Agreed. Can say I understand why though. If I was to buy an ICE that can do 45mpg I would know that if i hoon it around I’d only get 20mpg, so why would it be any different for an EV
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Range - Surely there’s something wrong?!?
- Thread starter Juve
- Start date
Agreed. Can say I understand why though. If I was to buy an ICE that can do 45mpg I would know that if i hoon it around I’d only get 20mpg, so why would it be any different for an EV
Only difference is the mentality and range being a more critical factor with an EV. It doesn’t help that the range test standard used is still pretty optimistic.
Jason71
Well-Known Member
This is the crux of the matter. I don't think anyone believes they will get the mpg from an ICE car that the manufacturer says but they accept that and the fact that it it going to cost a bit more to run than the manufacturer says.
With EV's not only do people inexplicably believe the numbers even though they don't understand the basis of them but the consequences of them being optimistic are much much greater in time and inconvenience so they get much more upset.
I am not sure ranges will necessarily increase that much in the near future at the lower end of the market. Instead as battery prices go down range will stay in the 200 mile bracket but prices will go down. Hopefully though peoples understanding will increase as will the availability of chargers so it will be less of an issue.
Yup agreed.
Personally I’m hoping Tesla push out a 500+ mile battery for a model 3 priced car. I think for me that’d be a pick, that’s the great thing with batteries. The tech is relatively infantile so we could be getting 500miles + range as a standard.
Do you really want a battery that heavy?
Do you really need a 500 mile range?
Given the current battery density tech I think Tesla have their battery sizes spot on. A Model 3 is still a fair bit heavier than a 3-series BMW, but not so much that it seriously affects handling. It's a good compromise between range and vehicle weight. Same goes for the S/X in their respective classes. Again they are heavier than equivalent ICE cars, but the trade-off is acceptable.
Glan gluaisne
Active Member
The majority, probably the vast majority, of motorists just don't really need more than about 200 to 250 miles of range. The average mileage driven per car in the UK is now around 8,000 miles/year, or probably less than 30 miles per day, allowing for a few days a year when the car's not used at all. Most people could probably manage fine with only about 100 miles of range, at least for smaller cars that are never taken on long road trips. The ability to charge at home is key to this, but it's going to take a lot of effort to get people to accept that they don't need a massive range, because of the changed way EVs are "refuelled".
What is needed is a reliable rapid DC charging network, for all makes of EV, to enable those who need to make long road trips to do so easily. However, there's a fundamental problem with this, as if, as will certainly be the case, the majority of EVs charge at home or at workplaces, then that means massively less revenue for roadside charging stations, when compared to petrol and diesel. At the moment, every petrol and diesel car has to get all of its fuel from roadside filling stations. With EVs, the majority will get their "fuel" from an outlet at home or at work. This means that there's a great deal less potential revenue to be made from charging stations, yet we will expect there to be thousands of them on every major route across the country.
What is needed is a reliable rapid DC charging network, for all makes of EV, to enable those who need to make long road trips to do so easily. However, there's a fundamental problem with this, as if, as will certainly be the case, the majority of EVs charge at home or at workplaces, then that means massively less revenue for roadside charging stations, when compared to petrol and diesel. At the moment, every petrol and diesel car has to get all of its fuel from roadside filling stations. With EVs, the majority will get their "fuel" from an outlet at home or at work. This means that there's a great deal less potential revenue to be made from charging stations, yet we will expect there to be thousands of them on every major route across the country.
Your assuming the battery tech doesn’t naturally get better so you get more miles from the same weight? - I’m not suggesting just chucking more batteries into the car.
I have often contemplated that too.
The main issues I care about are:
Is the vehicle energy efficient?
Is it's weight reasonable for the spec?
Does its 'fuel capacity' / 'energy capacity' and re-fill time provide adequate performance / convenience taking into account refilling infrastructure?
Hmm! Where are you based?! And Twizzy battery rental? I guess you don't worry about heating the cabin!
Yes. And one that effectively changes size.
I'm not sure is it's a good analogy, but it seems to be similar to using an electric heater to warm an ICE motor and reduce friction / lubricant viscosity etc. On a short journey, your net energy use could be lower with preheating, especially on short journeys.
So are your figures suggesting 5kwh (plus) without preheating compared with 1.8 + 3.3 = 5.1 kwh with preheating?
It is so difficult to accurately discuss this data because there are so many variables.
ICE fundamentally inefficient so many ways to 'reduce waste' and only small additional energy cost to heat the cabin with waste heat.
How much energy heats EV cabin vs battery? How warm is cabin?
But as others have said, like for like, EV is going to be better.
I had a VW Jetta 1.9TDI in California. The 'computer' reckonned 620 mile full tank range but on a run, 550 was more likely. But it still returned over 50 mpg, which compared very very well with alternatives. Interesting that Honest John rates it at 97%.
Over 4 years / winters with Renault Zoe 40kwh, efficiency in summer can reach 5.5 m/kwh (180 whr/m) but over winter months I see nearer to 2.5 m/kWh (400 whr/m).
I tend to watch instantaneous energy use (which worked the same with the Jetta) on the basis that 'watch the pennies and the £' s take care of themselves. I can't do better than keep instantaneous energy use as low as possible for a given situation.