lanes myself after signaling. (Oh, the horror!)

My mistake, again, was in a hurry and forgot your car has HDA.

Also, you might want to read the news before you talk about how great Tesla's Autopilot feature is. There are definitely still some critical bugs to work out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/tech/tesla-trial-wrongful-death-walter-huang/index.html

I thought Elon made a huge mistake by removing the radars from Teslas; OTOH, word is that the current autopilot version is quite good, particularly the "self driving" ability. Of course, that is the one thing Tesla does better than any automaker -- providing updates to all their cars, at times actually even adding new features, for free, for cars that are even out of warranty.

Well, you got me there. All I have are blind spot monitors. Of course, those blind spot monitors will visibly and audibly alert me if I attempt to drive into the path of a car in my blindspot, so I'm not sure what benefit cameras gain me there.



You know two things Teslas don't have that are absolute dealbreakers for me? Apple CarPlay and a moonroof. I rely very heavily on Apple CarPlay in my K5. It's a must-have feature for me. Also, the Tesla Model 3's roof does not open at all. The panoramic moonroof on my K5 can either vent or open completely on nice sunny days.

I know you're trying to say that EVs have way more tech than my lowly K5. But my K5 is pretty handsomely equipped with many driver-assist features. Having driven over 30k miles in the last 2 years with them, they work quite well. The surround-view monitor is cool and I wish that were an available feature in 2022. The 2024 K5 has that as an option now for roughly the same price as I paid for my 2022, so I have to believe that it's not really that expensive of a feature.



It's not really discounted for being in stock, nor was the one I originally posted "special order". I literally chose a base model Tesla with no additional options. In fact, it was LESS than the one that is in available inventory in my area.



Yes, it is nearly $10k more than what I paid, and that's only after all incentives. If we're comparing MSRP, it's $30,870 vs. $50,240. That's 1.62x greater. Not quite 2x, but still pretty substantial.



So we agree that mass adoption of EVs is not here yet, and is still quite a long way off.

It's not here yet. I can't say how long it is off; I don't claim to have a crystal ball or the gift of prophesy. I don't think it as far away as you think -- there are good reasons why most of those who have EVs (not to include those who dumped an EV because it wasn't just like their gas car) tend to love them and claim they won't go back to gas cars.

 

[SimplyMe]

Do you have any research data to back that up?


I'm not claiming to....but if you do I'd like to see it.

Just anecdotal, at the moment.

That could be....but you don't want anecdotal evidence and I've seen no actual research on the topic....so it's hard to say.




Yes...I read about halfway through it.




I wasn't aware that EVs required a second battery. I was under the impression it was one battery.

What is the second battery for?

For much the same thing it is in a gas vehicle; it runs the 12V power to start the car (which in an EV is to turn on the computers), the interior lights and head and tail lights, the infotainment and dash instruments, etc. The main battery on an EV runs on at least 400V -- so it is inefficient to try and run typical automotive (12V) electronics where you have to constantly step down the high voltage down to 12V. Additionally, trying to make the lights and other electronics 400V doesn't really work. So, instead, the main battery runs the drive motors, the air conditioning and heater units, and will recharge the 12V battery as needed.

It is also something of a safety feature, that the traction battery does not have to be connected to the car when it is off -- at one point the traction battery was completely disconnected from the car when the car was off -- done to prevent the battery from catching fire or other issues when the car wasn't attended. Since the batteries have proven to not be a hazard, they do more or less "shut down" when the car is off but can be reconnected if the 12V battery needs to be recharged (since security systems, keyless entry, and other newer features run down the 12V while the car is off).

I was under the impression you were....given our previous interactions.

How would you describe your political beliefs?

Former conservative, currently a Centrist fed up with both major parties.

Sure....but one of these is provable, one isn't.

For example, only the left has concluded that defunding the police and replacing them with "social workers" as a means of improving outcomes between police interactions with citizens/criminals. This basically failed immediately in places like Portland and San Francisco where various versions were implemented. Unfortunately, correcting the damage done to the policing community hasn't been easy.

