Hacker News Reader

Comment by arghwhat | Hacker News Reader

Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km in what is effectively optimal conditions (steady driving over long distances). That number doesn't check out.

Most people drive significantly less than a full charge in a given day. Overnight or workplace charging solves like, 95% of car needs. And remember, it's not much of a problem if 5% or less of road cars need to still be (efficient) fossil fuel cars.

Battery advances should mainly be used to make cars lighter at decent range, not to give more range at same weight. Electric cars are too heavy in the current state, fixing that should come first.

View on HN

I average about 140kph. Two hours on the Autobahn is around 280km. My 2021 Model Y is rated at 455km in ideal conditions, but has about 340km today in cold conditions at Autobahn speeds. Charging at stations isn't from 0-100. It's from 10-80%. This is what Tesla recommends because the last 20% takes even longer than the first 70%, and stresses the battery over time. 70% of 340km is 238km. So in reality, especially in the cold, I get even less than two hours between stops. I could get a little more than two hours if I had the upgraded Long Range Model Y.

I'm not disputing that most people drive their cars short distances most of the time. But not all trips are as valuable to people. This concept is called marginal utility. I value my road trips going smoothly *FAR* more than I value my daily commutes going smoothly. For this reason, it's VERY important for me for range to be increased. I won't be buying another EV unless I can get above 1000km real world range. This would, in theory, result in similar trip times to my older ICE vehicle. I am not alone.

I strongly believe that unless automakers give EV customers what they want, they won't see the growth they are hoping for. EV customers want a lot more range. You cannot reason them out of their desires.

> My 2021 Model Y is rated at 455km in ideal conditions, but has about 340km today in cold conditions at Autobahn speeds.

So you're down to 75% capacity, with the first 10% lost to the cold of winter and the rest lost to going 140km/h.

The long range Model Y has 600 km rating in ideal conditions, and applying the same loss you'd be at 450 km. The same calculation is 466 km for the upcoming model, more than your car's ideal rating.

So seems like you already have much better options available. You can also take 10 km/h off your speed to increase range notably (in any car), and you can go further for road trips outside the winter months.

> I value my road trips going smoothly FAR more than I value my daily commutes going smoothly. For this reason, it's VERY important for me for range to be increased.

Sure, but it remains a niche use-case, which is fine but unimportant for the industry and the general population and not what cars should be built or optimized for.

Range is a liability whenever not in use (batteries are heavy), and cars are always better when optimized for the normal use-case. That's why there's long range models, and it's also fine to take such roadtrips in an ICE should need be.

> So seems like you already have much better options available.

If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops. This is still far too limited. I could drive slower, or just not take trips at all, but I expect my car to fit my lifestyle and not the other way around.

> Sure, but it remains a niche use-case

Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements (https://www.mckinsey.com/features/mckinsey-center-for-future...). You might feel this is a niche issue, but the majority of EV buyers feel it's a very big issue to them. It's clear that you're willing to make sacrifices for smaller batteries, and that's perfectly valid. You must just accept that others value different things.

> If I upgrade to the new LR and I get, let's say, 480km in the cold and at highway speeds, that would give me 2 hours and 24 minutes between stops.

480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h.

If you are driving between highway charge stops, it's a bit over 3.5 hours between stops.

> Longer range consistently tops consumer requirements

It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers.

Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need.

> You must just accept that others value different things.

And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns.

I'm sure we can agree that any vehicle is objectively best if it is optimized for your actual needs, and that the more often it fit your need the better. This makes it quite simple: Does your daily driving equal roadtrips, yes or no?

If not, you will get an objectively better experience (better handling, less noise, less energy/fuel cost, less tire wear, faster charging to full) while simultaneously saving your bank account and the environment. And no, a dialy driver doesn't mean "renault zoe", it just means "smaller and lighter battery".

If you drive 1 roadtrip per year or less, it makes sense to rent the car for roadtrip to get the best of both worlds: the best roadtrip machine and the best daily driver, which are mutually exclusive requirements. The roadtrip vehicle might be a large, comfortable ICE car with below average fuel economy and plenty of space - maybe even pulling a camping wagon depending on what you want to do on roadtrips.

