Turo Tales: Some poeple are not ready for EVs

[AnxietyRanger]

A car with the 100D's acceleration might get say 22mpg EPA highway rating. Versus the EPA range rating for the 100D of 335mi, that's equivalent to having over a 15 gallon tank. I think "way, way shorter" is hyperbole. Maybe if you drop the performance equivalence requirement and compare to a 40mpg car with a 30 gallon tank - but otherwise...

A word of caution about comparing to "the average German automobile":

I compare my real life experiences. I've driven many premium Germans for around 15 years and high-end Teslas for three years. I know what they deliver.

Way, way shorter in this case means roughly half the range. I consider that way, way shorter. The acceleration is a red herring, no BEV and ICE have truly comparable performance anyway, the technologies are different and their strong points as well. But even when considering that, the reality is, practical ranges are different at the moment.

My Teslas take me perhaps 250-350 km on a charge depending on weather and speed. This was the same with the S P85 and it remains pretty much the same with the heavier X P100D. It is not a question of acceleration, it is a question of how large batteries can be put in today's cars and what the energy density is. Even if I baby the cars, they will still not reach anywhere near ICE levels of range.

A fuel tank simply packs more range as things stand today. Pretty much all of my recent (German) ICEs have had 600+ km range, some over 800 km. (And of course the most frugal diesels can reach 1000 km, but I'm not talking about them.)

And if we return to that acceleration red herring, show me a BEV that has a 1000 km range. It can have slow acceleration, that's fine. You won't find one, because the acceleration is beside the point. BEV is easier to make accelerate fast from 0, ICE is easier to make with a long range, that is just the nature of the technology at this time.

Yes, I continue to stand by my opinion that BEV range remain way, way shorter than ICE.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

To be clear, I am not talking about any figures a hypermiler may reach. So for me the above is not a question of anyone misleading in the figures etc. and I don't care about NEDC or EPA in this case (though freely admit EPA is closer to reality than NEDC).

For me it is a question of practical results. For example, I have a destination I frequent around 175 km from my house. I can not make the round trip of 350 km on my 100% charged Teslas, especially not at winter time. Maybe on a good summer's day if I drive under the limit? But in reality it is too scary to even contemplate seeing what the way there does to the range and then turning around and doing the same...

With any of my ICEs I basically have half the tank left and I never have to consider the range at all. That is a massive pratical difference. It is thus not just about what the battery can hold, it is also about how that battery is depleted in real-word circumstances. For example extended cold weather driving and motorway speeds are much, much harder on BEV than they are on ICE. (Even though ICE, until it warms up, is also susceptible to weather - but it does warm up...)

 

[Yggdrasill]

The experiences will differ with driving styles and conditions. My average consumption to date with my X100D is 211 Wh/km. That's an expected range of 466 km. That's over 10,000 km and includes maybe 20% motorway at over 110 km/h. Yesterday I drove around for ~5 hours and averaged 184 Wh/km. That would be a range of 534 km. That didn't include any motorway driving.

ICE cars have a lot better range than EVs at very high speeds, like 150+ km/h, but the difference is not that great in more normal driving.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The experiences will differ with driving styles and conditions. My average consumption to date with my X100D is 211 Wh/km. That's an expected range of 466 km. That's over 10,000 km and includes maybe 20% motorway at over 110 km/h. Yesterday I drove around for ~5 hours and averaged 184 Wh/km. That would be a range of 534 km. That didn't include any motorway driving.

ICE cars have a lot better range than EVs at very high speeds, like 150+ km/h, but the difference is not that great in more normal driving.

That's just the thing: when driving long-range, motorways are often a major part of that - and that's when the range matters most. Not to mention, do that when it is freezing (and not just California freezing), well, you know the drill.

I agree that in everyday urban driving you can get better results due to the lower speeds. But in long-distance driving, where range and charging network matters, the fact that BEV doesn't have anywhere near the reach of ICE is evident.

And let's not even talk about what this does to range in Germany.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Of those 10,000 km, maybe 100 km have been in an urban environment. Almost all rural roads here in Norway have a speed limit of 80 km/h or less. I usually drive 10% over the limit, but my average speed yesterday was only like 60 km/h.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Of those 10,000 km, maybe 100 km have been in an urban environment. Almost all rural roads here in Norway have a speed limit of 80 km/h or less. I usually drive 10% over the limit, but my average speed yesterday was only like 60 km/h.

I agree you can get greater range at 60-80 km/h than when doing double that.

60-80 km/h is (luckily?) not the range driving experience in the whole world though...

 

[Yggdrasill]

It's more common than you'd think, outside Germany. But there's no doubt that Norway and Germany are two extremes, and most of the rest of the world is somewhere in the middle.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It's more common than you'd think, outside Germany. But there's no doubt that Norway and Germany are two extremes, and most of the rest of the world is somewhere in the middle.

