Forum menu
Tesla 3 sr+ last longer trip with temp 6-8° was 4 miles per kw, once the weather warms up looking at nearer 5 miles per kw.
Long term average in our Hyundai Ioniq EV (not the 5) is currently 4.6 over 10k miles we've had it. Worst case is about 4.1, motorway trips are between 4.5 and 4.8 depending on weather, and the best scores are from certain suburban trips where we can get 5.5, sometimes over 6 depending on the route. Once we got 7.1 on the way into town.
But that's about as efficient as normal EVs get. 3.6 is still decent.
Wonder how much that’ll drop the economy!
A lot.
Cheers... It's pretty cold here, so I guess I'm starting on a bad footing...
DrP
63 grand and it doesn’t even have electric seats and lumbar support was an option apparently
Sure they’re not part of a subscription option? BMW, along with a few other companies seem keen on fitting all the features you’ve come to expect, then making you pay an annual subscription to unlock them. If they’re fitted, then it seems reasonable to find a way to hack them and **** BMW and it’s ripping off customers.
Speaking of BMW, anyone seen their new Mini EV convertible? £52,000, with 120 mile range! That is just taking the piss! 🤬
DrP - our Leaf (62kwh) is averaging about 3mi/kWh over the last few months but it’s preheating every morning and quite a few short trips running the kids about (ie lots of heating loss). London to Birmingham and back on the motorway in just above freezing weather was about 3.5.
Actually, coming up for a year with it - from the stats in the app it’s just about 3.5 average over that time.
Soo…having had the leaf for a few days, and driven about 120 miles, I’ve averaged 0.17kwh/km… Which is about 3.6miles/kw….
I work in wH/Mile, so that’s 273.
My long term average over 20,000 miles of mainly motorway driving in a Tesla Model 3 Performance is 286. That BMW I had on test was returning similar.
BMW electric seats…
Sure they’re not part of a subscription option? BMW, along with a few other companies seem keen on fitting all the features you’ve come to expect, then making you pay an annual subscription to unlock them. If they’re fitted, then it seems reasonable to find a way to hack them and **** BMW and it’s ripping off customers.
Nope. You need to spec the “Comfort Plus Pack” at £2050 to get electric seats. Lumbar for driver is available for a mere £215 and lumbar for driver+passenger for £290. Unlesss you buy the top M50 at £72,000. Then you get electric seats but still have to pay for lumbar adjustment.
The two software update options they offer are adaptive cruise control and self parking. Both are cheaper just to spec outright when buying the car. Although the post-purchase software update is at least permanent and not a subscription.
Either way, I’ve decided the BMW isn’t for me. I found the Polestar more comfortable, it’s vastly cheaper, and I think it looks better.
If they’re fitted, then it seems reasonable to find a way to hack them and **** BMW and it’s ripping off customers.
Well not really - if they're fitted, but you aren't paying for them then they are being sold at a loss. You either pay for the items on a subscription, or you pay for them up front, but not paying for them at all is technically cheating. You may not like the subscription model, but that doesn't really give you a moral reason to simply help yourself to the goods anyway.
If you really want to **** BMW don't buy one of their cars.
I’m still struggling with the fact someone thought it was a good idea to make a car that used all it’s electric first rather than be a functional hybrid. I guess it must have been a stipulation to qualify for the bik loophole
a) It's simple to do that. Proper hybrid strategies are incredibly complex and time consuming to develop, test and certify.
b) Makes the car look incredibly good on NEDC and WLTP cycles. (I know one of the early PHEVs i worked on, way back when, it was *just* possible to certify at about 750mpg if we tweaked a couple of parameters. Fantastic for BIK and advertising, completely unachievable in the real world, would also destroy the battery in a couple of years.)
c) In reality, you probably cover over 90% of peoples driving by having a ~30 mile range and dumping the battery first, as long as they can charge regularly.
A neighbour has Mitsi SUV PHEVs, he's on his third or fourth, he hates them.
But his brother in law sells them
Nope. You need to spec the “Comfort Plus Pack” at £2050 to get electric seats. Lumbar for driver is available for a mere £215 and lumbar for driver+passenger for £290. Unless you buy the top M50 at £72,000. Then you get electric seats but still have to pay for lumbar adjustment.
on my order, where I selected leather seats, and a towbar, it added the Comfort pack as a required option. It seems to have extra backrest adjusters, along with unlocking when the key is in proximity along with the 'wave your foot under the bumper to open the tailgate' thingy.
