That's one thing that is pretty flat - cell price. There is almost no incentive to reduce the cell price. I guess flash drives, hard disks, memory, and CPUs are all "flat" too. /rolleyes/
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
That's one thing that is pretty flat - cell price. There is almost no incentive to reduce the cell price. I guess flash drives, hard disks, memory, and CPUs are all "flat" too. /rolleyes/
His latest: The Cruel Realities of EV range.
His style really gets me worked up, but I cannot put my finger on exactly why. Each comment against his thesis is belittled with an "I've more real world experience than you" smugness. What he is saying may have some kernel of truth, but I think the attitude is what gets me.
Anyone else's blood pressure climb while reading his stuff?
Tdave
Member
I find this chart from that article very interesting:
I'm heartened by the fact that in my first year of Tesla ownership, I'm not noticing much battery/range degradation. By looking at that chart, the first year sees half of the degradation expected after 5 years. If I only experience in the next 4 years a doubling of what I've experienced in my first year, I'll be pretty happy. My range is certainly not down 20% here in the hot DC summer, or even 10% as predicted in the chart's best case scenario.
Also, with Tesla predicting battery life to be 7 years, from the chart it looks like if you easily can handle the range after 7 years, you may be able to also handle the range after 14 years, as it's not that much worse. From this chart, I'm suddenly a lot more satisfied with the long term life expectancy of my battery.
Last edited:
Tdave
Member
Interesting. So this predicts how our acceleration capability drops? That doesn't make sense to me either. My quarter mile time is at most only 0.064 seconds longer after a year of ownership, according to my drag strip time slips.
He's using a Leaf but each car mananges battery tempature differently.
This one perplexes me. I know he gets the data from the ABG page link but ther egen on the Leaf that bad? Stopping without an AC on should be nil on the battery.
By the way, John has a dozen or more responses in the comments section. A lot of good reading there (104 of them now). I actually kind of respect him after reading them all. This one sums him up well.
This one perplexes me. I know he gets the data from the ABG page link but ther egen on the Leaf that bad? Stopping without an AC on should be nil on the battery.
By the way, John has a dozen or more responses in the comments section. A lot of good reading there (104 of them now). I actually kind of respect him after reading them all. This one sums him up well.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think the claim is that when sitting in traffic in the heat running the A/C on full kills the mileage. I think the data is with A/C on.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I agree it is good for the consumer to have options to pick the pack that fits their budget. But on the total charging time of big packs, nothing says you have to fully charge the battery on each charge. With the same charging speed, the only difference a bigger pack makes is it allows longer trips. People always seem to have the mindset they have to fully charge their pack and that total charge time is most important, when the most important metric is charging speed in mph.
And I think they are exaggerating the charger prices. Even at 80kWh, a 8 hour charge takes about 10kW, which shouldn't cost $20k, given the Tesla charger is even more powerful than that and costs less than $2k (even if including on board charger, $20k seem steep).
I read another article on Valence that says their iron phosphate packs are less energy dense because they are 3.2V (vs 3.7v 18650), but has better cycle life, so their packs are more suitable for lower range applications such as PHEVs. I think that has more to do with why they advocate focusing less on pack size.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think the Leaf is using similar chemistry and getting 100 miles, with room for more cells in the future. I think an average of 100 miles should be the minimum for production EV's, Toyota's planned 55 mile range is going to be rather limiting and it will mean more frequent deeper discharges, not good for battery life. On the other hand if they leave room for adding a larger pack in the future it might be a way to get people with limited needs into EV's sooner and more cheaply while allowing range extension as technology improves and gets cheaper.
Agreed. The "100 mile" range of my MINI E has been ideal for my needs and I suspect it would be the same for a fair number of people. I've only very rarely had my charge dip below 50% due to a short commute and daily errands that total about 20 miles per day at the high end. Some weekends, I drive 30-40 miles in a day, depending on what I am doing. But the 100 mile range gives me the confidence to drive just about anywhere in Los Angeles without worry.
A 55 mile range would probably just barely work for me and it would increase the anxiety level. Which Toyota EV is this you're talking about?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
He's talking about the Toyota FT-EV II concept mentioned in the article. Toyota supposedly wants to put it into production.
As for why 100 miles makes sense as a target range, I think it has a lot to do with consumer psychology. Nissan chose to advertise 100 mile range by going with the more mild LA4 cycle. MINI-E also advertises itself as 100+ mile plus. This has a lot to do with the same reason why products sell for $0.99 rather than $1.00. $1.00 just seems like a lot more to consumers.
I find it hard to believe that all the "100 mile" vehicles can really all have the same range, given they have radically different battery sizes (from 16kWh for iMiev to 33-35 kWh for Coda and Mini-e). I appreciate there will be differences in drivetrain efficiency an aerodynamics, but a halving of Wh/mile from worst to best seems unlikely.
My conclusion is that Coda will deliver 100 miles in real driving by "not careful" (I.e. Non hypermiler) drivers; Leaf 70 miles; and iMiev about 50 miles.
When new EV drivers start to experience the reality they will feel conned by some of the companies, and will exact their retribution on all EVs.
To me, this is the biggest issue, and one that most customers will be unaware of at the outset. The answer is we need some independent real-world range testing in a "group test" by several different consumer and automobile magazines. AND we need governments to pull their fingers out and finalise their EV range testing regimes, and then absolutely insist that in their territory only that official number can be quoted - no use of Japanese 10-15 results in Europe or US. No quoting EPA results in Europe. Otherwise the vendors will keep doing what they are doing which is cherry picking the best results.
My conclusion is that Coda will deliver 100 miles in real driving by "not careful" (I.e. Non hypermiler) drivers; Leaf 70 miles; and iMiev about 50 miles.
When new EV drivers start to experience the reality they will feel conned by some of the companies, and will exact their retribution on all EVs.
To me, this is the biggest issue, and one that most customers will be unaware of at the outset. The answer is we need some independent real-world range testing in a "group test" by several different consumer and automobile magazines. AND we need governments to pull their fingers out and finalise their EV range testing regimes, and then absolutely insist that in their territory only that official number can be quoted - no use of Japanese 10-15 results in Europe or US. No quoting EPA results in Europe. Otherwise the vendors will keep doing what they are doing which is cherry picking the best results.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think Nissan has it right by spelling out a range of ranges and under what conditions they got the results. There are simply too many variables to nail down a specific number. I agree that the iMiev will likely never get 100 miles.
Similar threads