I'm not talking of Germany. That's a whole different ballgame.

The thing is, even at 110-130 km/h - very common - the range starts dropping real fast.

Other than the cold air, it is true BEVs are in many ways uniquely suited to Norway. Lots of cheap electricity from water and slow roads.

 

[KarenRei]

To be clear, I am not talking about any figures a hypermiler may reach. So for me the above is not a question of anyone misleading in the figures etc. and I don't care about NEDC or EPA in this case (though freely admit EPA is closer to reality than NEDC).

You can't say that you don't care about drive cycles, but then insist that X gets Y mpg or Z range based on drivecycle figures. And you can't come here and expect us to rely on anecdotes more than actual testing. If you want to compare ranges, you compare across standardized drivecycles. Take your pick as to one, but don't try to substitute "I feel..." for "Testing reveals that...".

If you want to turn your anecdotes into data because you suspect something is wrong with testing, you need to actually collect data. Collect it, across a statistically significant number of runs, controlled for road conditions (which are also recorded), and present it for analysis. And you also need to show that your driving style is not an outlier among all drivers on average, ideally controlled by including other drivers in your study.

Or we can just compare actual numbers from actual drive cycles for a 100D versus gasoline vehicles. Which is why drive cycles exist: for fair, unbiased, non-opinion-based, broadly applicable comparisons. And the facts are what they are: a sports car with the 100D's performance would get roughly the same range as the 100D if it had a 15 gallon tank. As mentioned, obviously you can bias this - you could compare, say, a little 45mpg slowpoke with a 30 gallon tank to a 100D, or whatnot, and say "lookie, it goes 1350 miles - 4 times further!" But that's neither a realistic nor unbiased comparison.

Now, if you want to do your comparisons outside the normal range - for example, at faster than EPA speeds - than that's a fair request, with the caveat that your results will only apply to outliers. And "way, way more" vs. a 100D will still be hyperbole. And you'll still be biasing the comparison if you put some puttering-along ecobox up against a supercar, as if gasoline supercars don't also have shorter ranges.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You can't say that you don't care about drive cycles, but then insist that X gets Y mpg or Z range based on drivecycle figures. And you can't come here and expect us to rely on anecdotes more than actual testing.

You are free to ignore it, but real-life experiences certainly are IMO valuable. Including those that are contrary to my own e.g. as @Yggdrasill posted above, which I appreciate. The exchange has revealed an important point IMO: motorway speeds affect things dramatically. If a reader is not driving much on motorway, then their experience will be better than mine.

Now, if you want to do your comparisons outside the normal range - for example, at faster than EPA speeds - than that's a fair request, with the caveat that your results will only apply to outliers. And "way, way more" vs. a 100D will still be hyperbole.

Driving range at motorway speeds is hardly an outliner. It is a very common mode of transportation in both Europe and U.S. Many a metropolis are connected with motorways. Iceland and Norway may be different. European car makers even provide consumption figures for this mode of transport...

And you'll still be biasing the comparison if you put some puttering-along ecobox up against a supercar, as if gasoline supercars don't also have shorter ranges.

I am doing no such thing. I am comparing to my past high-end premiums, including the Audi A8 I had previous to my Model S. They have had realistical ranges of 600-700 km in my non-hypermiling, not-careful use. They are not econoboxes. My Model S/X have had roughly half that in my use. I put more effort in being economical in the Tesla, than ever in the ICEs too, because I feel I must.

How much Tesla experience did you actually have? I've driven them for three years. Its real-world range has been significantly less than that of premium German ICEs. So I can understand those, such as OP's renter etc., who have been surprised by the lack of range. I guess that was the point of this thread?

Even on paper the range is less, when many high-end German premiums have 600-800 km combined city and highway ranges on paper. Driving way over 1000-1200 kilometers on a tank, when driving range, is completely normal on Audi A8 diesel. A hypermiler have gotten to the tune of 1350 kilometers from an Audi A8, probably more by now with the latest versions.

There is no comparison here. On a bad day, with motorway speeds and cold weather, a large-battery Tesla can easily drop to under 300 km range. Even on the best of times, with normal driving it can probably go to 500-600 km. A hypermiler has gotten it to 900 km in extremely theoretical circumstances for the average driver, but a premium ICE will still always go a lot further within similar circumstances.

 

[KarenRei]

You are free to ignore it, but real-life experiences certainly are IMO valuable.

Anecdotes are not useful, because a sample size of 1 is statistically meaningless. Accumulate enough data, in controlled, measured conditions, across a broad, random sample size of drivers, and anecodes become data, which is meaningful. Your "I feel X" does not in any way, shape or form override actual data.

