The EV fact thread

[Bellow]

The difficulty in measuring it is absolutely material. If you can’t measure it, then how can you conclude that it’s materially affecting range?

It's the difference between asking a guy to accurately gauge something on the way to his work vs a more scientific analysis as performed by Autocar.

Personally, I can conclude that it must be consuming energy and therefore must be affecting consumption and in turn range.

It cannot be otherwise.

However I can also conclude that for most journeys the impact is so slight that it in the real world it doesn’t change the way I drive or comfort whilst doing so.

Fair enough.

 

[BTB 500]

Of course an older Toyota Aygo is much much less expensive than a much much newer Fiat 500e. Importantly it’s also much less expensive than a much much newer Toyota Aygo. It’s even much less than your Aygo was when it was brand new.

I don’t think anyone would expect a brand new car to be anything other than a very expensive business, or generally be surprised that newer cars cost more than older cars. I can’t think of a single rational reason to expect otherwise, can you?

When you bought your Mercedes Vito, someone could have said why buy that when a Bedford CF can do the same for a fraction of the price. Or when you bought your C-Class someone could have said that a a Mark 3 Vauxhall Astra estate can do all the same things for a fraction of the cost.

Had that happened then I suspect you would have agreed, and thought to yourself WTAF.

The point is that a 15 year old small ICE (picked sensibly) would be a cheap/reliable option for most people. A BEV equivalent is a compromise because it would have to be newer and will cost a lot more. As I said if you want a new or nearly new car anyway then this is less relevant. But the large majority of people have older cars - 85% in the UK are over 3 years old, and almost 50% are over 10 years old.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

One man's progress is another man's needless compromises.

All progress is seen as unnecessary by some. It has forever been the case and always will be.

 

[Bellow]

Given what you say then I wouldn’t ask him to either, especially as he’ll have to do it many times to discover that it’s not really possible to detect a significant change in consumption due to the heater.

When Autocar record 19%, it is implausible that the guy I'm talking about wouldn't notice a change. In fact he has - and discussed it with me. His quantification was in miles of range lost. A tangible figure for him.

 

[chic0821]

Can't believe we are on Page 388 speaking about EV's. Is this a record for one subject.
Not interested in having an EV (good old Donald, drill baby drill Trump ) but enjoy the arguments, for/against. Keep it going

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

It's the difference between asking a guy to accurately gauge something on the way to his work vs a more scientific analysis as performed by Autocar.

We know that heating an EV consumes energy. The Autocar article confirms it for those who didn't know or have the necessary experience and understanding to know.

Those who drive an EV know that it doesn’t make a significant difference to real world consumption and the way they use their car, therefore arguments that it’s a notable compromise when driving.

 

[Bellow]

Whether in an EV or ICE the driver will probably make the same adjustments to how they drive the car when they’re about to run out of fuel. They’ll probably slow down, brake less, accelerate more gently, close the windows, close the sunroof, etc.

As would an EV driver. But the ICE driver won't have to adjust the heating.

I’m not sure turning off the heater makes a significant additional compromise over and above the rest of that list. If it’s -20 deg C and you’re hours away from the charging station then you have a compelling point,

Possible, but not likely for most in the UK.

In that extreme case - 5 miles from a charge point with 4 miles of range with the heating on and 5 miles with it off. It's obvious what happens. Or, 30 miles form a charge point with 24 miles of range with the heating on and 30 miles with it off. Half an hour (minimum) without heating. No thanks.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Can't believe we are on Page 388 speaking about EV's. Is this a record for one subject.
Not interested in having an EV (good old Donald, drill baby drill Trump ) but enjoy the arguments, for/against. Keep it going

It’s probably trumped COVID-19, renewable energy, and woke. Jury is out whether AI will knock it off the top spot when that thread eventually starts

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

As would an EV driver. But the ICE driver won't have to adjust the heating.

That was my point - both ICE and EV drivers will make the same list of adjustments - turning the heating off doesn’t feel particularly sign can’t relative to the others unless it’s bitterly cold and a long drive to the charger.

Like I said, possible but unlikely for most.

 

[markjay]

...But if the fuel used was carbon neutral, then it wouldn't matter one jot...

The so-called 'Carbon footprint' of cars is one discussion to have.

My point is that generating energy and then wasting it, is conceptually wrong, whichever way you look at it. And this is where EVs excel over ICE cars.

True, the reasons are pragmatic.

With ICE cars, range is not an issue because for very little money the manufacturer can simply stick a bigger fuel tank in the car, or the driver can carry fuel cans in the boot (as they do in Australia). So why bother with technology to improve range?

