How far does an EV have to go before it will sell?

[Lloyd]

Hi Lloyd,

Others have estimated a cross-section for the Model S as 25% greater, and the cd is 28% less. So 1.25 * .72= .90.

Larry

I get 37% less for the cd, and I doubt that the cross section is 25 % greater especially with the hydraulic suspension to lower it at highway speeds. It will be interesting to see what it actually comes out as!

 

[TEG]

I am a tad surprised if Model S really does get .22
That is really, really good, and although it seems to have clean lines, I wouldn't have eyeball predicted it would be ~that~ good.

 

[Norbert]

I am a tad surprised if Model S really does get .22
That is really, really good, and although it seems to have clean lines, I wouldn't have eyeball predicted it would be ~that~ good.

Might require the aerodynamic wheels.

 

[Norbert]

Regarding the range in EPA vs. ideal miles: As far as I understood, recent statements are that the *EPA* range might be 310 or even 320 miles (with currently used testing methods).

 

[GSP]

I am a tad surprised if Model S really does get .22
That is really, really good....

I was think along the same lines. I don't think Tesla had the capital to invest in hundreds, or thousands, of wind tunnel hours that is usually required to get the best aerodynamics, with lowest drag, lift, and noise. So I am skeptical of 0.22. However, the S has flush door handles, no gas or electric fill opening, no exhaust system, and minimal radiator air flow requirements. Also, maybe Elon got some talented aerodynamicist from SpaceX to help out. So excellent results are indeed possible on a tight budget.

GSP

 

[JRP3]

Again, for me, it's not about needing range to do one long trip, it's about being flexible enough not to be tied to a plug if I can't or for some reason don't WANT to be. There are a lot of EV enthusiasts here so it may all seem like crazy-talk, but I'd be willing to bet once EVs hit the mainstream, that becomes a consistent theme.

That's crazy talk :biggrin: There are really two components to widespread EV adoption and this discussion is missing one, price. I've always seen EV acceptance as a convergence between range and price, it's going to be different for everyone but I think a real world range between 150-200 miles and a price around $35K really gets the ball rolling, especially as charge points become more common. Of course I drive around in an EV with a 50 mile max range so what do I know

 

[richkae]

To return to the original question:
Here are some wild ass guesses for 4 EVs ( one that is fantasy ) of the number of people that would very strongly consider purchasing today if in their price range:
1. 100 mile ( highway 80 ) range: about 5%
2. 160 mile ( highway 128 ) range: about 10%
3. 300 mile ( highway 240 ) range: about 15%
4. 500 mile ( highway 400 ) range: about 20%

But there are 5 primary variables at play:
1. Price of a gallon of gas
2. Average MPG of comparable new cars.
3. Payback time ( Price premium for the EV combined with 1&2 )
4. Density of high speed charging.
5. Range of the EV

Todays values:
1. Gas $4
2. Average mpg: 30
3. Payback time range depending on model: 4-8 years
4. High speed charging: very little
Only a minority of people will give up the convenience of their ICE car, nor will they think long term about their costs.
However, 10% of cars sold is 1.4 million, and that is a big enough market to succeed.

Change the scenario to 5 years in the future, good estimates based on current trends:
1. Gallon of gas $6
2. Average new car MPG 35
3. Price premium also comes down a little: payback time 2-4 years
4. High speed charging: every 100-200 miles

New wild ass guesses for the same EVs:
1. 100 mile ( highway 80 ) range: about 15%
2. 160 mile ( highway 128 ) range: about 25%
3. 300 mile ( highway 240 ) range: about 50%
4. 500 mile ( highway 400 ) range: about 70%

Change the scenario to 10 years in the future:
1. Gallon of gas $9+
2. Average new car MPG 45
3. Payback time: saving money in the first year
4. High speed charging: every 50 miles

New wild ass guesses for the same EVs:
1. 100 mile ( highway 80 ) range: about 40%
2. 160 mile ( highway 128 ) range: about 70%
3. 300 mile ( highway 240 ) range: about 90%
4. 500 mile ( highway 400 ) range: about 98%

 

[tdelta1000]

I've always held that even if they can't get huge range, EVs could be more acceptable with more chargers and faster charging. If you only have 200 miles of range but can stop just about anywhere and juice up in 10-15 minutes I think more people would see having an EV as less of a compromise.

I agree with your view. Once the infrastructure fully comes online maybe then EVs will get the acclaim they deserve.

