May 27, 2014
Auzie I would be surprised if we ever go that way, ie backwards. In some remote future years, I would expect battery technology to substantially improve, making today's energy densities a fraction of future cells densities.
As the demand for batteries increases and more resources are put into batteries development, the technology advancements might start to follow Moore's Law.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO How is that backwards? Selling cheaper cars to a populace who is increasingly aware that long ranges are unnecessary, particularly as superchargers get installed in enough places that long ranges are even more unnecessary than they currently are, that sounds like forward movement to me.
Battery sizes will not continually increase - and the public shouldn't be made to think they will, as it will slow adoption while people wait forever because nothing is ever "good enough." Technology advancements for batteries do not and will not follow Moore's Law, but they do follow a mini-Moore's law, but very mini - 7-10% per year, as has been discussed above. This will be focused almost entirely on cost and weight improvements, not range improvements. Well, small EVs will increase range, and the Model S will decrease cost (and turn into a Model E, etc.). But even the first part of that isn't necessarily true, since the new Spark EV actually has a smaller battery than the original one (but same range, because it's been made lighter).
In fact, expanding on my previous comment, I bet they even have a design for a 40kWh battery pretty much finalized by now (since they made those packs for the RAV4 anyway...), and if there's ever a demand problem, they'll roll it out. But like I said I wouldn't expect this to happen for a few years, so it may not ever be necessary.�
May 27, 2014
Auzie I consider going from 60 kWh to 40 kWh backwards.
Time scale that I had in mind is decades, as I believe that Tesla will be production constrained for at least a decade.
Improvements in battery technology that follow mini-Moore law may be sufficient to rule out going back to 40 kWh in 10 years time.
I would expect mini-Moore Law to start resembling Moore Law when battery demand for cars goes up substantially.
The only driving force for battery development today is the demand for phones and laptops batteries and similar, mainly for power backup. Batteries in these devices are not so relevant for their performance. Batteries in cars are critical for the cars performance. The battery technology is the key technology for ev cars, unlike phones and laptops.
Once demand for car batteries grows I expect huge increase in R&D of battery technology. I also expect to see emerging race of competing battery technologies.�
May 27, 2014
JRP3 Not only would a 40 S be going backwards it would be a lesser product than the Gen3 car. Makes no sense to do a 40 now, especially since Elon crapped all over it. Not going to happen.�
May 27, 2014
roblab This continuing argument about what is necessary or not does not sink into my little brain. I don't get it. I think of gas cars.
They are cheap.
Long ranges are "unnecessary".
"Super(gas)chargers" are everywhere.
WHY, then do gas cars come with a 300 mile range?
People may not need 300 mile range, but it's the minimum we think we need. If YOU like driving with half that, and like having to stop at superchargers, or gas stations, twice as often, you are the rare one. That's precisely why 40 kWh batteries are not being made. The demand is not there.
If you want a cheap electric with no range, there is the Leaf, the Spark, the iMiev, or you can go with Volt or BMW i3. Tesla builds cars that are NO COMPROMISE, and, yes they are more expensive.
But Tesla's competition is not Nissan or Chevy or Mitsubishi. They compete with BMW, Porsche, Mercedes. And I'm sure there are disadvantaged people who think it is their right to have those car makers make a high quality car for them at dirt cheap prices. But it doesn't happen.�
May 27, 2014
tentonine While people thinking that they need 300 miles may be part of the argument, I think it is more to do with how often the cars need to be filled up: for most people, a supercharger visit will be an occasional thing on an infrequent journey, while they can conveniently plug in the car at home every night for the regular commute. As a gas car cannot be filled at home, most people would find it inconvenient to have to stop to fill it up more often just for regular local driving.
In conclusion: gas cars benefit from large tanks even when they are never used on long journeys, whereas EVs have little benefit from large batteries if they are never used on long journeys.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO Gas cars come with 300 miles because the cost of adding a larger tank is negligible. The cost of adding larger batteries is not. Also, they come with larger tanks because people don't go to the gas station every day, because going to gas stations sucks. EVs don't go to gas stations, so there's another reason not to have a huge tank. So I will ask you a similar question: WHY do gas cars only come with a 300 mile range? They could come with a 1,000 mile range, and they wouldn't cost much more at all. Why haven't gas tank capacities been increasing steadily over time, if gigantic "range" numbers are so important?
