You Need Way Less EV Range Than You Think: Study
You Need Way Less EV Range Than You Think: Study
A new study shows that EVs have more than enough range to take care of our daily driving in the U.S.
Data from thousands of EVs shows the average daily driving distance is a small percentage of the EPA range of most EVs.
For years, range anxiety has been a major barrier to wider EV adoption in the U.S. It's a common fear: imagine being in the middle of nowhere, with 5% juice remaining in your battery, and nowhere to charge. A nightmare nobody ever wants to experience, right? But a new study proves that in the real world, that's a highly improbable scenario.
After analyzing information from 18,000 EVs across all 50 U.S. states, battery health and data start-up Recurrent found something we sort of knew but took for granted. The average distance Americans cover daily constitutes only a small percentage of what EVs are capable of covering thanks to modern-day battery and powertrain systems.
The study revealed that depending on the state, the average daily driving distance for EVs was between 20 and 45 miles, consuming only 8 to 16% of a battery’s EPA-rated range. Most EVs on sale today in the U.S. offer around 250 miles of range, and many models are capable of covering over 300 miles.
You're viewing a single thread.
People need to seriously consider 40mi range PHEVs.
Toyota Prius Prime, Ford Escape PHEV, and others have "EV-mode" buttons that drive exclusively on electric now. Meaning you could keep the gasoline for "emergency use only", even as you enter highway speeds. (Older PHEVs would turn on the engine because they didn't have this mode-selector button).
All the complexity of a gas engine, plus the cost of a battery. Just so you can use the range once or twice a year? What happens when you don't use the gas engine for months and then go to start it with gelled gas? You're trying to solve a problem that the article shows doesn't exist for 99%
All the complexity of a gas engine
Batteries are more complex. A 200lb battery is less complex than 1000lb or 2000lb battery.
EDIT: I'm an electrical engineer. I can prove to you the complexities of a modern EV Battery. Or do you think 400V systems composed of parallel transistors, battery-management systems, and a whole slew of literally fucking computers estimating the internal-state of the thousands of individual cells that compose a modern EV is a "simple" task?
EDIT: Do you know what kind of degrees you need to design a battery-management system? To mass produce those circuit boards? And to do it all over again 2 years from now when all the chemistries change and therefore the internal estimates of each of these cells completely and drastically changes? No? Please stop pretending that "Batteries" are simple.
Case in point: it's the battery that will most likely fail in ALL of the discussed designs here. Why? Because chemistry is incredibly difficult and hasn't been solved yet. I do await for the future improvements in the EV battery pack that are sure to come over the next few years and decade... But let's not pretend that anything is done R&D yet.
The gasoline engine? Okay we're up to Atkinson cycle so that's a bit different but was around in the 1800s anyway. Nothing is really new or complex here. The engines mechanics were understood nearly two centuries ago.
There's a reason why gasoline engines are so reliable, while batteries keep having faults. Complexity has a lot to do with it.
What happens when you don’t use the gas engine for months and then go to start it with gelled gas?
If only computers existed and had timers that automatically burned off stale gasoline.
Also, just fill up 2 gallons or so to minimize the stale gasoline effect. You'll only be filling up once or twice a month with all the EV driving you'll be doing in practice.
You’re trying to solve a problem that the article shows doesn’t exist for 99%
No. The 800+ to 1500+ extra lbs of battery you lug around with a full 300mi electric car is what's actually being wasted in practice.
Batteries are absolutely not more complex than an internal combustion car. They’re newer, but not more complex.
Why is it that all the batteries are the things that fail in these designs?
And why is it that the gasoline engine lasts for a decade or longer, with very few repair issues? In fact, when was the last time you heard of an old car where the engine needed to be replaced?
When old cars break down, its the suspensions, the belts... radiator (those things rust / break surprisingly often), etc. etc. Its not really the ICE parts that break down.
Check engine lights, oil leaks, coolant leaks transmission leaks, timing belts, timing chains, thermostats, water pumps, compression leaks, vacuum leaks, catalytic converters, oxygen sensors, ignition coils , spark plugs, spark plug wires, distributors, fuel pumps, fuel filters, fuel leaks, cracked block, thrown rod, warped crankshaft, scorn cam shaft, cam phasers, differentials, transmission problems and on.. and on…
These are just SOME of the repairs that are common to ONLY gas vehicles and you won’t have any of these problems with an EV.
These are just SOME of the repairs that are common to ONLY gas vehicles and you won’t have any of these problems with an EV.
And yet...
You can theorycraft all you want. I have hard stats.
