The Triumph of Bidenomics!

[SimplyMe]

I'm running off the assumption that the battery capacity wears down faster based on the weight it's moving. You're correct that mpg in ICE cars is similarly affected.....but capacity isn't.

There is no reason to believe that the weight in the vehicle has any noticeable effect on degradation. The biggest issue for battery degradation is heat -- things like charging the last few percentage of the pack creates heat, removing charge from the battery at the low end creates heat, fast charging the car creates heat. Normal driving of the car does not create much heat, even if the car is fully loaded. In fact, on some cars where the BMS does not have a way to "pre-condition" the battery before charging, there are cases where drivers accelerate rather quickly, then brake hard, then repeat; so that the battery is warm enough (maybe 70 degrees) so that it will fast charge at the maximum speed. The constant yo-you (accelerating and then hard regenerative braking) does help to heat up the battery; driving normally does not warm up the battery all that much.

And, again, that is why the BMS is designed to keep the battery at a "safe" temperature; and why manufactures build packs with a 5 or 10% "buffer" at the top that "can't be charged" (in quotes because that is oversimplified), so that the car won't ever actually be charged to 100% of the full battery, just 100% of the usable battery space, and why when you hit 0% in the battery it is actually maybe at 5%. I suppose the way to look at it, even if your battery takes an hour to charge to 100%, that is still twice as fast (and likely exponentially more heat) than driving your car where the battery will last over two hours at high speed -- even with the car loaded to the top rated weight.

Well let's put it this way....

Your advancements in EVs have largely been made because they're competing with a superior product.

Perhaps Toyota's entry level EV car is better than Chevy's entry level EV and Chevy will need to support advancements that allow it to compete with the Toyota.....but that's likely a much smaller gap than between either of them and an ICE car.

Consider the points we basically agreed on earlier....

1. EVs and similar sized ICEs are comparable in short range drives (with the main difference between the two being price, which is considerably higher).

2. ICEs outperform EVs on long range drives (a point repeatedly reinforced by posters here who have both bought an EV for short drives and bought or kept an ICE for long range drives).

If we want EVs to be adopted by the market they should outperform ICEs in every way....including range and price. By keeping them in competition with ICEs they'll make advancements much faster. On the flip side of that, a lot of advancements have been made in reducing emissions from ICEs and if we want to continue that advancement....we need to keep them in competition with EVs.

That last point is arguably the most important since any scenario wherein ICEs are banned in 1st world nations will result in a reduction in demand and new markets in poorer nations will be pursued with more and more people from places like Brazil and Angola buying their first cars which will inevitably be ICEs.

No offense but I don't think we need to complicate this discussion anymore by adding hydrogen power.

The issue is, there have been no major breakthroughs on ICE cars, it is a "mature" technology. Most of the current "advancements" are using older technology, such as making the engines smaller but adding turbochargers to add more power and reduce emissions (because of the smaller engine while the turbocharger is not needed to provide that extra boost) -- that is a technology from 1905. It is "new" in passenger cars (though it's been used in sports cars for decades) because they are an extra cost to add and they require extra maintenance; but with the push to increase fuel economy and smaller engines, at that point it became worth adding.

To some degree you could claim that auto-start/stop is a new technology, then again it is based around the push button start on cars and that technology was first used in 1912. You just needed the computers, that are now used in all engines/motors, to determine when the car is stopped and turn off the engine, and then a switch -- when the foot hits the gas pedal -- to restart the engine.

The engine "technology" used to help improve efficiency in ICE engines, and mostly used in hybrids, is based on the Atkinson cycle engine, from 1882. Despite being efficient, it produces very little torque which makes cars accelerate slowly. The lack of torque on a hybrid wasn't an issue, since you could add the electric motor to add torque, so that the hybrid would perform decently (thought that is arguable on the Prius until the last few years). I suppose you can claim some modern invention here, as the engineers started realizing they didn't need to use an actual Atkinson cycle engine but use a computer to use a more normal type of engine (most car engines are based on the Otto cycle) and then using the computer to adjust the engine timings when cruising to replicate the Atkinson cycle, so the car could have more power (torque) when accelerating but become more efficient when not needing much torque. Of course, much of the technology was converting fuel injection, which was invented in 1891, and then computerized in the 1980s for use on passenger cars to replace the carburetor, and applying that technology.

Obviously there is some advancement going on -- largely in figuring how to use technologies and computers to increase efficiency of gasoline in an engine; but the base technology is often over 100 years old. The issue is that gasoline engines rely on combustion -- and when you combust gasoline (or other oil based products) most of the power generated is from heat -- and until you can find a way to efficiently gain power from that heat, the engine will always be inefficient.

With EVs, I think it could be argued that there are similar issues with the motors -- EV motors are already highly efficient, so little can be done to improve them. OTOH, as we have talked about on this thread, that is not true of batteries; while batteries have existed as long as the ICE engine (some of the original cars were EVs, until they were beaten out by gas engines). The difference is, since the batteries were beaten out by ICE cars, there was no work done on improving a large battery in a car.

So, now there is a lot of money being spent to improve battery chemistry, both to make the battery more robust, energy dense, and to remove the more problematic metals (such as lithium and nickel). Whether ICE cars are here or not, there is too much money to be gained by a company that figures out how to make a battery that is lighter, more energy dense, and faster charging; even after EVs are the only cars sold (particularly, as other threads have pointed out, you'll still have long-haul trucking and even jets that will retain combustion style engines). And that isn't even counting how a solid-state battery could revolutionize the entire EV industry; which is why there is such a large push to solve the issues.

