Auto Execs Are Coming Clean, EVs Are Just Not Working...

[Deanh]

On 10/27/2023 at 3:49 PM, akirby said:

You just completely ignore facts that conflict with your agenda….

lol...hes a plug in groupie....

[Deanh]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Good description, but it were easy, we would have seen it already, right?

 

The cost part of the puzzle I can see easier because there is a lot Tesla could eliminate and still be competitive with ICE in that price range.  Musk recently said the new compact Tesla (Model 2) would be “cool” and “beautiful” but also “utilitarian”, and who knows what that actually means?

 

Most ICE cars in $25,000 range don’t have vegan leather, powered seats, 14 speakers, powered tailgate, etc. so relative to a Model 3/Y, I can imagine Tesla could build a Civic or Corolla competitor, just powered by electricity.  Whether Tesla will dilute the brand by building basic transportation is a different question altogether.

 

The technical side of puzzle must also be a tough one for Tesla to solve.  Press has been reporting that the Model 2 will have a 53 kWh battery, based on a government filing IIRC, which is a little smaller than Model 3 at +/- 60 kWh nominal.

 

To achieve same highway range but with smaller battery than RWD Model 3, they will have to improve efficiency from 126 to ~140 MPGe, needing to match the very best highway rating of the Lucid Air Pure.  It should be possible given a Tesla Model 2 is expected to be smaller and lighter than the Lucid; however, the Lucid Air Pure has an exceptional Cd of only 0.197.  A Tesla Model 2 could have less frontal area and weigh much less, so maybe can get by with higher Cd.  

 

For reference, Nissan Leaf MPGe Highway is only 99, and Chevy Bolt is 109, so getting up to 140 MPGe Highway with an aero shape people will find appealing enough to buy is probably not an easy task.

 

 

P.S. — I emphasized highway driving range above because it doesn’t seem to me many American buyers will embrace BEVs limited primarily to city use.  A car you can’t take on a road trip appears to be a deal breaker for many.

Id take ANY announcements and fanfare from Tesla with a HUGE grain of salt....its their "cater to/ smooze the shareholder" mantra....

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Good description, but it were easy, we would have seen it already, right?

 

The cost part of the puzzle I can see easier because there is a lot Tesla could eliminate and still be competitive with ICE in that price range.  Musk recently said the new compact Tesla (Model 2) would be “cool” and “beautiful” but also “utilitarian”, and who knows what that actually means?

It’s a subcompact vehicle so will appeal to city commuters in China and Europe

Subcompact vehicles are by nature bulbous little things in order to carry four humans in an incredibly small short vehicle. Banging on about aero as if you can scale that down is just not a thing with such a small car. Some aero shape is possible but that not the objective of what is predominantly a city commute vehicle.

 

Quote

P.S. — I emphasized highway driving range above because it doesn’t seem to me many American buyers will embrace BEVs limited primarily to city use.  A car you can’t take on a road trip appears to be a deal breaker for many.

Highway driving in a subcompact vehicle may be acceptable in Europe and China but most North American drivers would have little to no interest in a vehicle of that size……it’s also why the 3 and Y are so popular around the world, that’s the sweet spot for all kinds of driving.

Edited October 30, 2023 by jpd80

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, Deanh said:

Id take ANY announcements and fanfare from Tesla with a HUGE grain of salt....its their "cater to/ smooze the shareholder" mantra....

Absolutely, particularly when it comes to schedules.

 

I was mainly addressing jpd80’s comments about costs, and qualifying it by expressing my opinion that Tesla likely could build a $25,000 entry-level car if they chose to, but meeting Tesla-customer range expectations at that price is probably very difficult.

 

It’s funny that I don’t recall saying people should care about how aerodynamic their cars are (some probably care anyway for bragging rights), but have implied many times that “manufacturers” should care because it affects highway range and therefore how well car will be received.

 

Objective estimates lead to obvious conclusions most people would make.  Using a Nissan Leaf as an example, at 99 MPGe it would only have a highway range of about 155 miles if battery was 53 kWh as reported for new Tesla.  That means having to recharge every 100 miles or so (15~80%) in good weather and more often in bad weather.  Such a car would likely fail miserably in US market.  Tesla building equivalent of a cheap Leaf would be a disaster.  All I’m saying is that if manufacturers want to extend highway range and don’t want to add battery capacity and costs, making vehicle more efficient is essentially only other option.  Tesla execs from Elon down know that better than most.

