When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[richard.cs]

That ^^^ would be 106/0.26= 407.7 kWh / 1500 miles => 272 Wh/mile = 16.9 kWh/100 km, which is simply not true, neither for a Model 3, nor much less for a Model S.

Even the unbelievably good hyper optimistic figures of Mr. Boffin for a much smaller e-golf, are more than that.

Small cars can manage that. I get around 213 Wh/mile in a Zoe (measured from the battery), at 80% charging efficiency that would be 266 Wh/mile from the wall. Daily commute over mixed roads and weekly motorway trips. A model 3 is 26% heavier but that makes little difference to the power used, at speed it's all about the aerodynamic effects. It is 12% wider but 8% lower, with slightly more frontal cross-section I might expect it to use more power though the shape looks a bit more aerodynamic. Overall I could believe such numbers for a model 3 depending how it is driven.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Small cars can manage that. I get around 213 Wh/mile in a Zoe (measured from the battery), at 80% charging efficiency that would be 266 Wh/mile from the wall. Daily commute over mixed roads and weekly motorway trips. A model 3 is 26% heavier but that makes little difference to the power used, at speed it's all about the aerodynamic effects. It is 12% wider but 8% lower, with slightly more frontal cross-section I might expect it to use more power though the shape looks a bit more aerodynamic. Overall I could believe such numbers for a model 3 depending how it is driven.

Seems to be the official EPA figures:

https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-mpge-improves-2018/

[mtdoc]

I'm sorry Mr. USA, but in Europe 21 MPG is a gas guzzler.

I was responding to Doug saying that Tesla’s fueling price comparison was ”pretty much the same”.  21mpg was Teslas comparison number which is reasonable for a car with similar performance. Any car which can match a Tesla’s acceleration specs will be close to that {or worse).

This Skoda compares much better to a Model 3:

ICE - (21mpg, $2.85/gallon)  = $204
Tesla charged via supercharger  ($0.26/kWh)   =   $106

Skoda Octavia TDI RS ICE (53 MPG, $2.85/gallon) = $80.6

Really? Another dishonest comparisons 
That car is a tin can, with a 0- 60mph time >8 sec.!
The model 3 has a 0-60 time between  3.1 and 5.6 seconds (depending on options). . The torque comparison is even more dramatcally different.  They are not even in the same league!

And even more dishonestly, you use Tesla’s very conservative USA gas price of $2.85/gal for a car that is not even sold in the USA.  We all know that gasoline or diesel is much, much more expensive in Europe.

Why would you think such a dishonest comparison is relevant?

That ^^^ would be 106/0.26= 407.7 kWh / 1500 miles => 272 Wh/mile = 16.9 kWh/100 km, which is simply not true, neither for a Model 3, nor much less for a Model S.

Again, I was responding to Doug’s comment on Tesla’s comparison. The published specs on the Model 3 say 16kWh/100 km). Accurate or not, those are the number’s hat Doug was responding to.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

They are very close in torques: Tesla 3 std: 416 Nm vs Skoda: 380 Nm, and in 1st gear the torque is times the demultiplication ratio: 2..3 times 380 Nm = 760..1140 Nm. Not available in Teslas.

But who cares? Once you've got torque enough, and 180bhp/380Nm are more than plenty enough horses and torques for a family sedan, who cares? In $ per km they're pretty close too, almost a tie, to the dismay of EV fanboys like you. Not close at all in range though, where one's got only 220 miles and the other +700, nor in day to day practicality, because with one you've got to plan your trips around supercharger to supercharger and spend ~ one hour to refill, with the other you can go and refill anywhere in the world in just a couple of minutes.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]

Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?

[nctnico]

[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]

Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?

The car manufacturers already figured that out: target audience and size which equals segment / price bracket.

[mtdoc]

[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]

Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?

OK I guess you’re  not a car person.  See Performance car.  It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.

What is the source of you Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m).  It appears as if even within your already dishonest comparison, you are cherry picking.

If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!

You really need to compare torque curves and anyone who know cars can tell you a 4 banger diesel is not gonna be in the same league as a Tesla Model 3.

And what about price of fuel? What does diesel (or gasoline) cost in Europe, where the Skoda is sold?

[nctnico]

[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]

Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?

OK I guess you’re  not a car person.  See Performance car.  It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.