If we use your logic, Lithium batteries would not have been invented in the 60s, as they weren't even thinking about EVs then, it was simply to improve the current battery technology. They wouldn't have bothered with electronic fuel injection in the 80s, as carburated cars had worked fine for decades. The research will not stop if there aren't ICE cars, there is too much money to be made.

And forgive me for pointing out this fun little fact, since I was talking about carburetors, but one advantage of an EV is in the mountains. Essentially, an ICE car loses 3% of its power for every 1,000 feet it goes above sea level -- so at 5,000 feet (for people living in Denver or Albuquerque) a gas car that is rated at 200 hp only has about 170 hp. By contrast, the EV still has its full power regardless of elevation. Also interesting, because of the increased altitude and less air pressure, the fuel sold at gas stations in the Rocky Mountains is 85 octane for Regular (down from 87) and 91 for Premium (down from 93).

 

[Always in His Presence]

Another triumphant day for Bidenonmics - yessiree

Stock market today: Wall Street falls after hot inflation report

U.S. stocks are sinking Wednesday on worries that what seemed like a blip in the battle to bring down inflation is turning into a trend.

www.wivb.com

 

[Always in His Presence]

LOOK! another Bidenomic Triumph

USPS has been repeatedly increasing rates of many of its mailing services over the past few years to keep up with inflation and the growing cost of doing business.​

​

The new proposal would raise the price of a First-Class Forever stamp from 68 cents to 73 cents​

​

Yay Joe! Great work!

 

[Always in His Presence]

WOW! the good news of Bidenomics just keep coming today

Tom Fitzpatrick, managing director of global market insights at R.J. O'Brien & Associates, said if you take the readings of the last three months and annualize them, you're looking at a supercore inflation rate of more than 8%, far from the Federal Reserve's 2% goal.​

​

Good job Joe!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ours was about $20 a month, after we used up all our solar credit in the winter. Now we're over generating again so the bill is back to $10, the grid hookup fee.

Ty, that's pretty amazing. Obviously it's not going to be the same for everyone but I can see why that's a good option for some.

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOOK! another Bidenomic Triumph

USPS has been repeatedly increasing rates of many of its mailing services over the past few years to keep up with inflation and the growing cost of doing business.​

​

The new proposal would raise the price of a First-Class Forever stamp from 68 cents to 73 cents​

​

Yay Joe! Great work!

Apparently you didn't hear the news...

Biden fixed inflation back when he printed all that money. This is just the new normal prices/cost of doing business lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is no reason to believe that the weight in the vehicle has any noticeable effect on degradation.

Really?

Again, I'm assuming that like any battery, repeatedly charging it will increase its capacity degradation. If you have more weight to move, you'll use more battery charge, require more charging, etc.

I wasn't aware that EV batteries were immune to this effect.

The biggest issue for battery degradation is heat --

Sure, but it's not the only factor.

I'm simply saying that a single adult male driving a chevy Bolt and a guy with a wife and two kids driving the same Bolt....all other things considered equal....the charge on the family of 4 will decrease faster as will its capacity over time.

The issue is, there have been no major breakthroughs on ICE cars, it is a "mature" technology.

Accomplishments and Successes of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States | US EPA

For a history of how air pollution from transportation in the US has been reduced.

www.epa.gov

Most of the current "advancements" are using older technology, such as making the engines smaller but adding turbochargers to add more power and reduce emissions (because of the smaller engine while the turbocharger is not needed to provide that extra boost) -- that is a technology from 1905.

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going to take the EPAs word on this regarding the advancements in both engines and fuels.

To some degree you could claim that auto-start/stop is a new technology, then again it is based around the push button start on cars and that technology was first used in 1912. You just needed the computers, that are now used in all engines/motors, to determine when the car is stopped and turn off the engine, and then a switch -- when the foot hits the gas pedal -- to restart the engine.

That's a good example I wasn't thinking of.

The engine "technology" used to help improve efficiency in ICE engines, and mostly used in hybrids, is based on the Atkinson cycle engine, from 1882.

That seems unlikely...

Do you have a source for it?

Despite being efficient, it produces very little torque which makes cars accelerate slowly. The lack of torque on a hybrid wasn't an issue, since you could add the electric motor to add torque, so that the hybrid would perform decently (thought that is arguable on the Prius until the last few years). I suppose you can claim some modern invention here, as the engineers started realizing they didn't need to use an actual Atkinson cycle engine but use a computer to use a more normal type of engine (most car engines are based on the Otto cycle) and then using the computer to adjust the engine timings when cruising to replicate the Atkinson cycle, so the car could have more power (torque) when accelerating but become more efficient when not needing much torque. Of course, much of the technology was converting fuel injection, which was invented in 1891, and then computerized in the 1980s for use on passenger cars to replace the carburetor, and applying that technology.

I'm going to wait on that source before responding to this.

Obviously there is some advancement going on -- largely in figuring how to use technologies and computers to increase efficiency of gasoline in an engine; but the base technology is often over 100 years old. The issue is that gasoline engines rely on combustion -- and when you combust gasoline (or other oil based products) most of the power generated is from heat -- and until you can find a way to efficiently gain power from that heat, the engine will always be inefficient.