Like you said, people do not need 300 miles. They think they need 300 miles, but they don't. They think this because they've been told by traditional auto companies that range is important, and by EV advocates who don't understand that they're arguing against their cause, and they will continue to think this if they are told by EV companies that ranges will continually increase (by, for example, the companies continuing to offer larger-range products and cut out smaller-range products). Which is why a 40kWh battery would be a forward step, not a backward one, because as people make the forward step of realizing they don't need 300 miles, and as companies show them that range won't increase forever and that's just fine because range is already well beyond what all but the biggest outliers need, they will realize they can purchase a smaller battery and be just fine.
The only way in which I'm the rare one is that I seem to be the only one who has read any statistics on people's driving patterns. People do not drive 300 miles in a day, and they do not drive 160 miles in a day. The proportion who do is insanely small. We're talking .1% or less. 40kWh batteries are not being made because the company is supply-constrained, and is focusing on higher-margin vehicles. I guarantee you that if cars were sitting on the lot unsold, Tesla would not have discontinued the 40kWh battery.
Lots of people want a cheap electric with no range, which is why Nissan has sold over 120k Leafs. And they have not been as focused on it as Tesla has, yet their sales numbers are much higher. Why is that? Because a cheaper car sells better. And if a 40kWh car is cheaper than a 60kWh car, it will sell better. Tesla doesn't need to do this because they don't have a demand problem, which is why they can focus on high-margin cars and customers which is the right thing to do short-term business-wise right now, but if they ever do have a demand problem, they will need to. BMW and Mercedes make lower-cost versions of cars, they make cars starting in the 30k range, and they sell a lot more of those than they do their more expensive cars. Manufacturers know that cheaper cars sell better, so they will always want to make their cars cheaper. This is why car kWh capacities will not increase forever. It will always cost more to have a larger battery than a smaller one, no matter what technological improvements we see. And this will be a non-negligible amount for at least the next 30-40 years if battery improvement trends continue at the fairly rapid pace they have now.�
May 27, 2014
AudubonB Fango: Please stop transposing your driving habits and those in your immediate circle onto others. Your "We're talking 0.1% or less" is absurdly inaccurate. Although I know I am somewhat of an outlier here, I'm not that far off.
300 miles gets me to town. That's all. It is the utmost in minimally acceptable range - in itself, it means a grocery trip is an overnight debacle. Less than 300 miles...and I can't even get to town.
Thank you.�
May 27, 2014
Auzie Wow 300 miles from town. I think I would stop buying groceries if I were that far:wink:�
May 27, 2014
Lessmog In agreement with AudubonB. I may not drive 300 miles every day, but when I do (about every other month) I do it in one day, to get to a work place. Wouldn't do to be late for work, and it wouldn't pay to have to get a hotel along the way just to get paid.
So for me too, 300 miles range just about takes me to work (if driving carefully, without snow etc) but without any decent way to charge once there. One gas station offers two 230V16A single-phase outlets for max two hours at a price (unless their own EV occupies them).
That was one reason for my hesitation to get a Tesla; another was the lack of fast charging en route. This may change soon, but not soon enough or with enough certainty, so I cancelled my order. :-(
It hurts to be one of THOSE 1%!�
May 27, 2014
Familial Rhino People's driving statistics don't determine people's buying decisions. Perception and habit do.
For instance, people complain constantly that their electronic devices are too complicated to use. You'd think they want simpler devices, and yet, every market study out there shows that electronics buyers almost always go for the products with the longest list of features, even though they never use most of them.
In my experience, range is the number one question that comes up every single time the subject of electric cars comes up with the average person. This single issue really is top of mind. You can argue that it's irrational until the cows come home (not that I'd agree btw, I'm one of those who wants a longer range and I'll gladly pay for it when the time comes), but it simply doesn't matter that it's irrational. For the foreseeable future, it will be the determining factor in making people choose one electric car over another, all else being equal. For competing manufacturers, it will be the killer feature to advertise, just like in the past you had to push the MHz factor to sell computers. And that's why I predict that average ranges will continue to increase, technology advances permitting.
