Quote:

---

EVs are only useful for upper middle class folks who own their own homes, have close urban jobs, and can afford more than one vehicle.

---

This. In spades.

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements have come to ICE in the last decade like claimed?

I got a solid 10 years before I get my next truck.

I'll look at EVs again then. I do like the idea of being able to use the truck battery as a backup for when the electricity goes out.

Otherwise I always let others try the new software updates and the same will go for EVs. We'll see how they look in a decade.

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

---

So, you don't think they've maxed out on range? Odd take.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

---

But is that max range an outlier? It certainly seems so since the median barely moved.

I'm not saying there aren't improvements. I know there are. I love AND LIVE tech.

But, I also have learned to be very skeptical of "predictions".

techno-ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

---

So, you don't think they've maxed out on range? Odd take.

---

Why is it an odd take? They are trying to get the range up because it opens up the market to more potential buyers. Let's say you get to 600-750 miles of highway range, for most people that would make it work for their long distance trips.

I am curious why you think manufacturers wouldn't want to increase max range especially given people like you that say EVs aren't practical because of the low range compared to a 20-25 gallon tank ICE.

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

---

But is that max range an outlier? It certainly seems so since the median barely moved.

I'm not saying there aren't improvements. I know there are. I love AND LIVE tech.

But, I also have learned to be very skeptical of "predictions".

---

Without a doubt, predictions are far from perfect and there is no guarantee they will still get better but the history shows they are making major improvements still so I would bet the over.

If you want to look at the same model, the first 100kW battery pack Tesla Model S had a range of around 310. Now a long range 100kW model S gets 405 miles and the high performance plaid gets 359 miles. Yes those are rated ranges which for highway driving is less and for city driving, it is usually more but they are on similar basis so they show the percentage improvement. That improvement is both batteries and power train.

The median is based on the average car purchased which is likely improving less because most people don't need more than 250 miles of range for how they use the car. How often do you drive 200 miles or more a day unless you are in sales or have some other job that requires large amounts of driving?

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

---

But is that max range an outlier? It certainly seems so since the median barely moved.

I'm not saying there aren't improvements. I know there are. I love AND LIVE tech.

But, I also have learned to be very skeptical of "predictions".

---

Without a doubt, predictions are far from perfect and there is no guarantee they will still get better but the history shows they are making major improvements still so I would bet the over.

If you want to look at the same model, the first 100kW battery pack Tesla Model S had a range of around 310. Now a long range 100kW model S gets 405 miles and the high performance plaid gets 359 miles. Yes those are rated ranges which for highway driving is less and for city driving, it is usually more but they are on similar basis so they show the percentage improvement. That improvement is both batteries and power train.

The median is based on the average car purchased which is likely improving less because most people don't need more than 250 miles of range for how they use the car. How often do you drive 200 miles or more a day unless you are in sales or have some other job that requires large amounts of driving?

---

I've got Wrangler. MPG and range are foreign to that vehicle.

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

68 to 257 miles is over 300% and absolutely the max range matters for those that want to use an EV for long trips. It also proves how laughable your comment about physics limits is based on absolutely nothing. For one used as a daily driver, there is minimal reason to offer a vehicle with more than 257 given the average car is driven about 40 miles per day.

So what great improvements are you saying have come to ICE in the last decade like you claim?

---

Well, the chart shows that there was obviously a technology breakthrough that occurred in the 2016 model. So, comparing the first year to the last is disingenuous. You need to compare the last year to 2016.

And, sure, further breakthrough may and probably will come about. So, maybe in a few years you'll see another step change.

But...maybe it'll just be evolutionary instead of revolutionary from now on.

---

I agree it will be more evolutionary from here unless there is a breakthrough in super capacitors or an alternative material. Even if you go to 2016, the max range is up 65% and the cost has come down by over half per kW. To claim that isn't improvement like techno did is comical.

---

So, you don't think they've maxed out on range? Odd take.

---

Why is it an odd take? They are trying to get the range up because it opens up the market to more potential buyers. Let's say you get to 600-750 miles of highway range, for most people that would make it work for their long distance trips.

