The maintenance cost and future price advantages of electric vehicles before gas-powered cars could be more than offset by their rising insurance premiums. Repairability has to be baked into the EV production cake now.
Also, as we realize that we don’t need 400+ miles of range in a commuter car, cheaper battery chemistries make a lot of sense, despite their shorter range per kg or lb
Most people want a car that can do everything they need a car to do. As otherwise they have to buy a SECOND car that can perform the jobs the first car can’t. At that point people look at their finances and wonder why they have the first car at all, that first car has a monthly payment, insurance, and repairs. It would be so much cheaper to ditch it and just have the car that performs all the functions.
There are countless things that can’t be done without a car, even when you are a certain age or care for older family members. The reasoning of living without a car in property, in my humble opinion, is only valid at a certain time in life
Car rentals are expensive and time consuming affairs. This ‘solution’ is worse for the vast majority of people who currently own cars. It’s why you don’t see people doing it.
When compared with the cost savings, in my personal case, renting when I need a car to drive 100+miles, is cheaper than buying a more expensive ev, or paying for fuel in a gasoline vehicle.
The time is negligible as well when I compare the time I don’t spend at gas stations because I charge at home.
Low 0-60 times are inherent to EVs. There’s no transmission and the motor has a wide efficiency area. It’s basically hard to make a non dual motor EV accelerate slowly. Single motor ones aren’t quick, but you won’t get AWD if that’s a thing you desire.
It’s easy to make a less powerful motor. As someone else said, the current market is for people who are looking for better performance and aren’t concerned with price. I put a deposit on a Polestar 3 that does 0-60 in 4.7s which is slow compared to its competition like the Model X and BMW iX but I don’t care about 0-60. It’s a meaningless metric to judge a car by. My Challenger SRT 392 does the 0-60 in 4.2s but I bought that car for how nice it looks, not its 0-60.
That’s not really how electric motors work though. They spin up crazy fast, which means fast 0-60 times. Think about an electric mixer in your kitchen; it takes more or less the the same amount of time for it get up to speed weather it’s on the highest setting or the lowest setting since the motor is the only moving part. There is no fancy gearing to vary the speeds, it’s based solely on the amount of energy being put into the system.
Yes, and varying the amount of power put into the system would increase or decrease the total range. A full power launch depletes the battery more quickly than a gentle, controlled acceleration to road speed.
I’m talking about limiting the amount of power that can be dumped into the motor at any given time, or limiting the power of the motor itself in order to get a more efficient experience.
That’s entirely on the user at that point, and cant really be designed around. Anything you add to limit acceleration is just going to add more complexity and expense for no actual benefit. If you want better range, stop flooring the car out of every stop, same as an ICE car.
Ye canna change the laws of physics! Acceleration is proportional to force exerted (F=ma) and has nothing to do with the amount of energy stored, which gives you range. You might get a few percent efficiency bonus from lesser acceleration due to losses (so 2-3 extra Km per 100), but you can’t “trade acceleration for range”
Also, as we realize that we don’t need 400+ miles of range in a commuter car, cheaper battery chemistries make a lot of sense, despite their shorter range per kg or lb
Most people want a car that can do everything they need a car to do. As otherwise they have to buy a SECOND car that can perform the jobs the first car can’t. At that point people look at their finances and wonder why they have the first car at all, that first car has a monthly payment, insurance, and repairs. It would be so much cheaper to ditch it and just have the car that performs all the functions.
In that case, why not just have no car at all and use a bike or public transit and rent a car when you really need one?
The feasibility of that will be highly variable depending on where you live. Much of America is a public transit desert.
Thats not true. I guarantee that whatever town you live in has a robust public transportion system that hits every single residential area.
The problem is that only children are allowed to use it, and only twice a day.
Hah. As somebody that had to be driven to the bus stop because it was over a mile away, I call BS.
There are countless things that can’t be done without a car, even when you are a certain age or care for older family members. The reasoning of living without a car in property, in my humble opinion, is only valid at a certain time in life
Car rentals are expensive and time consuming affairs. This ‘solution’ is worse for the vast majority of people who currently own cars. It’s why you don’t see people doing it.
I drove a beater with no note for like twenty years and just rented for car trips.
Having two or three car payments a year is cheaper than twelve.
It’s unconventional, but plenty of people do it.
When compared with the cost savings, in my personal case, renting when I need a car to drive 100+miles, is cheaper than buying a more expensive ev, or paying for fuel in a gasoline vehicle.
The time is negligible as well when I compare the time I don’t spend at gas stations because I charge at home.
If I buy an EV I would like it to do 400 miles, but I don’t need 0-60 in 3 seconds.
Low 0-60 times are inherent to EVs. There’s no transmission and the motor has a wide efficiency area. It’s basically hard to make a non dual motor EV accelerate slowly. Single motor ones aren’t quick, but you won’t get AWD if that’s a thing you desire.
It’s easy to make a less powerful motor. As someone else said, the current market is for people who are looking for better performance and aren’t concerned with price. I put a deposit on a Polestar 3 that does 0-60 in 4.7s which is slow compared to its competition like the Model X and BMW iX but I don’t care about 0-60. It’s a meaningless metric to judge a car by. My Challenger SRT 392 does the 0-60 in 4.2s but I bought that car for how nice it looks, not its 0-60.
I think trim packages or settings in the car that trade acceleration for range make a lot of sense.
That’s not really how electric motors work though. They spin up crazy fast, which means fast 0-60 times. Think about an electric mixer in your kitchen; it takes more or less the the same amount of time for it get up to speed weather it’s on the highest setting or the lowest setting since the motor is the only moving part. There is no fancy gearing to vary the speeds, it’s based solely on the amount of energy being put into the system.
Yes, and varying the amount of power put into the system would increase or decrease the total range. A full power launch depletes the battery more quickly than a gentle, controlled acceleration to road speed.
I’m talking about limiting the amount of power that can be dumped into the motor at any given time, or limiting the power of the motor itself in order to get a more efficient experience.
That’s entirely on the user at that point, and cant really be designed around. Anything you add to limit acceleration is just going to add more complexity and expense for no actual benefit. If you want better range, stop flooring the car out of every stop, same as an ICE car.
Ye canna change the laws of physics! Acceleration is proportional to force exerted (F=ma) and has nothing to do with the amount of energy stored, which gives you range. You might get a few percent efficiency bonus from lesser acceleration due to losses (so 2-3 extra Km per 100), but you can’t “trade acceleration for range”