[Rick73]

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

It’s a subcompact vehicle so will appeal to city commuters in China and Europe

Subcompact vehicles are by nature bulbous little things in order to carry four humans in an incredibly small short vehicle. Banging on about aero as if you can scale that down is just not a thing with such a small car. Some aero shape is possible but that not the objective of what is predominantly a city commute vehicle.

 

Highway driving in a subcompact vehicle may be acceptable in Europe and China but most North American drivers would have little to no interest in a vehicle of that size……it’s also why the 3 and Y are so popular around the world, that’s the sweet spot for all kinds of driving.

Just curious, how much smaller than Model 3/Y do you think this new vehicle might be?

 

I have driven my son’s Model 3 and would take a road trip in a much smaller vehicle.  And have many times, including in Mustangs which have tiny interiors by comparison.

[rperez817]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

For me personally I would rather drive a Lightning on a road trip than a Tesla.

 

F-150 Lightning is an excellent road trip vehicle, thanks to its combination of comfort and capability. While Ford's support for the Tesla developed NACS charging standard in 2025 will make F-150 Lightning even better in that regard, non-Tesla public DCFC for 2022-2024 Lightning using the CCS standard can still be decent as long as you avoid Electrify America. 

 

Ezra Dyer wrote about his F-150 Lightning road trip through the Carolinas carrying 3 of his friends and their gear. The Ford F-150 Lightning Might Not Need Those Tesla Chargers (caranddriver.com)

 

[Rick73]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Ezra Dyer wrote about his F-150 Lightning road trip through the Carolinas carrying 3 of his friends and their gear. The Ford F-150 Lightning Might Not Need Those Tesla Chargers (caranddriver.com)

That is good news, except Circle K seems expensive at 44 cents per kWh.  Do you pay that much charging your EVs?

 

I’m sure most owners pay much lower rate for home charging, but at $0.44/kWh, that’s more than cost of gasoline presently (in many states anyway).

[jpd80]

6 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Just curious, how much smaller than Model 3/Y do you think this new vehicle might be?

 

I have driven my son’s Model 3 and would take a road trip in a much smaller vehicle.  And have many times, including in Mustangs which have tiny interiors by comparison.

Subcompact is Ecosport/Puma sized so a lot shorter than what most American are comfortable with.

[tbone]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

That is good news, except Circle K seems expensive at 44 cents per kWh.  Do you pay that much charging your EVs?

 

I’m sure most owners pay much lower rate for home charging, but at $0.44/kWh, that’s more than cost of gasoline presently (in many states anyway).

I recently paid $40.81 for 83.75 kwh. That was $31.83 at 38kwh plus a $8.98 charge for time on the charger.  

[Rangers09]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

That is good news, except Circle K seems expensive at 44 cents per kWh.  Do you pay that much charging your EVs?

 

I’m sure most owners pay much lower rate for home charging, but at $0.44/kWh, that’s more than cost of gasoline presently (in many states anyway).

 

Converted to US $, our base rate is 7 cents per kWh, which increases to 10 cents per kWh after we use about 1,400 kWh each month.

[Rick73]

51 minutes ago, tbone said:

I recently paid $40.81 for 83.75 kwh. That was $31.83 at 38kwh plus a $8.98 charge for time on the charger.  

That’s even higher.  I think it works out to about $0.487 per kWh.  If having to charge at that rate, gas is probably cheaper, at least in Texas.

 

Recently read that Tesla is planning to revise Supercharger costs to penalize charging over 80% when stations are busy.  Since charging slows above 80% state of charge, they can get more total capacity that way.  Apparently some owners let cars sit taking up space until they get close to 100% which takes up a lot of time.

[blazerdude20]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

That is good news, except Circle K seems expensive at 44 cents per kWh.  Do you pay that much charging your EVs?

 

I’m sure most owners pay much lower rate for home charging, but at $0.44/kWh, that’s more than cost of gasoline presently (in many states anyway).

Been charging my Y at home for about two months now. I pay $0.0743 per kWh.  When I use a super charger it’s $0.21 per kWh. 
 

 

[Rick73]

It appears a “congestion” fee at Tesla Superchargers is not a done deal yet.  Whether it actually gets implemented or not, the question it raises for me personally is how much control do I want to allow “others” to have over my vehicle or what would have been considered personal decisions not long ago?  In most cases I expect owners don’t have much choice other than not buy vehicle in the first place.  When I pull up to an Exxon, they don’t care how much gas I buy or if I have enough already to get to the next gas station.
 