Either way, I’ve decided the BMW isn’t for me. I found the Polestar more comfortable, it’s vastly cheaper, and I think it looks better.
gotta go with what works for you, and good you had the opportunity to try them. I quite fancied the Polestar also, and had a play on the Tusker car configurator with it - when I went for long range and leather, to equate to the i4 spec I had selected, it was only £8 less a month than the BMW.
What sort of figures are you lot getting?
Have just stuck some aero roof bars on it, ready to receive a pair of racks.. Wonder how much that’ll drop the economy!
On a Tesla Model 3 LR I've averaged 230Wh/mile (4.3 miles/kWh) over 20,000 miles. Mostly motorway driving with cruise control pegged at 72, and occasional boosts up to 75 to pass traffic in the middle lane.
You may not like the subscription model, but that doesn’t really give you a moral reason to simply help yourself to the goods anyway.
id agree if you were leasing the car as they are not yours .
but if they have fitted the hardware to your car that you have bought then id have no qualms activating it .....
ive done it to various cars over the years - was that ok just because the car company didnt try to charge anyone for it so it wasnt stealing by that logic it was just upgrading ?
but if they have fitted the hardware to your car that you have bought then id have no qualms activating it
I am splitting hairs here - it's a moral argument - but I'd say that if they've fitted the part and you haven't paid for it, then it's not yours.
The concept of buying stuff isn't always simple. When you buy software, for example, you're not owning it you're licensing it and there are terms associated with its use. Same for things like DVDs - that's why you're not allowed to charge people to come and see a DVD that you've bought from Sainsbury's.
However all that stuff is set out in the agreement no-one ever reads. I do wonder what you have to sign when you buy a BMW.
I always thought that the issue with PHEVs is that due to the stupidly small electric range you have to balance the benefit vs worse economy as soon as the battery is used - you have a heavier car so on any longer journeys mpg will be worse than a conventional car.
So provided you only ever usually drive very short journeys perhaps it works. Otherwise you might as well get an efficient conventional car.
Well, given you can get 15 miles from electricity or more in many modern ones, that's not 'very short' really. Apparently the mean journey distance in the UK is 8.4 miles, so clearly there are lots of short trips and that should easily be covered by the battery.
As for the weight, I'm not sure it's all that significant. I think they are uneconomical when used badly i.e. drain the battery then have the petrol engine charge it whilst driving. If you understand what's going on and how to use the car it should be good, but of course a lot of people don't they just don't want to have to think about anything.
I’m still struggling with the fact someone thought it was a good idea to make a car that usedall it’s electric first rather than be a functional hybrid. I guess it must have been a stipulation to qualify for the bik loophole
I'm sure that's what most people use them for (tax avoidance) but when the average car journey in the UK is less than half of their battery range a fair few people could do the school run and commute on battery alone and keep the petrol for a long journey at the weekends.
you have a heavier car so on any longer journeys mpg will be worse than a conventional car.
I was a guinea pig for Hybrid vehicles at my work so I ran the car with no charge for a month and the fuel economy was just slightly down on a diesel equivalent. The cost difference in petrol and diesel more than made up the difference. The hybrid batteries work as a dumb hybrid in that they capture the braking energy etc. so the efficiency is pretty good. This was an Octavia vs. diesel Passat.
Maybe if depends on the design. I was certainly put off the Outlander PHEV on the basis of poor economy whenever the electric engine was done. Maybe not a great design of a bigger car / SUV.
Electric vans are still shocking. New Renault 50 grand or so and max range of 120 miles. I can’t get it around my head why it has the same size battery as a Zoe!
New Renault 50 grand or so and max range of 120 miles.
Which Renault is that?
Can't find it here:
https://www.renault.fr/vehicules-electriques-et-hybrides.html
I was certainly put off the Outlander PHEV on the basis of poor economy whenever the electric engine was done. Maybe not a great design of a bigger car / SUV.
Yeah it's well known that particular car is a poor execution.
Electric vans are still shocking. New Renault 50 grand or so and max range of 120 miles. I can’t get it around my head why it has the same size battery as a Zoe!
In the past, a van was a van. People bought them based on size and not their intended journey distance. Someone delivering parts from Penzance to Perth could buy the same van as someone moving stuff around the same town. But electric vans are targeted at the latter. There must be sufficient potential usage to make it worthwhile, and people are buying them at least in small numbers. I think this is fair - why shouldn't those short-trip vans be electric?