In fact, modern fuel efficiency is the result of the 70s OPEC oil embargo combined with more-recent stringent emissions targets imposed by Western countries, and not due to any attempt by car manufacturers to increase the range between refuelling per se.

With EVs, an increased range means a bigger battery, which is heavier and more expensive - and this was the primary reason for the motivation to maximise efficiency, I.e. to increase the range without increasing battery size, or in other words to 'squeeze' more range out of a smaller (and cheaper) battery.

For this reason, the end-result is that EVs are far more efficient than ICE cars. The ironic part is that if higher-capacity batteries were cheap and readily-available, EV manufacturers might not have bothered with efficiency...

But as they say, necessity is the mother of all invention.

...And, we'd avoid the waste of perfectly capable fuel distribution systems in every known country being decommissioned and the enormous carbon footprint of the current hurried electrification process....

That's a practical consideration (whether true or not), not a conceptual one.

You could equally argue that home insulation is financially a bad idea, because it may take 100 years the recoup the investment required to convert a poorly-insulated house.

But - this is not the same as saying that having a properly-insulated home is a bad idea.

Similarly, I would argue that EV tech is superior to ICE tech when it comes to energy efficiency. The argument that we've gone too far down the ICE route to make the switch viable may or may not be true, but in any event it does not detract from the fact that EVs are more efficient than ICE cars.

...It once again points to the compromises. Motion or heat in the case of the EV. We all know that in the extreme case of an EV running with a very low SOC trying to get to a charging point its driver will turn off the heating to aid that aim. The driver of an ICE vehicle in need of fuel doesn't have to even think about doing that.

...because he or she doesn't have the option to improve efficiency by reducing energy waste.

Your argument is akin to saying that a Cessna 172 pilot is in a better position than a Typhoon pilot in the event of a major malfunction, because the Typhoon pilot needs to decide whether to pull or not to pull the ejector handle and use the ejector seat to eject, while the Cessna pilot does not have to even think about that.....

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Half an hour (minimum) without heating. No thanks.

How many days per year is the temperature so cold that 30 minutes without heating, in an already warm car would be so difficult it.

And then how likely would it be that you would be so far from a charger with crictally low charge on precisely those days?

Possible, but unlikely for most.

I suspect that the probability will be similar to getting caught in those bitterly cold conditions for other reasons, like a breakdown, running out of fuel, etc.

Having a warm coat is an easy mitigation.

 

[markjay]

The point is that a 15 year old small ICE (picked sensibly) would be a cheap/reliable option for most people. A BEV equivalent is a compromise because it would have to be newer and will cost a lot more..

Clearly an issue that will resolve itself over time?

..But the large majority of people have older cars - 85% in the UK are over 3 years old, and almost 50% are over 10 years old.

'Over time' is also the answer to your other point made earlier, regarding the need for charging capacity increase to accommodate more EVs.

 

[ALFAitalia]

As would an EV driver. But the ICE driver won't have to adjust the heating.

In that extreme case - 5 miles from a charge point with 4 miles of range with the heating on and 5 miles with it off. It's obvious what happens. Or, 30 miles form a charge point with 24 miles of range with the heating on and 30 miles with it off. Half an hour (minimum) without heating. No thanks.

I've been driving my old Ford Ranger for two years without any heating....not worth getting it fixed compared to what its worth. No problem for me. Just dress accordingly....OK OK...I know I live in the South....but we have cold weather here too!!

 

[markjay]

How many days per year is the temperature so cold that 30 minutes without heating, in an already warm car would be so difficult it.

And then how likely would it be that you would be so far from a charger with crictally low charge on precisely those days?

Possible, but unlikely for most.

I suspect that the probability will be similar to getting caught in those bitterly cold conditions for other reasons, like a breakdown, running out of fuel, etc.

Having a warm coat is an easy mitigation.

Clearly, people were made of sterner stuff back in the day......:

 

[markjay]

That was my point - both ICE and EV drivers will make the same list of adjustments - turning the heating off doesn’t feel particularly sign can’t relative to the others unless it’s bitterly cold and a long drive to the charger.

Like I said, possible but unlikely for most.

An ICE driver short on fuel will try to use higher gears and look for faster roads while avoiding congested urban routes... while an EV driver will reduce speed and look for a slower route.

But, like you say, both will make adjustments.

 

[Bellow]

The so-called 'Carbon footprint' of cars is one discussion to have.

My point is that generating energy and then wasting it, is conceptually wrong, whichever way you look at it. And this is where EVs excel over ICE cars.

I agree. One of the reasons I am sceptical about AI. An enormous amount of energy to stick a celebrity's face on a porn actor's body... Nobody cares about that waste though.