 

https://electrek.co/2023/10/24/tesla-planning-controversial-congestion-fee-supercharger/

[Rick73]

8 hours ago, blazerdude20 said:

Been charging my Y at home for about two months now. I pay $0.0743 per kWh.  When I use a super charger it’s $0.21 per kWh. 
 

 

That’s really good.  I pay $0.20 per kWh at home, so nearly 3 times higher; and expect it will go up to fund required Texas grid upgrades.  Anyway, when BEVs were first being promoted as saving on energy costs, it must be difficult for manufacturers’ planning given such wide electricity cost variations.  For people who can’t charge at home, energy costs alone is an issue, on top of higher initial cost.  I can see why BEV sales have slowed some, for various reasons.

[akirby]

25 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

It appears a “congestion” fee at Tesla Superchargers is not a done deal yet.  Whether it actually gets implemented or not, the question it raises for me personally is how much control do I want to allow “others” to have over my vehicle or what would have been considered personal decisions not long ago?  In most cases I expect owners don’t have much choice other than not buy vehicle in the first place.  When I pull up to an Exxon, they don’t care how much gas I buy or if I have enough already to get to the next gas station.
 

 

https://electrek.co/2023/10/24/tesla-planning-controversial-congestion-fee-supercharger/

But during the gas crisis of the 70s they absolutely limited how much gas you could buy at one time for similar reasons.

[Rick73]

22 minutes ago, akirby said:

But during the gas crisis of the 70s they absolutely limited how much gas you could buy at one time for similar reasons.

Very true.  People didn’t like that either, but tolerated because it was a “crisis”, and one not of our own doing.  Plus Americans didn’t have much of a choice but to deal with fuel shortage until issue was corrected as soon as possible.

 

Situation today is different from my perspective in that buyers can choose non-BEV vehicles and eliminate risk that Musk or anyone else can switch off their power for business/profit reasons; or for who knows what other reason that hasn’t come up yet.  Uncertainty is rarely a good thing in business as I’m sure you know.

[GearheadGrrrl]

EV Chargers are very much capitalized by government subsidies and with little funding for maintenance, repairs, and replacements. While everything is sweetness and light while these chargers are new, eventually they'll have to turn a profit and charging prices will skyrocket or they'll be abandoned. Something to think about before you spend a year's pay or more on an EV...

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

EV Chargers are very much capitalized by government subsidies and with little funding for maintenance, repairs, and replacements. While everything is sweetness and light while these chargers are new, eventually they'll have to turn a profit and charging prices will skyrocket or they'll be abandoned. Something to think about before you spend a year's pay or more on an EV...

 

And how is that any different then operating a Gas or Diesel pump? If anything a EV charger should be an magnitude cheaper to operate then a fuel pump, just on lack of need for testing for calibration or environmental impact if it spills or develops a leak.

 

All the government is doing is greasing the wheels so that EVs can become widespread. Its along the same lines of asbestos removal-yeah its a great insulator/fire proof, but causes cancer. 

[Rick73]

56 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

And how is that any different then operating a Gas or Diesel pump? If anything a EV charger should be an magnitude cheaper to operate then a fuel pump, just on lack of need for testing for calibration or environmental impact if it spills or develops a leak.

 

All the government is doing is greasing the wheels so that EVs can become widespread. Its along the same lines of asbestos removal-yeah its a great insulator/fire proof, but causes cancer. 

Why would you not test chargers to keep operators honest?  When I guy pays for 50 kWh, how would he know that he didn’t only get 49? Corruption is corruption whether gas or electricity, and I’m sure someone will at least try to exploit system if not already.

 

BTW, government subsidies are more than “greasing the wheels” when it pays for a large portion of a vehicle.  I know they do it elsewhere too but that in itself doesn’t make it right.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

And how is that any different then operating a Gas or Diesel pump? If anything a EV charger should be an magnitude cheaper to operate then a fuel pump, just on lack of need for testing for calibration or environmental impact if it spills or develops a leak.

 

All the government is doing is greasing the wheels so that EVs can become widespread. Its along the same lines of asbestos removal-yeah its a great insulator/fire proof, but causes cancer. 

It seems that the focus of support is building charging stations but not really about the electrical reticulation infrastructure that’s needed to support all of them. Good intentions abound but perhaps the focus needs to be broadened a bit and who pays for all the sunken costs to upgrade the supply grid.

[Rangers09]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

And how is that any different then operating a Gas or Diesel pump? If anything a EV charger should be an magnitude cheaper to operate then a fuel pump, just on lack of need for testing for calibration or environmental impact if it spills or develops a leak.