With the quick charger**, you can charge your vehicle to 80% in just 2 hours.
That's pretty poor though!
Ah, a huge Van:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-electric-van-thread/
That looks remarkable value for money compared with a T6
molgrips
Full MemberWith the quick charger**, you can charge your vehicle to 80% in just 2 hours.
That’s pretty poor though!
Which tell you it doesn't have the 50kW charge option of the Zoé which does 80% in under an hour (real world experience)
Yep so massive van, terrible range, same size battery as a Zoe, haven’t even bothered with 50kW charging capability which the Zoe offers (albeit not as standard).
I good few years ago I replaced a company diesel BMW 5 touring (which I loved) with an Outlander as the BIK tax on a replacement 5 was silly. Sort of knew it wasn't best suited to the bigger journeys and it was thirsty for anything over 60 miles. Going to morzine and back in it stung a bit! The battery did run out at about 23 but kept the average mpg reasonable ie 50mpg ish for journeys up to 60 miles. After that it was a big, heavy wallowy SUV powered by a 2ltr petrol having to work hard. So as above a compromised solution.
Amazon bought a load of Mercedes Sprinters with a 95 mile range operating from a depot in Newport. I guess they worked out that a vanload of deliveries could be emptied in that distance due to the density of their drops.
That's exactly what they are designed for.
Mostly vans like that are working vehicles, they'll spend all day doing 10mph round the city centre dropping boxes of stuff off. Or driving from depot, to site, and back again. Probably spend 50% of their working day waiting while they find a sack barrow/forklift or waiting for a signature "more than my jobs worth, mate".
Anyone who is expecting to use it for cross pennine deliveries, you need a diesel.
The 2 hour charge is a bit crap, but i guess they'll mostly charge between shifts/during loading/overnight.
this had completely passed me by
dunno if those rear seats come out, but it looks like a spiritual successor to all those oddball jap mpvs from the early 00s
Oh my god.
I saw my first Citroen Ami in the wild yesterday – I was quite excited! They are tiny!
dunno if those rear seats come out, but it looks like a spiritual successor to all those oddball jap mpvs from the early 00s
Getting more than a whiff of the SsangYong Rodius from the outside...
So... as someone completely unable to leave anything stock... Here's my leaf so far!
I've always wanted a red car with white rims - JDM style... now i've a Japanese car, in red, it felt rude not to!!!
The new rims are the same offset as OEM (+40) , but i've added 5mm spacers to clear the front caliper (spacers all round) so technically it's 35mm offset now...
Still drives the same.
But..looks waaay cooler!!!
DrP
EDIT - i'm struglging to find deeper center caps, as the drive shaft protrudes 16mm!
Also...
Speaking of hybrid cars..
DrP
Anyone seen that new Nissan drivetrain that's a BEV with no charging port and a petrol generator instead?
Yeah, it's quite interesting. Friend has a new Qashqai with the E-Power drivetrain, and Nissan have had a lot of success with it in the Note in Japan. You get a lot of the EV good stuff - strong torque, proper regen (with epedal that lets you one-pedal-drive down to a stop) albeit with an engine whirring away. While it does bring revs up with more demand, it's not like the Toyotas where they'll flare up on a bit of acceleration.
Probably the best non-plugin hybrid drivetrain out there. If it was a plugin with 30-odd miles of range it'd be even better.
Anyone seen that new Nissan drivetrain that’s a BEV with no charging port and a petrol generator instead?
So basically an Ampera?
Strange you wouldn't just add a port for all the difference it would make.
Hilariously terrible article managed to find its way to the Times recently - called something like ‘why I decided to pull the plug on my electric car’ or something like that.
Turns out the journalist bought himself a very expensive Jaguar electric car which turned out to be stupendously unreliable and constantly went wrong. So he just went straight from there to ‘electric cars are shite’.
Can’t believe they actually pay people to write this stuff!
Wasn't that an interview with some chap.from.broughty ferry ? If not there was a similar article in the courier 7-10 days ago.
Turns out the journalist bought himself a very expensive Jaguar electric car which turned out to be stupendously unreliable and constantly went wrong. So he just went straight from there to ‘electric cars are shite’.
