I will never understand who needs cars this quick. The marketing of EVs seems to be all around 0-60 speeds, but 90% of the people I know are infinitely more concerned with price, charging speed, and range.
It’s their one trick, the operation of electric motors mean that you get Max torque immediately so they can put power down at the low end very effectively. So yes, we all know we want price, charge speed and range, but marketing is about selling what you have, not redesigning the product. It’s like the clip from mad men when they decide to advertise cigarettes as “Toasted”. You’d like to say they don’t cause cancer… but you can’t, so you say something else instead.
Have 41Mm on my Ioniq5 that has the same “superpowers”. Have used 350kW charger only once in that time. It was fast, but in my use case (30Mm/yr) hardly is needed. You always leave home with full tank. Usually 10m top-up while visiting a loo at the 50..150kW charger will do the trick for longer journeys. Maybe it is my “old” age, my bladder can not stand longer than 6h driving without stops.
As for the V2L — thus I have used lot more. Have had power failures at home where I switched all the critical systems to the car, have “taken electricity” to my father in law, have use it to power tools outside (mitre saw, for example) and boiled tea with a 2.7kW kettle.
Bigger for me, is the charging network layout... I have done a lot of road trips in the past decade or so, and have often stopped where there are there are at least 5-6 or more cars waiting for the ~6 or so charging spots... even if it's 20m of extra wait, that's close to a half hour to get a spot then another half hour, give or take. Not sure I'd like that.
I know a lot of people that love their EVs for daily commute. And before I started working from home full time, had been considering it. At this point, for the tank every couple weeks that I use, I'd just assume stick to petrol and keep my car longer.
- 18 minute 10-80% charge time in ideal conditions (which is very good)
Having to wait almost 20 minutes on a 60 minutes commute is far from ideal.
That time is very good when one recharges at home or during a long trip or at destination (office / mall / etc) while doing other things. But in the last case it takes away a charging spot until the owner comes back. How is that managed now?
For commuting, you charge at home with a much slower charger than this. You start each morning at a high charge %, and never stop at any charger at all.
The fast charger is for road trips - at the moment, the number and reliability of high-speed charge points is probably a bigger constraint than the relative speed of this model versus others.
> Having to wait almost 20 minutes on a 60 minutes commute is far from ideal.
Yes, you'll need have enough battery to get there or charge before you leave.
> That time is very good when one recharges at home
You won't get that charge time at home unless you decide to put in a 350 kW charger at your house, which will be expensive.
An 18 minute charge time on a fast charger can support about three cars per hour. There still need to be better batteries that can sustain higher C-rates to make fuller use of the existing 350 kW chargers and future 400 kW chargers and beyond.
For a future, high C-rate battery with 100 kWh usable capacity, 10 to 80% would be 70 kWh. If it could charge 10-80% at a flat 350 kW then that would take 12 minutes. At 400 kW it would take 10.5 minutes.
Battery swaps can currently be done in 6 minutes. Swapping in a 100 kWh battery charged to 90% in 6 minutes is equivalent to a flat 0-90% charge curve at 900 kW:
> Having to wait almost 20 minutes on a 60 minutes commute is far from ideal.
You will either need to only charge once a few days, or if you are lucky, charge overnight at your home or during work. No car will need to be charged every 60 minutes.
In a city where people park on the streets because there are no or not enough personal parking slots (very common in Europe, don't know in the USA,) it's either a (metered?) charger for every public parking slot or a boring 20 minutes stop every few days.
Think like: It is not the speed that kills, it is the sudden stop.
Like the VW automatic transmissions. Here in Europe, no one will trim VW with diesel and automatic transmission because the torque will kill the transmission.
In that case, I can't understand why so many EVs are ugly-ass crossovers.
Who the hell has said to themselves well, the Ford Mustang is great, but it would be much more fun if instead of being a 2-door convertible, it was a practical family car and had 4 doors so you can help little Khaleesi into her car seat?
Who are these car designers saying the Lotus Elise is an iconic 2-seater roadster with a very low driving position, but you know what would be even more fun? A 4-door crossover with a much higher driving position, so our elderly and overweight customers can get in and out without straining their knees?