Ok....

Do you think there's a chance that a way of generating power from that escaped heat might have been developed long ago had ICEs had a significant competition that wasn't generating force from combustion?

With EVs, I think it could be argued that there are similar issues with the motors -- EV motors are already highly efficient, so little can be done to improve them. OTOH, as we have talked about on this thread, that is not true of batteries; while batteries have existed as long as the ICE engine (some of the original cars were EVs, until they were beaten out by gas engines). The difference is, since the batteries were beaten out by ICE cars, there was no work done on improving a large battery in a car.

So, now there is a lot of money being spent to improve battery chemistry, both to make the battery more robust, energy dense, and to remove the more problematic metals (such as lithium and nickel).

I didn't know lithium was problematic....I thought it was the cobalt.

Whether ICE cars are here or not, there is too much money to be gained by a company that figures out how to make a battery that is lighter, more energy dense, and faster charging; even after EVs are the only cars sold (particularly, as other threads have pointed out, you'll still have long-haul trucking and even jets that will retain combustion style engines). And that isn't even counting how a solid-state battery could revolutionize the entire EV industry; which is why there is such a large push to solve the issues.

If we use your logic, Lithium batteries would not have been invented in the 60s, as they weren't even thinking about EVs then, it was simply to improve the current battery technology. They wouldn't have bothered with electronic fuel injection in the 80s, as carburated cars had worked fine for decades. The research will not stop if there aren't ICE cars, there is too much money to be made.

Sigh...

I hate to use cheesy idioms but I'm sure you know what the "mother of invention" is....right?

Well the mother of innovation is competition.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where replacement EV batteries aren't covered by any warranty and must be covered by the owner in cases except for accidents where the driver isn't at fault and the other driver is insured.

Do you think EVs would sell in the numbers they currently do....or would most people who bought EVs buy ICE cars instead?

And forgive me for pointing out this fun little fact, since I was talking about carburetors, but one advantage of an EV is in the mountains. Essentially, an ICE car loses 3% of its power for every 1,000 feet it goes above sea level -- so at 5,000 feet (for people living in Denver or Albuquerque) a gas car that is rated at 200 hp only has about 170 hp. By contrast, the EV still has its full power regardless of elevation. Also interesting, because of the increased altitude and less air pressure, the fuel sold at gas stations in the Rocky Mountains is 85 octane for Regular (down from 87) and 91 for Premium (down from 93).

Fascinating.

 

[Ana the Ist]

With inflation back up, the long-predicted storm clouds in the economy may actually be forming | CNN Business

Progress on inflation is moving in the wrong direction.

amp.cnn.com

Even though the current inflation rate is better than last March’s 4.9% rate, it signifies the highly anticipated rate cuts investors were banking on may not come this year. Now, instead, they may need to brace for another rate hike as interest rates stand at a 23-year high.

This could mean that the many influential leaders and economists who long predicted [COLOR=var(--theme-paragraph__link-color)]storm clouds and a hurricane[/COLOR] hitting the US economy may finally be right.

Chief among them is JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, whose [COLOR=var(--theme-paragraph__link-color)]annual shareholder letterhttps://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/investing/jamie-dimon-shareholder-letter-ai-future/index.html this week highlighted “persistent inflationary pressures.” He also expressed skepticism regarding whether the economy will achieve a soft landing, where inflation continues to cool without causing an unemployment spike.[/COLOR]

If one were to believe this administration's propaganda....

1. The economy is fixed...inflation handled.
2. Crime is down....from some earlier year in the administration, not historically.
3. The war in Ukraine is something we need to be involved in....despite the corruption and theft of US tax dollars....despite Biden's previous "stance" on fighting corruption in the Ukraine under Obama by firing that one corruption prosecutor fighting corruption.
4. Education is....actually, I don't know what the administration's position on Education is. It appears they think math, reading, and writing are racist...and the focus should be on learning who to blame for history and figuring out your sexuality as a child.
5. The border crisis is either not a crisis....or someone else's fault....or unsolvable.
6. Higher education is a scam...to fix that....they're just going to make the people who didn't go pay for it.
7. Infrastructure is a nice word that people like....and if you repeat it enough, they'll just create whatever they want it to mean.
8. The president is old...but super smart and definitely running the show. Sure, he may appear lost, forget what he's saying, start speaking gibberish, but these are just "folksy gaffes" and criminal defense strategies that should not only keep him out of jail....but in office.

This is gonna be a rough year.

 

[SimplyMe]

Really?

Again, I'm assuming that like any battery, repeatedly charging it will increase its capacity degradation. If you have more weight to move, you'll use more battery charge, require more charging, etc.

I wasn't aware that EV batteries were immune to this effect.

Sure, but it's not the only factor.

I'm simply saying that a single adult male driving a chevy Bolt and a guy with a wife and two kids driving the same Bolt....all other things considered equal....the charge on the family of 4 will decrease faster as will its capacity over time.

Yes, there are any number of factors, and many are more of an issue than filling the car with people. Again, let's say the EV is 4,000 lbs -- the wife, 2 kids and even adding luggage for a weekend is likely around an extra 400 lbs. That is 10% more weight, but it isn't necessarily 10% more power, as the car is on wheels, it should be on low rolling resistance tires, and so the loss of efficiency would actually be the amount of extra friction on the wheels that the car has to overcome. Sorry, I'm not feeling like doing the physics of it all.