What is the source of you Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m).  It appears as

If you start talking about torque and cars you should ask your money back from your physics teacher. Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars. Do the math... hint: a transmission works like an impedance matching transformer... Which is also why EVs have relatively low top speeds compared to ICE based cars.

[boffin]

As there seems to be continuous argument over consumption numbers, here is a link to the Canadian official EV mileage numbers: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/21363

Chevrolet Bolt: 16.4 / 19.0 / 17.6
Ford Focus EV:  17.7 / 21.8 / 19.6
Nissan Leaf:    16.9 / 21.1 / 18.8
Tesla 3LR:      15.3 / 17.0 / 16.1
Tesla S:        21.5 / 21.0 / 21.3
VW eGolf:       16.8 / 18.6 / 17.4

(city / hwy / combined)

Comparing a European spec Skoda Diesel (not available in North America due to stricter diesel emission standards) @ 4.4l/100km, to a Tesla 3 LR @ 16.1 kWh/100km

Vancouver Canada (1.49/l, 0.093kWh):
Tesla: C$1.50
Skoda: C$6.56

California (3.49/USgal = 0.92/l, 0.48/kWh day, 0.13/kWh night)
Tesla: $7.73 (day)
Tesla: $2.09 (night)
Tesla: $4.19 (Tesla Supercharger 0.26/kWh)
Skoda: $4.05

Netherlands (1.35/l, 0.22/kWh)
Tesla: €3.54
Skoda: €5.94

Of course I'm not factoring in things like EVs being exempt from road taxes in some countries (like NL) which would also sway the numbers further to an EV.

Given the Tesla 3 competes against the BMW 3 series, Mercedes C, comparing it to the smaller Skoda is silly, but you wanted to compare those two.

Again, if you're going to attempt to post numbers here, please use consistency in your sources.

(modified to use consistent California electricity prices)

[boffin]

[...] for a car with similar performance. [...]

Similar performance in what? In range? In practicality? In price? In fit/finish/paint quality? Or just in the one figure you want to focus on?

OK I guess you’re  not a car person.  See Performance car.  It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.

What is the source of you Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m).  It appears as

If you start talking about torque and cars you should ask your money back from your physics teacher. Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars. Do the math... hint: a transmission works like an impedance matching transformer... Which is also why EVs have relatively low top speeds compared to ICE based cars.

What makes you think that a Tesla doesn't have a final drive reduction as well?  Given the Tesla motors can spin at something silly like 15,000 rpm, the final reduction in the top gear would be probably triple what a diesel Skoda would be in top gear.

Also, the torque curve for an electric motor is basically flat with virtually 100% of its torque available from zero to maximum rpm

[mtdoc]

Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars.

Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world. Torque curves are everything. It is directly proportional to horsepower and directly proprotional to acceleration.

There is no machine that measures a cars horsepower. Instead torque is measured on a Dyno.  Horsepower = (Torque x RPMs) / 5252

Transferring engine torque to torque at the wheels depends on the drivetrain which in an ICE involves a traditional transmission.  That is just one reason why EVs have inherent advantage in torque/acceleration.    Why do you think a Tesla Model S P100D has the fastest 0-60mph time of any production car ever.

Which is also why EVs have relatively low top speeds compared to ICE based cars

      You're wrong. And that's the Model 3. The Model S has an ever higher top speed. Both Teslas I believe have their top speed limited by software (140mph for the Model 3,  155 mph for the Model S) because you know, no one should be driving faster than that on public roads...

You really should stick to electronics and your Ford Focus.

[drussell]

Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world. Torque curves are everything. It is directly proportional to horsepower and directly proprotional to acceleration.

Indeed.   

There is no machine that measures a cars horsepower. Instead torque is measured on a Dyno.  Horsepower = (Torque x RPMs) / 5252

Yeah, and when you know the math behind the relationship, it is always interestingly laughable when you see some published torque & horsepower graph where the two lines do not intersect at 5252 RPM.    Gee, how can I tell that your graph is bogus?? 

Transferring engine torque to torque at the wheels depends on the drivetrain which in an ICE involves a traditional transmission.

Exactly.  You start with X amount of torque at the crankshaft but the tire size, gearing, any torque multiplication in a torque converter, etc. all determine how that power is put to the ground.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

OK I guess you’re  not a car person.  See Performance car.  It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.

If torque were the only thing that matters a 900 Nm Ford Pinto would be even better. And Teslas leave much to be desired in other chapters compared to European cars. E.g. the cheap, awful interior and poor build quality and horrible fit and finish.