EVs generally have very stable cornering as they don’t roll much due to the low weight and they have a 50/50 weight distribution. Having said that, they are heavy and so are not nimble in switching directions.
Fun as acceleration is not really the interesting part of car fun. That's tight cornering, well-balanced front and back, feeling of total control and precision of big chunk of metal and similar. I do mean on regular roads and not just tracks, there its even more crucial.
But this requires from manufacturer much more than just slapping a heavy battery and putting the power of it straight to the wheels... whole platform needs to be fine-tuned in many aspects to achieve this. In normal price category BMW delivers this better than most peers in their classical models like 3 series. I had one for 10 years, only 200 HP V6 diesel but it was an excellent car for the driver, I properly enjoyed every drive that wasn't about cities and traffic jams. I certainly never felt I needed more power. Also very well balanced mechanical connection of steering wheel to straight to front wheels gave the connection to the car that no modern electronic cars including Porsche can deliver (and EVs are not even trying in any of this regard).
There are problems with this though, most buyers willing to pay premium are in traffic jams and cities, so you are not getting most of the value brands like BMW deliver. Then you are only left with acceleration part (well not that much in those traffic jams). Also it requires driving skills that take years to build with just driving the car (certainly for me, I wasn't using full potential of the car for maybe first 5 years of ownership), unlike just slamming gas pedal and holding steering wheel for your life.
> That's tight cornering, well-balanced front and back, feeling of total control and precision of big chunk of metal and similar.
That is nor really the interesting part of car fun, neither is acceleration.
Going to barely accessible trailhead high in the mountains, fording streams, going on a narrow mountain road, that what makes car driving interesting. I always look in a car 1) what is the biggest tire I can fit, should be at least 33 inches 2) ground clearance 3) suspension travel.
Thats not the interesting part of car fun. The part that is fun to me is to drive a couple hundred miles with the car doing the lane centering and passing for me, so I arrive fresh.
Nobody needs that much acceleration, but it helps drive home the fact that EVs have real advantages over combustion cars beyond not destroying the environment. And while you’re not going to stomp the pedal to the floor at every green light, instant torque is very nice.
Caring about pit mining and watersheds is so 1972. Get with the times granpa. We care about carbon now. /s
All mining is bad for the environment to an extent. The total environmental impact of EVs appears to be substantially less than ICE vehicles, all things included.
It's less than great and largely a mixed bag. I'm honestly surprised that desalinization and hydrogen research never made the jump as it seems more sustainable. Also, somewhat concerned that the electricity generated for most EVs is mostly coming from fossil fuels as well (natural gas in the US which burns cleaner, but lower efficiency to electricity).
I think it will take a combination of things. I think the geopolitical controls over Lithium supply are probably more concerning, as is the availability of resources in and of themselves, which won't meet demand and will drive up costs.
I'm also concerned about the sheer number of products being shipped in small batches everywhere all day, at least in the US... I see an Amazon/UPS/USPS driver on my small street alone many times a day. It just feels very inefficient and wonder if this is just worse than taking a couple steps back away from convenience.
Mining for lithium is destroying the environment much less than mining for oil is. But yes, going without a car completely is better than driving an electric car.
Yes. The anti-lithium thing is a Big Oil campaign that people are falling for. They frequently use pictures of _coal mining_ as Lithium.
Lithium is mostly made the same way as salt - just like you said. There are a few pit mines, but we also do that for .... everything else. Including oil!
I don't really know but guess more powerful electric motors don't cost that much more than less powerful. With ICE cars going from reasonable 200hp to say 600hp requires lots of stuff - large displacement at high RPM or turbos, better cooling and gearbox. It seems that with electric cars this kind of power is essentially free.
I read this a lot. Until you're in the USA and you're on an on-ramp that immediately merges. Then having < 5 seconds to 60 is nice for everybody's safety and comfort.
...just don't merge?
Something tells me with such a window to merge in you are probably looking into to mirrors and not accurately estimating the distance of the car from you either.
Also don't rely on this because the road condition is not going to guarantee you get up to the needed speed in time(cold tires or undesirable road surface conditions). You don't need a sub 5 second car to safely merge.
