Which EV would you buy?

F350joe

Well-known member
The thing with charging that people don’t take into account is that it is passive. You don’t have to baby sit it while it charges. It can be charging while you eat lunch, get groceries, or visit Old Faithful. You start from home with a full tank so that is one less stop that ICE can’t do. Basically, the delta between charging and filling with fuel is not as big as many percieve. Electricity is more available than gas so someday, I suspect, will be less a hassle than pumping gas. We are not there yet but probably not that far out either.
 

badm0t0rfinger

Raptor Apologist.
The thing with charging that people don’t take into account is that it is passive. You don’t have to baby sit it while it charges. It can be charging while you eat lunch, get groceries, or visit Old Faithful. You start from home with a full tank so that is one less stop that ICE can’t do. Basically, the delta between charging and filling with fuel is not as big as many percieve. Electricity is more available than gas so someday, I suspect, will be less a hassle than pumping gas. We are not there yet but probably not that far out either.
I was talking to a coworker about just this. "BUT FUELING IS SO MUCH FASTER!" Yeah but I will be able to plug in and walk away for an hour and go grab some food or whatever while it charges. Once the infrastructure becomes more concrete I think EVs will be the norm and ICE will be relegated to nostalgic vehicles and oddities.

Oh and my apartment is adding about a dozen EV parking spots in their, on top of their 4 spots they have now. The nice bit is that these new ones we can reserve for 100 a month, which is an insanely good deal since second vehicle parking is 60 bucks anyways, and I fill about 200 a month in gas on my truck.
 

Todd n Natalie

Observer
I was talking to a coworker about just this. "BUT FUELING IS SO MUCH FASTER!" Yeah but I will be able to plug in and walk away for an hour and go grab some food or whatever while it charges. Once the infrastructure because more concrete I think EVs will be the norm and ICE will be relegated to nostalgic vehicles and oddities.
True, but, what if there are only 2 chargers at a station and you have to wait to charge your vehicle? If I have to wait for someone to finish pumping gas it's a 5 - 10 minute wait.
 

badm0t0rfinger

Raptor Apologist.
True, but, what if there are only 2 chargers at a station and you have to wait to charge your vehicle? If I have to wait for someone to finish pumping gas it's a 5 - 10 minute wait.
I think thats where more and more suburban types that adopt it will either use the at-home Tesla hookup. Everyone talks about the limitations on road trips, but most people just need something to get them to work and back on their 27 mile round trip each day. Even a really wall outlet can charge a vehicle enough overnight to compensate for that drive.

Like I added to my previous comment, apartments are adding them so more people can adopt this tech who cannot or prefer to not own. Lots of supermarkets and malls around here (in fairness, its California) have a few EV reserved spots. One of the malls near me even has a whole floor on the parking garage dedicated to EVs.
 
I think thats where more and more suburban types that adopt it will either use the at-home Tesla hookup. Everyone talks about the limitations on road trips, but most people just need something to get them to work and back on their 27 mile round trip each day. Even a really wall outlet can charge a vehicle enough overnight to compensate for that drive.

Like I added to my previous comment, apartments are adding them so more people can adopt this tech who cannot or prefer to not own. Lots of supermarkets and malls around here (in fairness, its California) have a few EV reserved spots. One of the malls near me even has a whole floor on the parking garage dedicated to EVs.
Yep, I charge at home 98% of the time. I generally just plug it in once a week, all I need for M-F. I had a 14-50 plug installed when I got my Tesla but previously I charged on a regular 20 amp outlet. More than what I needed for my daily 32 mile trip.
 

badm0t0rfinger

Raptor Apologist.
Yep, I charge at home 98% of the time. I generally just plug it in once a week, all I need for M-F. I had a 14-50 plug installed when I got my Tesla but previously I charged on a regular 20 amp outlet. More than what I needed for my daily 32 mile trip.
My normal round trip is about 6 miles and once I get my bike I'll just do that but once or twice a month I'll head up to Miramar which is about 50 miles round trip so that will be all Tesla and maybe once or twice a quarter I head up to Fallon, NV for work and that will definitely a truck trip because afterwards I'll take like 4 days off and just camp... assuming its not 117 again.
 