But if we just assume it is the 10% more, that the weight causes an equal amount of drag, how much of the driving over a year has all four people in the car? Again, even assuming it is all the time, then you're talking 10% more power usage. So if we allow the 2%, and add 10% to that, then you're looking at degradation of 2.2%. Of course, that is an absolute worst case that doesn't actually reflect what is really going to happen; the added efficiency losses should not be that great based on the weight alone.

Even using the 10% number, though, while that degradation could be big, if it was that much over several years; then you run into how the degradation curve flattens out over the first few years -- so maybe you're closer to the 10% degradation that was talked about rather than the 5%?

I think bigger factors would be things like cold weather driving, fast charging, wind, how efficiently the car is driven, how well tires are maintained -- all the things we know of in cars that increase fuel usage (whether gas or electric). And pretty much all of those are likely factored in from the links in my previous post -- including those with very quick EVs that get addicted to the power (i.e., do not drive efficiently). I'm not saying it has no effect, instead I'm saying it is relatively minor and already accounted for in the various studies done on degradation.

Accomplishments and Successes of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States | US EPA

For a history of how air pollution from transportation in the US has been reduced.

www.epa.gov

I'm sure you'll understand why I'm going to take the EPAs word on this regarding the advancements in both engines and fuels.

That's fine, though it doesn't really contradict what I stated. To start with, back in the 60s here in the US, most cars came with V8 engines, and cheaper cars still had a 300 cubic inch, or larger, V6. To be fair, they have improved the engines over the last 50 years -- as manufacturers, to meet fuel economy goals, now use a 4 cylinder, 150 cu. in. engine in cars that generate roughly as much horsepower as a 305 cu. in. V6 from the 1960s. I'm not saying that there were no improvements. The catalytic converter was another improvement, though that is now a 50 year old invention.

For a moment I thought Diesel Exhaust Fluid, which started to be required by the EPA in 2010 in smaller diesel vehicles might have been something newer, but apparently it was developed in 1957.

At the same time, one of the big "improvements" was removing lead from fuel -- that is something that could have been done much sooner, just that lead was used to increase octane in gasoline and, prior to the EPA, neither automakers or oil companies felt there was any reason to remove lead.

Of course, it is also interesting that these inventions, from what you state below, came in a time there was "no competition," not even hybrids.

That's a good example I wasn't thinking of.

Again, I'm not saying there was no improvements, just many of the technologies and ideas they used to make those improvements were technology that was fairly old.

That seems unlikely...

Do you have a source for it?

I'm not sure what exactly you are wanting. To try and give a few things, there is this article, "What Is the Atkinson Combustion Cycle, and What Are Its Benefits?" from Car and Driver. There is this from Honda, about why they use an Atkinson engine in the CR-V Hybrid and roughly the same article for the Accord Hybrid. There is an article from the Toyota UK Magazine. I trust that is what you were wanting?

I'm going to wait on that source before responding to this.



Ok....

Do you think there's a chance that a way of generating power from that escaped heat might have been developed long ago had ICEs had a significant competition that wasn't generating force from combustion?

They try, to some degree, though with very limited success (maybe about 5% more efficient); at least from what I understand of the technology. I think part of the issue is that the further gains tend to be offset by the increase in the size and weight of the engine.

I didn't know lithium was problematic....I thought it was the cobalt.

Lithium mining can be an issue. Even with newer and more environmentally clean lithium mines being built in the US, since much of the lithium is in the Western states, causes concerns because it still uses a lot of water in an area with too little water. And yes, cobalt is another they are working on removing.

Sigh...

I hate to use cheesy idioms but I'm sure you know what the "mother of invention" is....right?

Well the mother of innovation is competition.

So, again, what drove the innovation, to improve tailpipe emissions, back in the 70s and 80s -- before there were even plans for any type of EV, to include hybrids? Again, you miss the point that the automotive industry is huge. GM and Ford will want to compete with Toyota and Honda, not to mention Chinese manufacturers that actually produce cheap EVs already. To give an example, the BYD Dolphin Plus, which will soon be built and sold in Mexico, has a range of 250 miles, and costs roughly $23,000 dollars (MXN$398,800). Every indication is that BYD would love to sell cars in the US -- and building them in Mexico is seen as a first step (as being assembled in Mexico prevents them from having the 25% import duty being added by the US).

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where replacement EV batteries aren't covered by any warranty and must be covered by the owner in cases except for accidents where the driver isn't at fault and the other driver is insured.

Do you think EVs would sell in the numbers they currently do....or would most people who bought EVs buy ICE cars instead?

My gut reaction is yes, if for no other reason than many people don't think.

Honestly, from what I've seen -- though there are no hard numbers, manufacturers aren't going to admit to how many battery replacements they do -- battery replacements would not be an issue. While you might point to the issue with the Chevy Bolt, or similar manufacturing issues, those get replaced for free under a recall, even when out of warranty.

I suppose the one piece of evidence that fits, though isn't direct proof, is that an extended warranty for an EV -- one that includes replacing the battery if needed -- is essentially the same cost as a similar warranty for an ICE car; it seems the warranty companies don't worry about having to replace batteries. Anyway, without the long battery warranty, I suspect it might just make nervous EV buyers more likely to get the warranty.

Fascinating.