 

[JRP3]

3. Payback time ( Price premium for the EV combined with 1&2 )

I know people talk about payback time but I argue this is a false concept. People buy vehicles in their price range with maybe a few thousand dollar variation each way for the most part. People shopping for a $20K car do no suddenly jump to a $30K car, be it ICE or EV. What's the payback time for buying a Camry instead of a Corolla? Or getting thousands of dollars of options instead of the base model? It never really gets paid back at all, other than whatever percieved benefit you place on the different features. I argue that only an EV gives immediate payback in lower operating costs the minute you drive it off the lot compared to other vehicles in the same price range.

 

[richkae]

I agree with your view. Once the infrastructure fully comes online maybe then EVs will get the acclaim they deserve.

Unfortunately recharging 200 miles in 10 minutes is at least 300 kW - which is 600 amps at 500 volts. We are not likely to see that any time soon.
Charging is slower than filling up with gas.
There is a convenience penalty on long trips for EVs - in the future the question will be: "How much more are you willing to spend on that gas car to speed up your refueling time."
With a 500 mile range EV and 45 minute recharge stops, some people ( a minority ) will still pay a premium for gasoline convenience - when the premium gets too high, even they will stop.

 

[Mycroft]

I agree JRP3, once electrics with 150-200 real world miles range hits around 30k, people of lesser means will stretch to buy it. I'm certainly stretching to buy my Sport Model S.

 

[richkae]

I know people talk about payback time but I argue this is a false concept. People buy vehicles in their price range with maybe a few thousand dollar variation each way for the most part. People shopping for a $20K car do no suddenly jump to a $30K car, be it ICE or EV. What's the payback time for buying a Camry instead of a Corolla? Or getting thousands of dollars of options instead of the base model? It never really gets paid back at all, other than whatever percieved benefit you place on the different features. I argue that only an EV gives immediate payback in lower operating costs the minute you drive it off the lot compared to other vehicles in the same price range.

I agree. That is why you notice that I capped the number of people willing to consider any EV today at about 20% because most people will not look at the long term - but some will: the 20%.
But in 10 years when the payback is immediate or within a time horizon most people understand ( before the end of the year ) then the adoption rate will soar.

 

[Norbert]

Price was certainly missing from the discussion, yet price doesn't replace fast-charging (until perhaps we have affordable 1000 mile batteries, and it will be a long time until we have a range of 800-1000 miles, and even longer until they are affordable). Fast charging allows batteries with a lower range and thus also with a lower price, for an increasingly large percentage of the population. We have heard that Tesla sees fast-charging with eventually more than 90 kW in the future.

Quite a few EV enthusiasts are active as advocates because they owned (or leased) EVs in the past and have been happy with them. Those who have been happy with a certain range and home charging promote that, those who have been happy with 7 kW charging promote that, and those who have been happy with instances of about 20 kW will promote that. Many in each group think that those who want more are just confused about what they really need, and think it would be sufficient to pull up the 40 mile average daily distance number. And then later concede that this might allow only for EVs as a second car (though those are a lot in the US). A range of 100 miles without fast charging means that you have to return from any trip after usually less than hour (since the battery needs to take you both ways), unless you want to spend half the day waiting for a Level 2 charger (or happen to stay in one place for many hours anyway, which even would imply that the whole landscape of such places is filled with L2 chargers, especially once EVs exist in significant numbers).

So I think each additional combination of the variables price, range, and fast-charging speed/availability, will have a corresponding large group who will consider EVs as soon as that combination is supported.

There is the idea that public transportation will replace the need to make long range trips with cars. Perhaps routine (business) trips, and that might be a good number, but otherwise high speed rail often competes with the airplane. I'd put more hope in public transportation to replace daily commuting and rush hours. More people might not *need* a car at all (at least not to get to work), or only need one car instead of two (and be fine with using car sharing or even a bicycle when needed).

Then there seems to be an imperative that says: you should buy only the range that you need for your daily driving routine. That won't fly with the mainstream (fortunately), people want cars to be fun, and to be able to visit places using the car, not just drive around in the suburb.

EVs already drive motivation especially for solar energy, of course also for other renewable forms of energy, and will do so even more once the mainstream accepts them as supporting the *full spectrum* of what a "real" car can do.

That means an ASAP for each combination of price, range, and fast-charging speed/availability. And, of course, once quality standards are met, the possibility to buy EVs without the traditional niche-car waiting line.