Shovel

Dreaming Ape
Once the infrastructure becomes more concrete I think EVs will be the norm and ICE will be relegated to nostalgic vehicles and oddities.
Again I have to remind you that math exists.

In-town EV's work right now because they get to be aerodynamic and they get low rolling resistance tires and they're not towing anything - it's all the exact same reasons a 1980s era Chevy Sprint was getting 50+ mpg with almost no technology at all.

If you start talking expedition capable SUVs the efficiency falls off a cliff. That's a real problem nobody has addressed and the only real solution here is huge batteries. Napkin math if an ICE is 30% efficient and has a 24 gallon fuel tank that's roughly 820kWh worth of BTU's , so if we assume the EV is 90% efficient and you are using 80% of the battery pack's capacity for work that leaves you with a 350kWh battery pack to perform equivalent work to 24 gallons of gasoline. That's 250-300 miles in most of the "overland" trucks on this website, and roughly equivalent to what the medium range Tesla Model 3 does on a 62kWh battery.

That is about a 460% increase in energy demand when you switch from slippery little road car to chunky off roader.

Now what if EVs become the norm? An average of 30,000 vehicles per day (and up to 50,000 on peak days) pass through the Eisenhower tunnel in Colorado and maybe all those vehicles get to the bottom of the mountain with a full charge from regen but they can't hand it off like a baton to the cars driving up hill and nobody's going to start heading up that hill without topping up first. Are you going to bulldoze half of Colorado for waiting lots while everyone spends an hour or three passively eating lunch while waiting for their EV to charge? Does Grand Junction need a nuclear plant? The USA only has one nuclear generator not located next to a large body of water and they can't just be built any ol' place.

I don't show up here just to naysay and I think I've demonstrated I have no fundamental problem with EV's. Hybrids and PHEV's are exciting and I've owned one and will almost certainly own another in the future.

What I do want to naysay the pants out of is fantasy land stuff. EVs and electrification are a piece of the climate and energy security puzzle but the only people who market cure-alls are charlatans and EVs do not in fact cure all ills, and anyone with the inclination to do a tiny bit of mathematics should be able to see that for themselves and recognize where the buck starts and stops here.


Now let's look at the ICE part of this: in the USA the standard delivery rate for light duty fuel delivery is 10GPM (I think it's 13gallons or 50 liters per minute in Canada) so around 2.5 minutes to "charge a 350kWh battery from 20% to full" (equivalent) . That's the comparison EV's are up against. That's about 5 megaWatts charge rate.
Let's pretend that out of the ~30,000 people crossing the rockies through Eisenhower tunnel half are going East, and about 5% of them feel like charging up before the climb. That's like 950ish people per day who want 5 megaWatts of power.. again, the numbers get real big real fast.

There's another much easier solution here, but so far 100% of the time when I propose it I get pooped on for having the audacity to type things into a calculator before daydreaming so.. uh I guess keep on keepin' on.
 
Last edited:

Recommended books for Overlanding

Don't Go There. It's Not Safe. You'll Die.: And other mor...
by Jared McCaffree, Jessica Mans, Kobus Mans
From $19.99
Long Way Down: An Epic Journey by Motorcycle from Scotlan...
by Ewan McGregor, Charley Boorman
From $5.72
Crossing the Congo: Over Land and Water in a Hard Place
by Mike Martin, Chloe Baker, Charlie Hatch-Barnwell
From $28.93
Morocco Overland: A Route & Planning Guide - Southern Mor...
by Chris Scott
From $21.1
Tschiffely's Ride: Ten Thousand Miles in the Saddle from ...
by Aimé Tschiffely
From $10.99

Todd n Natalie

Observer
There's another much easier solution here, but so far 100% of the time when I propose it I get pooped on for having the audacity to type things into a calculator before daydreaming so.. uh I guess keep on keepin' on.
So what's the easier solution?
 

