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

[surfingslovak]

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

The Roadster us quite obviously using the old EPA test cycle, that's the whole point. The new test standard has been applied to all competing BEVs and PHEVs and I would fully expect it to apply to Model S as well. Even with superior aerodynamics, the EPA will likely significantly revise the range estimates Tesla has been using to date.

Do your own due diligence and understand that the term "EPA" is only meaningful when you know which test cycle is being used. I believe that the new standard is applicable to all gas cars starting with the 2008 model year. In my experience, it yields much more realistic range numbers for BEVs.

 

[Norbert]

In my experience, it yields much more realistic range numbers for BEVs.

It appears to depend on how you drive and the appliances you use. The Leaf (at that time without a winter package which would heat the battery) came out when temperatures were cold, which contributed to the impression that the EPA numbers were more realistic than others. However at warmer temperatures, Leaf owners report higher ranges, except on the highway at speeds above 55 mph or so.

 

[AnOutsider]

The Roadster us quite obviously using the old EPA test cycle, that's the whole point. The new test standard has been applied to all competing BEVs and PHEVs and I would fully expect it to apply to Model S as well. Even with superior aerodynamics, the EPA will likely significantly revise the range estimates Tesla has been using to date.

Do your own due diligence and understand that the term "EPA" is only meaningful when you know which test cycle is being used. I believe that the new standard is applicable to all gas cars starting with the 2008 model year. In my experience, it yields much more realistic range numbers for BEVs.

Ok, you keep reiterating that, and we get it. I asked a simple question of when it was going into effect. I asked that because if it has already gone into effect (as you seem to imply), then I would HOPE that Tesla would take the new tests into consideration when designing and marketing the car. So back to my original statement: I'd be sad if not.

 

[Norbert]

I asked that because if it has already gone into effect (as you seem to imply), then I would HOPE that Tesla would take the new tests into consideration when designing and marketing the car.

It would sound as if those things are still in discussion. Also, Volt fans are claiming to often get 40-50 miles (EPA 35), Fisker appears to prefer the german TUV measurement of 50 miles not only because it is higher (EPA 32 or so), and Leaf owners are claiming to often approach or even surpass (the latter with appropriate driving techniques) 100 miles (EPA 73).

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think we are looking a bit too far ahead in terms of trying to satisfy the marginal demand (people who make 500+ mile trips in one day). Only about 10% of summer trips in the US are 500+ miles (this includes both train and air travel); the actual percentage in terms of drivers in their own vehicles will be even less (you have to take out the train/air/renters and also factor in drivers that don't make summer trips at all). These people will be the last holdouts against buying a BEV, simply because it won't make the trip (they have a real necessity).
http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey/summer_travel.html

I think the initial market will be big enough even with limited range / quick charging stations, as long as prices drop to family car levels ($20-30k). Lots of new tech survey quite badly in terms of adoption/acceptability (people say it's completely useless for their needs and too expensive; most recent one I can think of is the iPad), but as soon as adoption passes a certain point, then some of the perceived disadvantages and initial requirements start to matter less in contrast to the advantages (plus the technology improves to address them).

It seems lots of people would seriously start looking at BEVs if they had 150-200 miles of range and came in around $20-30k or less. There's going to be balance struck between the range/cost and the advantage of home recharging. The other sizable market that's missing from a simple range analysis are people without garages (public charging is more important for them than range). I think it makes much more sense for automakers to open up these markets rather than focusing on the relatively few that make long trips (although naysayers will always like to focus on this). Mainly cost will be one of the most upfront considerations; if it's outside the buyer's budget, it doesn't matter how much range it has or how fast it charges.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It would sound as if those things are still in discussion. Also, Volt fans are claiming to often get 40-50 miles (EPA 35), Fisker appears to prefer the german TUV measurement of 50 miles not only because it is higher (EPA 32 or so), and Leaf owners are claiming to often approach or even surpass (the latter with appropriate driving techniques) 100 miles (EPA 73).

In terms of the official sticker rating, things are no longer still in discussion. Both the Leaf's and the Volt's efficiency tests were done under the pre-2008 2 cycle EPA test (same one Tesla gets 245 miles of range). It was then "adjusted" to comply with the new post-2008 5 cycle EPA test by lobbing off 30% of the resulting number (AKA multiplying by 0.7). The EPA then applied that "adjusted" number to figure out the range of both vehicles (Volt 32, Leaf 73).
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2433

There's no detail on the Karma, but similarly they have either done the 5 cycle test directly or got the same "adjusted" 2 cycle. The TUV / Euro cycle test posted by Fisker is just noise and has no applicability in the US (it's neither 5 cycle nor 2 cycle). If we assume the 32 miles EPA is "adjusted" 2 cycle, their unadjusted number would be 32/0.7 = 45.7 miles, not the 51.6 miles they got on the TUV / Euro cycle.