You've missed a fair bit of the article out - he was peed off with the car never doing the advertised mileage on a charge (not only in the winter with testing now showing a range drop of up to 30% being found in some models at lower temps) and the lack of/waiting for charge points.
There was one breakdown too many and he threw in the towel.
Wasn’t that an interview with some <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">chap.from.broughty</span> ferry ?
Giles Corren
Can’t believe they actually pay people to write this stuff!
They're conservative, so they want conservative articles so their readership read them.
There's way more on social media, I think oil companies are paying bot networks (or people with the intelligence of bots) to bang on about how terrible EVs are.
Nah wasn't him
Turns out it was a chap in carnoustie.
Vauxhal mokka e. - not like a vauxhall was going to be a crock of crap
Not like them .
Have you ever bought a car that performed the advertised mpg?
Yes I skimmed through the moaning about range I will admit. I’m assuming Jaguar are particularly bad at exaggeration because our Tesla and Zoe both do about 85% of advertised range even in the winter, which is closer to manufacturers claims than most normal cars.
Charging away from home is something that most electric car owners very rarely do so this again is an issue that seems to be contrived in order to make a point.
Giles Coren was the writer in The Times. He lives in London and has no off street parking and decided an EV was a good idea. He always has to use public charging which is just stupid.
So he bought a poor one (disclaimer - I love Jags but even I wouldn’t buy an iPace).
He’s then slagged it, and EVs, off regularly in the paper.
The Times (and the rest of the News Corp papers) are anti-EV and anti-Net Zero. I probably should sub to something else.
To top it off, the rumour is after he sold the iPace he bought another EV…
Sorry yes I failed to mention he thought it would be a good plan to get an EV with no ability to charge at home, then also used that as a reason to say they’re rubbish.
They're not rubbish, they just take some getting used to. Buying one with no means of charging at home does complicate things.
To be fair to GC though, the availability of public infrastructure has got worse with the increase in popularity. I've had EV's for a good number of years now so have seen the difference. If you're using one with an ICE mentality then your experience will be bad. They're not, they're just different.....but life is a LOT easier when you can charge from home!
Out and about today so popped into nearby BMW dealership to have a good poke around the i4.
The showroom car was an mSport so a bit different trim above the base, but a quite impressive bit of kit. Lots of space inside, nice layout on dash, good hatch for bikes and dogs 🤪
Thought this belonged here. Guess the ami doesn't have to pass normal safety tests as it's a quadrocycle, but this is pretty bad
bensales - Giles Coren was the writer in The Times. He lives in London and has no off street parking and decided an EV was a good idea. He always has to use public charging which is just stupid.
I've not had a problem in over 3 years of exclusively public charging. Thanks for those words of support 🤪
Giles Coren was the writer in The Times. He lives in London and has no off street parking and decided an EV was a good idea.
Unless London had changed a lot since my last visit he doesn't live solely in London
As I watch my family strike out on foot across the fields into driving rain and gathering darkness, my wife holding each child’s hand, our new year plans in ruins, while I do what I can to make our dead car safe before abandoning it a mile short of home, full of luggage on a country lane
whatgoesup
Full Member
@iainc – take one out for a drive, they make even more sense then!
I’m getting one in the autumn, on a lease through work 🤪
Vauxhal mokka e. – not like a vauxhall was going to be a crock of crap
Not like them .
Of course not, they're just another Stellantis appliance.
I've had ICE cars break down too so...
molgrips
Anyone seen that new Nissan drivetrain that’s a BEV with no charging port and a petrol generator instead?
This sounds like what's in the latest Honda Civic.
This sounds like what’s in the latest Honda Civic.
nah its closer to the vauxhall ampera or the bmw i3. The engine has no connection to the wheels and instead just drives a generator. The civic is a traditional hybrid (the engine drives the wheels at times)
at certain times iirc the ampera could link the engine to the wheels, not sure on the i3
The one reason why I’d think that the Nissan approach is good is that presumably I wouldn’t take much of a move to make the generator hydrogen powered and boom - the perfect green car once and if ever we sort out the issue of making hydrogen available, cheap and safe??
I know Toyota have done it already but it’s about 90 grand and there are only about 3 of them out there.
Thought this belonged here. Guess the ami doesn’t have to pass normal safety tests as it’s a quadrocycle, but this is pretty bad
That's absolutely outrageous in 2023. Thats not actually far off the turn down the hill into town for me on an NSL A road that would see similar approach speeds. Considering it's built to a restricted speed I'd like to have expected that it could at least handle itself at that speed.