badm0t0rfinger

Raptor Apologist.
@Shovel I don't know why you're responding to me as if I'm doubting your assertions. I don't doubt the math. I'm merely pontificating upon where I see the EVs in the next.... well I'm in my 20s and I would like to see the stuff before I hit the retirement home!
 

calicamper

Expedition Leader
EV / PHEV - own? ie: keep it for more than 3 years? no, not now, technology is too rapidly advancing. Currently has the cell phone model, darned near so different in 3 years you can wait to get a new one, but unlike a cell phone that costs $400+ the EV costs $40K+. I lease a 2018 Outlander PHEV for those not browsing signatures.
Leasing was something we heavily researched but in my wife’s mileage/ use case in late 2015 the leasing numbers vs mileage didn’t add up. So we purchased $800 below invoice 2016 Fusion Energy Titanium. Its been a great vehicle I would even go as far as saying excellent vehicle. Easy to maintain, zero issues, excellent driving, interior so far life time mileage is 63mpg. The only negative is lack of trunk space but we only use it for commuting to work and local trips so trunk space isn’t an issue. My neighbor has a Prius same age same mileage same typical use his average is 50mpg, he can’t stand the road noise. Hates the seats and interior, has had issues with it he paid $12,000 more than I did for our executive level interior, quiet Fusion. He just told me his kid is getting the prius as soon as the Plugin F150 hits the show room😆
 

Shovel

Dreaming Ape
So what's the easier solution?
I'm hesitant because this is a road I've been down a lot of times and it's been pretty discouraging due to the imbalance of effort... it takes a lot more time for me to type it up than it does for a disinterested party to say "nuh uh u r dumb" without considering or addressing what I've typed. Hopefully you can sympathize.

Well, here goes.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ICE's they just turn chemical energy into kinetic energy which is not meaningfully different from what a battery and electric motor do. In fact the difference in efficiency at the prime mover doesn't even really matter. What matters about ICE's in particular is what fuel they are burning not the burning of the fuel itself.

In other words the environmental problem is fossil fuels not engines. We already know how to make renewable fuels, the recipe is basically sunlight and water.

Imagine if you wanted to print out a billion blue oval ford logos... you could either run through a hundred million liters of blue ink printing them on white paper... OR you could just switch to blue paper and only need to print the text. See where I'm going here?
A change to a renewable liquid fuel retroactively converts every existing ICE on Earth to a solar powered vehicle without having to build and deliver new ones or scrap the old ones. They've already been built, they're already where they need to be.

You might argue that renewables aren't ready yet for some reason like the old food-vs-fuel argument that's been exhaustively debunked for four decades... but I put it to you that this is no different from saying that the full promise of EV's isn't ready yet. Much of the promise of EV's even today depends on imagining a more robust grid in the future so it would be unreasonable not to give the same concession to renewable fuels. Right now in September 2020 neither EV's nor renewable liquid fuels are 100% ready without more investment so this is very much an apples-apples comparison.

It also doesn't have to be an all or nothing, a PHEV burning alcohol sounds awesome to me you get the best of both worlds. But you still also get to retroactively convert all the existing ICE infrastructure that has already had its environmental cost paid, just by changing what kind of liquid is in the tank. And you get to keep that 5 megaWatt equivalent charging rate.

So let's do a thought experiment those are always fun:

Imagine if your EV had a hot swap battery that could be pulled out and replaced while you're driving down the road. You summon a self driving charge-bot car it finds you, pulls up next to you, swaps batteries and brings your depleted battery to a solar farm to recharge. Cool?

But that charge-bot car adds extra traffic to the road and it needs maintenance and tires and stuff.

So let's go a step beyond that, we shrink the battery and have a drone fly to you and swap the battery and then fly back to a solar farm to charge your depleted battery. Cool?

But the drone is still a collision hazard, it's noisy and needs maintenance.

Let's shrink it again, now it's drones the size of dragonflies so if you crash into one it doesn't really hurt anything, plus now the drone is the battery so it shows up on your car, lands in a basket and then every few hours of driving you have to spend 5 minutes dumping the used micro drones in a bin where they get hauled off to a solar farm and get recharged. Now that's cool right?