This discussion belongs to another thread, anyway.�
May 27, 2014
bonaire This is what statisticians call "an outlier". Cities with millions of people have people with very similar driving scenarios. "Common Man" is what some call it. Up there in AK - you are a small statistical anomaly. You sure could use an EV with range extender. Volt perhaps or whatever. That kind of situation is great for your nearby routines and then the long trips also. Maybe a 100 mile EV with a nice range extender and 20 gallon gas tank. In AK - something like the Via Motors V-Trux would be pretty cool.�
May 27, 2014
Norbert The "best" range vs "cheap" range discussion belongs somewhere else (long-term strategy). Besides, Tesla stopping production of the 40 kWh speaks for itself, it's min 200 mile range for Tesla. That's been clear for a long time now. Otherwise, it's Leaf and i3 with which Tesla isn't going to try compete in the "cheap" category. Tesla is about cars that are better than ICEs, not about cheap eco boxes.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO You're probably right that it's absurdly inaccurate, I should have said something like .01%.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jckrumm/Publications%202012/2012-01-0489%20SAE%20published.pdf
The number is small enough that it is literally off the charts. Note, by the way, that the data presented here is done via histograms, not "average" driving distances, so you can see which proportion of cars are driven any particular number of miles per day. Thus outliers are included in this data, and not just glossed over as they would be with a single average number. This data was also taken in 2009, when people drove more miles than they do today (miles driven has been decreasing for about a decade now, in the US).
Like I said, I base this on statistics, not on anyone's "circle." I've pointed this out every time I mention it, and posted these statistics many times, and even having posted them I'm still the only one who seems to have read them. The statistics show that people simply do not drive 300 miles in a day. And if you think it's normal for people to drive 300 miles in a day, then you are the one transposing your driving habits onto others. In fact, I don't think I've ever mentioned my personal driving habits any of the times I've discussed this, and yet you just have yourself, while accusing me of doing so.
- - - Updated - - -
This is exactly why I said that EV advocates focusing on promising infinitely-increasing longer ranges is detrimental to EV adoption, and why it would be a step forward for companies *not* to continually increase range. Because when customers see that, they think that range will continue to increase, and that range is the number one most important thing. It's not. That's why when this does come up every time with the average person, I usually gloss over it with some noncommittal answer, to show that I am not very concerned about it, and move on to talking about the things which are more important.
You're probably right that average ranges will increase, only because I think the low-range EVs will have increasing ranges, because there is a rational reason to want more range out of them. There is not a rational reason to want more range out of the Model S, particularly given superchargers, for all but the smallest outlier of consumers.
By the way, notice that all of this conversation is ignoring superchargers. More superchargers = less range needed, not more.�
May 27, 2014
Familial Rhino I never encouraged anyone to wait for longer ranges, nevermind promising anything. I do, in fact, point them to statistics like the one you cited, and it does make people ponder, however most say they prefer to wait (for instance they wouldn't buy a Leaf with its current range.) At that point, for me to tell them they don't know what they need would be presumptuous.
To say that advocates influence people's priorities is absurd. They tend to decide for themselves what it is they need, they don't rely on EV advocates to tell them.
Edit: We've cross-posted. I've now seen the last part of your post. I agree that there is no overarching need for ranges longer than the top range Model S, but if they ever offer it, I'm sure there will be a market for them. There is no rational need for a BMW 7 when a Buick will do, and yet people aspire to buy them.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO I don't think it's absurd at all. Early adopters and opinion leaders can set the tone for society's take on a product, absolutely. If early adopters all wrote blogs about how the thing doesn't work because it doesn't go far enough, and then media got hold of this idea and reported it over and over, that would certainly chill the general public's feelings about the car. The Model S does well because it's universally loved by the early adopters, and word-of-mouth, the most valuable form of advertising there is, has been phenomenal. The same holds true for the Leaf and Volt. People generally love their EVs, and that's driving demand.
But I did say in my other comment earlier that manufacturers have an influence on it. Traditional manufacturers want to talk about range as much as they can, because it's in their interest to play up the "disadvantages" of EVs. Or to create the perception of a disadvantage when the thing in question is actually an advantage (not having to go to gas stations, having the car be full when you leave the house).
If Tesla's official mission is to expedite EV adoption (which it is), then Tesla needs to be careful about making the general public feel that range is the most important question about an EV. I think they do a fairly good job about this, and the focus is largely on making a great high-performing car which just happens to be electric, and which can get anywhere because of the supercharger network, regardless of what "range" car you get. But this is why I feel like discontinuing the 40kWh was a step backwards, because it sends the message that the 40 wasn't "enough." I understand it from a business perspective, particularly now because of the supply constraints, but it does not aid the case of greater EV adoption. It could well make the lower-range but affordably-priced EVs look inferior, such that people may put off buying decisions for a few years. Luckily, the Leaf is still selling very well, and it seems people haven't been too put-off by it. But it needs to sell better. We need more EVs on the road now, not years from now. We need to stop burning oil.�
May 27, 2014
ckessel If folks were fine with shorter range, the LEAF would have exploded in sales. And/or the 40kwh Tesla would have had a huge demand relative to the other battery sizes.
The market seems to have spoken pretty definitively in both cases: small batteries won't sell. Trying to convince people that what they feel is important (range) isn't really important is a lost cause. Even if they accept the argument, they're not going to feel confident about it internally and folks won't buy a car they don't feel good about.
And with most folks, you're not even going to get them to really absorb your argument, but more likely will get them doubling down on their stance as an instinctive response to being told they're wrong to feel as they do.�
May 27, 2014
dha I'm not following the logic that the S 40 was discontinued due to supply constraints. You'd think that given a constrained number of cells, they'd want to ship as many 40s as possible to maximize the number of vehicles being sold?
I'm included to believe Elon when he says there was simply no demand for the lower range model.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO The Leaf has exploded in sales. They've sold 120k worldwide, I think. And that's from a bunch of dealers which aren't at all fully focused on selling them. And of course there are all the other low-range EVs from other manufacturers, if we're just doing a comparison of smaller batteries vs. larger ones. Compared to, what are we at now, 40k Model S? So the market seems to have spoken pretty definitively in this case: small batteries, and more importantly cheaper cars, sell better. This is not surprising. Cheaper things always sell better. The Model S is doing disproportionately well because it's *such* a good car, that is clear, and because Tesla has a much better selling strategy. And part of it is because people are (largely irrationally) worried about range, true. But if you want to just look at raw sales numbers, you're going to end up seeing that the cheaper cars sell better.
The 40kWh didn't sell because Tesla kept pushing it back and making it completely unclear whether they would ever make the car, canceled it when all the buyers were early adopters so the orders were disproportionately skewed towards the top-end version anyway, and when they asked for a 5k deposit for an unspecified number of months from the most price-sensitive customers (those buying the base model), with no ability to lease or finance the car at the time. Of course it didn't sell well, Tesla wasn't selling it. Those who could afford the 60 jumped their order up to the 60, those who couldn't dropped out or didn't reserve until they thought it was clear the car would get made.�
May 27, 2014
Auzie
Tesla makes more money on more expensive models�
May 27, 2014
Chickenlittle Sorry but your wrong about that. Tesla honored their orders and sold them the 60 at the 40 price with the car software limited to a 40 range. Even better for a fee they could unlock the software later to make it a 60�
May 27, 2014
FANGO I'm talking about before that announcement. Many people would have ordered the 40, but ordered the 60 instead because they would get it earlier - or at all, since it was becoming more and more clear that the 40 might not ever get produced. When Tesla announced they were discontinuing the 40, they gave the limited 60s to everyone who was left. But by that time, plenty of 40 reservations had already jumped-ship, either to another car or to the 60.
Giving limited 60s to the remaining 40 customers was a great move, good customer service, excellently handled by Tesla. They turned something which could have been a big negative for the company into a bit of a positive. It was well handled, that's for sure. But up until that part it hadn't been. There were a fair amount of angry 40 reservations out there before they announced that plan.�
May 27, 2014
pz1975 Using miles driven PER DAY as an argument against needing more range is irrelevant. Of course very few people drive more than 300 miles per day.