Looking at the comments it doesn't even have an anti-roll bar???
The one reason why I’d think that the Nissan approach is good is that presumably I wouldn’t take much of a move to make the generator hydrogen powered and boom – the perfect green car once and if ever we sort out the issue of making hydrogen available, cheap and safe??
A hydrogen powered ICE requires significant beefing up, a standard petrol engine wouldn't hack it.
Lots of people talk as if burning hydrogen is ideal, but it's not. Assuming you can generate it, you need to liquify it. That takes a huge amount of energy, it's really hard. Then you need to transport it which is very difficult. And once you've gone through all that, you're actually much better off using it in a fuel cell than burning it, it's more efficient.
Toyota make and sell the Mirai commercially, to fleet owners with their own fuelling stations mostly, but that's a fuel cell vehicle not an ICE.
@molgrips - the obstacles you describe are being overcome at a tremendous rate. There are a couple of UK companies actively exploring an extensive Hydrogen refuelling network similar to the Tesla supercharger model. We all know the story as it's well a trodden path, the technology will advance through time until it becomes viable.
The Toyota story could be such a success, but as you rightly say, it's just not quite there just yet. What do those cars offer in terms of mileage?? 600+ or something like that?
The one reason why I’d think that the Nissan approach is good is that presumably I wouldn’t take much of a move to make the generator hydrogen powered and boom – the perfect green car once and if ever we sort out the issue of making hydrogen available, cheap and safe??
Well, not hydrogen, because it's really not actually very useful.
But, you can start playing around with different combustion cycles, the current one we use in most cars is optimised against half a dozen conflicting requirements. One pair of which is low emissions and responsiveness to the throttle. They are a bugger to balance between.
If you can buffer between Engine => battery => Throttle you can start playing around with things like miller cycle engines, which really don't like to change speed very much, but are capable of lower emissions. And there are far more aggressive cycles you can use as well. With an engine running at steady state against a fixed load it becomes possible to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. The I3 with range extender and ampera were getting there.
As far as I understand it the only way currently to use hydrogen is for it to be essentially an electric car, with a hydrogen fuel cell powering an electric motor, hence the comment about the Nissan, which is essentially that except it has a petrol powered generator.
I don’t think you can make any sort of ICE powered by hydrogen at the moment.
There are a couple of UK companies actively exploring an extensive Hydrogen refuelling network similar to the Tesla supercharger model. We all know the story as it’s well a trodden path, the technology will advance through time until it becomes viable.
A BEV will travel 3-4 times further on the same amount of electricity as a FCEV. It gets worse if you try to burn the hydrogen in an ICE when a BEV will go at least 6 times further. So if we take the hydrogen path we'll need at least 3-4 times the wind turbines and solar farms to make the green hydrogen than if we take the BEV route. That's why for road transport hydrogen is dead in the water. In any case we'll need all the green hydrogen we can get our hands on to replace the grey hydrogen made from methane that today is being used to make fertiliser. There will be none left over for FCEV or to burn in ICE. As for storing and transporting hydrogen its incredibly inefficient and difficult. That's why most hydrogen today is made next to where it will be used.
I don’t think you can make any sort of ICE powered by hydrogen at the moment.
You can but again why would you? From Bamford's own lips "There is a problem where we get the fuel from."
The Toyota story could be such a success, but as you rightly say, it’s just not quite there just yet.
It's pointless, in most situations. You need to start with electricity, use it to create hydrogen which in inefficient, then compress it which also uses a ton of energy you're not getting back, then you have to physically ship it to where it's needed - also taking energy. Then you put it in your car and get 60% of its chemical energy back as motion, or 40% depending on if you burn it or use it for generating power. All so that you can drive an extra couple of hours without compared to just putting the electricity directly in your car in the first place!
Toyota are hardly selling any Mirais, meanwhile BEVs from every other manufacturer are flying off the shelves. BEVs work really well, for most users. Creating an entire new infrastructure, and still having all the above mentioned problems does not make sense. For outliers who're justified, we're better off keeping petrol. And no, you who wants to drive for 5hrs without stopping instead of 3 because you want to doesn't count as justification.
If we didn't have BEVs and needed another low emissions solution then maybe. But we do and we don't.
Wow molgrips its like you read my posts.
Re Hydrogen: it's often talked about as though it's a fuel. It's not*, it's a form of energy storage.
