Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle? | Page 437 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Any GTAM'ers own an electric vehicle?

When we were in Marthas Vinyard last 2 years ago all the city busses were electric and they used this style charging - they'd pull up into a special parking spot at all the transfer areas and I could watcht the indicators on the drivers dash pop up showing they were charging. We were on a few busses that day and I didn't see any below about a 70% SOC so clearly they must be reasonably fast charging as well.
 
PrivatePilot said:
When we were in Marthas Vinyard last 2 years ago all the city busses were electric and they used this style charging - they'd pull up into a special parking spot at all the transfer areas and I could watcht the indicators on the drivers dash pop up showing they were charging. We were on a few busses that day and I didn't see any below about a 70% SOC so clearly they must be reasonably fast charging as well.
Click to expand...
The Detroit road is a steaming pile. 30% taxpayer money. I will be shocked if $/kwh delivered are less than 10. And yes, I mean dollars per kwh, not cents. I wouldnt even be surprised if $/kwh were and order of magnitude or two higher than that.
 
GreyGhost said:
The Detroit road is a steaming pile. 30% taxpayer money. I will be shocked if $/kwh delivered are less than 10. And yes, I mean dollars per kwh, not cents. I wouldnt even be surprised if $/kwh were and order of magnitude or two higher than that.
Click to expand...

Anything less than 100km of this sort of road nonstop on a major highway is likely a waste really so far as offering meaninful charging. I'm guessing this is proof of concept basically, and little more. It's a pie in the sky premise unless there's some technological breakthrough, and the price to construct is a fraction of what it currently is. So basically likely never. Just stopping at a regular charger for a pee and snack break and punching 80-100+kw into the car is a far better option.
 
They appear to be using a clarification document from the EPA concerning EV test procedures as cover for this. On Threads, someone linked to it, and I read it. It has to do with the effect of default or multiple-choice operating modes, and i saw nothing in there except possibly for ride-height mode in highway driving that could make a non-negligible difference. And, as far as i know, Teslas have automatically gone to low ride height at higher speed anyhow, so even that wouldn't matter.
 
You mean....Elon....<gasp!>....is a liar?
 
This situation is a little different ... "optimist", perhaps. Auto manufacturers are allowed to deflate EPA window-sticker numbers; they're free to advertise anything up to the actual test results. Keep in mind that the EPA highway test procedure has an average speed of 48.3 mph and this results in a rather optimistic outcome. Tesla (previously) didn't de-rate them. Other manufacturers who came on the market later, didn't want to get involved (as much) in the over-promise and under-deliver situation, and deliberately sandbagged their ratings.

I have little doubt that if you took one of the affected Tesla cars, and you actually drove it in a way that emulated the EPA highway test procedure, under the climate conditions that correspond to those in the test procedures, it would deliver what the EPA said that it would, and thus, Tesla is not "lying". It's just that this isn't the way people actually drive, and the outcome isn't what people are generally going to have.
 
Brian P said:
They appear to be using a clarification document from the EPA concerning EV test procedures as cover for this.
Click to expand...

The variance on the Clustertruck is 20% (I saw a but-but-but post somewhere claiming it was cold in Texas the day they tested it. LOL, come to Canada. It was a balmy 3-5° last week). What is the tipping point between using the highest Margin Of Error result and outright lying? 5%? 10%? I don't see the DoJ getting involved unless they think it has crossed the proscenium.
 
Brian P said:
This situation is a little different ... "optimist", perhaps. Auto manufacturers are allowed to deflate EPA window-sticker numbers; they're free to advertise anything up to the actual test results. Keep in mind that the EPA highway test procedure has an average speed of 48.3 mph and this results in a rather optimistic outcome. Tesla (previously) didn't de-rate them. Other manufacturers who came on the market later, didn't want to get involved (as much) in the over-promise and under-deliver situation, and deliberately sandbagged their ratings.

I have little doubt that if you took one of the affected Tesla cars, and you actually drove it in a way that emulated the EPA highway test procedure, under the climate conditions that correspond to those in the test procedures, it would deliver what the EPA said that it would, and thus, Tesla is not "lying". It's just that this isn't the way people actually drive, and the outcome isn't what people are generally going to have.
Click to expand...