True, the reasons are pragmatic.

With ICE cars, range is not an issue because for very little money the manufacturer can simply stick a bigger fuel tank in the car, or the driver can carry fuel cans in the boot (as they do in Australia). So why bother with technology to improve range?

I think you'll find that when the choice is an inch of extra rear leg room vs a larger tank, the easily demonstrated in the showroom leg room wins. This is possible due to the ICE range already being good enough.

In fact, modern fuel efficiency is the result of the 70s OPEC oil embargo combined with more-recent stringent emissions targets imposed by Western countries, and not due to any attempt by car manufacturers to increase the range between refuelling per se.

Range is already good enough. CO2 reduction has been the driver of improved fuel efficiency. Alas, the methods to control the other pollutants have been found wanting.

With EVs, an increased range means a bigger battery, which is heavier and more expensive - and this was the primary reason for the motivation to maximise efficiency, I.e. to increase the range without increasing battery size, or in other words to 'squeeze' more range out of a smaller (and cheaper) battery.

For this reason, the end-result is that EVs are far more efficient than ICE cars. The ironic part is that if higher-capacity batteries were cheap and readily-available, EV manufacturers might not have bothered with efficiency...

But as they say, necessity is the mother of all invention.

I've often wondered why the same efficiency improving methods haven't been applied to ICE as well as EV. Adequate range and quick refuelling are at least part of it.

That's a practical consideration (whether true or not), not a conceptual one.

You could equally argue that home insulation is financially a bad idea, because it may take 100 years the recoup the investment required to convert a poorly-insulated house.

It'd take a shitload longer to recoup the investment of tearing down the house and building another better insulated one. Maybe insulating the existing one isn't such a bad idea.

But - this is not the same as saying that having a properly-insulated home is a bad idea.

Obviously.

Similarly, I would argue that EV tech is superior to ICE tech when it comes to energy efficiency. The argument that we've gone too far down the ICE route to make the switch viable may or may not be true, but in any event it does not detract from the fact that EVs are more efficient than ICE cars.

At the point of use I don't dispute EVs are more efficient in their energy conversion. Larger picture? Where vehicles are home grown (ie, before the Western car industry goes belly up - it's already happening) but become imports from China? That's a hell of a lot of global shipping - which thus far has been difficult to decarbonise - emissions to account for.

 

[Bellow]

How many days per year is the temperature so cold that 30 minutes without heating, in an already warm car would be so difficult it.

In NE Scotland, months.

And then how likely would it be that you would be so far from a charger with crictally low charge on precisely those days?

In NE Scotland, probable.

Possible, but unlikely for most.

I suspect that the probability will be similar to getting caught in those bitterly cold conditions for other reasons, like a breakdown, running out of fuel, etc.

When the weather here is cold, no one runs out of fuel. And in a breakdown where the engine can still be run - it will be.

Having a warm coat is an easy mitigation.

Indeed.

 

[ChipChop]

It’s probably trumped COVID-19, renewable energy, and woke. Jury is out whether AI will knock it off the top spot when that thread eventually starts

Any society that considers dissent unacceptable is on a very slippery slope. You missed out tackling climate change in your list of (progressive?) things that must be allowed to proceed at all/any cost (literally). Funnily enough those who express dissent re- climate change nee global warming are often now called climate deniers such is the desire to label dissenters negatively. Fascinating stuff but very obviously not progress. All imho obviously.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

In NE Scotland, months.

In NE Scotland, probable.

When the weather here is cold, no one runs out of fuel. And in a breakdown where the engine can still be run - it will be.

Indeed.

View attachment 166783

I’ve said it many times. You and your situation is unique and quite extreme relative to the average. If you answer those questions from the perspective of the average person in the UK, it’s quite different.

PS If people want n your area make sure they never run out of fuel, thwy’d probably make sure that they never run out of charge also.

PPS The engine will still be running as long as it’s not a breakdown sour to internal component failure, fuel related, ignition related, etc.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Any society that considers dissent unacceptable is on a very slippery slope. You missed out climate change in your list of (progressive?) things that must be allowed to proceed at all/any cost (literally). Funnily enough those who express dissent re- global warming nee climate change are often now called climate deniers such is the desire to label dissenters negatively. Fascinating stuff but very obviously not progress. All imho obviously.

My list was a list of topics covered in MBClub threads which run and run rather than a list of things which must proceed at all/any cost. We all view things from our own perspective and you viewed the list from yours.

As I’ve said before I always enjoy and learn much from your posts, as you illuminate topics from a perspective that is completely different to my own.