It's benefits are rapid refuelling compared to batteries and the ability to be used in an ICE, using existing ICE technologies with some fairly mild development needed to make a petrol or diesel engine capable of burning hydrogen (as per the JCB example above).
It's downside is pretty low conversion efficiency from the source (assuming electricity) to final output, the conversion from elec to H2 via an electrolyser can be fairly efficient (80-95% ish), and then a fuel cell is 40-60% efficient and an ICE will be around 30-40% efficient. A battery by comparison is around 77% efficient in total, so something like 2-3 times the amount of useful output vs a Hydrogen ICE engine.
As, breakthroughs in nuclear fusion aside, generation capability will be limited we need to make the most efficient use of what we've got which right now is batteries.
So, in the short term it looks like - Batteries for applications where recharging is feasible (i.e. passenger cars) or hydrogen for applications where it is not - ICE initially, moving to fuel cell as technology improves(e.g. lorries, industrial equipment etc). Of course this will change - Hydrogen is not the only form of chemical energy storage for example.
*unless it's made from oil, which isn't the long term aim.
Using hydrogen for cars is just dumb. Fuel cells are at most 60% efficient but in reality it's closer to 40%. By the time you then scale the fuel cell size to peak power required, the car must be big as the fuel cells are not compact. If you don't do this, you need a battery (which you'd need anyway for recuperation) or capacitors.
Moving hydrogen around in it's liquid form for mass use just won't happen, especially if both homes and the aviation sector uses it. LH2 leaks through everything, even some dense metals like steel alloys, when it does, it embrittles them. its thermal expansion coefficient is horrific - just a few degress is an exponential increase in pressure. Its tendency to explode at even tiny vapour concentrations is terrifying, so it must be kept in motion. It would have to be transported everywhere at -253degC or below.
Heathrow currently uses 22.5m litres of jet fuel every day. That would need to be ~100m litres every day. the sea level losses caused by moving that to the airport in its liquid form would have a FAR FAR higher climate impact than actually burning jet fuel.
For hydrogen to work, it has to be moved around as a gas and liquified on site close to where it's needed, but even then. moving electricity around is MUCH easier and more efficient that moving hydrogen.
Also bear in mind that to fuel even a fraction of the worlds projected need for H2, you'd going to need 60+bn litres of fresh, very pure water...where are you going to get this from? Especially in California, the middle east? Africa? Yup, desalination - possibly the most damaging thing to happen to the environment in recent decades...both from a waste and energy consumption perspective.
Hydrogen will have it's place, but it's essentially as a chemical storage battery for applications which need VERY high energy density where there are no alternatives. Power storage for demand use and Aerospace.
Home heating should be electric, cars should be electric, they need the least infrastructure changes and have the most flexible means of energy generation.
It’s downside is pretty low conversion efficiency from the source (assuming electricity) to final output, the conversion from elec to H2 via an electrolyser can be fairly efficient (80-95% ish), and then a fuel cell is 40-60% efficient and an ICE will be around 30-40% efficient. A battery by comparison is around 77% efficient in total, so something like 2-3 times the amount of useful output vs a Hydrogen ICE engine.
You forgot the compression, cooling and transportation part. Here's a useful visualisation of why hydrogen is a waste of time.
But.. but.. refuelling time is shorter...
Direct burn hydrogen also has issues in that unlike a fuel cell whose only emissions are water, burning of H2 does create significant amounts of NOx and small quantities of Carbon Monoxide. This is another reason why home H2 boilers are a bad idea.
But.. but.. refuelling time is shorter…
Is it though? Is it really? FOR LH2 you have to pump at low flow rates to prevent explosion, you have to used fixed, non-flexible hoses to prevent embrittlement, and you need four times as much (volumetrically) as petrol.
Is it though? Is it really?
I don't know, I'm just repeating the poor reason that most pro-hydrogen people seem to think is important enough to build an enormous new infrastructure from scratch.
Yes, BEVs take a bit longer to charge, but honestly we need to just deal with that. If ICEs had never been invented you'd break your journey for 30 mins every 3 hours without a second thought. That would just be the way the world is, and it would make no difference at all to anything.
the obstacles you describe are being overcome at a tremendous rate. There are a couple of UK companies actively exploring an extensive Hydrogen refuelling network similar to the Tesla supercharger model. We all know the story as it’s well a trodden path, the technology will advance through time until it becomes viable.