You don’t have any stats. You have a link to a consumer reports article based off a survey…
Let me show you how flawed that is:
I’m going to hold a survey of my household to see how many people say you are wrong.
The results are in! 100% of the people surveyed said you’re wrong!
Consumer Report's survey is considered one of the best in the business. The name speaks for itself.
If you don't want to believe it, then whatever. Feel free to give me the stats behind your discussion points.
I already have. Here are the stats again:
Gas vehicles have complex combustion engines, transmissions, differentials, emission systems all of which require maintenance and can leak fluids that are expensive to fix. All of which are common points of failure. Everyone I know owns a car and all of their cars have had problems with one or more of these systems. These are all facts that are common knowledge and don’t need any supporting evidence.
EVs have 1 common point of failure. The battery. That’s because there isn’t anything else to break on them. They’re simple and durable.
Here are the stats again:
That's not stats. That's a paragraph of nonsense.
"Stats" means statistics. Go see which parts are failing out there. I brought up Consumer Reports survey that has 300,000+ cars as part of their yearly study. I dunno exactly what you think has a better statistic than Consumer Reports survey, but I'm curious.
What parts of cars are failing? Across different brands, across different designs, etc. etc. Is there any pattern?
Answer: I already told you above, and have posted the articles and survey results.
These aren’t hard stats my friend, it’s Consumer Reports.
Did you read it? The actual data? The issue isn't the fact that EV technology is less reliable. The issue is that Tesla is a shit car maker and Audi crams too many fragile luxury items into their cars that break. This report does not further your point.
Hybrids are the most reliable. That's my point.
The overall numbers are a bit misleading yes. But...
Fisher says there are always exceptions to these reliability trends, which is why it’s vital to consider the reliability score of any model before buying. “PHEVs as a class are unreliable, but the Toyota RAV4 Prime plug-in hybrid is one of the most reliable models in our survey this year. Similarly, the Ford F-150 hybrid has transmission and other issues that buck the trend of strong hybrid reliability.”
So its still possible to pick out reliable PHEVs with research (and EVs I guess). But all this "Hybrids are more complex" is a crock of bullshit. They're literally the most reliable vehicle on the market when taken as a whole.
Not my experience.
I'm glad you have experience. But I'm far more likely to trust Consumer Reports and their published experience than your individual experience.
Sorry, fellow me/ee, disagree on complexity, having worked directly with both. Advantage of mechanical systems: theoretically predictable action, repeated endlessly so long as torque at the tires is req'd. Reality: tolerances in various parts open over time, resulting in a nonlinear decrease in efficiency and power. A symphony of hundreds of bolted joints, springs, tappets and valves, a sum of thousands of parts dancing while a complex ECU watches over the system. A single part or joint far enough out of tolerance will cause very, very expensive damage.
Battery powered vehicles: motor has full torque at close to zero RPM, all components in the control system are solid state, and software (always updateable) handles control decisions. Electric motor has 6 to 30 parts, based on whether liquid cooled or air cooled.
What do you mean with batteries will fail?
I mean just that.
The internal chemical structure of Li-ion is only designed to work for a limited number of charge/discharge cycles. As the chemistry is stressed out, the internal metals begin to form dendrites (or in more simple terms, spikes) internally.
We have reasonable estimates for how long this takes, but everyone's battery pack is different. And the process is invisible (you have to cut open & destroy a battery to figure out how much of these dendrites or whatever have formed). So the best we got are some computers slapped on the outside of the battery pack that measures temperature, voltage, current, and time to guestimate the effects from the outside.
As cells fail, modern BMS systems will reroute power away from degenerated cells. Its not that the problem was solved per se, its that modern battery packs have a bunch of extra cells waiting in reserve to pretend that nothing has happened to the end user. But this process eventually breaks enough cells that the whole pack fails and inevitably needs replacement.
Exactly when depends on how many cells were left in reserve, how much "fast charging" you do (which is extremely harsh on the internal chemicals), the temperature of the pack under use, and any aggressive driving you might do that heats up the pack more than usual.
Its... really complex. There's a lot of research going on right now to try to stop these dendrites from forming.
EDIT: In any case, Consumer Reports reliability surveys on various parts of say... a Toyota Prius Prime or other PHEVs. Go look at them all, see what parts fail. Its the battery.
Here's GM Volt. What's the problem? Oh, the EV Battery again, and looks like the EV Charger is also terrible cause GM must have messed that up too.
But yes, its the electrical parts that are more complex and prone to failure in almost all of these cars.
Here's Chrysler Pacifica. Oh boy, lots of parts of this vehicle is terrible. But as predicted, the EV Battery is among the worst of parts again.