Let's shrink them again so they're the size of a molecule. You fly a bunch of active molecules out to your car, they get depleted by your car, you spend 5 minutes exchanging them every few hours of driving, and the depleted molecules get returned to a solar farm for charging. How cool is that? Oh, I just described the process of burning biofuel in an ICE and it doesn't need to be the future we already do this right now.

All we need to do is get excited about bioengineering algae to drink seawater like we are about roadster-in-space marketing faff and we'll end up with a better, greener solution than BEV's and let our cars take an active role in reversing climate change instead of just slowing it.
 
Last edited:

Todd n Natalie

Observer
I'm hesitant because this is a road I've been down a lot of times and it's been pretty discouraging due to the imbalance of effort... it takes a lot more time for me to type it up than it does for a disinterested party to say "nuh uh u r dumb" without considering or addressing what I've typed. Hopefully you can sympathize.

Well, here goes.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ICE's they just turn chemical energy into kinetic energy which is not meaningfully different from what a battery and electric motor do. In fact the difference in efficiency at the prime mover doesn't even really matter. What matters about ICE's in particular is what fuel they are burning not the burning of the fuel itself.

In other words the environmental problem is fossil fuels not engines. We already know how to make renewable fuels, the recipe is basically sunlight and water.

Imagine if you wanted to print out a billion blue oval ford logos... you could either run through a hundred million liters of blue ink printing them on white paper... OR you could just switch to blue paper and only need to print the text. See where I'm going here?
A change to a renewable liquid fuel retroactively converts every existing ICE on Earth to a solar powered vehicle without having to build and deliver new ones or scrap the old ones. They've already been built, they're already where they need to be.

You might argue that renewables aren't ready yet for some reason like the old food-vs-fuel argument that's been exhaustively debunked for four decades... but I put it to you that this is no different from saying that the full promise of EV's isn't ready yet. Much of the promise of EV's even today depends on imagining a more robust grid in the future so it would be unreasonable not to give the same concession to renewable fuels. Right now in September 2020 neither EV's nor renewable liquid fuels are 100% ready without more investment so this is very much an apples-apples comparison.

It also doesn't have to be an all or nothing, a PHEV burning alcohol sounds awesome to me you get the best of both worlds. But you still also get to retroactively convert all the existing ICE infrastructure that has already had its environmental cost paid, just by changing what kind of liquid is in the tank. And you get to keep that 5 megaWatt equivalent charging rate.

So let's do a thought experiment those are always fun:

Imagine if your EV had a hot swap battery that could be pulled out and replaced while you're driving down the road. You summon a self driving charge-bot car it finds you, pulls up next to you, swaps batteries and brings your depleted battery to a solar farm to recharge. Cool?

But that charge-bot car adds extra traffic to the road and it needs maintenance and tires and stuff.

So let's go a step beyond that, we shrink the battery and have a drone fly to you and swap the battery and then fly back to a solar farm to charge your depleted battery. Cool?

But the drone is still a collision hazard, it's noisy and needs maintenance.

Let's shrink it again, now it's drones the size of dragonflies so if you crash into one it doesn't really hurt anything, plus now the drone is the battery so it shows up on your car, lands in a basket and then every few hours of driving you have to spend 5 minutes dumping the used micro drones in a bin where they get hauled off to a solar farm and get recharged. Now that's cool right?

Let's shrink them again so they're the size of a molecule. You fly a bunch of active molecules out to your car, they get depleted by your car, you spend 5 minutes exchanging them every few hours of driving, and the depleted molecules get returned to a solar farm for charging. How cool is that? Oh, I just described the process of burning biofuel in an ICE and it doesn't need to be the future we already do this right now.

All we need to do is get excited about bioengineering algae to drink seawater like we are about roadster-in-space marketing faff and we'll end up with a better, greener solution than BEV's and let our cars take an active role in reversing climate change instead of just slowing it.

I eagerly await the same response I always get to this. Cheers.
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you proposing we manufacture bio fuel from algae to power existing ICE engines? Again, maybe I misunderstood or am over simplifying

For the active molecules, how would you fly them to your car?