The left also floated the idea of drug decriminalization with Portland also volunteering to be the test city for that. Whether this was to improve healthcare outcomes or reduce drug abuse it failed miserably...and now they've recriminalized drugs. Hopefully they can get replacements for all the police they lost and destroy the illegal narcotics market they've created in the past few years.

I mean....nobody likes to talk about the 93 million dollar scam that was Black Lives Matter and some even still support it I hear....but again, that's a lot of devastation to the exact same communities people were trying to help.

All easily avoided with a little common sense.

I could probably give other arguments but just don't care, as I say, I tend to stay out of those debates. OTOH, an easy one from the Right is "election fraud;" all the claims currently are based on "feels" with no evidence.

No? Well the short version is that a personal anecdote that amounted to an unwanted kiss and shove was framed by left wing media as attempted rape. The nominee had to sit before a confirmation hearing where he was accused of sexual assault in person, rape in the media, and then mocked for not being happy about the experience.

He, of course, claimed to not have been at the party his accuser claimed he did this "sexual assault" at in her personal anecdote. Remarkably, the other guests at this same party could recall many of the other party goers....yet none who were there could recall Mr Kavanaugh being present apart from his accuser.

So essentially 1 personal anecdote, 30 years old, smeared a SCOTUS nominee's name and to this day, many on the left still believe that Mr Kavanaugh is guilty of something despite the FBI's brief and pointless investigation only supporting Mr Kavanaugh's version of events (that he wasn't present at the party) and no one supporting his accuser's personal anecdote (that he was present at the party).

Imagine that....a mere 30 year old anecdote was enough to trigger an FBI investigation. When Biden's IRS whistleblowers testified to having hundreds of pages of bank records, shady transactions, shell companies, money laundering and generally corrupt business dealings between Hunter and Joe....the FBI decided not only wasn't it enough to trigger an investigation on Joe, but Hunter should probably get a plea deal for any crimes uncovered in the future.

It's almost as if 2 different FBI agencies exist.....one to investigate 30yo anecdotes with no evidence....and one that apparently doesn't investigate crimes no matter what evidence is unearthed.

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this.

Again, the Democrats were merely asking for an investigation, and it would have been smarter to give it to them. After all, when the FBI comes back and say there was zero evidence -- that he didn't appear to even be at the party -- it shuts down all the arguments of rape and whatever else.

Why the two batteries? Honest question.

https://www.currentautomotive.com/how-much-does-a-tesla-model-3-battery-replacement-cost/

This is one of those anecdotes that you don't like but as I said....I can't find any research supporting your claim that these battery packs are well protected, nor can I find any research supporting the claim they aren't....so anecdotes are all I have.

"Though we don’t have the full details of what went down, we know a large rock somehow struck the bottom of the car, causing enough physical damage to the battery to cause total failure and render the car completely unresponsive and inoperable. This is exactly the type of thing that warranties don’t usually cover—though Tesla’s warranty actually does cover battery fire damage, even if the fire was caused by user error or other forces. In other words, if this rock had set the battery on fire, it would have been covered by warranty.



So to be clear here....a large rock hit the undercarriage of the Tesla and damaged the battery so badly it needed replacement. Generally, a rock hitting the undercarriage of a car is something that happens when the friction of the tire in forward motion creates enough force to send the rock upward as it rolls over the tire. The only other scenario I can think of involves a large rock falling off a dump truck or other vehicle and bouncing underneath the Tesla.

Since we aren't talking about a boulder being driven into (because the battery pack was the only part damaged) and the Tesla's clearance height is 5.5 inches....we're definitely talking about a big rock....potentially something up to the size of a very very small cantaloupe.

16,000$ to replace because the warranty doesn't cover accidental damage.

Now, I'm pretty good at avoiding 5 inch rocks in the road....but if it was 3 or 4 inches...I don't know how well I can avoid those under normal conditions. I've seen plenty of potholes that deep and the mere possibility of that resulting in a 16,000$ bill isn't exactly a plus for EVs.