Actual data includes:
* Multiple drivers characteristic of typical variation in usage patterns
* Data on A) what vehicle, at B) what speed profile, in C) what weather conditions. Recorded and presented so anyone else can see it.
* ... a statistically significant quantity of the above
* ... for both the EV and the gasoline vehicle
* The gasoline vehicle should be approximately equivalent to the EV in size and capabilities

Without that, you have nothing meaningful. What we do have that's meaningful, however, is drivecycle evaluations, with both the EV and gasoline vehicles on the same cycles or equivalent.

Driving range at motorway speeds is hardly an outliner.

And EPA EV ranges are based on highway travel (5-cycle or 5-cycle equivalency). And the gasoline vehicle MPGs discussed are their highway MPGs.

I am doing no such thing. I am comparing to my past high-end premiums, including the Audi A8 I had previous

Vastly slower than a 100D. Not even the A8 L 4.0T Sport matches the performance of the 100D. Let alone the P100D.

Lastly: 629 highway miles gasoline range (EPA 29mpg @ 21.7 gallons), while available in some models, is well above average gasoline range. A small sedan most commonly has a 12 gallon tanks. A large sedan usually 16-18 gallons. SUVs, 20-28 gallons. Sports cars, despite low gas mileage, often have surprisingly small tanks - Porsche 911s for example generally have 12-20 gallon tanks.

Nobody is disputing that gasoline cars go further. What is being disputed is your hyperbole - "way, way further". Perhaps "way, way" means something different to you.

 

[derekmw]

Just curious with you guys who rent through Turo, how do you handle small blemishes caused during rental? Like pulling up too far against a curb and scratching the underside of the front bumper, door dings, etc.

I don't really intend to rent on Turo but even if I was interested, those type of concerns would bother me too much to rent it. I park away from any cars and am very conscious about the front bumper, not only when parking but also approaching dips/driveways that are steep. I would assume most people renting would not put this much care into the car when driving and I'd have to nitpick every new scratch added from this type of careless driving/parking.

 

[KarenRei]

I've never done Turo rental either, but I would assume that it's like most car rental, where when the renter gets their car, they inspect it along with the owner, mark down any observed damage, and then after it's returned there's a second inspection, and any new damage is billed to the renter.

Is it the same for Turo?

 

[jbcarioca]

Just curious with you guys who rent through Turo, how do you handle small blemishes caused during rental? Like pulling up too far against a curb and scratching the underside of the front bumper, door dings, etc.

I don't really intend to rent on Turo but even if I was interested, those type of concerns would bother me too much to rent it. I park away from any cars and am very conscious about the front bumper, not only when parking but also approaching dips/driveways that are steep. I would assume most people renting would not put this much care into the car when driving and I'd have to nitpick every new scratch added from this type of careless driving/parking.

My car is not on Turo, but I do often rent Tesla on Turo. To your precise point; Normally I take detailed photos when I pick up-the car, and other ones when I return it. Those photos protect both sides. Most that I have rented do have minor blemishes, primarily wheel rash IME. I did have one near dispute on my very first Turn rental. That one was quickly resolved because the owner did check carefully in then end, so concurred that I had not made damage. That made me always take photos.

I have noticed on my last two rentals that owners seemed slightly relieved that I already was a Tesla owner. Nobody said anything about experiences such as the OP and others here relate. My suspicion is that they are not the norm but are far from uncommon.

Not too long ago there were new owners asking questions at Superchargers. I haven't seen much of that during the last year or so. My local Tesla store ran owner briefing sessions a while back and I went to one. Lots of new owners seemed to be largely ignorant of the operating issues that we on TMC find normal.

My two cents: Before EV's become really popular they'll need real-world typical range of 400 miles or so, thus EPA range of 550 or so. I know that has nothing to do with typ[ical use. It has a lot tom do with removing objections. Clearly retraining drivers could almost halve those numbers, but that will take decades.

 

[EVTECH]

3/5 of my rentals were already Tesla owners on vacation or wanting to try an X out. The closest sales location is 100 miles away as of a week ago. Prior to that it was 200 miles away in Tysons Corner. One guy who I met at his place had a million dollars worth of cars in his driveway, and is now adding an X to his fleet. Turo doesn't let you rent if you are under 30 years old. I also search linkedin and social media for the renter to make sure they are "decent". I declined one renter who had his Facebook profile of him taking a beer bong hit. I don't need the money that bad to take that sort of risk.

You can get small blemishes covered under Turo's coverage. The level of coverage is adjustable and your profit margin is adjusted accordingly. I also take ~25-30 interior and exterior pictures before and after the rental. You can attach them to the trip in Turo. I also have a walk around sheet that I fill out and have the renter sign. It even has all the accessories(charging adapters, first aid kit, fire extinguisher, tire repair kit) I leave in the car documented in case something is missing.

 

[jbcarioca]

... I also have a walk around sheet that I fill out and have the renter sign. It even has all the accessories(charging adapters, first aid kit, fire extinguisher, tire repair kit) I leave in the car documented in case something is missing.