I suppose now I'll add the one positive to driving at altitude in an ICE vehicle, you have less wind resistance -- of course, that helps EVs, as well, that aren't harmed by the lower air pressure. What I recall hearing is that the wind resistance doubles when you increase your speed from 55 mph to 75 mph.

To quote from this webpage, "More recently, Bridgestone did a study, mostly for the benefit of truckers trying to find the ideal highway speed, and they found that at 75 mph versus 55 mph, over the long term, maintenance costs could increase by 10 to
15 percent, with a corresponding drop in engine durability. They also found that tire life decreased 10 to 30 percent due to the higher speed."

And for the person on the thread that talked about how well his car performs at 75 mph -- "The same study found that when you drop your speed from 75 mph to 55 mph, your mileage improves by almost 40 percent!" They go on to say, "They found that for every mile per hour you increase over 55, you lose an average of 1.6 miles per gallon," though they do note that will vary a bit by the actual car, that some cars might not start losing fuel economy until closer to 60 mph. On, and I'd include the link to the Bridgestone study but the link on the Columbus Dispatch website is no longer working and in a quick search I didn't see the study.

 

[probinson]

This is false.

It is a well-established fact that charing your battery to 100% all the time will shorten its life. It is not false.

Except they're not saying that.

They really are. Your denial doesn't change the manufacturer's recommendations.

Either your articles are right-wing propaganda, or they don't say what you say they say.

All of the articles I've posted have come from EV-friendly sites offering tips for how to extend your battery life. You'd know that if you'd bothered to read any of them.

No, they're really not.

For daily driving. Nobody is saying to never charge to 100%. Nobody.

Maybe nobody in this discussion is saying that, but there are plenty of people saying it. I've posted links to multiple articles (that you've ignored) saying that.

Note the word, "daily". As I keep saying, nobody is saying not to charge to 100%. Nobody. If you need full capacity for longer trips, you're free to use it as necessary. It has no effect on battery life as long as you don't leave it fully-charged for long periods.

Sure, as long as you realize that instead of 15 minutes, it's going to take you closer to an hour to squeeze that last 20% into the battery. I hope there isn't a long line waiting to charge behind you.

I should also point out that you're completely missing the fact that an EV charges going downhill. One longer day trip I make a couple times a year involves charging to 100% overnight, and driving uphill for many miles to the destination. That uses up about 90% of the charge. But if I stay long enough to recharge to, say, 70%, the downhill return trip extends the range considerably. So again, I don't have to wait around to get back to 100%.

You don't have to wait around getting to 100% anyway. Charging to 80% is the recommendation when using fast chargers.

You may think you know things from reading owner's manuals or right-wing articles, but you really don't.

Nothing I've posted has been a "right-wing article", and if you can't learn something from reading an owner's manual or manufacturer's recommendations, what good are they?

You keep saying nobody is saying that you should never charge to 100%. Nobody. Nobody. NOBODY!

But then you admit for "daily driving", which you said was 99% of your EV usage, that you shouldn't charge to 100% (as Tesla recommends). And I've posted multiple articles that say you'll almost certainly get to your destination faster if you only charge to 80% on long road-trips because it takes substantially longer to charge that last 20%. I must conclude then that 99% of the time, your car has 20% less range than advertised. So for "daily driving", don't charge to 100%. For occasional road-trips, don't charge to 100%. What's left?

Here's the thing. I don't even think it's a big deal that you shouldn't normally charge to 100%. As long as there are functional fast-chargers along your route, it's obviously better to only charge to 80% so you're not waiting around for the last 20% to complete. And unless you need that extra range for a local or regional trip, it makes sense to only charge to 80% for your battery's health. THAT is what people need to understand. Trying to convince them that they have 20% more range than is practically available to them in almost every scenario is disingenuous. Trying to say charing to 100% all the time isn't optimal for the battery when the manufacturer's state differently is simply false.

 

[probinson]

You have, repeatedly (though perhaps not intentionally), by focusing so much on how charging on a road trip wasn't any cheaper than gasoline -- and the clear implication that an EV doesn't save you any money.

I have not ignored anything.

Also, an EV that cost me $10k more than an ICE equivalent would not save me any money until year 11 of my ownership. I've showed detailed calculations for my scenario.

As I stated, the best way is not to charge to 80% at a fast charger -- unless the next charger you want to go to is that far away; and if that is the case, you can still charge to 100% (though you will get the time penalty).

That time penalty is quite significant. It might be the difference between 15 minutes and an hour.

Yes, and no. My car, as of this morning, claimed a range of 265 miles at 80%; the amount of miles it claims it can go uses how efficiently you've been driving. I then drove slightly over 25 miles (maybe 26?) today. Unless I'm taking a trip, I never drive even 200 miles in a day. Now, if there was a day I did need to drive over 200 miles, then I could easily charge to 100% before leaving and I'd have my full range.

As you left home. This would only be beneficial if you returned home within the full 100% range. Otherwise, you would charge to 80% for your return trip home.

To use another analogy, think of your cell phone. I personally use the option to limit how much my phone will charge -- only to 80% -- because I want my battery to last,

I've been told that it's "false" that charging your battery to 100% reduces its life. I'm glad to see you recognize that's not the case.

You mentioned earlier that you thought it was stupid to lease an EV

Actually, what I said was that I find it foolish to lease ANY car.