To be honest, it sounds like they were off-roading on something of a rough dirt/rock road. The top of the car was high enough as they went over the rock but, after the rock got over the battery pack, one (or both) of the front tires went into a hole (or off another rock) dropping the car onto the rock. I'd love to know the exact circumstances, how fast they were driving, etc -- it honestly seems like they were being idiots (driving fast enough that caused the force to allow the rock to penetrate the thick metal plate, and other materials, and get to the battery. I'd also state that most of the protection for the battery is going to be with side impacts -- where you would expect from collisions. The bottom is a thick metal, with typically a plastic container for the battery cells above -- which is designed to protect against common road hazards, not off-roading. As you pointed out, it is unlikely they drove over the rock on the road (would have damaged the front).

Though I will state that it is possible EVs are totaled more often for a "lesser" (but still considerable) accident. One of the anecdotal claims I've heard -- and I can't even claim it is industry wide or just a particular insurance company -- is that if the price of the accident is close to where they might consider totaling the car, if it is an EV they will total it out of caution -- that even though the battery doesn't appear damaged, they fell it is safer in the long run to total the car than to risk having the car repaired and, only after spending thousands, find out the battery had been damaged. As I said, anecdotal but makes a certain amount of sense.

Regardless, I'd suggest that Comprehensive insurance is a great idea for an EV, particularly for the few dollars it costs. It solves the battery damaged by a rock issue.

I'll also state that battery repairs can be a lot cheaper. As noted, those traction batteries are typically made up of lots of cells, little batteries wired together. Typically when a battery fails, it is one (or a small group) that have failed -- so you can fix the battery pack just by replacing those few cells. They also "refurbish" the old cells that are remaining, making the entire battery close to new condition. I don't fully understand it but it is an interesting technology, and those types of businesses are just taking off (and prices will likely come down as they become more common).

All in all, it doesn't exactly sound like these battery packs are as invulnerable as you claim but I'll grant that....

1. It's an anecdote....perhaps not indicative of a significant flaw.
2. It's a 2020 model I'm assuming since that's the date on the article and perhaps Tesla has upgraded their battery armor.
3. Perhaps this was some sort of freakish tungsten or depleted uranium rock lol.

Maybe you have some data on the upgrades made to prevent these incidents from happening? Or even just a manufacturing test showing how much force is required to do such significant damage?

Most of the websites I saw were from companies wanting to sell their battery "containers" for cars. The information is likely good but wasn't willing to weed through the advertising to find the actual data.

C'mon @SimplyMe....I gave you a choice of words, if you don't like outperform, tell me what you are comfortable with.




Sure.



Sure....I'd guess most people if we were betting.




In this context then...we can call "different" and "sustainable" interchangeable. I can agree that sustainable sounds better....but so far it seems like you're listing different energy sources, not something sustainable.




I don't want you to admit anything but what you think...

I don't understand why people think there's always some trick hiding behind a simple question lol. I didn't think you were trying something tricky when you explained that you were interpreting the word "efficient" differently from how I was using it. I took it at face value....you were considering the term efficient differently from me, and perhaps that was due to the way I contextually used it.




I would agree that nuclear power is probably a far better solution than solar or wind or hydroelectric (I haven't followed advances in hydrogen power much....so I don't think I can speak intelligently on the topic.

And thanks for pointing out my mistake with the Chevy Bolt. I haven't exactly taken a close look at every EV....and I just assumed that like the Teslas, they only had the one battery.

Interestingly, in double checking that the Tesla does indeed only have the one battery so I didn't make the same stupid mistake twice lol....it seems as if the battery in the Tesla starts to nosedive in capacity after a certain number of years (if you guessed 8, you guessed correctly).

Pretty sure the Tesla still has two batteries, just that the 12V is a lithium ion and still in roughly the same spot as the old 12V battery sat. Hyundai is the first company that did something similar, that I'm aware of -- in their hybrid cars they left one of the cells for the hybrid battery unconnected from the rest of the battery, and used that cell as the 12V battery. Those Hyundai's have a button on the dashboard for when the car doesn't start -- the button recharges the 12V lithium cell so the car will start. Again, too many parts of a car are based on a 12V architecture, over the last 70 years, and don't make sense to make them 400v -- so EVs still have that same 12V architecture for lights, wipers, horn, computers, etc.