I thought maybe you were going to suggest hydrogen. I do believe there was a car developed to run off sea water.

Edit: Found it

 

Shovel

Dreaming Ape
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you proposing we manufacture bio fuel from algae to power existing ICE engines? Again, maybe I misunderstood or am over simplifying
yep exactly that. algae is convenient, but it might not be ideal. right now a lot of the biofuel we burn is a coproduct of the meat and dairy industries - even if we didn't put it into motor fuel we'd still have to dump it into a hole because America's livestock lives on distillery solids and they're healthier with bigger yields as a result. But freshwater and arable land aren't abundant enough to meet all of our transportation fuel needs and there's quite a lot of waste in the process, so seawater and algae holds the most promise here as you don't need land at all and it would have the side effect of depositing oxygen into the oceans, which directly reverses a troubling part of climate change. win and win.
Consider the following two things:


  • We centrally iodize table salt. Instead of waiting for the modern human diet to produce iodine deficiency and make itself apparent as cognitive development problems in children and goiter in adults we just solve the problem right up front by putting iodide in the table salt everybody uses. Centrally solving a problem means everyone gets the benefit whether they "care" or not. Right now the adoption of electric vehicles depends on individuals making the decision to get one, depends on them being financially in a position to do so, and even if both of those things are true it also depends on actually manufacturing the electric vehicles and scrapping the ICE's they replace. We could solve this problem centrally the same way we solve iodine deficiency. By changing the fuel in the pump everyone's existing car becomes a solar powered car whether they decide to participate or not. Presently we in the USA subsidize the price of petroleum gasoline with taxes to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. Instead of forcing everyone to convert we could just simply stop subsidizing petroleum (period) and instead take that exact same subsidy and put it into voluntary conversions for people. The price-at-the-pump of petroleum would go way up to represent its actual market value (Europe prices) and people could choose to keep using it if they want. Or they could switch to pay less. Their choice.
  • When the FCC decided that the public benefit of more and better quality television streams depended on switching to digital, the cost of set-top digital tv tuners was subsidized so we all paid a little bit to move us all forward. Any new TV would be manufactured digital ready to begin with but for anyone with an old TV you could get a fixed-price conversion box and be updated to accommodate. If we switch to bioethanol it will be necessary to convert existing vehicles unless we come up with a viable way of creating bio-iso-octane from algae. But we've already proven the conversion process can be accomplished logistically and practically.
For the active molecules, how would you fly them to your car?
This already happens.

In the thought experiment about flying batteries to your car I reversed the mechanics of "fueling" to make a point.

Right now you fill your car's basket with active molecules (C2H5OH) and after they're depleted by combining 3:1 with O2 molecules in the air they fly themselves back to the solar farm as two CO2 and and three H2O molecules where they charge back up inside a wet green solar cell.

I thought maybe you were going to suggest hydrogen. I do believe there was a car developed to run off sea water.
Hydrogen is the most energy dense storage medium but right now the most commercially profitable means of producing quantities of fuel hydrogen is by .... burning petroleum. It's not that there's no other way to make it but you know how economics work. And you can't easily convert the existing infrastructure to transport or burn hydrogen directly.

Now as a thought experiment you could bundle that hydrogen up into tiny molecule sized tanks, like perhaps a tiny tank that uses two carbon atoms and one oxygen atom to hold six hydrogen atoms in a cluster, and then use readily available oxygen molecules from the air to release the hydrogen.... perhaps triggered by a spark of some sort :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: - maybe you could build a green leafy factory that assembles these little tanks using co2 and h2o and sunlight and stick them all over the place


The problem in running a motor vehicle on water is of course the problem of carrying around the water. Hydrogen is a tiny atom and oxygen is abundant in the air. If you converted a gasoline vehicle to run on the product of water hydrolysis even if you got the electricity for free you'd still need to carry dozens of gallons of water around to match the energy content in a gallon of gasoline.
 
Last edited:

Todd n Natalie

Observer
Wrangler 4xe - 25 miles all electric mode. 50 MPGe

This is pretty interesting too....

 
Top