 

[dmckinstry]

I had a very interesting experience when looking at the Fisker Karma the other day. Part of their sales pitch is "50 miles on battery, and still another 250 on gas!"....Of course, the Fisker manager was a little floored when I said "My Model S Sig will do 320 miles on battery!" and a few other people around nodded and smiled. Now that was an EV crowd as it was at a chargepoint ribbon cutting event, but it was still something of a revelation to many of them that a ZEV could outlast a hybrid and, in fact, many ICE's.

Oooooh! You've got a little nasty streak, picking on the poor Fisker manager.
But back to your original question.

For me it has to have enough to go about 25% further than the distance to next charge station (preferably rapid charge, but if the last stop of the day to an RV park with a NEMA 14-50).

 

[JRP3]

Price was certainly missing from the discussion, yet price doesn't replace fast-charging (until perhaps we have affordable 1000 mile batteries, and it will be a long time until we have a range of 800-1000 miles, and even longer until they are affordable).

800-1000 mile batteries? Most ICE vehicles can't do that, and probably 0.001% of the population even cares about that kind of range. I doubt we'll ever have those types of batteries and I doubt anyone will ever care. The idea that we must have unlimited travel on a whim is a relic from a time of cheap abundant oil. Insisting that EV's must recreate this somewhat unrealistic capability that is almost never used seems more than a little misguided. Sure some higher end vehicles such as Tesla produces and a network of fast charge stations can come close but I don't think vehicles for the masses ever will, nor do they need to.

 

[surfingslovak]

That would be quite sad. Doesn't Tesla state the roadster gets 245 miles? The EPA rated it at 244 miles, which makes Tesla 99% accurate with their stated mileage. I should hope that they don't slip down to being only 68% accurate. That would put the 300m pack at just over 200 miles of range.

Appreciate the discussion on this thread, but you might want to read this article.

I believe that the application of new EPA standards along with a new test cycle is a foregone conclusion. Much like Nissan, Tesla might be able to continue to advertise a longer range until the EPA and FTC come to an agreement on standards for alternative fuel vehicles.

EPA change could chop Tesla's range by 30% - San Francisco Business Times

 

[Norbert]

800-1000 mile batteries? Most ICE vehicles can't do that, and probably 0.001% of the population even cares about that kind of range. I doubt we'll ever have those types of batteries and I doubt anyone will ever care. The idea that we must have unlimited travel on a whim is a relic from a time of cheap abundant oil. Insisting that EV's must recreate this somewhat unrealistic capability that is almost never used seems more than a little misguided. Sure some higher end vehicles such as Tesla produces and a network of fast charge stations can come close but I don't think vehicles for the masses ever will, nor do they need to.

Most ICEs can't do that, but they can refill in a few minutes. So I am not saying that we need that range, but that some percentage of people will want the ability to fast charge as long as the range is lower than what you can travel in one day. For example, while I'm not sure if it is the same in the US, but in Europe people do make 10 hour trips when going in vacation (changing drivers in between), and wouldn't want to book a hotel along the way, which would also mean loosing 2 days of the vacation.

Even if you would think that number is lower (considering that the 65 mph or 70 mph range is lower than EPA), the same arguments apply just as well.

 

[Norbert]

For example, to go from San Francisco to San Diego, a trip you could easily do in one day, without fast-charging you'd already need about an 800 mile battery if you want to keep a margin that's nice for the battery and range anxiety. EDIT: Actually, a 1000 mile battery would be better so you can use "standard" mode as opposed to "range" mode, and drive at the speed most people do.

 

[Norbert]

Appreciate the discussion on this thread, but you might want to read this article.

I believe that the application of new EPA standards along with a new test cycle is a foregone conclusion. Much like Nissan, Tesla might be able to continue to advertise a longer range until the EPA and FTC to an agreement on a new set of standards for alternative fuel vehicles.

EPA change could chop Tesla's range by 30% - San Francisco Business Times

No, while I'm not a Roadster owner to know from practice, the calculations here are based on a comparison to the Roadster numbers, so if they are calculated in the same way, we can at least assume a number of about 310 to 320 miles. EDIT: We are already applying a conversion factor when calculating highway speed range.

 

[AnOutsider]

800-1000 mile batteries? Most ICE vehicles can't do that, and probably 0.001% of the population even cares about that kind of range.

Most ICEs can't do that, but they can refill in a few minutes.

Precisely -- AND their fueling options are plenty. Which goes back to my original statement that a charging network and faster charging times would make a big difference.

Appreciate the discussion on this thread, but you might want to read this article.

That was from 2010, when are these new standards supposed to be introduced (if they are)? Here in 2011 the EPA range is definitely not 70% of what Tesla advertises