If you drive 2+ roadtrips per year, maybe it starts to make sense to buy a roadtrip-specific secondary vehicle. If you drive much more than that (e.g., every weekend, or daily work involves multi-hour driving), then it starts to make sense financially to compromise and use a roadtrip vehicle for daily driving.

> 480 km in the cold at highway speeds is 140 km more than your previously stated 340 km, which is an hour more at 140 km/h.

That is incorrect. Review the issue I outline above. The optimal charging range is 10% to 80% (as per Tesla's recommendation). That is 70%, or 336km. At 140kph that is 2.4 hours, or 2 hours and 24 minutes.

> It is tied with "availability of chargers equal gas stations" in that report, suggesting that the range concern is not about roadtrips but daily convenience for households without own chargers.

It is clearly both. People can and do care about more than one thing at a time. It could be that offering more ubiquitous charging would reduce this area of concern, but that's far from a proven hypothesis. Especially in terms of proportional response.

> Also, answers to a questionaire for "EV skeptical" people about why they haven't purchased an EV isn't representative of actual needs. People when asked about range answer that way because they're comparing to what they already have and have to make up an answer to justify their decisions, not because of need.

If you care about adoption, you should care very much about why non-adopters are not adopting EVs. I don't understand your point of contention. These are real people with real concerns and real requirements with real money who will really not buy EVs until their desires are addressed. Let us never forget that the customer decides what they spend their money on. They alone decide what matters to them.

> And you must accept that your values does not equal the actual needs of the general population, which can be quite easily assessed based on normal worklife patterns.

Surveys suggest people disagree with you. I disagree with you. You're making a values based judgement about the needs of people and claiming that your values are or should be everyone's, and that's clearly incorrect. Just because you don't mind stopping more frequently on trips doesn't mean others share your position. You equate daily driving with road trips, suggesting you either didn't register my explanation of marginal utility, or don't understand it. This is marginal utility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility). Different people assign different levels of value to different things. You, for example, place very little value on comfort during road trips. No problem. You are free to do so. Others, however - and a great many of them - assign much more value to road trips. So we wish to drag around much heavier batteries during our daily commutes to make our road trips faster. We're willing to pay more for that privilege, too. We care about it so much, that we won't buy EVs which make our road trips slower and less convenient. No amount of badgering will convince us to change what we value.

I have tried renting ICE vehicles for road trips. It is a truly terrible experience every single time. Rental agencies are predatory. There are many reasons people prefer to own instead of rent. I have decided I do not like renting. I instead wish my car to fit my needs. This is hardly a radical proposition. It would take a lot of road trips to justify the cost of a second vehicle. I don't think it makes financial or environmental sense.

That matches my experience, in an admittedly slightly older car. Note that you'll rarely be charging over 80% because it's just too slow, and going under 5-10% is a bit too stressful, so practical range is probably 70-75% of maximum on longer trips. Less if it's winter and/or the AC is running.

If I could rely on every Rasthof having multiple functional EV chargers, I think range anxiety would be far, far less of an issue for me, but as of now it's something that I do think about for longer trips, and do have to plan for.

why not charge it to 100% for a long trip? It literally says to do so.

Because you’ll spend ages at the charging station?

I had a road trip, and pretty much all the time I got 95-100% charge while having lunch with supercharges, which are everywhere. It takes 30 minutes to do it.

So how many 30 minutes lunches are you having? One every 2 hours?

> supercharges, which are everywhere

Not really? That's the whole point, that the availability of fast chargers is still very low.

Every 3-4 hours I stop for a 30 minute meal. Ye, sounds reasonable.

Of course you start the trip off at 100%, but the point is that charging speed varies substantially based on the SoC in the battery. So if you deplete most of your charge and need to stop, recharging to 80% takes substantially less time than topping it off to 100%. So if your battery range is 300 miles, you might get 280 on the first leg of your trip but will only be able to do maybe 220 on the second leg.

Answered different thread - superchargers get from 5-10% to 95-100% in line 30 minutes. When we are on roadtrips I often have to go and unplug it so I don't get extra charges for idle. I know superchargers are not everywhere.