What is the source of your Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m).  It appears as if even within your already dishonest comparison, you are cherry picking.

It's in a previous message, with a picture and url.

If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!

Now you're lying, that's not the torque of the base Model 3, and for the price of the better one with the most torques (the AWD Performance) you can buy two Octavias.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3#Specifications

And what about price of fuel? What does diesel (or gasoline) cost in Europe, where the Skoda is sold?

But our ICE cars aren't gas guzzlers, that's why the cost per km is pretty similar / much closer here whether you like it or not.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars.

Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world.

Speaking of performance cars, f1 engines do not have much torque, just so you know...

That said, torque makes driving a car easier and more pleasant. But as the wheels can only transfer so much force to the road, any excess of torque above the limit only serves to make the wheels spin, to do burnouts and doughnuts.

[mtdoc]

OK I guess you’re  not a car person.  See Performance car.  It’s all about acceleration and speed and the Skoda is in a completely different league from the Tesla.

If torque were the only thing that maters a 900 Nm Ford Pinto would be even better. And Teslas leave much to be desired in other chapters compared to European cars. E.g. the cheap, awful interior and poor build quality and horrible fit and finish.

What is the source of your Skoda torque number? The best torque for that car I can find is 320 Nm - and that is for the model with a bigger engine NOT the one that gets 53mpg. And you chose the lowest manufacurer quoted Model 3 torque spec (range is 416-639 N-m).  It appears as if even within your already dishonest comparison, you are cherry picking.

It's in a previous message, with a picture and url.

Where?  Is see the pic. There is no URL. Why not post it here?

If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!

Now you're lying, that's not the torque of the base Model 3

I guess you have a reading comprehension problem (or are just being dishonest again). It's the base model. Watch the video. And here is a direct quote from that link (emphasis mine):

it was only a matter of time until the entry-level model landed on the dyno.
Well, the dyno videos are now in and, as expected, the EV makes loads of torque. So far, we've come across two rolling road adventures, one delivered by Drag Times and the other by the Tesla Repair Channel.

You'll find both YouTube videos at the bottom of the page, along with the two results - the two stunts delivered quite different hp numbers, with the first YT label showing 281/336 hp and the second 393 ponies.

As for the twist, around 550 lb-ft is a safe answer - keep in mind that all the numbers discussed here are at the wheels.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between manufacturer listed Torque specs and real world, at the wheels max torque numbers. I was very specific in my post.

And what about price of fuel? What does diesel (or gasoline) cost in Europe, where the Skoda is sold?

But our ICE cars aren't gas guzzlers, and that's why the cost per km is pretty similar / much closer here whether you like it or not.

You are dodging the question. You dishonestly used the $2.85/gallon US gasoline cost (optimistic) for a diesel car sold only in  Europe.
BTW - there are plenty of fuel efficient ICE cars in the US.

 AND, NO, the cost per km is not similar at all. This thread has mulitple referenced links of honest comparisons showing that the EV cost is much lower. All you have is blatantly dishonest comparisons - yet as Boffin showed even your cherry picked econ-car Skoda is much more expensive to drive.

Why do you continue to ignore the facts?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Why not post it here?

Message #1847

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between manufacturer listed Torque specs and real world, at the wheels max torque numbers. I was very specific in my post.

Were you? Show me where, please:

If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!

[mtdoc]

The title of this thread is "When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?"

So far the Anti-EVers have tried to argue based on cost of fuel and maintenance.  Despite cherry picked comparisons, they have soundly lost that debate (yet they continue to ignore the posted, referenced facts).

But - the real question is when will EVs become mainstream and it should be obvious to anyone that cost of ownership is not the primary factor people use in choosing a vehicle.  Though EVswin on that front, they will not become mainstream only because of that. There are lots of psychological, subjective factors that go into a car purchase decision.

For example, here in the USA the top selling vehicle for many years running has been the Ford F-series pickup - not an inexpensive or fuel efficient car. Far from it.

European consumers may, in general be more efficiency conscious but even there, the top selling cars are not the least expensive or most fuel efficient cars.

IMO, EVs will become mainstream over the next 10-20 years (or perhaps sooner if current exponential growth rates continue) because of several factors:

1.) Ongoing improvements in EV vehicles pricing and more widespread availability and model options.
2.) Social stigma associated with driving ICE vehicles as the effects of global warming become increasingly apparent
3.) Increasingly cheaper cost of ownership due to the continuing long term trends in energy prices.