What is important is not miles per day but how often someone needs to drive more than 300 miles in a day. If this only happens once per year then yes a smaller range EV is likely fine. But many people frequently go on weekend trips, road trips, etc that are more than 300 miles and thus would pay more to have to charge on the road less often.
I have had my Model S P85 for 6 months now and only twice have I had to use superchargers on trips. There have been other shorter trips in which I would have had to find a charger if I only had a 40 kWh battery. So technically I do not need my 85 kWh battery since my daily driving is less than 50 miles, but I would always go for longer range because when I do need it it makes my trip so much better and easier. I think the majority of EV shoppers would agree with this.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO Read the statistics. That is covered. The proportion of cars driven over 300 miles in a day is minuscule. Averaged out over the whole car fleet, "once per year" is probably a gross overestimation of how often an average car gets driven more than 300 miles in a day. It's probably more like once every 5-10 years - if .05% of cars drive over 300 miles in a day (which, if anything, is a high estimate, considering 300 miles isn't even on the charts), then each car on average drives over 300 miles once every 6 years.
The majority of EV shoppers don't have an extra $20,000 to spend on saving 30 minutes on one trip a year. That is an awfully high valuation for your time.�
May 27, 2014
daxz Statistics are great in how you can make numbers for what you want.
I think roblab's approach is good - its not the average daily trip that is desired for an EV but the max potential range.
Using the NHTS data at NHTS Data Extraction Tool
populating parameters:
year: 2009 (newest data set)
mode: POV (personal vehicle)
Miles: 100+
(below shows all mile ranges in Millions)
the number of trips is 1,658M for 357,366M miles or about ~215 miles on average for vehicles driving over 100 miles.Code:Year Mode Miles Person Trips Person Miles Vehicle Trips Vehicle Mile 2009 POV Under 1 mile 31,269.25 14,255.16 21,993.37 10,116.28 2009 POV 1-2 miles 35,846.10 37,530.99 25,922.51 27,109.50 2009 POV 2-3 miles 39,635.35 79,652.09 28,632.82 57,556.35 2009 POV 3-4 miles 32,264.09 96,975.49 23,084.47 69,384.27 2009 POV 4-5 miles 22,947.86 91,826.20 16,579.68 66,344.43 2009 POV 5-9 miles 70,510.95 455,247.32 50,890.79 329,582.49 2009 POV 10-14 miles 32,002.50 365,108.73 23,354.03 267,284.25 2009 POV 15-19 miles 18,233.33 295,847.19 13,556.43 220,736.09 2009 POV 20-24 miles 11,185.23 237,525.76 8,152.94 173,544.93 2009 POV 25-29 miles 6,671.72 174,544.80 5,111.29 133,905.92 2009 POV 30-34 miles 5,024.59 155,816.63 3,657.63 113,904.41 2009 POV 35-39 miles 3,059.21 110,552.30 2,251.31 81,337.67 2009 POV 40-44 miles 2,418.53 99,259.86 1,619.63 66,446.01 2009 POV 45-49 miles 1,676.10 77,034.94 1,131.23 52,026.52 2009 POV 50-74 miles 3,881.70 227,027.28 2,560.50 149,126.22 2009 POV 75-99 miles 1,408.70 118,799.97 825.70 69,339.67 2009 POV 100+ miles 3,114.55 661,163.39 1,658.09 357,366.43 <---
Yes, these 100+ miles trips are 0.7% of the trips recorded.�
May 27, 2014
FANGO So on average, each car will drive over 100 miles twice per year (.7% = 1/142, 365 days in a year, so twice a year). Or one roundtrip over 200 miles per year. So either a) get a Leaf-class EV and rent a car once/twice per year (many people rent cars for long trips anyway), b) quick charge in your Leaf-class EV for 30-60 minutes on those few trips, or c) get a Tesla and don't even have to quick charge that unless you're in an even more exclusive range group. The other option, of course, is to pay tens of thousands of dollars for an enormous battery pack which you'll only fully discharge once a year, saving yourself the aforementioned hour or two when you are on a long drive and likely stopping to sightsee or eat anyway. I do not think many consumers will make that choice. Keep in mind that most of us here, as Tesla owners, have the money to throw at more expensive cars if we think they will be better. Most people do not.