If they just used *realistic* numbers (by sandbagging them, as pretty much every other manufacturer does), it wouldn't be an issue, but of course that would make their vehicles look less impressive.

Even the Volt was underrated vs what it was actually possible of getting. I got north of 65km a few times out of my 2011 (at 8-9 years of age, at that) which is rated for 55, and have routinely got 100+ out of our 2017 in the summer, which is rated for 85km.

It reminds me of a few select EV manufacturers at some point in the past which were using (IIRC) the Japan testing standard for their range estimates for cars being sold in North American, which ended up with with even more wildly optimistic range numbers on the sticker that suffered something like 50% deflation in real world north american conditions. I forget who that was now (and a few cursory google searches doesn't turn it up), but I remember it happening and being one of the many things that the anti-EV crowd latched onto at the time.

Meanwhile, Tesla has a team of people out there squashing complaints about their stated ranges not equallying reality. Forgive me for thinking Elon is just a liar, in the end.

 
PrivatePilot said:
If they just used *realistic* numbers (by sandbagging them, as pretty much every other manufacturer does), it wouldn't be an issue, but of course that would make their vehicles look less impressive.

Even the Volt was underrated vs what it was actually possible of getting. I got north of 65km a few times out of my 2011 (at 8-9 years of age, at that) which is rated for 55, and have routinely got 100+ out of our 2017 in the summer, which is rated for 85km.

It reminds me of a few select EV manufacturers at some point in the past which were using (IIRC) the Japan testing standard for their range estimates for cars being sold in North American, which ended up with with even more wildly optimistic range numbers on the sticker that suffered something like 50% deflation in real world north american conditions. I forget who that was now (and a few cursory google searches doesn't turn it up), but I remember it happening and being one of the many things that the anti-EV crowd latched onto at the time.

Meanwhile, Tesla has a team of people out there squashing complaints about their stated ranges not equallying reality. Forgive me for thinking Elon is just a liar, in the end.

Click to expand...
Stating tested range is nothing new. Ford ecoboost is the poster child for marketing being distant from reality. I think epa tests are stupid and should be changed to represent a much more realistic driving scenario but I have no problem with manufacturers providing the range/mileage from the test. Without sandbagging, that lets you compare vehicles (somewhat and with many caveats as something like ecoboost routinely gets half in real world).
 
The DoJ is right in the middle of dotting the Ts and crossing the Is of 2 (what amounts to) treason cases. For Tesla to come up on their radar screen they would have to have been waving a bright red cape in front of them.
 
E-cars are going to get fast and loose treatment for a while. Same happens to all disruptive technologies, we’ve seen this with cell phones, cable, Internet, crypto… govts like to allow wiggle room as it encourages investment and innovation.

EV makers will get years more before regulstors tighten the noose.
 
From article linked above:

"Data collected in 2022 and 2023 from more than 8,000 Teslas by Recurrent, a Seattle-based EV analytics company, showed that the cars’ dashboard range meters didn’t change their estimates to reflect hot or cold outside temperatures, which can greatly reduce range.

Recurrent found that Tesla’s four models almost always calculated that they could travel more than 90% of their advertised EPA range estimates regardless of external temperatures. Scott Case, Recurrent’s chief executive, told Reuters that Tesla’s range meters also ignore many other conditions affecting driving distance."

Really.

My Bolt's GOM is remarkably good as long as I drive the way I usually drive, and don't pull a surprise on it. It varies quite a bit between winter and summer ... because of the outdoor temperature. Usually if I have to do a longer trip, it beats the GOM because the GOM is basing its estimate on the usual amount that the HVAC has to start up and heat up (or cool down) the interior, and in a long trip, it only needs to do that once (takes a lot less energy to hold temp than to get it there in the first place).

Of course, this doesn't stop the complaints on the facebook group: "When I bought the car <later determined to be 4 or 5 months ago ... summer - Ed.> it was saying 240 miles per charge and now it only says 180. What's wrong?" Answer - a bazillion times over ... "it's winter".
 
"The automaker also recently updated its vehicle software to provide a breakdown of battery consumption during recent trips with suggestions on how range might have been improved."

And the Bolt has had that since the start of production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom