...because I disagree with the cult? Okay....tesla is the best in the world...whatever you say...feel better now?
...they don't understand that here...
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Traveling by Supercharger can be more expensive than ICE
- Thread starter Pwdr Extreme
- Start date
...because I disagree with the cult? Okay....tesla is the best in the world...whatever you say...feel better now?
...they don't understand that here...
Oh, cool, posting random pictures never experienced by 99% of motorists. Just like this one
You having bought a fuel POS is your problem.
your EV POS is also your problem
Anything you want, since it's all hypothetical for you today.
An actual trip this weekend. 1300 miles. Charging 30 minutes every 2hr is a bit too much of a 'reprieve from the road'. (Atleast I dont have to spend 50 minutes charging like you)
...really I wanted to ask ..."sauce?' ...but I understand a boy's love of his car....it's a good thing. When they grow up a bit...understand the world a bit more...they will see. Sadly as Ivanova said something to the effect, "...just when we figure it all out...it's over.'
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... pretty sure no reasonable person would see a problem here.... and once the V2s are upgraded to V3 those times go down by ~40%... not that they really need to.
...but we're not paying $10/Gallon. ...or did you mean litres? It's is fools fuel, not debating that....just like you said, first being the convenience.
Can you help me plan one going from Laredo, TX USA to Panama City, Panama? Thanks I really appreciate it. ;-)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So practical almost everywhere in North America north of Michoacan. Fortunately that's 99.9999% of trips most Americans will take.
I'm even planning a Pacific to Atlantic EV road trip in Canada once I'm allowed back in Canada.
Can't read all 12 pages, but I want to point out the flaw in the logic here:
Charging up to 90% at a Supercharger is an error, here.
It takes a LOT less power to take the battery from 30% to 50% than it takes to get it from 60% to 90%. (Also more time.)
Whether trying to be time-efficient or power-efficient (which means money-efficient), charging the battery to high percentages at Superchargers is counterproductive.
I realize it's appealingly simple to say, "I left at 90% and filled it to 90%, that's a fair comparison," but that's gas-tank thinking.
If you're talking about a 100 mile drive, if you leave at 50% and supercharge it to 50% it will cost you dramatically less than if you head out at 100% and then supercharge it to 100%.
I've driven NJ to OH and back and never paid over $7.25 for any supercharging session... and my net cost per mile was way below what I would have paid in my prior Mazda3.
Charging up to 90% at a Supercharger is an error, here.
It takes a LOT less power to take the battery from 30% to 50% than it takes to get it from 60% to 90%. (Also more time.)
Whether trying to be time-efficient or power-efficient (which means money-efficient), charging the battery to high percentages at Superchargers is counterproductive.
I realize it's appealingly simple to say, "I left at 90% and filled it to 90%, that's a fair comparison," but that's gas-tank thinking.
If you're talking about a 100 mile drive, if you leave at 50% and supercharge it to 50% it will cost you dramatically less than if you head out at 100% and then supercharge it to 100%.
I've driven NJ to OH and back and never paid over $7.25 for any supercharging session... and my net cost per mile was way below what I would have paid in my prior Mazda3.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I think calling it a "cult" may be more of an indicator than anything else you've posted
This thread is full of people exporting their personal requirements/experience onto others. The difference is that most people can travel long distance in a Tesla without requiring a significant change in methodology...and then there are people requiring a trip to Panama. I assume there may be a few people on here that require a vehicle that can take them across the Atlantic...they just don't fault BEVs for their inability to do so.
I think calling it a "cult" may be more of an indicator than anything else you've posted
This thread is full of people exporting their personal requirements/experience onto others. The difference is that most people can travel long distance in a Tesla without requiring a significant change in methodology...and then there are people requiring a trip to Panama. I assume there may be a few people on here that require a vehicle that can take them across the Atlantic...they just don't fault BEVs for their inability to do so.