Nobody I've seen so far does that but I approve. For both side the fewer possible discrepancies the better. You could also do credit checks and drivers license checks. I suspect that could find potential problems too.

Renting a Tesla seems to me to be analogous to renting an airplane. You really want to know your renter knows how to operate the machine and will be responsible in so doing.
This thread gives good reasons why, I think.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Anecdotes are not useful, because a sample size of 1 is statistically meaningless. Accumulate enough data, in controlled, measured conditions, across a broad, random sample size of drivers, and anecodes become data, which is meaningful. Your "I feel X" does not in any way, shape or form override actual data.

Actual data includes:
* Multiple drivers characteristic of typical variation in usage patterns
* Data on A) what vehicle, at B) what speed profile, in C) what weather conditions. Recorded and presented so anyone else can see it.
* ... a statistically significant quantity of the above
* ... for both the EV and the gasoline vehicle
* The gasoline vehicle should be approximately equivalent to the EV in size and capabilities

Without that, you have nothing meaningful. What we do have that's meaningful, however, is drivecycle evaluations, with both the EV and gasoline vehicles on the same cycles or equivalent.

Fine, you don't think anecdotes are useful. I do. That's what we mostly have on forums. Of course it is up to reasonable people to put those anecdotes into perspective. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for gospel and the only truth.

And EPA EV ranges are based on highway travel (5-cycle or 5-cycle equivalency). And the gasoline vehicle MPGs discussed are their highway MPGs.

Be that as it may, range on a motorway trip is not an outlier case. It is a very real driving scenario where range matters.

Vastly slower than a 100D. Not even the A8 L 4.0T Sport matches the performance of the 100D. Let alone the P100D.

First of all, my P85 was not significantly quicker than my Audi A8 that I was comparing it to. Their 0-62 was within 0.3 seconds if I recall and the Audi was faster in top speed. The HP was if I recall in the same ballpark. The Audi was bigger and heavier. Tesla's range was, as said, around half in my range driving, which yes included motorways.

The thing to IMO note here is that ICEs don't spend that much gasoline driving range in normal motorway speeds. They just don't. They spend gasoline on acceleration, whereas BEVs tend to start taking up a lot of energy [edited: gasoline] even in normal motorway speeds. That Audi simply was massively more frugal than the Tesla was in the motorway scenario.

Second, you can't just take one parameter and judge a car not worthy of comparison. BEVs and ICEs have different characteristics. As I said, show me a BEV I can buy with 1000+ km range and I'll show you an ICE that is as quick from 0-10 kph as a Model S P100D. Different pros and cons...

Lastly: 629 highway miles gasoline range (EPA 29mpg @ 21.7 gallons), while available in some models, is well above average gasoline range. A small sedan most commonly has a 12 gallon tanks. A large sedan usually 16-18 gallons. SUVs, 20-28 gallons. Sports cars, despite low gas mileage, often have surprisingly small tanks - Porsche 911s for example generally have 12-20 gallon tanks.

Audi A8 I believe has a 23 gallon tank. I don't know why we are talking small sedans or sports cars when discussing Model S/X comparisons.

Nobody is disputing that gasoline cars go further. What is being disputed is your hyperbole - "way, way further". Perhaps "way, way" means something different to you.

Yes, I can see you took issue with my "way, way further" comment. I'm not necessarily sure why, but yes you did.

 

[Electroman]

whereas BEVs tend to start taking up a lot of gasoline

That is definitely a problem. You might check that out with your local Service center. Mine is very efficient and consumes no gasoline at all even at very high speeds.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

That is definitely a problem. You might check that out with your local Service center. Mine is very efficient and consumes no gasoline at all even at very high speeds.

Maybe @KarenRei is right, that might explain all my issues!

 

[OilSucks]

It's not Turo, it's people.

We GAVE our car FREE to a couple just so they could experience Tesla. I know. Who would do that? Anyway, I followed the couple on my phone app, as I told them I would. The fellow was headed for Sacramento from Napa area, and I personally would have made the trip without charging, but I suggested that if he added any miles, he ought to charge. I pointed out that the chargers appear on the map on the dash.

So. I'm following him, and he's down to thirty miles of range after doodling around all afternoon moving stuff from his apartment, and he turns off the main road and drives directly away from the charger. It's like hes TRYING to run out of charge. I phone him and tell him to turn around and go charge. He doesn't. By now he's down to about ten miles of charge. I call and threaten him. I tell him there is a charger two miles away behind a city hall. If he doesn't go there, I call the police. So he goes.

Then he acts like the car is no good, and is all angry when he returns the free car after over 250 free miles. Go figure. I don't loan out my car anymore. Go figure, again.

You are the nicest person in existence lol Holy *sugar*, some people are really insufferable.