> Of course you start the trip off at 100%

Thats… not obvious at all. Unless you’re within the super small part of society that can charge at home, you might be as well starting with 20 or 30% - exactly the same as with a regular car.

Maybe in Germany that’s “super small”, in the US ~70% of the population lives in sfh where that can be assumed.

Right, but that’s just a single, very un-typical country. Most people in developed countries live in cities. If you live in a city - you live in an apartment (unless you’re quite wealthy)z

I expect that most people living in NYC do not have a single family house with a garage and a garden.

It is not at all an un-typical country. It might even be the case for the majority of the US, most of which live outside New York City.

Plus, cities in countries over on this side of the pond provide street charging and even have legislation about maximum distance to a charger. Parking garages and lots also provide charging. Not as convenient as living in a house with a charger where you can always plug in at night (and possibly use private solar cells for extra benefit), but good enough for most commuting.

I have a PHEV specifically so I can take an occasional 500-600 mile trip without range anxiety. With the ICE, I can almost do the trip without a pit stop. But I make a stop. So it seems that ICE or EV both have to make one stop for a 500 mile journey. Of course, the ICE could make a 1000 mile journey with two stops where your EV would need three. But I make a 1000 mile journey in a single day less than once a year. So 10 extra pit stops in 10 years doesn't seem like a bad trade-off for the 4 or 5 fill-ups I skip every month.

> Of course, the ICE could make a 1000 mile journey with two stops where your EV would need three.

It sadly doesn't work like that. Range is reduced by about 25% in the cold. Further, one doesn't charge 0-100% at stations. They charge 10-80%. This is suggested by Tesla because the last 20% takes longer than the first 70%. So the effective range on a new standard range Tesla Model Y is 455 * 0.75 * 0.7 = 239km between stops. Assuming Tesla's 455km initial estimate is accurate, and it's not really. It tends to overestimate, so in reality, it's less than 239km. Especially at highway speeds.

A 1,000 mile journey would require approximately 7-8 stops, depending on charge at journey start and end.

> Two hours at the Autobahn is just 200-250km

Much closer to 300km, unless you’re driving in high traffic. You’ll be able to keep around 140 km/h.

Just because you can drive 140km/h doesn't mean you should - ignoring everything else, it's noisy and inefficient in any car. There's also speed limits of 130 down to 80 in many places, which knocks down the average speed.

That's a preference thing. I just did a long drive in a van doing 90-100 pretty much the entire trip but on the bike I'm on the speed limit and up to ~240 long term whenever reasonable, in cars usually speed limit up to 200-210 long term. Noise and efficiency be damned, I just want to get off the highway/get where I'm going. On electrics it's ridiculous how quickly the battery gets drained if you don't drive slow though. On a Model 3 4XXhp the charge % falls like a brick at 233. An old Cayenne S lasts longer at 260.. Of course one's a city car and the other kinda meant for long distance but I was surprised to see it lose charge so quickly. If I were to get one I'd have to get used to driving like a truck or my trips will get a lot longer from sitting at chargers.

Sorry, but going 210+ km/h on any public road is absolutely idiotic on every level. Not only is it unsafe (no, there is no valid argument to suggest otherwise when mingling with traffic that is driving 130km/h slower or more than you on the same road), but it is also environmentally irresponsible.

The fact that someone decides to make this trade-off purely based on their own impatience is the frustrating reason for why cars had to ship with speed limiters in the first place, and why the the autobahn might end up getting global speed limits which may or may not ruin the fun at places like the Nürburgring.

And no, the range impact is no surprise nor isolated to electric cars. Even in a diesel polo bluemotion that on a good day can do over 1000 km on a tank, my experience is that spirited highway driving easily takes off 25% of the range, and I wouldn't be surprised if your described driving would leave it with less than 50% of the advertised range.

> Sorry, but going 210+ km/h on any public road is absolutely idiotic on every level. Not only is it unsafe (no, there is no valid argument to suggest otherwise when mingling with traffic that is driving 130km/h slower or more than you on the same road), but it is also environmentally irresponsible.

