Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
ICE may always (next 50 years anyhow) be better for long distance travel.
There's no reason to build an EV with a 700 mile range because it's dumb to pay for more battery than you need. It's the single largest expense, and one of the heaviest items on the car. You want to carry the smallest battery that gets 95% of the job done. Nobody drives for 700 miles straight anyhow.
The real money is in faster charging speed. If an EV can be charged relatively quickly, then it doesn't really matter what range it has. I mean, given equal charging capabilities, a car with shorter range will add miles of range at the same rate as a car with a higher range. However, larger batteries do tend to allow higher rates of charging, as the charge limit is based on a % of battery capacity.
someone's ICE car. It solves no problems better than alternatives.
|
How long does it take to charge an EV normally at a charging station? If they could get it down to like 10 minutes, that would make EVs a lot more convenient. That would probably be a huge feat to accomplish though, and expensive.
Having a huge battery capacity like that just seems nice to have too. If charging times don't improve, then it would be nice for people that do have to travel long distance on a regular basis. Companies can market that along with cars that only have a 100 mile range for those that stay in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
1. Who would want an EV with "only" 150 miles range?
I would. That is double the range of my current EV that works fine for 95% of my needs. (My Spark is good for 60 miles in the winter / 90 miles in the Summer and the range is down about 10% in 3 years) My question would be "Why should I pay more for range I will hardly every use?"
|
I guess one good thing about EVs is that you can get a cheaper version with less range and it will suit your needs perfectly. If you need more range you can get a more expensive version. Seems like that would be a nice system.