A Study on Real-Life Tesla Battery Deterioration

Tesla cars are known for their long range, providing hundreds of miles on a single full charge—but how does the battery hold up after years of use? To find out, we've analysed real-life data submitted by hundreds of car owners to determine how Tesla batteries deteriorate over time.

www.nimblefins.co.uk

Now, it appears to be a limited study (so take it with a grain of salt since I'm sure that Tesla has upgraded the battery in the 10 years compared in the study) but the average battery capacity degradation is about 1% per year. This leaves the capacity at a rather respectable 92% by year 8....but by year 10 it appears to drop considerably to around 83%. I don't know if that becomes an exponential drop after 8 years and by 12 you're looking at a 64% capacity but regardless, this is another advantage of the ICE.

An ICE car with a 12.5 gallon tank on year 1 will still have a 12.5 gallon tank after 8 years.

What most studies I've seen have found is that the battery will deteriorate faster for the fast year or two -- maybe 1 to 2% per year -- and after that the deterioration settles down. Tesla has done a couple of studies of their cars at 200,000 miles that show between a 10 and 12% degradation. The studies I've seen overall seem to support Tesla's numbers, as well as most of the anecdotes; though, there are a lot of factors that play into it, as is discussed further in this thread.

 

[SimplyMe]

Sure, if you want to shorten the life of your battery.

There's a reason Tesla (and most other manufacturers) recommend you only charge your battery to 80%.

Not really no. And a lot has to do with the type of battery, what the Battery Management System (BMS) does to protect the battery and how effective it is, etc. For example, I can give you a recent quote where Tesla says it is ok to charge the battery to 100% daily; granted that is for an LFP (Lithium Iron) battery and not their longer range battery packs; plus the LFP battery packs also have less degradation. The disadvantage is they charge slower (at fast chargers) and are less energy dense.

As for my car, Kia actually recommends charging to 100% once a month. Charging the car to 100% does not hurt the car though it is advisable not to let the car stay at 100% for long. The reason for the recommendation (and one many EV manufacturers have) is to help the BMS -- there is not a good way to accurately gauge the amount of energy in the battery -- particularly since the charge is in so many small battery cells that make up the battery; it also ensures the charge is equal among all the cells, which is better for the battery life.

That claim is based on information ascertained from the article I posted which I have no reason to doubt.



Why do you think Hyundai and Kia advertise their 10%-80% charge times? It's because they charge very quickly. But the last 20% of that charge takes more than TWICE as long as the first 70%.

Yes, batteries are slower when charging the "top" of the battery. Of course, if you checked out A Better Route Planner and the route we've talked about, you'll notice most of the time it doesn't even have you charge to 80%. Instead, it tries to have you get as quick a charge as possible and get back on the road to the next charger, coming in at a lower percentage so you can again charge quickly. It seems counter-intuitive, but shorter (maybe 150 miles) with extra charging stops is actually faster.

That's not really applicable when on a road trip.

No, but it is the other 330+ days (or however many you are at home) per year.

Here is yet another article that explains why you should only charge your battery to 80%

Why giving 80% is the best result for your electric car | Electrifying

We've teamed up with Shell Recharge to solve the mystery of why you should try to only charge an electric car to 80% | Read more on Electrifying.com | Read more on Electrifying.com

www.electrifying.com

Are all of these articles wrong?

They are oversimplified. This is particularly true since a lot depends on the car, the battery, and how the BMS is designed. As I mentioned, Tesla's LFP batteries tend to do better when charged to 100% on a frequent (even daily) basis; and it doesn't hurt them to stay at 100%.

I also mentioned my own battery at some point, and what Kia has done to protect it. Again, Kia lists my battery as a 77.4kWh battery. In fact, the actual capacity of the battery is 80.2kWh -- just that Kia prevents the battery from charging fully, it keeps that last roughly 3% as a buffer -- you can't ever actually fully charge the battery to 100% (only to about 96%).