This is why the solution is not ever-increasing range numbers, but increased access to quick charging, which is why all companies are focusing on quick charging, because they've seen these statistics as well. And increased access to quick charging is the step forward, not unusably enormous battery packs.�
May 27, 2014
kcveins I drive 50 miles for work 3 days a week, 70 miles one day and 100-120 miles the fifth day. I was seriously thinking of just getting the 60, but got the 85 kWh instead. IF Tesla made a 60 that went far enough in ALL conditions, then I would have been best getting that. However, this winter in Chicago was brutal (had 25+ consecutive days below 0) and a full range charge in my 85kWh with the heater running gave me only 140 miles. If we are to use an electric car without compromise (ie not driving 55 mph on freeways when everyone else is going 70 or greater) then the REAL range needs to be that. Honestly, you need a 150 mile range in all conditions, not in the nice warm conditions that you all see in the west coast.�
May 27, 2014
Theshadows It feels great to be a 1%er too. We have had our car 6 months exactly and it has 12.8k miles on it. Thursday I will be driving at least 240 miles round trip. I have had a few trips where I took the Golf because of superchargers that are not in service yet or going into areas where there are no super chargers. I have at least once a week where I am in the double digits of remaining range and I range charge at least once per week.�
May 27, 2014
JRP3 More power/performance, longer life span from shallower cycling and lighter loading, greater usable capacity in all conditions, and over the life span, and faster high power charging. All independent of long journey use.�
May 27, 2014
Krugerrand Yes and no. There's a balance that makes most people happy between range and need to refuel. If your statement was inherently true, then we'd all be driving ICE cars and trucks with gas tanks of the size used for motorcycles, but nobody wants to have to stop at a gas station every 50-100 miles even though we've got hundreds of thousands of them - they just don't and the same will hold true for EVs in the long run. The Model S 40 was a hobbled car per the CEO, who is the guy that knows what he's talking about. Great decision to not even produce them and clearly the consumer agreed as evidenced by the low order rate - early adopter or not.
Making this post relevant to the thread:
Failing to not listen to the consumer AND your (CEO's) gut instinct = bad reviews for cars with that battery = brand damage = (at the very least) short term downward pressure on the stock = not having been able to do two rounds of funding to pay off the DOA loan and begin Gigafactory plan = etc., etc., etc., and very likely significant long term investment changes. Not to mention the snowball affect of possibly not making the gross profit margin targets and all that that entails.
There's a very specific path Tesla has chosen to follow for the big picture. The 40 was not part of it.�
May 27, 2014
Auzie This is critical to sell the cars. This alone far outweighs any cost benefit of having smaller battery.
I expect price differentiation on battery size to melt into insignificance in the future.�
May 27, 2014
Jackl1956 Well said.�
May 28, 2014
FANGO Very much not correct, as addressed above.�
May 28, 2014
Norbert I think you are confusing cause and effect with your explanation (above). Tesla didn't sell them because only few wanted them in the first place. Plus, Tesla/Elon wants to sell a car that is really a good value, so he/they were probably glad about it, in a way. If the big demand had been on the 40 kWh, as you suggest it should, then they would have adapted to demand. (Being limited by battery cells later on, it would have allowed them to sell more Model S).�
May 28, 2014
Neech All this talk about range should be moved to the Battery area. Let's get back to the topic of this thread. Moderator?�
May 28, 2014
Norbert Leaf's US sales are about 1,400 per month. If Tesla wasn't production limited, they might sell similar numbers (probably actually did before starting Europe and then China distributions). That in spite of being a much higher end car. Tesla simply started later, and currently is production limited. (And needs to build stores, service centers, etc, worldwide.)�
May 28, 2014
hcsharp No. Gas cars have 300 mi range because buying gas sucks and 300 mi is about the most often anybody will tolerate those smelly places.
+1. Most people are so used to the gas paradigm that they can't grasp this concept until they experience it for a week or two or three.