-- but that is one reason I've heard people lease. These same people that don't try to take care of the battery in their phone, because they'll buy a new one, want to charge their car to 100% every day -- so they lease the car so they can just turn it back in and not worry about the battery degrading.

So am I to read then that you agree that constantly charging your EV's battery to 100% will degrade the battery?

Of course, in some cases it isn't just about the battery, but the idea that EVs are still advancing quickly and, in three years, they expect a new EV will have more range, faster charging, etc; and this way they aren't stuck owning an outdated EV.

That's probably why a lot of people aren't buying EVs right now.

So, yes, if you follow recommendations, then you can argue that EV range is "effectively overstated by 20%." OTOH, just as we know you don't follow the recommendations of experts who claim you should take frequent breaks while traveling long distance, there are those who don't want the 80% limit in their car and ignore the recommendations. And, like me, for most people following the recommendations doesn't make a difference, since they only need the full range a few times a year.

Your latter point about the 20% reduction in range not making a difference is what needs to be focused on.

But, again, most people take one of two road trips a year

I'm not sure who think "most people" are, but I'm not sure you have your finger on the pulse of "most people". I only take one or two vacations per year, but this year, I'll make about 10 very long drives. It's why despite working from home and having everything I need within minutes of my home, I still manage to put 15k miles/year on my car.

-- and typically if it is close to a thousand miles they'll fly anyway (or many will).

It's fascinating driving on the Interstate and seeing where people were from. Just the other day, I saw an Alaska plate on the Interstate here in PA. When traveling to Florida, we usually see 45 or more states represented on the highways. A LOT of people drive long distances.

95% of driving for most people is local. I suspect that even with you, 90% of the time you get up in the morning it is at your home.

95% of statistics are also just made up on the spot.

Nope, what we seem to have found -- if you actually compare equivalent cars -- the difference is as much as around $10K, not the minimum.

Regardless of whether you think that's the minimum or the maximum, you glossed over the point that $10k can buy an awful lot of gas.

I'm sorry, I didn't claim the EV was "far cheaper." I said the cost of "fueling" the car was far cheaper for the EV, over a year, than for a gas car

Again, that depends on your purchase price. If you have to pay a premium of $10k for the privilege of owning an EV, you aren't "saving" anything in fueling your car for at least a few years.

-- though to keep you happy I'll add the caveat that you must have a place where you can charge the car each night. Please don't take my comments out of context.

I'm not taking your comments out of context. I am talking about the cost of ownership, and I think most people would be surprised when they look at how much it costs to own an EV vs. an ICE vehicle. I know I was. I was rather shocked to see that I would only save about $900/year with an EV. And when you factor in the higher price of the EV, I would actually not save ANYTHING until year 11 of ownership.

It is entirely dependent on how much of a premium you pay for your EV whether you will save money or not. If you buy a base-level Bolt, you will recognize savings almost immediately because of its low MSRP. But the Bolt is an outlier on cost. Most EVs are substantially more expensive than equivalent ICE vehicles, and while it might make people feel good to say they're "saving" money because they don't have to pay to put gas in it, they simply paid it in the purchase price instead.

Also, it's not free to charge your car anywhere. With a modest electric rate of around $0.17/mile, if you use the "average" of 336 kWh per month for charging, that's around $57/month in electricity costs for home charging. Most people spend considerably more than that on gas each month, but oftentimes that is presented simply as "you won't have to pay for gas!" and conveniently leaves out "but you will pay a higher electric bill".

Every person should decide for themselves whether an EV is right for them or not by looking at their driving habits, how much gas is vs. electricity, what distance they need to drive and more. And in many cases, an EV loses its luster when you consider the entire cost of ownership.

 

[Always in His Presence]

When did we go from Bidenomics - to the car owners guide to saying the same thing repeatedly?

 

[probinson]

Regarding overall cost of ownership, it's also important to note that insurance on an EV is an average of 20% higher than ICE vehicles. From my earlier example, I showed that annually, I would save about $900 on gas in my situation. But if my car insurance increased 20%, I'd pay ~$300 more for insurance. Now the overall "savings" of the EV is reduced to just $600/year, meaning that it would take over 16-1/2 years to break even on an EV that cost $10k more.

 

[Occams Barber]

Regarding overall cost of ownership, it's also important to note that insurance on an EV is an average of 20% higher than ICE vehicles. From my earlier example, I showed that annually, I would save about $900 on gas in my situation. But if my car insurance increased 20%, I'd pay ~$300 more for insurance. Now the overall "savings" of the EV is reduced to just $600/year, meaning that it would take over 16-1/2 years to break even on an EV that cost $10k more.

Did you read the entire article?

You appear to have missed this bit.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, insuring an EV can cost up to 20% more than a gas-powered car. ​

​

But even that is changing.​

​

“When [electric vehicles] were newer, there were fewer repair shops [that could handle them],” Janet Ruiz, director of strategic communications at the Insurance Information Institute, told CNBC Select. “The batteries alone were quite a bit more expensive.”​

​

As EVs have become more ubiquitous, Ruiz added, “we’re seeing insurance for electric cars come closer to those for gas-powered cars.”​

OB

 

[probinson]

And for the person on the thread that talked about how well his car performs at 75 mph -- "The same study found that when you drop your speed from 75 mph to 55 mph, your mileage improves by almost 40 percent!" They go on to say, "They found that for every mile per hour you increase over 55, you lose an average of 1.6 miles per gallon," though they do note that will vary a bit by the actual car, that some cars might not start losing fuel economy until closer to 60 mph. On, and I'd include the link to the Bridgestone study but the link on the Columbus Dispatch website is no longer working and in a quick search I didn't see the study.