That said, IMO, it's a race to the bottom, since eventually energy scarcity and affordability will make driving any car more and more of a luxury for the lucky few.  In 30 years, there may be more EVs on the road than ICE vehicles, but overall the total number of cars will be fewer.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Both Teslas I believe have their top speed limited by software (140mph for the Model 3,  155 mph for the Model S) because you know, no one should be driving faster than that on public roads...

140 mph is not a safe speed for a Model 3 because it can't brake properly (have you not seen the news?), anyway, it's less than the top speed of a Skoda that's about half the price... lol.

[f4eru]

ICE trolls are very active here.
Guys, The ICE age ends now. Get over it.

[mtdoc]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between manufacturer listed Torque specs and real world, at the wheels max torque numbers. I was very specific in my post.

Were you? Show me where, please:

OK, so it's a reading comprehension problem. From your very own post quoting me:

If it’s max torque you’re quoting then the base model Model 3 pulls 550 ft-lb or 746 N-m !!!

140 mph is not a safe speed for a Model 3 because it can't brake properly (have you not seen the news?), anyway, it's less than the top speed of a Skoda that's about half the price... lol.

   Yeah, sure.  So you're basing performance on top speed now?   

And with your torque numbers, you've chosen to cherry pick the top of the line Skoda which from what I can find costs about the same as the much higher performance base model Tesla Model 3

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The title of this thread is "When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?"

So far the Anti-EVers have tried to argue based on cost of fuel and maintenance.  Despite cherry picked comparisons, they have soundly lost that debate (yet they continue to ignore the posted, referenced facts).

But - the real question is when will EVs become mainstream and it should be obvious to anyone that cost of ownership is not the primary factor people use in choosing a vehicle.  Though EVswin on that front, they will not become mainstream only because of that. There are lots of psychological, subjective factors that go into a car purchase decision.

For example, here in the USA the top selling vehicle for many years running has been the Ford F-series pickup - not an inexpensive or fuel efficient car. Far from it.

European consumers may, in general be more efficiency conscious but even there, the top selling cars are not the least expensive or most fuel efficient cars.

IMO, EVs will become mainstream over the next 10-20 years (or perhaps sooner if current exponential growth rates continue) because of several factors:

1.) Ongoing improvements in EV vehicles pricing and more widespread availability and model options.
2.) Social stigma associated with driving ICE vehicles as the effects of global warming become increasingly apparent
3.) Increasingly cheaper cost of ownership due to the continuing long term trends in energy prices.

That said, IMO, it's a race to the bottom, since eventually energy scarcity and affordability will make driving any car more and more of a luxury for the lucky few.  In 30 years, there may be more EVs on the road than ICE vehicles, but overall the total number of cars will be fewer.

I mostly agree, modulo the AGW/Climate change hysteria and your erroneous real world EV cost calculations. But yeah, EVs are the future, a future that's worse than the present.

[f4eru]

But yeah, EVs are the future.

Yes.

it's a future that's worse than the present.

Nope.

[nctnico]

Torque is marketing BS when it comes to cars.

Uh, clearly you know nothing about the performance car world. Torque curves are everything. It is directly proportional to horsepower and directly proprotional to acceleration.

Again: look in any book on physics and accelleration. None of the formulas will show torque! Torque is a number introduced to hide the fact that ICE engines only reach there specified power output at a specific RPM (or some have maximum power at a specific RPM range). Having a flat torque line makes a car feel fast but that is more to satisfy consumers. Research into how people experience cars has proven that the fastest accelleration doesn't feel like the fastest accelleration (*). If you look at the physics formulas you'll see that the only thing that makes a car go faster is to put energy into it. For that you need power and not torque. An engine with has 100 torques and 1000 power will accellerate faster than en engine with 1000 torques and 100 power. Math just doesn't lie and you cannot change the laws of physics.

* For kicks try a car which has a constant maximum power area in the power/RPM curve. Instinctively you'll change gears up when you get to the constant power area because it seems like the engine stops doing it's work (the torque will get lower). But you shouldn't because you'll get out of the maximum power area and accellerate slower. Again: laws of physics.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

it's a future that's worse than the present.

Nope.

Yes, because the batteries we have are a very poor substitute for the liquid hydrocarbon fuels we're using today.