 

 

Electric chargers may not require containment for spills, but they will require initial calibration and regular checks to ensure they are providing the correct amount of power the consumer is purchasing. As with any commercial electrical device, it will also require regular inspections to ensure it is in good working order, so as to identify and eliminate any potential hazards, such as shorts and/or electrocution.  These are standard requirements of most insurance companies and if the vendor is ISO 9001 certified.

[Rick73]

5 hours ago, jpd80 said:

It seems that the focus of support is building charging stations but not really about the electrical reticulation infrastructure that’s needed to support all of them. Good intentions abound but perhaps the focus needs to be broadened a bit and who pays for all the sunken costs to upgrade the supply grid.

In the link I posted above regarding charging congestion fees, one of the comments blamed the transformer people (whoever that is) for there not being more Superchargers already available.  It’s absolutely amazing how reality is ignored.  As mentioned previously a 250 kW Supercharger uses a lot of power.  Four of them require a Megawatt, and 4,000 a Gigawatt or more when at full charging power.  That’s approximately power range of a typical nuclear power plant.

 

Tesla doesn’t disclose how much a supercharger cost, but best estimates I’ve seen range from $40k to about $100k per stall. Even if we use the higher cost number, 4,000 stalls would cost about $400 million.  By comparison, a nuclear power plant that size today would cost $5 to $10 Billion.  That doesn’t include power transmission or distribution.

 

Some will argue nuclear power is not cheapest, but if goal is to eliminate CO2, it is probably best viable option in large scale.  In any case, above very rough numbers show that EV chargers themselves will cost much less than adding power generating capacity.  And I expect charger costs will go down while power generation may go up.  Regardless of how it’s done, cost to upgrade grid generation, transmission and distribution will be extremely high.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

In the link I posted above regarding charging congestion fees, one of the comments blamed the transformer people (whoever that is) for there not being more Superchargers already available.  It’s absolutely amazing how reality is ignored.  As mentioned previously a 250 kW Supercharger uses a lot of power.  Four of them require a Megawatt, and 4,000 a Gigawatt or more when at full charging power.  That’s approximately power range of a typical nuclear power plant.

 

Tesla doesn’t disclose how much a supercharger cost, but best estimates I’ve seen range from $40k to about $100k per stall. Even if we use the higher cost number, 4,000 stalls would cost about $400 million.  By comparison, a nuclear power plant that size today would cost $5 to $10 Billion.  That doesn’t include power transmission or distribution.

 

Some will argue nuclear power is not cheapest, but if goal is to eliminate CO2, it is probably best viable option in large scale.  In any case, above very rough numbers show that EV chargers themselves will cost much less than adding power generating capacity.  And I expect charger costs will go down while power generation may go up.  Regardless of how it’s done, cost to upgrade grid generation, transmission and distribution will be extremely high.

So  the third problem I see is sufficient power line capacity to transfer the power to the Superchargers. All three pieces of the problem need to be addressed at the same time. It’s a massive problem hiding in plain sight…..

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by jpd80

[AM222]

On 10/31/2023 at 3:31 AM, jpd80 said:

It’s a subcompact vehicle so will appeal to city commuters in China and Europe

Subcompact vehicles are by nature bulbous little things in order to carry four humans in an incredibly small short vehicle. Banging on about aero as if you can scale that down is just not a thing with such a small car. Some aero shape is possible but that not the objective of what is predominantly a city commute vehicle.

 

Highway driving in a subcompact vehicle may be acceptable in Europe and China but most North American drivers would have little to no interest in a vehicle of that size……it’s also why the 3 and Y are so popular around the world, that’s the sweet spot for all kinds of driving.

"Subcompact vehicles are by nature bulbous little things in order to carry four humans in an incredibly small short vehicle" That description sounds more like an A-segment city car. Examples that would be familiar to North Americans would be the Fiat 500 and Chevy Spark. They're usually shorter than 150 inches.


Modern subcompacts aka B-segment vehicles can stretch over 170 inches like the Kia Seltos crossover SUV and Nissan Versa sedan for example.

Edited November 1, 2023 by AM222

[silvrsvt]

20 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Why would you not test chargers to keep operators honest?  When I guy pays for 50 kWh, how would he know that he didn’t only get 49? Corruption is corruption whether gas or electricity, and I’m sure someone will at least try to exploit system if not already.

 

Because you can do that remotely via software without checking it in person. This is not a standalone system like gas pumps are. 

 

As for charging capacity-part of this is an expectation of the charging stations being used 24/7 at full load-when that most likely won't happen either. Lots of fuzzy math being thrown around without any real evidence of how it actually is going to be used.