I am curious why you think manufacturers wouldn't want to increase max range especially given people like you that say EVs aren't practical because of the low range compared to a 20-25 gallon tank ICE.

---

It's always just around the corner. We've been hearing about the upcoming EV utopia from fanbois for years now. Detroit bought into the hype, much to their present shame.

What wonder is the cost. Say you got 2 cars, one gas and one electric with 250 mile range or just fill/charge them both up to 250 highway miles.

250 miles is probably abiut what I'd need to go back and forth to work for a week.

What's the cost for each?

jamey said:

---

What wonder is the cost. Say you got 2 cars, one gas and one electric with 250 mile range or just fill/charge them both up to 250 highway miles.

250 miles is probably abiut what I'd need to go back and forth to work for a week.

What's the cost for each?

---

Where I live, the variable cost to charge at home is $.07-.08/kwh and each kWh drives you about 3 miles so it is about $0.025/mi. Gasoline here is $2.99 based on my last fill up and I get about 25mpg which is about the fleet average so the cost is $.12/mile. Based on that, for your 250 miles per week, it is $30 for gas and $6.25 for electricity.

I notice how you didn't answer the question? Also, what physics limit do you think EV technology is hitting?

Kansas Kid said:

---

jamey said:

---

What wonder is the cost. Say you got 2 cars, one gas and one electric with 250 mile range or just fill/charge them both up to 250 highway miles.

250 miles is probably abiut what I'd need to go back and forth to work for a week.

What's the cost for each?

---

Where I live, the variable cost to charge at home is $.07-.08/kwh and each kWh drives you about 3 miles so it is about $0.025/mi. Gasoline here is $2.99 based on my last fill up and I get about 25mpg which is about the fleet average so the cost is $.12/mile. Based on that, for your 250 miles per week, it is $30 for gas and $6.25 for electricity.

---

That's interesting. I would have thought electricy cost more.

I guess I'm thinking heat though. Burning fuel in a portable generator to run a small electric gas heater to heat a room is a lot more expensive than burning propane or kerosene to heat a room, I think. I have not tested it but just based on the numbers I researched to avoid the next snovid

I'm sure electric plants are for more efficient than my portable generator, plus turning electricity back into heat is inefficient

Kansas Kid said:

---

I notice how you didn't answer the question? Also, what physics limit do you think EV technology is hitting?

---

Battery tech has hit a wall. You can only pack so much juice in. If it had not, you'd see EVs with 1000 mile ranges. As it is, batteries take up the entire bottom of the car and are the heaviest component and you're lucky to get 250 miles or so max range depending on driving conditions.

Cell phones suffer from similar limitations. Manufacturers have addressed the issue by making the software efficient, dimming screens and so forth. But a car needs to go, and that's more difficult to economize the juice needed.

techno-ag said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

I notice how you didn't answer the question? Also, what physics limit do you think EV technology is hitting?

---

Battery tech has hit a wall. You can only pack so much juice in. If it had not, you'd see EVs with 1000 mile ranges. As it is, batteries take up the entire bottom of the car and are the heaviest component and you're lucky to get 250 miles or so max range depending on driving conditions.

Cell phones suffer from similar limitations. Manufacturers have addressed the issue by making the software efficient, dimming screens and so forth. But a car needs to go, and that's more difficult to economize the juice needed.

---

So how do you explain the improvement in the Model S range with the same capacity of battery? Remember it is the entire power train and not just the battery that matters. I don't know why you think it has to have 1000 mile range to prove improvement when the model S has improved by over 30% with the same size battery. I will agree to get to 1000 mile range would require a new technology or a much denser battery storage capability. I seriously doubt the market for a 1000 mile range is sizable.

Chart shows median range of vehicles offered for sale, not the median range of vehicles sold. It's helpful, it's not demonstrative of the total improvement. To see improvement you have to look at the median range of vehicles sold and the median price of those vehicles to see an up trend of vehicle range and down trend on prices, and to realize the improvement in EVs over that period.