This thread is laced with folks who would defend tesla if it grew a third nipple...oh wait...a beauty mold. The prevalent attitude is very cult-ish... and misleading. I would submit that these folks (me included) have had to develop/grown accustomed to a new methodology to serve the purpose than the other way as technology should. New tech should alleviate and improve humanity without compromises....this is simply not it. Look at this thread...
Range and charging cost
...right off the bat, the second post...the concerns are dismissed.... The first post video makes a LOT of valid points.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I couldn't care less about Tesla. My priority is not using fools fuel. Sadly I can't bike and walk everywhere. If you have a better idea I'm open to suggestions.
Using EA would require a bit of a detour and if you think Superchargers are expensive...
LionelHutz
Member
Very big difference between a once-in-ten-years natural disaster and a Supercharger getting overwhelmed with holiday traffic. It’s an issue if I can’t plan on using my car for a Memorial Day road trip because I might get stuck for hours at a charger halfway through.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I think you may have a few more options than an SC station in CA, much like you don't have to refuel at a Costco.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I think there are a fair amount of people who are viewing their personal circumstances as the norm, rather than the exception. You, in particular, seem to be a bit of an absolutist for instance.
I assure you, I've solely owned BEVs for more than 3 years now...and our 1300 mile round trip jaunts through the Midwest haven't been negatively impacted by utilizing electrons over molecules.
Have you seen the damage caused by oil drilling and oil spills? Every technology has impacts. My comments were specifically with regard to lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions - which many studies have shown are far lower than petroleum powered vehicles. Ultimately, lithium mining does not result in large scale damage to our planet - even if it has significant localized impacts. Over time, this will diminish through recycling efforts but yes, we will need to extract a lot of it to power the world’s vehicles.
Regarding hydrogen, how do recommend we produce it? Electrolysis far less efficient than charging batteries. The only viable way I can see clean, large scale hydrogen production becoming a relative is through the use of high temperature nuclear reactors which can produce it about 1/3 more efficiently using high temperature steam electrolysis (but this has not yet been commercialized). There’s definitely a use case for hydrogen in the future but I don’t see it reaching wide scale adoption for passenger vehicles simply because of efficiency issues, which will translate into higher cost.
If you are concerned about lithium mining, what is your plan for long term, low-carbon, dispatchable electric power? If you think that EVs will require a lot of lithium, grid-scale battery backup would require orders of magnitude more.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
It does cost more to charge in winter than in summer, because battery efficiency is lower in the cold. However, it also costs more to refuel in winter than in summer because ICEVs are less efficient in the cold. Furthermore, winter-blend gasoline is also worse for the environment and has less energy than its summer-blend counterpart.
What is the Difference between Summer- and Winter-Blend Gasoline? | AAA NewsRoom
Are you talking to me? I just drove 1.036 km from Munich, Germany, to southern Italy and back, and I did it not in a long-range Tesla, but in an SR+.
Enforced charging stops make such a trip an hour longer (about 10% of the total travel time) than in a liquid fuel burner and half an hour longer than in a long-range Tesla, not counting a lunch break that I would have anyway. Is this a good reason to use a different car? No, because the SR+ has already saved me hours at gas stations over the 8 months that I have it. Overall an ICE car would waste more of my time than even the lowly Model 3 SR+.
If I did more long-distance travelling, I would use a long-range Tesla instead, and the comparison would come out even better for the electric vehicle.
Note that I'm not discussing convenience. I'm discussing time. Whether a charging stop is convenient or not is a separate question with rather subjective answers. I also don't discuss the poisonous gases that internal combustion engines blow into the noses of pedestrians and bicyclists or the noise, although those are also well worth discussing.
Yes, it takes two thirds. Charging +20% is less than charging +30%.
That is not true. It will cost you the same, if the Supercharger charges by the amount of energy, not by time. They all calculate by kWh these days. Charging to 100% takes more time though, as you mentioned above.
My 75,000+ miles in two years disagrees with you. But hey, to each their own.
Similar threads
- Article