You chose GM and Chrysler as your reliability targets…………
A 40mi PHEV battery is getting a lot more wear put on it from going 0-100% than a 300mi battery that’ll bounce between 50-80%
I chose Toyota first for a reason. The other two are just common PHEVs that came to my mind.
In all three cases, the Battery Pack is one of the least-reliable parts of the car. Even for notoriously unreliable cars, the worst part remains the battery.
I'm not kidding when I say that the battery pack is one of the most complex and least-understood parts of EVs, Hybrids, or PHEVs.
EDIT: Wanna go Honda? Guess what part was least reliable again.
I’m sorry but this just sounds like trying to justify a potentially already-made PHEV purchase more than anything by cherry-picking strange bits of data.
Try Hyundai or Tesla instead of picking literally the worst brands lol
Gas engines just don't fail today man. It will almost always be the battery pack. Stats prove it.
I've looked at a fair number of these different vehicles from different manufacturers.
This is utter horseshit. Gas cars fail way more because they have way more parts and all of those parts require more maintenance.
I would know, I bought a house and put a kid through college with the money I made fixing gas cars and now I’m changing careers cause EVs are taking over and they rarely break.
The batteries degrade over time slowly, especially compared to gas engines. Just compare the warranties! Gas drivetrains get 3 year / 36k mile warranties. EV battery warranties are 8-10 years.
Your stats prove you can cherry-pick among the notoriously worst of brands for electrification, but not anywhere near the point you want to make.
The concern is that you have basically two different drivetrains to worry about, where if either fail you're (potentially, depending on what/where/etc fails) without an operational vehicle at worst.
The concern is that you have basically two different drivetrains to worry about, where if either fail you’re (potentially, depending on what/where/etc fails) without an operational vehicle at worst.
Meanwhile, the Toyota Prius has been sitting on the top reliable cars for the last 20+ years...
There's like, statistics... ya know? We don't have to hypothesize the problems or "expected" problems. We can look at these cars and their long history now and see where the problems occurred.
Like seriously, do you look up stats?
If you’re going to snark, do understand your sources first. Consumer Reports uses a “what they think will happen” for the reliability of a given item, it is not a wholly objective figure. They aren’t stats.
It’s a wonderful tool for a purchasing decision where you want to be cautious and consider the worst case scenario but it isn’t useful as a tool for much else.
Considering the vehicles you chose have low volume, do understand something:
How Many Samples Does CR Have of Each Model?
A typical vehicle has about 200 to 300 samples for each model year. When we have small sample sizes for models, we may use brand history and the reliability of similar models that may share major components to determine our predictions.
The stats I posted are history / survey results.
Consumer Reports conducts surveys where they ask car-owners of various model years how many issues, and what kind of issues, their cars have.
I know the difference from "predicted reliability" and their "Reliability history" page. There's a reason why I'm posting history. These survey results look back into the past and is more appropriate for our discussion.
Before criticizing my methodology, you probably should see what pages I'm posting and understand the material I'm quoting.
The reliability data comes from our Auto Reliability Surveys of Consumer Reports members. In all, we received responses on over 330,000 vehicles in our 2023 surveys, detailing 2000 to 2023 models and some early 2024 vehicles.
Oh look. We even got overall% problems.
Guess what? Its the battery again.
If I have a 400 V 50 kWh battery and charge at 400 V 50 kW, won't it be charging at 1 C? Like you could use the Nissan leaf as an example but it's dishonest since it's the worst type of battery cooling, air, which makes the cells die prematurely.
Tesla is one of the more failure prone brands. Hybrids are a bad solution since it won't address the problem fully, and only serves to lengthen the ICE industry.
Hybrids are a bad solution since it won’t address the problem fully
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
There's no perfection in engineering. Just a series of compromises. Anyone who is an absolutionist is going to have a bad time in engineering, policies, and politics.
Using fossil fuels in ICE is a waste of resources
Agreed.
Which is why converting 100-million ICE cars to 100-million Hybrids is our best chance for reducing our fossil fuel consumption.
We are Li-ion limited right now, and will continue to be Li-ion limited for the near future. Hybrids are magic technology because not only is Li-ion chemistry available, but also cheaper/easier to manufacture NiMH (Nickle Metal Hydride), which grossly reduces fossil fuel consumption on the order of 30% to 40%. (50mpg vs 30mpg is 40% savings).
You wish to deny the intermediate step just because... of your weird obsessive compulsive desire of perfection? We all know that 100-million EVs is out of the picture, even on the scale of 10 years of progress and production. We're literally going to run out of Lithium by 2025 and become production constrained.