The Model S was introduced in 2012, it's why the top range is 265 miles, because that's the max range of the Model S at introduction. It cost $90,000 nominal for a vehicle that is even remotely comparable to the 2024 Model S, which has 140 miles more range, charges in 25 less minutes and dropped its 0-60 by more than a second while reducing its price by $15,000. That's while adding what amounts to a gaming computer, and an additional screen in the rear. Among other improvements and does not represent the total reduction in cost to produce.

The bump in median range in 2016, was because the only vehicles on offer in the EV space of any significance was the Leaf and the Model S up until 2015 at which time the Model X got introduced and in 2016 the Chevy Bolt was launched those two models combined to cause the median range to bump up. 2017 was the Model 3. It's unclear if the chart depicts numbers based upon the year of introduction or vehicles available for sale on Jan 1 of the year, and it appears to be the latter of the two. Again, it's a chart of vehicles offered for sale not sold.

Range is not the limiter to mass adoption, price, charging infrastructure and charge rate are. Primarily price and then charging infrastructure as it improves the experience of every EV driver, not just on the individual basis but on the entire fleet of EVs. Extending range is a crutch for early adopters to limit the inconvenience, but for 100% market penetration it is most cost effective to improve the charging experience and reduce prices.

The charging infrastructure being deployed now has narrowed on a single charging connector for both the European (CCS) and North American markets (NACS), meaning that chargers put into operation now have forward compatibility with every EV sold in their respective markets and the charging infrastructure being deployed by Tesla will be capable of serving even the most optimistic of future charging rates.

In other words the gas pump is feature complete, it is now just a matter of incrementally improving the actual battery and vehicle package.

A lot depends on where you live for the cost of electricity. Northern CA is over $.40/kwh but their gasoline is also higher. Modern combined cycle plants have a heat rate of 7000 btu per kw vs 13,000 for a high end Generac.

Methinks y'all are trying too hard. If all these rosy stats are accurate, I no one will need to be cajoled into an EV.

Welcome to believing that EVs will become an increasing proportion of new car sales whether there are incentives or not! Glad you finally came around.

cecil77 said:

---

Methinks y'all are trying too hard. If all these rosy stats are accurate, I no one will need to be cajoled into an EV.

---

I would flip it around. It is the anti EV crowd that makes up stuff to try to say why EVs are bad choices for everyone and try to cajole people to not buy them. We had someone say they haven't improved at all while ICE have improved a lot yet they provided no proof and the actual data is different. With one exception IMO, I think those that speak well of EVs have been clear it is an individual choice and an EV doesn't work for a lot of people and probably never will in the foreseeable future.

Remember, almost everyone with an EV has also driven and ICE and a large majority of those that have purchased an EV like their vehicle.

Both of you guys reek of ego, as do many of the "other side". Much more interest in being "right" and "affirmed" than anything.

This is a pro EV site. Dude drives his Tesla coast to coast and back. 6000 miles, 10 days, 44 charging stops. Hilarity ensues when he hits a blizzard in the Midwest and his range deteriorates.

Quote:

---

The car's range indicator still said I had about 4 miles of range left, so I didn't fret too much.

The Supercharger was close, but it was located in the parking lot of a huge shopping mall. And thanks to the Tesla's current navigation behavior, the detailed zoomed-in Navigation screen, which normally leads you right to the Supercharger, disappeared just before I actually arrived at the Supercharger. The Nav screen zoomed back out with no indication of the exact location of the charging station. Normally, with Superchargers located in an obvious location in a rest area, hotel parking lot or gas station, this isn't too problematic. But in this case, I had to drive around the mall lot maze playing everyone's favorite game, "Spot the Supercharger."

When I finally spotted the superchargers, the car instructed me, in no uncertain terms, to pull over. With 3 miles left on the range screen, the battery was done. Around 50 yards from those tantalizing glowing red and white charging stalls the car came to a halt and could not be coaxed back into drive.

---

That pesky battery technology that has advanced so far. LOL.

Dude had a 100 foot extension cord and plugged into a nearby store's 120 long enough to build up a charge to limp over to the supercharger. In a blizzard.