Yeah, that study's not there any more. I've looked and it's just gone.

Also, I'm pretty sure that you cannot generalize results from a semi-truck to a passenger car. For example, the claim that you lose 1.6 miles per gallon for every mile per hour you increase over 55 is utter nonsense. If you're traveling 20 mph over 55 (75 mph), that would mean that you're losing 32 MPG, which is completely ludicrous.

I don't doubt that some fuel economy is lost the faster you drive, but much like with an electric car, your range and fuel economy is dependent on a whole myriad of factors.

For example, my K5 is rated at 25 city/33 highway/28 combined. These highway ratings are calculated at or below 60mph, and fueleconomy.gov says that for every 5 mph over 60 you drive, you lose 7% of your fuel economy. This would imply that driving at 75mph will reduce your fuel economy by 21%. Yet at highway speeds of 75 mph with my cruise set, I can easily get 34-36 MPG, which is GREATER than the advertised MPG.

Driving faster can certainly reduce fuel economy, but not in a meaningful way if you're driving habits are otherwise good. Could you get better fuel economy if you drove 60 mph everywhere you went? Maybe, but it'd take you a heckuva lot longer to get where you were going, especially on a long road trip, and any savings would probably be negligible.

 

[probinson]

Did you read the entire article?

You appear to have missed this bit.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, insuring an EV can cost up to 20% more than a gas-powered car. ​

​

But even that is changing.​

​

“When [electric vehicles] were newer, there were fewer repair shops [that could handle them],” Janet Ruiz, director of strategic communications at the Insurance Information Institute, told CNBC Select. “The batteries alone were quite a bit more expensive.”​

​

As EVs have become more ubiquitous, Ruiz added, “we’re seeing insurance for electric cars come closer to those for gas-powered cars.”​

OB

Why yes I did. And I linked it so others could read the entire article as well.

So while insurance for EVs may be "coming closer" to ICE vehicles, that does not negate the fact that if you buy an EV today, you're likely to pay 20% more for your car insurance. That may change in the future, but it's the reality for right now.

 

[Pommer]

It is a well-established fact that charing your battery to 100% all the time will shorten its life. It is not false.

I think what is “false” here is that no-one ever does this, even though the facts are true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, there are any number of factors, and many are more of an issue than filling the car with people. Again, let's say the EV is 4,000 lbs -- the wife, 2 kids and even adding luggage for a weekend is likely around an extra 400 lbs. That is 10% more weight, but it isn't necessarily 10% more power, as the car is on wheels, it should be on low rolling resistance tires, and so the loss of efficiency would actually be the amount of extra friction on the wheels that the car has to overcome. Sorry, I'm not feeling like doing the physics of it all.

You don't need to do the physics of it all...

We agree that the battery capacity in the Bolt carrying the family of 4 would be drained faster.....right?

Even using the 10% number, though, while that degradation could be big, if it was that much over several years; then you run into how the degradation curve flattens out over the first few years -- so maybe you're closer to the 10% degradation that was talked about rather than the 5%?

You still haven't provided that research, have you?

I only found research showing degradation speeds up...not it slowing down.

I'm not saying it has no effect, instead I'm saying it is relatively minor and already accounted for in the various studies done on degradation.

Ok...do you have any of that research?

That's fine, though it doesn't really contradict what I stated. To start with, back in the 60s here in the US, most cars came with V8 engines, and cheaper cars still had a 300 cubic inch, or larger, V6. To be fair, they have improved the engines over the last 50 years -- as manufacturers, to meet fuel economy goals, now use a 4 cylinder, 150 cu. in. engine in cars that generate roughly as much horsepower as a 305 cu. in. V6 from the 1960s. I'm not saying that there were no improvements. The catalytic converter was another improvement, though that is now a 50 year old invention.

Right....and these had to be implemented by law. Auto makers had to be required by law to do this because ICEs had no competition. The idea that these steady constant improvements would be made normally without competition where the flaw in your thinking is.

You can see it in virtually any market that has a significantly engineered or high tech. Military weaponry is one of the most obvious but it's still a good example.

You seem to think that companies will continue dumping vast amounts of capital on battery tech when range can be achieved more easily and cheaply by using lighter/cheaper parts even if it's at the cost of safety.

Spending hundreds of millions if not billions on a better battery that may or may not even be created is much riskier than finding 200-300lbs to shave off the vehicle even if it means your 4 star safety rating drops to 3.

For a moment I thought Diesel Exhaust Fluid, which started to be required by the EPA in 2010 in smaller diesel vehicles might have been something newer, but apparently it was developed in 1957.

At the same time, one of the big "improvements" was removing lead from fuel -- that is something that could have been done much sooner, just that lead was used to increase octane in gasoline and, prior to the EPA, neither automakers or oil companies felt there was any reason to remove lead.

Again...you have the government intervening in the market to push innovation because of a lack of competition. People who don't understand capitalism (I'm not saying you're one of them) think that only supply and demand are necessary market forces required for free markets to work....but they aren't. Competition is required if you want to continue to see increases in product value.