Eh, sometimes thats not an option if the an onramp doesn't create a new lane.
I've lived and driven in California, Western Europe and New Zealand. Many (not all) California onramps come from tight cloverleafs or they are metered with stop lights, so you have to accelerate quickly to avoid going into the stopping lane (which will be covered in gravel, if it even exists). I never had this problem elsewhere.
Looks like you have plenty road to get up to speed there or slow down if you need to before merging but don't have a lot of area to merge.
I drive in NYC. Some of our merge lanes are pretty short also...if you can't merge you stop and wait...yes you're supposed to yield and not stop but guess what, if you simply can't merge what are you going to do run into a vehicle?
You can't really successfully market based on your weaknesses, now can you? Price, charging speed and range are all inferior to ICE vehicles and will be for some years still. And you also can't ignore the democratization of supercar acceleration that electric brings. It's the strong point of electric, why would they not show case it?
In the current situation where EV prices are at least 10K USD higher than non-EV equivalents you pay up-front more than you save (gas vs. electricity) in the next 5 years... It is currently economically better to buy non-EVs...
But cars last a lot longer than 5 years. And most people buying a used car are going to care about running costs a lot more than people buying new cars, so I expect the used EV premium to be substantial.
Any TCO analysis for keeping a new car for 5 years is going to be dominated by the trade in value. That's going to be a lot higher for EV's than gasoline cars, so I assert that you're better off financially buying an EV even at a $10k premium.
Aren't the drive battery packs the single most expensive part of an EV? Anyone buying a used one with any kind of substantial mileage can expect a harsh loss of range.
To expand on this a bit, Nissan Leafs (Leaves?) are the only electric cars produced in significant quantity that rely on passive cooling for their batteries. Heat is the main enemy of battery health. So you can easily find an old Leaf who's max range is literally half of what it was when brand new. It depends a lot on how hard it was used.
Other EVs on the road are much better at managing battery health, such that it will never make sense to replace their main battery outside catastrophic events. If your electric car is going to die, it will almost certainly be from a bad collision, like any car.
Anyhow, the Nissan Leaf compares poorly on a lot of fronts to any modern EV available in the U.S. Most people in the market for an affordable EV should probably look at the Chevy Bolt first (now that they fixed the battery flaw that caused them to burn down). But if you're really looking for a cheap used EV and in the market for a Leaf, get yourself a Bluetooth ODB2 dongle and an app called LeafSpy to check on the battery health before you buy it.
Since you are limited by top speed on public roads, the important variable becomes average speed. You improve that with good acceleration and fantastic brakes.
See also: People buy power but use torque (acceleration).
Few probably need this - but it could be at home on the autobahn - were you'd want to be able both drive at high speed, and change lanes/overtake other cars at high speed.
The primary reason that EV's have a fast 0-60 is that it's related to a spec that you and most people care about: charging speed. Supporting a high charging speed is expensive. But once you've got a high charging speed you've got most of what you need for a high discharging speed. And then you have most of what you need for a fast 0-60.
If it costs a few hundred extra to support a fast 0-60 and you can charge $10k-$20k extra for the feature....
I think the root cause is just the market asking for oversized battery packs. That enables both the large instant current capability and high charging speed, without requiring too much additional cooling (it's all spread out). You still need to add the oversized current driving capabilities in the electronics that you wouldn't strictly need for fast charging, which is DC and bypasses most internal electronics anyway.
I think this comes down to market economics more than product design. Many manufacturers have been production limited by cell supply for a long time. You _could_ make cars with extra large battery packs for those who live in exceptionally cold climates, but it's a limited market, and you'd be taking away cells from shorter range models. E.g. you're likely to make more money selling 5 cars with a 60kwh pack than 3 cars with a 100kwh pack.
This model seems more sport oriented so the people targeted at are probably more concerned with speed, handling, etc than charging, range, etc. Price is universal concern though.
Same price as a model Y performance, 60% of the range, and they don't mention the full charging speed (although it appears to be similar, the model Y with the new batteries appears to be 15m 10-80%).
Also, same 0-100 speed.
The years tick on, people keep arguing that the traditional manufacturers are launching the Tesla killer "any day now", and they still can't beat the golden triange.
