Electric vehicle war, is gas soon to be toast?

[Fuzz]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1519313816135380993


And she's dead, Jim.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, see stuff like this makes me question exactly what will happen when everyone is in EV's. Summer road trips with everyone stopping to charge every 200km? Bike racks and trailers killing range? It convinces me even more that we should concentrate on lower range city cars where most people do the majority of their km. Hybrids and range extenders may make a lot of sense. That, and delivery vehicles and anything operating shorter range in the city. I think the Lightning is a great product, but it won't be replacing a tow vehicle for anything over a couple hours.

Will long range trucking ever work, unless they have range for a full day up to the driver's hour limits, when they can charge overnight?

When people see range numbers of 500km, and they have to drive 1000km, they'll think, ya, "I can stop once or twice at most for that trip." They won't think that after the 100% charge drains, they are in for misery.

We are still far off everyone driving EV's. Hopefully by then battery capacity is considerably better. As of today EV's make for great city commuters and I would argue that makes up for at least half of most drivers today.

[Cappy]

Continuing to hold on to the F-150 because of the one road trip you do every summer shouldn't be the reason ICE restrictions are shelved.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by CASe333

As opendoor pondered its because they are trying to fast charge 10-60% as this is way faster for Model3. Look at the chart I link below but spoiler charging rate drops off drastically above 60% for M3. That implies they are utilizing ~half the range so need to stop every 2-2.5hrs . I think 10-30% is sweet spot for fast charging M3 so they will always try to run it below 10% just to get best DC charging rates. Also checking latest tweets they hit a station that gave 73kW. I assume they only charge to what they need to get to the next supercharger in that case so that increases the amount of stops in their speed run across Canada.

https://insideevs.com/news/506759/te...niq5-charging/

What sort of impact does supercharging or short charging have on battery longevity? Battery degradation seems to be a concern although I'm not certain if there is enough real world data yet for establishing optimal charging parameters and obviously every vehicle is different in terms of thermal management systems.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

When people see range numbers of 500km, and they have to drive 1000km, they'll think, ya, "I can stop once or twice at most for that trip." They won't think that after the 100% charge drains, they are in for misery.

Seriously, how many people would only stop once or twice in a 1000 km drive? That doesn't sound normal at all.

EDIT: I just checked a couple trips I regularly do and we seem to stop every 200-250 km for bathroom breaks, snacks, stretching, etc. When I was younger and didn't feel like I needed to stop as much, I stopped every 300-350 km. For example, a Calgary to Winnipeg trip I used to do more regularly had stops like this:
- Medicine Hat (300 km)
- Swift Current (220 km)
- Regina (240 km)
- Virden (290 km)
- Winnipeg (290 km)

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, see stuff like this makes me question exactly what will happen when everyone is in EV's. Summer road trips with everyone stopping to charge every 200km? Bike racks and trailers killing range? It convinces me even more that we should concentrate on lower range city cars where most people do the majority of their km. Hybrids and range extenders may make a lot of sense. That, and delivery vehicles and anything operating shorter range in the city. I think the Lightning is a great product, but it won't be replacing a tow vehicle for anything over a couple hours.

Will long range trucking ever work, unless they have range for a full day up to the driver's hour limits, when they can charge overnight?

When people see range numbers of 500km, and they have to drive 1000km, they'll think, ya, "I can stop once or twice at most for that trip." They won't think that after the 100% charge drains, they are in for misery.

I'm assuming the vast majority of people don't have trips over 500kms very often. Although likely more common for people in Western Canada (outside of lower BC) given there is less density there than in most places in the world.

Renting vehicles will probably become more common for those types of trips. And even then - you can see a model where a rental car company opens up every 500 kms on the more common routes and you just swap cars every 500 kms. The car charges up for 2 hours and goes to the next person who needs one.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Seriously, how many people would only stop once or twice in a 1000 km drive? That doesn't sound normal at all.

EDIT: I just checked a couple trips I regularly do and we seem to stop every 200-250 km for bathroom breaks, snacks, stretching, etc. When I was younger and didn't feel like I needed to stop as much, I stopped every 300-350 km. For example, a Calgary to Winnipeg trip I used to do more regularly had stops like this:
- Medicine Hat (300 km)
- Swift Current (220 km)
- Regina (240 km)
- Virden (290 km)
- Winnipeg (290 km)

If I'm going to the coast I usually stop for quick bathroom breaks at the pull outs, but I'm not there more than 5 minutes. I'll stop for 30 minutes in Revelstoke for lunch and gas. Another 30 minute stop in Hope. So stopping every 200km after the leg to Revelstoke for 30 minutes would be really annoying.


I know it's not an issue most of the time, I'm just thinking general public and perception. No one is going to be happy about taking a road trip like that, particularly if you start having charging issues, or have to wait in line for 30 minutes every time.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If I'm going to the coast I usually stop for quick bathroom breaks at the pull outs, but I'm not there more than 5 minutes. I'll stop for 30 minutes in Revelstoke for lunch and gas. Another 30 minute stop in Hope. So stopping every 200km after the leg to Revelstoke for 30 minutes would be really annoying.

But you don't need to stop for 30 minutes after driving 200km, particularly if you're having longer stops where you can charge to 90%+. You could do something like the following assuming a 500km range and charging times that are roughly in line with the chart that CASe333 linked above:

Calgary -> Revelstoke: 400km; 35 minute stop to charge to 90%
Revelstoke -> Kamloops: 210km; 10 minute stop to charge to 70%
Kamloops -> Hope: 205km; 30 minute stop to charge to 90%
Hope -> Vancouver: 175km; arrive with a ~50% charge

[Fuzz]

Maybe ideally, but from what I've seen getting 4 ideal fast charges working on the same trip looks to be mythical, particularity after having driven for awhile. I dunno, maybe in reality isn't isn't a huge issue but it won't take a lot to annoy people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Continuing to hold on to the F-150 because of the one road trip you do every summer shouldn't be the reason ICE restrictions are shelved.