When I first got my Tesla I treated it like a gasser for a week or so. I didn't plug it in every night. I charged it when it started to get low. Made sense to me because that's what I've always done with gas. Finally it dawns on you that it's more like a cell phone than your old car. Most people don't get this until they do it. You can explain it all day long, but it's too different from what they're used to for them to understand. That's why it's so easy for legacy automakers and oil companies to convince people that range is important and to instill range anxiety.
Obviously electric range is important for occasional long trips and people with situations like AudubonB, traveling salespeople, etc. But for gas the reasons for 300 mi range are different than for EVs.�
May 28, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Or as I like to put it ...
Capacity ~ range ~ performance ~ charging mph ~ 1/discharge rate.
Performance needs more motor and inverter.
Extra capacity means some extra weight.
But overall more capacity is more awesome.
You can have different chemistries and designs with different characteristics, but extra capacity takes strain off the chemistry so helps with lowering the cost.�
May 28, 2014
jerry33 You're right, the reasons for 300 mile range in a gas car are different.
Range is important in an EV for any number of reasons, not just long trips:
1. When the power goes out for a day or three. (That seems to be happening more often.)
2. When you get called back into work. (Saying, "I'll be there in two hours because I have to charge for an hour" is not likely to be acceptable to the boss.")
3. When your wife has a flat. (Saying, "I'll be there in two hours because I have to charge for an hour" doesn't win any points.)
4. When you want to go to a neighbouring city for some event. (I've had some of my Leaf owning friends say they weren't going to an event because of this. It's just crazy to have a car that won't let you do what you want it to do.)
The most annoying thing has to be hunting for a charging station because your car doesn't have enough range to make it back or not going because it's more than half the range that your car has. With the S85 I've never had to charge away from home except for trips--and then the charging stops are planned. And I haven't heard any "I told you so" either.�
May 28, 2014
Mario Kadastik I think we've argued about this in another thread, but here we go again.
Until the charging network isn't fast and dense enough the lower batteries won't prevail. That means approximately the Gen-III timescale, not before. A large part of EU and Asia still has a very limited charging network from Tesla even though it looks to be expanding rapidly. There are plenty of people who need to take once in a week or once or twice in a month trips to another town and back. The single distance might be in the 100 mile range, but you usually have to consider the return trip so 2x that. In addition if you're not living in California you have to take into account how far you can go in the dead of winter with a blizzard. This winter we had three weeks of -22C and snow. The cars range doesn't halve, but getting over 200 miles is so-so, especially if you stop and let the car cool down again (i.e. couple of hours meeting or full work day even). That means that your ideal weather 100 mile car would be a 60 mile car in the winter. The smaller the battery, the relatively higher the impact of heating etc needs (a 6kW heater is nothing to an 85kWh Tesla, but would be quite a sucker for a 20kWh battery car eating up 60% of the battery for a 2h trip, basically you couldn't got 2h in it).
If you only buy the car to drive during perfect weather, then the listed ratings might be fine for you, but if you buy the car to be your sole driver, then you need reserve buffers for bad weather and irregular trips. I've had multiple occasions where I needed to suddenly go long distance (for example when my wife got a call that her dad died and we left the same minute to another town to be with her mother ~190km away).
And renting an ICE for longer road trips when your daily driver is an EV seems an abomination. I go to dog shows for example and that includes abroad, taking 400-700km road trips without any Tesla superchargers is hard, but would be impossible with a smaller battery. I still do it right now only during summer and am lobbying Tesla to get at least 1-2 superchargers to allow cross-country driving in the region.
Also, bigger battery comes by default with improvements. Your milage to degradation ratio is going to be far better as you do less full cycle equivalents to travel the same distance. Your other usage in relation to drivable usage improves (the heating example above) and your battery charge rate is going to be better. Also, with a bigger battery you can reduce the window of daily usage and put it in the optimal region (i.e. 30%-70% region) extending the battery life further.