What's weird about Tesla's sticker is that their efficiency number (30kWh/100mile, corresponding to ~176-186 miles of range depending on what number you use for full capacity) had always been under the "adjusted" 2 cycle. However, somehow the EPA applied only the unadjusted 2 cycle result to get the range figure of 245 miles, rather than ~176-186 miles. So somehow Tesla got an exemption (maybe because the Roadster was available before 2008?) or the stickers we see on the internet aren't correct.

I fully expect Model S to either be tested under "adjusted" 2 cycle or 5 cycles. I can't imagine them getting away with just a 2 cycle test. To get their claimed range the 42kWh/160mile version would have to get 26kWh/100miles; the other two options would have to get 28kWh/100miles. That seems achievable, although the Model S would have be more efficient than the Roadster, Leaf, and the Volt.

 

[Norbert]

I think we are looking a bit too far ahead in terms of trying to satisfy the marginal demand (people who make 500+ mile trips in one day). Only about 10% of summer trips in the US are 500+ miles (this includes both train and air travel); the actual percentage in terms of drivers in their own vehicles will be even less (you have to take out the train/air/renters and also factor in drivers that don't make summer trips at all). These people will be the last holdouts against buying a BEV, simply because it won't make the trip (they have a real necessity).
http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey/summer_travel.html

It seems you misunderstood, although I'm not sure since I have a hard time figuring out what you are arguing against or in favor of.

With fast charging, the Model S is already capable of making 500 mile trips in one day. The trip SF to LA along 101 is about 430 miles, and the Model S may be able to make that trip with about the same number and length of stops which I would make in any case, perhaps an additional 30 min stop. On Hwy 5 you might usually make fewer stops, but I don't see a big problem there either. So I am not talking about some rosy future, but about what is technically possible today.

A good number of the people I know have made SF - LA trips in their own cars (some a lot), and they'd raise their eyebrows if they couldn't. They don't have to be "last holdouts", they might buy a Model S. Certainly the cars in the initial phase of being planned today, may be even better at also supporting an SF to San Diego trip very well, in case the Model S wouldn't do even that quite well. All it takes are fast chargers along those frequently used routes.

I think the initial market will be big enough even with limited range / quick charging stations, as long as prices drop to family car levels ($20-30k). Lots of new tech survey quite badly in terms of adoption/acceptability (people say it's completely useless for their needs and too expensive; most recent one I can think of is the iPad), but as soon as adoption passes a certain point, then some of the perceived disadvantages and initial requirements start to matter less in contrast to the advantages (plus the technology improves to address them).

Why have "initial markets" only, if you can already approach most of them except by price? That just seems an unnecessary loss of time.

It seems lots of people would seriously start looking at BEVs if they had 150-200 miles of range and came in around $20-30k or less. There's going to be balance struck between the range/cost and the advantage of home recharging. The other sizable market that's missing from a simple range analysis are people without garages (public charging is more important for them than range). I think it makes much more sense for automakers to open up these markets rather than focusing on the relatively few that make long trips (although naysayers will always like to focus on this). Mainly cost will be one of the most upfront considerations; if it's outside the buyer's budget, it doesn't matter how much range it has or how fast it charges.

Certainly. I suppose that's the direction Bluestar is taking. All automakers are aware of the cost issue. However I'm sure the Bluestar will have fast charging since that's not an expensive feature.

 

[vfx]

Early on Tesla said the mileage numbers for the S were on the lastest EPA cycle for 2011 I believe it was #8.

edit: It was 2008

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

Why no Roadster here?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp

 

[Norbert]

Early on Tesla said the mileage numbers for the S were on the lastest EPA cycle for 2011 I believe it was #8.

I remembered something like "current testing method" but wasn't completely sure what it referred to, since for the Roadster the EPA number apparently hasn't changed. What do you refer to with "#8" ?

 

[stopcrazypp]

It seems you misunderstood, although I'm not sure since I have a hard time figuring out what you are arguing against or in favor of.

With fast charging, the Model S is already capable of making 500 mile trips in one day.