Additionally, of that 77.4kWh, Kia, through the BMS, only "counts" 74kWh of the battery as usable. I think I stated this before -- the mileage and percentage is based on 74kWh and, after it is used and you are at 0%, you still have another 3% that can be used, much like that extra half-gallon of gas in a tank that most cars have, if you go below empty.

There is a lot of information on the Internet about lithium batteries and the best practices. At least one suggested that your battery could last (to include much slower degradation) ten times longer by keeping the battery above 50% and lower than 75%. Granted, most people wouldn't be willing to do that and your car isn't going to last that long (at least a few decades). Of course, others recommend that you keep it between 20% and 80% on a daily basis. Much of the problem is that batteries aren't the same (different chemistries, different types of "package", etc), nor how the manufacturer handles the battery management.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here. That was a direct quote from the article I posted.



I understand it quite clearly. If you charge your battery to 80%, you have 20% less range. It's not exactly rocket science.

True, but on a daily basis you don't really miss that range. And, as he stated, if you need 100% on a particular day than you let your car charge to 100%. At the same time, with most EVs you can tell your car when you want charging to finish -- and it will charge the car so that you only hit 100% at the same time you plan on leaving. This keeps the battery from having that high charge level for very long but still gives you the range you need for that day (or for the trip).

It's also worth pointing out, the other reason why manufactures don't like 100% (as well as owners) is that regenerative braking doesn't work -- there is nowhere to store the energy created by regenerative braking when the battery is full -- so the car has to rely on the physical brake pads.

Actually, they are. In fact, most EVs allow you to set a charge limit so that your car NEVER charges above the limit you set. Bonus points if you can guess the percentage that most manufacturers you recommend as the percentage limit..



Tesla actually tells you directly in their app what the charging percentage recommendation is.

View attachment 345516

Notice that, it says "recommended for daily driving." It doesn't say never charge above 80%, just that 80% is the recommended daily limit. I should also mention that Tesla recommends always having your car plugged in at home; having it on the charger doesn't harm the battery and tends to be good for it.

And, again, going back to Kia, it is difficult to find absolute statements on how much to charge the battery on a daily basis; as well as a debate among owners about how much to charge daily. These discussions can be rather interesting, even if some of the finer points are over my head.

Wow! There's misinformation on social media?! Do tell!

Cost to charge an electric car at a public charging station​

Overall, charging your car at a public EV charging station is more expensive than charging at home. Public charging systems that charge based on kWh average anywhere between $0.30 and $0.60 per kWh compared to $0.16 per kWh at home. The exact amount depends on local electricity cost and regulations, as well as the type of charger. Level 2 chargers generally cost between $0.20 and $0.25 per kWh, while Level 3 chargers, which are more common in public, range from $0.40 to $0.60 per kWh.​

​

Home - Juicebox North America | Enel X Way USA

UPDATE: November 27, 2024 We are pleased to share that VoltiE Group Inc. has been engaged to provide a path forward through brand stewardship and end-user support for the Enel X Way North America EV charging network. This transition follows the closure of Enel X Way USA on October 11, 2024...

www.enelxway.com

​

As your link suggests, the price of public charging can vary quite a bit, even in the same city. There are chargers in my city that are completely free to use, to include 50kW fast chargers. I think the cheapest Level 2 that have a charge, that I've seen are $0.15. Of course, I recall seeing one at a doctor's office where it charges by time, rather than kWh, and if you do the math it is very expensive, more than the fast chargers in the area.

As for the subscriptions, like EVgo and Electrify America, the trick is that typically you can subscribe if you know you are going to be using them on a road trip, and then unsubscribe the following month when you are back home -- I might have missed something but I've not see a minimum amount of time you have to join. And EVgo seems to be more mercenary than Electrify America. Electrify America charges about $6 for their "membership" and charging your car about 60% (say 20% to 80%) gives enough of a discount that your membership is paid for by that one charge. EVgo, with their higher priced plans ($13 for 30% off of charging cost), still gives a discount but it takes a couple of charges in order to "pay off" the membership.