When the battery tech is ready. Sodium-Batteries are coming as are Silicon-Lithium, both of which will improve our chances. There's also recycling centers that aren't functional yet before Li-ion is a truly green solution.
How many EVs do you think can be made in the next 10 years? Now multiply that by 5 to 20 (because PHEVs / Hybrids use 5x to 20x fewer batteries than a pure EV). How much fossil fuel savings do we get from 20x more Hybrids (or 5x more PHEVs) ??
Its an intermediate step, but economically speaking its a necessary economic step because its more efficient to transition from ICE -> Hybrid/PHEV -> EV, than to not do so. Especially given the economic realities of spinning up Li-ion production.
Lmayo converting 100 M cars is not realistic either
There exists a Hybrid in every vehicle segment, and its technology available to Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Ford, GM, Stellanis, BMW and more.
The only reason we're not converting to Hybrids is because online idiots have decided to kill the idea and never give them a proper try. But the market is healing, people are realizing how reliable and practical they are today.
EVs should continue developing of course. But the immediate best move for our society is to immediately move to hybrids and off of traditional ICE. And the technology is in fact, available today... and at cheap prices... to allow for such a move.
What we need is EV fans to get off the backs of people buying a $23,000 Corolla Hybrid or $25,000 Ford Maverick. They need to congratulate these car drivers for making a better environmental choice and something that fit their budget. Trying to get the poor or middle class to buy $40,000+ class EVs is insane. It feels even more insane to fund that through $7500 tax credits, but even with that tax credit the Hybrids are still winning out.
.... chrysler what are you doing
That Chrysler Pacifica is one of the few electrified solutions with 7 comfortable seats.
Despite that terrible reliability, its one of your best family-van options if you care about electrification at all. You just gotta grin and bear it.
It's interesting to be on the other side of watching a subject matter expert being downvoted by laymen suffering from Dunning Kruger. Their feelings will always Trump your knowledge.
I've read enough on these systems to understand you're speaking the truth here. Thanks for trying. I learned some new details on these system's complexities.
The batteries may be more complex, but not for the end-user.
How many moving parts does that complex batter have, compared to a car engine?
What’s the normal operating temperature of that battery, compared to a car engine?
How many replaceable fluids are needed to keep that battery running, compared to a gas engine?
Hybrids have been out for over 20 years, and this simply isn't an issue.
Furthermore, "a problem that doesn't exist for 99%" is false because this article is just talking about averages. When you look at the average mileage driven per state, it ranges from 9,900 miles to over 24,000 miles per year. There is no one size fits all solution. Would you rather someone drive an old Suburban 100 miles per day or a Prius prime 100 miles per day? It's that simple. These people aren't going to buy a BEV until the segment is nearly ubiquitous, if ever.
I think people use the gas more than twice a year. For me, the electric could suffice for weekday commutes, but weekend trips end up requiring the gas.
I have personally avoided EVs in favor of PHEVs because I think charging all the time would be a pain. EVs like Tesla claim you get like 320 miles of range, but that’s on a full battery and they recommend only charge to 80%. So it drops to 256 miles. However even that is on the high end as driving at normal highway speeds, using AC or heat, in cold weather all kill the range even further. Tesla actually got caught exaggerating the range and canceling customer appointments over the issue. So, a realistic estimate there is probably more like 175 miles left. From there you probably don’t want to risk getting stranded and would need to find a charge with no less than 25 miles left. This gives an effective range of more like 150 miles out of the claimed 320. If you’re on a road trip, stopping every 150 miles for 20-40 minutes is going to be a pain.
As a model 3 owner of 5 years, your math is just wrong and charging is a minor inconvenience if you have a level 2 charger at home or work. I went the first 3 years with no home charging.
I went well over 200 miles on my first road trip with the Tesla … on highway, with heat, and my speed demon teen exceeding 90 mph when I wasn’t looking
If you can use a charger at home, most charging is a non-event. Plug it in when you get home and it’s just always ready to go.
I’ve only ever charged on the road once. It was 15 minutes of walking around Walmart
Once or twice a year? Do you mean daily? We have a phev Prius and it is great. It is able to run EV mode to work, but the trip home requires hybrid mode.
If you took the cost of gas engine and had a bigger battery instead, you could make it home without burning gas. How often do you travel more than 250 miles round trip? For me, that's only once or twice a year.
Permanently Deleted
There are 1000s of Priuses that require repairs every year, including the batteries that also go bad. So, all of the normal gas engine maintenance, plus the risk of a battery going bad too. It's just basic logic.
Permanently Deleted
There are more parts and systems to break on a hybrid than a pure gas or pure EV.
Permanently Deleted