I suppose I didn't make my argument clear, but yes, I'm fully aware of the Model S can make a 500 mile trip in one day. I'm just being ultra-conservative and assuming the people who want to make that trip don't want to stop and charge.

I'm talking mainly about demand from the people who say they won't buy an EV unless it has 500+ mile range (maybe even 1000 miles of range) and capable of charging in 5 minutes (and the changes that need to happen to make that possible; like the massive amount of power that the charger will have to handle). I think that is totally unnecessary to worry too much about their concerns at this point and as adoption increases past a certain point, it might NEVER be necessary.

Why have "initial markets" only, if you can already approach most of them except by price? That just seems an unnecessary loss of time.

Well, even if you satisfy everything but price, you don't have a market. You only have a market if you satisfy everything (including price). That means you have to balance all the different demands. In terms of BEVs, range and price is completely intertwined, so there is guaranteed to be a trade-off there. As I said in a previous post, we have to technology to do 300 mile EVs and rapid 10 minute charges, but the problem is cost.

 

[vfx]

..I'm talking mainly about demand from the people who say they won't buy an EV unless it has 500+ mile range (maybe even 1000 miles of range) and capable of charging in 5 minutes...

Any consumer who wants both 1000 mile range and 5 minute recharge should be ignored. Pretty close to ignoring at 500 and 5 min.

 

[richkae]

For the forseeable future EVs will have a TCO ( total cost of ownership ) advantage and a convenience disadvantage for long drives ( and long drives only ).
The TCO advantage is going to grow and the convenience disadvantage shrink.
When the TCO advantage is near immediate, more and more people will forgive any significant convenience disadvantage.
But while the TCO advantage takes years to realize, a great many people will not consider an EV with any amount of range.

EV success is achieved long before any of those people see the light.

 

[JRP3]

EV success is achieved long before any of those people see the light.

Exactly. There is simply too much emphasis put on rarely needed range, especially since most households have more than one vehicle. When EV's are sitting unsold on dealer lots because they don't have enough range, then we can say EV's don't provide enough range. Since at this point the few EV's that are actually available for sale are consistently selling out almost as soon as they arrive it's not really a problem.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Although Elon has said he's not going to rest until every car is electric, we should all discount that as hyperbole. Only about 3% of the cars sold today are "green" (hybrids, clean diesel, ULEV), so building market share even up to 10% would be a huge win.

 

[vfx]

Although Elon has said he's not going to rest until every car is electric, we should all discount that as hyperbole...

Yes, he will surely be laid to rest before full transformation will occur. Does not mean he will slow down up to that point though.

 

[Norbert]

I suppose I didn't make my argument clear, but yes, I'm fully aware of the Model S can make a 500 mile trip in one day. I'm just being ultra-conservative and assuming the people who want to make that trip don't want to stop and charge.

I'm talking mainly about demand from the people who say they won't buy an EV unless it has 500+ mile range (maybe even 1000 miles of range) and capable of charging in 5 minutes (and the changes that need to happen to make that possible; like the massive amount of power that the charger will have to handle). I think that is totally unnecessary to worry too much about their concerns at this point and as adoption increases past a certain point, it might NEVER be necessary.

Yes, wanting both is not something to be concerned with (at this point or ever). Also, the fast charging time doesn't need to be 5 min to be ICE equivalent since most of the time, home charging is used, and that's just a few seconds to plug in. On long trips, making stops longer than 5 min is a good thing in any case. With a good battery range and 90 kW charging, I think one can already achieve a reasonably good travel time (as long as one isn't in a big hurry).

Well, even if you satisfy everything but price, you don't have a market. You only have a market if you satisfy everything (including price). That means you have to balance all the different demands. In terms of BEVs, range and price is completely intertwined, so there is guaranteed to be a trade-off there. As I said in a previous post, we have to technology to do 300 mile EVs and rapid 10 minute charges, but the problem is cost.

You also don't have a market if you don't have a product. Technical abilities and manufacturing abilities provide an upper limit. As Richkae's post described, each combination of price and range has its own group of potential customers, and Tesla's strategy to enter the market from the higher end has several advantages, not only in terms of manufacturing and cost reduction of the technology, but for example also in the fact that with a 85 kWh battery, fast charging at 90 kW is equivalent to charging the Leaf's 24 kWh battery at about 25 kW, in other words, it stresses the battery probably even less than half as much as charging a Leaf with a CHAdeMO charger.

So until battery technology becomes better and less expensive, a better value for the (still high) price can be offered. It seems that Tesla expects that by the time it is ready to build Bluestar, prices for batteries will have dropped to the point where it can offer good range options in that lower price range.

 

[Norbert]

Exactly. There is simply too much emphasis put on rarely needed range, especially since most households have more than one vehicle. When EV's are sitting unsold on dealer lots because they don't have enough range, then we can say EV's don't provide enough range. Since at this point the few EV's that are actually available for sale are consistently selling out almost as soon as they arrive it's not really a problem.

EV manufacturers, especially Nissan, and soon Tesla, are doing their best to build up mass-production. There doesn't seem any reason to build fewer EVs than would be bought, meaning supply should and will meet demand soon.

Since battery prices can't be arbitrarily reduced, the goal will be to find more buyers by other means, offering larger range options being an important one, as well as fast-charging infrastructure (which counter to myth is not expensive).

After all, anyone buying a an EV with longer range contributes that much more to battery development and economy of scale, and consequently to the cost reduction of batteries, and that's a main thing at the current point in time.

[BTW, current EVs are often sold under cost, which is not sustainable.]

 

[stopcrazypp]

Also, the fast charging time doesn't need to be 5 min to be ICE equivalent since most of the time, home charging is used, and that's just a few seconds to plug in.

Unfortunately, the only model most people have in their minds is the gasoline model: filling up every 2 weeks or so in 5 minutes. They also come up with rare scenarios, like taking a loved one to the hospital, or a power outage (I'm sure you heard some of these before). That's why hydrogen has remained so attractive to people (despite all the other issues, which for the most part many people tend to ignore or are ignorant about). It's going to take enough adoption, to the point where they see how neighbors/friends/relatives/colleagues use BEVs, for them to "see the light". I think the survey results will change drastically as more BEVs hit the road.

On long trips, making stops longer than 5 min is a good thing in any case. With a good battery range and 90 kW charging, I think one can already achieve a reasonably good travel time (as long as one isn't in a big hurry).

Most of these people probably can say they have done these long trips with only short stops and/or that they have a second or third driver. They'll always find some kind of reason why the 5 minute charging is so important for them.

Realistically, even looking far into the future, I think the fastest chargers will settle on 10 minutes; that's 1/2 the power of 5 minute charging, and still can be considered a reasonably short stop. You'll have to extend the time to 20 minutes to halve it again, and you only save a 1/4 of the power you saved going from 5 to 10 minutes. "Law of diminishing returns" at work.

You also don't have a market if you don't have a product. Technical abilities and manufacturing abilities provide an upper limit.

I guess that's true also, which is why it's important for companies like Tesla to keep pushing the envelope in terms of range and charging speed. But in terms of determining a market (esp. when we are talking about relatively widespread adoption vs. a niche market), cost still seems like the most important consideration. I think most major manufacturers will instead focus on pushing cost down and only having small improvements in range (they are trying to find the point where it's "good enough").

 

[richkae]

Gas prices have been increasing at 8.5% per year in the US for the last 10 years.
At that rate gas prices are above $8 per gallon in 10 years and $18 per gallon in 20 years.

At $18 a gallon even a 2031 model 60mpg car is too expensive to operate - and would not be able to compete with a 2011 Nissan Leaf.

I am confident I will see the end of the ICE passenger car in my lifetime.
Figure out how to benefit from the transition.

 

[PV4EV]

Gas prices have been increasing at 8.5% per year in the US for the last 10 years.
At that rate gas prices are above $8 per gallon in 10 years and $18 per gallon in 20 years.

At $18 a gallon even a 2031 model 60mpg car is too expensive to operate - and would not be able to compete with a 2011 Nissan Leaf.

I am confident I will see the end of the ICE passenger car in my lifetime.
Figure out how to benefit from the transition.

Here in the UK, the average price of petrol is currently about £6.50 / UK gallon, or about $10.40 ( Granted a US gallon is a tad smaller than the UK measure).

Even so, 8.5% extrapolated to 2031 for UK prices gives approx $53 for UK gallon in 2031 …

Just this afternoon I had to refuel the family ICE car and put in very nearly £100 / $160, which is no joke when you do 20,000 miles a year.

Its harder to predict what the next 20 yrs holds for EV's & non ICE vehicles due to the pace of development of energy storage, energy harvesting, better regen, materials science and so on, but I would have thought the 1,000 mile EV is going to be commercially possible within half that time.