Another week, another software recall, this time in China.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-fix-software-8700-vehicles-china-product-recall-regulator-says-2024-02-23/

I find it ironic that a person that chose to put techno in their username thinks that the ability to update and improve a car through a software update without any inconvenience to the consumer is a bad thing. That a vehicle that has in the past had software updates that improved the efficiency of the vehicle so that it got more range is bad.

Do you complain about the fact that your phone can be updated over WiFi now instead of having to take it in to an AT&T or Verizon store?

techno-ag said:

---

Another week, another software recall, this time in China.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-fix-software-8700-vehicles-china-product-recall-regulator-says-2024-02-23/

---

The popular Ram pickup required a similar software update.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/ram-recalls-pickup-trucks-to-fix-faulty-backup-cameras-a4150264846/

Ram is recalling 1500, 2500, and 3500 pickup trucks from the 2022 through 2024 model years because their backup cameras might not display an image when the vehicle is in Reverse. This could lead to a crash

The owners of the 300,000 Toyotas recalled today probably wish there was an OTA update that could fix the transmission in lieu going to the dealership service depts.

I have three open recalls on my F150 that I have put off because dealing with Ford service depts is a kick to the crotch most of the time

Probably the same 3 recalls on my F-150 that I haven't dealt with.

Anecdotal, but saw a broken down Tesla being loaded on a flatbed alongside the highway outside Lockhart the other day.

Probably just a software update.

hph6203 said:

---

Probably the same 3 recalls on my F-150 that I haven't dealt with.

---

Wiper motor that can fail, wiper blade fracture, and wiring that can short out on rear axle causing emergency brakes to lock up?

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Another week, another software recall, this time in China.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-fix-software-8700-vehicles-china-product-recall-regulator-says-2024-02-23/

---

The popular Ram pickup required a similar software update.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/ram-recalls-pickup-trucks-to-fix-faulty-backup-cameras-a4150264846/

Ram is recalling 1500, 2500, and 3500 pickup trucks from the 2022 through 2024 model years because their backup cameras might not display an image when the vehicle is in Reverse. This could lead to a crash

---

Yes, if the driver is a complete moron or is in a neck brace, I suppose this could lead to a crash.

agdoc2001 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Another week, another software recall, this time in China.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-fix-software-8700-vehicles-china-product-recall-regulator-says-2024-02-23/

---

The popular Ram pickup required a similar software update.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/ram-recalls-pickup-trucks-to-fix-faulty-backup-cameras-a4150264846/

Ram is recalling 1500, 2500, and 3500 pickup trucks from the 2022 through 2024 model years because their backup cameras might not display an image when the vehicle is in Reverse. This could lead to a crash

---

Yes, if the driver is a complete moron or is in a neck brace, I suppose this could lead to a crash.

---

It was a very similar recall to the one that techno felt like everyone needed to know about Tesla to show how dangerous they are. The difference is one requires going to the dealership and the other is done while you sleep.

I agree it shouldn't be a big safety issue since most of us learned to drive without them.

Kansas Kid said:

---

agdoc2001 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Another week, another software recall, this time in China.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-fix-software-8700-vehicles-china-product-recall-regulator-says-2024-02-23/

---

The popular Ram pickup required a similar software update.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/ram-recalls-pickup-trucks-to-fix-faulty-backup-cameras-a4150264846/

Ram is recalling 1500, 2500, and 3500 pickup trucks from the 2022 through 2024 model years because their backup cameras might not display an image when the vehicle is in Reverse. This could lead to a crash

---

Yes, if the driver is a complete moron or is in a neck brace, I suppose this could lead to a crash.

---

It was a very similar recall to the one that techno felt like everyone needed to know about Tesla to show how dangerous they are. The difference is one requires going to the dealership and the other is done while you sleep.

I agree it shouldn't be a big safety issue since most of us learned to drive without them.

---

It just happens so often on these modern marvels. Seems like every day that ends in Y sees another recall. And the EVangelists twist themselves into pretzels assuring us otherwise.