Of course, it is also interesting that these inventions, from what you state below, came in a time there was "no competition," not even hybrids.

No competition for ICEs....no.

Again, I'm not saying there was no improvements, just many of the technologies and ideas they used to make those improvements were technology that was fairly old.

Ok...I'm not sure why you think that's a great point. Catalytic converters were indeed far older than I realized and certainly, the technology to implement them into personal vehicles probably didn't exist until the late 60s early 70s. If you ask yourself why it took so long....I'd consider that without having any competition for the ICE, government mandates would be the necessary motivation.

I'm not sure what exactly you are wanting. To try and give a few things, there is this article, "What Is the Atkinson Combustion Cycle, and What Are Its Benefits?" from Car and Driver. There is this from Honda, about why they use an Atkinson engine in the CR-V Hybrid and roughly the same article for the Accord Hybrid. There is an article from the Toyota UK Magazine. I trust that is what you were wanting?

Yes, ty, I'm not really a gear head.

You seemed to be suggesting that the technology was essentially dead in regards to advancements because the same design elements in the piston/valve setup were present in the late 1800s.


It's a bit like claiming this gun...

And this gun...

Are basically the same because they share the same basic design features.

They try, to some degree, though with very limited success (maybe about 5% more efficient); at least from what I understand of the technology. I think part of the issue is that the further gains tend to be offset by the increase in the size and weight of the engine.



Lithium mining can be an issue. Even with newer and more environmentally clean lithium mines being built in the US, since much of the lithium is in the Western states, causes concerns because it still uses a lot of water in an area with too little water. And yes, cobalt is another they are working on removing.

Removing?

So, again, what drove the innovation, to improve tailpipe emissions, back in the 70s and 80s -- before there were even plans for any type of EV, to include hybrids?

Government mandates...certainly not Toyota trying to get an edge on Ford.

Again, you miss the point that the automotive industry is huge. GM and Ford will want to compete with Toyota and Honda, not to mention Chinese manufacturers that actually produce cheap EVs already.

I don't think we'll be buying Chinese EVs anytime soon.

To give an example, the BYD Dolphin Plus, which will soon be built and sold in Mexico, has a range of 250 miles, and costs roughly $23,000 dollars (MXN$398,800). Every indication is that BYD would love to sell cars in the US -- and building them in Mexico is seen as a first step (as being assembled in Mexico prevents them from having the 25% import duty being added by the US).

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

If you understand why that happened....I wouldn't hold your breath for Chinese EVs.

My gut reaction is yes, if for no other reason than many people don't think.

Well, I'm inclined to disagree lol...car companies don't care about the environment, they care about profits, so if they could sell a comparable number without the warranty....they would.

Honestly, from what I've seen -- though there are no hard numbers, manufacturers aren't going to admit to how many battery replacements they do -- battery replacements would not be an issue. While you might point to the issue with the Chevy Bolt, or similar manufacturing issues, those get replaced for free under a recall, even when out of warranty.

I suppose the one piece of evidence that fits, though isn't direct proof, is that an extended warranty for an EV -- one that includes replacing the battery if needed -- is essentially the same cost as a similar warranty for an ICE car; it seems the warranty companies don't worry about having to replace batteries. Anyway, without the long battery warranty, I suspect it might just make nervous EV buyers more likely to get the warranty.

I'll take your word for it.

I suppose now I'll add the one positive to driving at altitude in an ICE vehicle, you have less wind resistance -- of course, that helps EVs, as well, that aren't harmed by the lower air pressure. What I recall hearing is that the wind resistance doubles when you increase your speed from 55 mph to 75 mph.

To quote from this webpage, "More recently, Bridgestone did a study, mostly for the benefit of truckers trying to find the ideal highway speed, and they found that at 75 mph versus 55 mph, over the long term, maintenance costs could increase by 10 to
15 percent, with a corresponding drop in engine durability. They also found that tire life decreased 10 to 30 percent due to the higher speed."

And for the person on the thread that talked about how well his car performs at 75 mph -- "The same study found that when you drop your speed from 75 mph to 55 mph, your mileage improves by almost 40 percent!" They go on to say, "They found that for every mile per hour you increase over 55, you lose an average of 1.6 miles per gallon," though they do note that will vary a bit by the actual car, that some cars might not start losing fuel economy until closer to 60 mph. On, and I'd include the link to the Bridgestone study but the link on the Columbus Dispatch website is no longer working and in a quick search I didn't see the study.

You appear to have gathered a lot of data on EV battery performance, mph, range, capacity, etc and I'm not entirely sure why lol....we appear to largely agree on EVs.

 

[probinson]

I think what is “false” here is that no-one ever does this, even though the facts are true.

Nobody does what? Charge their EV to 100% on a regular basis? That's what I've been saying all along. Most manufacturer recommendations are to charge to 80%. This effectively reduces the advertised range of the EV by 20%.

The argument has been that you "can" charge to 100% if you need to, but that seems to be exceedingly rare.

 

[Pommer]

Nobody does what? Charge their EV to 100% on a regular basis? That's what I've been saying all along. Most manufacturer recommendations are to charge to 80%. This effectively reduces the advertised range of the EV by 20%.

The argument has been that you "can" charge to 100% if you need to, but that seems to be exceedingly rare.

Forgive me, I should not have entered the thread, please enjoy dissing EVs to your heart’s content.