You do know we're talking about the Autobahn, right? One of the safest, most well-maintained road networks in the world? It's fine that you prefer to drive slowly on such roads, but many people prefer to drive faster. It sounds like you are well suited for EVs.

Yes, I am familiar and have driven the autobahn on multiple occasions, and occasionally at speeds exceeding what we discuss here.

It is irrelevant what the road is, or how fast people prefer to drive. It's not a race track, other drivers are not race drivers, the road is not maintained to race track standards, and cars and drivers are not equipped with race safety equipment. Your driving must be able to safely handle a car or truck going 80 swerving in front of you with no prior warning just as you pass it, and at 210 that's equivalent to crashing into a stationary object at 130 km/h (i.e., everyone and their cat dies).

Most people disagree with you, or the Autobahn would have speed limits. Despite the lack of limits, the Autobahn accounts for about 31% of all traffic in Germany, but only 11% of traffic deaths. It is clearly very safe compared to other roads with speed limits, and you are not basing your fear on the facts, but on your feelings.

Environmentally irresponsible, yeah.

Unsafe, depends. It's definitely less safe than going slower. Agree on that. In my eyes,however, "unsafe" depends on traffic, weather, road, vehicle, experience, etc. 200 in a Polo is sketchy, 200 in a clapped out Polo with cheap, old all seasons is an emotional experience, 200 on a bike is the top of 3rd gear, 200 in an M4/911 is about the same.

Speed limiters, if we're talkiing about the same implementation (not Volvo being Volvo), came more so as a means of upselling (AMG driver's pack or whatever they called it) and to keep people from doing speeds unsafe even on a closed course in the very long overdrive gears.

I'm also not about to go 140 because the Autobahn (+Nordschleife) might get a speed limit. If there's a speed limit added, I'll follow it to the best of my ability but I don't believe I'm being particularly asocial by staying in the left and giving it some chooch when I believe it's safe to do so. I'm not weaving, I flash very, very rarely, on the bike I'll only kill myself most likely, with the cars I'm even more careful with traffic since I can't squeeze by and am much more likely to hurt others in an accident, when doing a top speed run I abort if there's traffic in the next lane, if I'm going out to do one I do so at 2-3AM in bumfuck nowhere..

Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag. It was like an old Trailblazer I had where you'd see the fuel arrow start moving ever so slightly when you floored it but with a percentage.

> Unsafe, depends.

I agree that you can be better equipped for driving 200+ km/h, but I do not agree that it is possible for such driving to be safe on a public road unless you are guaranteed to be alone (and with proper racing equipment).

The problem isn't you and your car, it's that you're zooming past other cars at speeds that make them practically stationary, and no amount of experience you may have make them any less likely to accidentally pull out, not noticing that a car had approached them at literally twice their speed.

Even if no one ever failed to check their mirrors on regular lane changes, someone doing 80 might be forced to swerve for emergency reasons, and if you're going 210 then it's like hitting a stationary object at 130 km/h.

Heck, even professional racing drivers have crash into each other all the time, and a check of your mirror isn't valid for very long if the speed difference is too high. Differential speeds are already not great when you mix 130 and 80 in the same direction, but mixing 200+ and 80 is impossible to do safely.

> Anyway, what I meant was that, while I haven't done any scientific testing, it seemed like the Tesla's range was impacted much more by high speed driving than ICEs I've driven despite being very low drag.

I wonder if the perceived difference isn't just a result of how much range you had to beign with, combined with the tesla maybe being easier to keep "in the green" near the rated range than an ICE car.

Taking the polo as example, if you always drove it very aggressively you might be happy thinking it went 650 km on a tank and assume that the fuel rating was just an unrealistic lie. But drive it a bit more carefully (while staying at the speed limit) and you'll get 1000+ km on a tank as advertised.

If you do the same exercise in a car that starts with a 500km range instead of 1000+, then being stuck with just 60% of the range from aggressive driving might be a lot more impactful.

(Also, always remember that drag coefficients is for a given area which can be quite misleading when comparing cars of different sizes like crossover SUVs.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com