Tesla spent millions/billions on it's super-charger network as they knew it was a key component in generating enough of a market in EVs that they could sell lots of cars. I don't really see the same on the hydrogen side, it probably doesn't make much commercial sense to invest in the infrastructure without the pay off of selling a lot of highly profitable cars off the back of it (and Toyota aren't going to be making the sizeable margins that Tesla have managed).
No doubt hydrogen has some advantages over a normal BEV but it's sort of missed the boat as well, most investment is focused on the charging network now as there's enough demand to make it commercially viable. Maybe there's still time for hydrogen to go mass market but as every year passes it looks increasingly unlikely. At this point it would probably take huge government investment to get it off the ground and I don't see any sign of that.
China might be it's best hope, if they can gain enough traction there and the current influx of new Chinese brands in the BEV market (in the UK, Europe and US) generates a positive image for them then there's a chance cheap Chinese hydrogen fuel cell cars will enter the market to but that's still likely years away (if it happens at all). I'm not convinced the Chinese manufacturer influx (without partnering with Western companies) is going to end well in the BEV market, let alone the fuel cell EV one.
I’m not convinced the Chinese manufacturer influx (without partnering with Western companies) is going to end well in the BEV market, let alone the fuel cell EV one.
Why do they need help from western companies? In most cases their EVs are every bit as good as anything built in Zwickau or Detroit. Its not like western legacy auto is doing any better than China with BEVs.
But.. but.. refuelling time is shorter…
That's the last (ish) part of the electric car problem.
Many many more people would have them (even with massively reduced range) if you could charge as fast as a fuel car.
Tesla spent millions/billions on it’s super-charger network
Important to stress that their 'network' is on a network in the logical sense, not the physical sense. The hard parts - the generation and the distribution of fuel - were already there and very well developed. Who the heck is going to want to pour money into starting from scratch? When the results aren't as good?
That’s the last (ish) part of the electric car problem.
It's not actually a problem though, not really. More of a very mild inconvenience.
Why do they need help from western companies? In most cases their EVs are every bit as good as anything built in Zwickau or Detroit. Its not like western legacy auto is doing any better than China with BEVs.
Dealer and servicing network, market knowledge, industry connections and consumer reputation to name a few. Rightly or wrongly Chinese companies in some industry sectors have a bit of a trust barrier to overcome, I think that does apply to BEVs. What happens if a safety issue is discovered that warrants a recall? Western companies aren't exactly always forthcoming in that area, will Chinese companies be worse? Even if they're no worse than Western companies they'll be judged more harshly.
I agree a Chinese BEV is likely as good or better a product than what most of the traditional Western car manufacturers are currently churning out but those manufacturers can trade off their existing reputations and probably get a bit more leeway with any shortcomings than a new entrant to the market might get, especially one from China.
I think a fairly big part of Polestar's success is most people assume it's just Volvo's EV arm but ofc it's a partnership (more an acquisition) between a massive Chinese company and a Western car company with a strong reputation (and solid dealer & servicing network, you can take a Polestar to many Volvo service centres rather than just one of the handful of 'Polestar Spaces').
BYD, Nio, XPeng etc. may gain some market share based off reviews and cost/feature advantages but it might go sour quickly without a decent servicing network (covering warranty and repair issues) and I can't see residual values being great (for those that factor that into a new car purchase), online only purchasing (maybe with a handful of 'experience centres' dotted around the country) works for some sectors but possibly not great if aimed at middle class retirees etc.
I think a fairly big part of Polestar’s success is most people assume it’s just Volvo’s EV arm but ofc it’s a partnership (more an acquisition) between a massive Chinese company and a Western car company with a strong reputation (and solid dealer & servicing network, you can take a Polestar to many Volvo service centres rather than just one of the handful of ‘Polestar Spaces’).
Er you do know Volvo Cars aren't a western company any more? They're owned by Geely.
Many many more people would have them (even with massively reduced range) if you could charge as fast as a fuel car.
Charging speed really isn’t an issue (or at least won’t be once the network is developed and home / destination charging is commonplace).
Assuming starting each journey from home with a full charge and being able to charge at the destination (7kW chargers just fine for this) then the only need to charge up when out and about is on a genuinely long journey. If you plug into a fast charger and don’t have to queue (the lack of a queue big is really important here) then 20-30 mins later you’re back up and running. As said above that’s just part of normal stopping regime for a long journey.