I disagree.

ICE restrictions should be put in place once there is a clear alternative.

There is still no clear alternative to a EV F-150 that people can purchase and actually get. Once there is, setup restrictions or subsidies to push people towards purchasing the EV instead of the ICE.

Many, many, many people use a truck for work stuff. Just because it annoys you that our neighbor has one to go to Banff in the summer doesn't mean every single truck owner is doing that, nor should they all be treated the same.

Also, why not force the manufactures, in this case Ford, to meet certain fuel efficiency standards? Its 2022. Why can't they do better?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe ideally, but from what I've seen getting 4 ideal fast charges working on the same trip looks to be mythical, particularity after having driven for awhile. I dunno, maybe in reality isn't isn't a huge issue but it won't take a lot to annoy people.

On the flip side, look how many people will spend 30+ minutes at Costco to save $6-10 on a tank.

Or the daily annoyances people rationalize away - like every time they park their Tahoe or F250 vs. a handful of times/year where they actually use the full capacity. Of course there are people who regularly need that much space, just as some people do regularly grind out 6+ hour drives with limited stop time.

The gap between actual problem vs. perception of possible problem will remain wide for a lot of consumers, and that's okay. The market will work to close that gap, even if it is irrational and a sub-optimal allocation of resources for society as a whole. EVs are still a big step forward, especially in denser populations.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm assuming the vast majority of people don't have trips over 500kms very often. Although likely more common for people in Western Canada (outside of lower BC) given there is less density there than in most places in the world.

Renting vehicles will probably become more common for those types of trips. And even then - you can see a model where a rental car company opens up every 500 kms on the more common routes and you just swap cars every 500 kms. The car charges up for 2 hours and goes to the next person who needs one.

That's an interesting concept (seriously). Kind of like how the Pony Express and stage coach operations worked in the past.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Continuing to hold on to the F-150 because of the one road trip you do every summer shouldn't be the reason ICE restrictions are shelved.

what if you do 10 road trips a year? tow a boat or trailer?

and I'm not helping all you guys move

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dino7c

what if you do 10 road trips a year? tow a boat or trailer?

and I'm not helping all you guys move

I can't imagine why anyone would ever buy a truck for this reason alone. For every time it helps you a dozen friends will want the same.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I can't imagine why anyone would ever buy a truck for this reason alone. For every time it helps you a dozen friends will want the same.

That's the joke

[Azure]

The other thing is if someone has a truck to use for weekend stuff or as a non-primary vehicle, they certainly aren't putting the same amount of miles on, so its even less of a concern.

Hilarious watching the government and people stumble all over this issue.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Azure

The other thing is if someone has a truck to use for weekend stuff or as a non-primary vehicle, they certainly aren't putting the same amount of miles on, so its even less of a concern.

Hilarious watching the government and people stumble all over this issue.

Pretty rare for people to buy new trucks as non-primary vehicles (unless they are so wealthy that the tax wouldn't be an issue anyway)...

[Azure]

I was replying to the user who was saying people buy F-150s for the one road trip they do each summer....

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

What sort of impact does supercharging or short charging have on battery longevity? Battery degradation seems to be a concern although I'm not certain if there is enough real world data yet for establishing optimal charging parameters and obviously every vehicle is different in terms of thermal management systems.

Basically every study or article I've seen shows that fast DC charging causes more degradation but even for EVs that only use DC charging the increased degradation isn't much worse than normal degradation. Basically battery degradation isn't worth worrying about if you avoid the extremes of charging.

For example it is best to avoid charging the battery in extreme heat, or constantly letting it go below 10%. We looked at renting a M3 from Turo and one guy asked that his car not be charged to 100% at a DC charger. This is a bit ridiculous in my opinion but there is the belief on many forums that constantly charging to 100% causes increased degradation. I set my charger to only go to 90% for this reason but if I ever am going on a long trip I will charge it to 100% or close as needed. The better reason to avoid fast charging above 80% is its just slower no matter what EV and at paid chargers you are paying for time not actual kW delivered.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Azure

I disagree.

ICE restrictions should be put in place once there is a clear alternative.

There is still no clear alternative to a EV F-150 that people can purchase and actually get. Once there is, setup restrictions or subsidies to push people towards purchasing the EV instead of the ICE.

Many, many, many people use a truck for work stuff. Just because it annoys you that our neighbor has one to go to Banff in the summer doesn't mean every single truck owner is doing that, nor should they all be treated the same.

Also, why not force the manufactures, in this case Ford, to meet certain fuel efficiency standards? Its 2022. Why can't they do better?

There are two ways to enact change here. Incentives and disincentives. People don't want to provide incentives to make people buy EVs. thats fine, but then there needs to be a disincentive. ICE restrictions.

An easy way to force businesses to meet standards is to change the standards. You can't sell ICE vehicles to retail consumers by XX date. Ford/GM etc. look at it and say, crap we need EV vehicles to meet our consumer base. They want trucks, lets give them electric trucks. They are doing that.

We all know there are two types of truck owners. I grew up on construction yards and know the value of a pickup. I have also spent the last 10 years downtown and know why people in Calgary drive pick ups.