So I think Tesla will never bring back the 40kWh battery for the Model S as the time it takes to make 40kWh feasible charging network wise is the same time it takes to bring out the Gen-III vehicle. That will be the cheaper and shorter distance car (though I'm fairly sure it'll have longer distance and performance models as well). The S will be the high end car along with X and will more likely feature bigger battery packs in the future. So I'd not be surprised if Tesla discontinues the 60kWh model when they introduce a 110kWh or similar batterypack. From what I have heard form a reliable Tesla source in EU so far the mix of 60 vs 85 is 5% to 95% so it makes sense to drop the 60kWh pack when a new pack is introduced.
Also, you can't always destination charge. A simple example is that you discover the hotel has screwed up the grounding. So having a buffer is a good thing so that you can make it to your destination and back to a charger.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
When the power goes out, you can't get gas. Gas pumps need electricity.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/electric-car-owners-unfazed-by-storm/
@mario: of course your degradation is less from cycles on a huge battery pack, you're spending tens of thousands of dollars to drag around hundreds of pounds of batteries you never use...you're basically buying two battery packs and dragging them around at the same time, just making the car worse in the meantime...which is why we have no 500mi car now. You still have age degradation though. also, Discontinuing the 60 would make no sense long term. Reintroducing the 40 well could.�
May 29, 2014
Mario Kadastik Well I think all of the Model S used in Estonia have needed a range charge multiple times and some have been around only a month or two. I've personally needed it tens of times already (and really needed it, have made a couple of trips of 100% -> <10%). It's not that I'd be lugging around unused batteries. Even if I don't need the full capacity 25 days of the month I still need it the other 5 days and you can't have varying battery size, you have to account for those worst case scenarios if they are plentiful enough and I'd say anything above once every other month is plentiful enough as you're not going to be driving two cars just for those occasions nor would you want to inconvenience yourself with rentals (all kinds of restrictions besides the point of being ICE, could I transport 4 dogs in one who are all shedding for example? not likely without hefty fees). I think there will be city cars and universal cars. City cars really have no business on the highways, but universal cars need to be of decent capacity to do decent road trips and there I don't see the 40kWh ever coming back, I even foresee with the price reductions the 60kWh disappearing. In any case, in the luxury segment of Model S forget the 40kWh battery. You'll get it with Gen-III.�
May 29, 2014
JRP3 Who is going to buy a 40 S for more money and less range than a Gen3? Answer, few to none, which is why it will never happen.�
May 29, 2014
pz1975 The larger battery is like insurance to me. I hope I won't need it, but when I do (emergency trips, road trips without reliable charging), I am very happy to have it.�
May 29, 2014
Mario Kadastik And don't forget degradation. In 10 years the 85kWh is still going to have more capacity than the 60kWh has as brand new. The 40kWh will be even more useless...�
May 29, 2014
abasile As a LEAF owner, I'd like to own a Tesla primarily for the range, and I'm certainly not alone. Yes, there are other benefits. However, because we are in the mountains, even some of our 45 mile drives would be easier with more battery capacity.
My guess is that ~ 200 miles of range will be the sweet spot for the mass market in the coming decade. This is enough range to go just about anywhere (assuming Superchargers) but low enough to keep prices reasonable (assuming economies of scale, etc.). That Tesla Motors understands this bodes well for the company's future.�
May 29, 2014
Robert.Boston The key will be a solid build-out of destination charging. If most hotels, ski resorts, amusement parks, etc. had Level 2 charging, then I completely agree that 200 miles is a sweet spot. Until then, I really appreciate the extra miles in my 85kWh pack (and, frankly, could have used a bit more a few times).�
May 29, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney I think that's Tesla's motivation on the destination charging scheme. And of course they also understand contention, which is why they're so keen to donate HPWCs.�
May 29, 2014
maoing Any link to request Tesla HPWC donation? What's the cost for Tesla then?
�
May 29, 2014
FANGO Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
Who buys a 750Li for more money and less performance than an m3? These are different markets. The s will probably become more luxurious as compared to the gen3 when it comes out. Otherwise you could ask the same about any other offering between the gen3 and S. they will differentiate them somehow. Some people just like to have the "best". Many of these people are buying the S now, which is why there is a high ASP. Many of these people are on these forums, which is why there is a disproportionate attitude the $20,000 options are affordable and reasonable for all consumers. They really aren't.
Also, the 40 S already *did* happen, so I don't see how you say it never will.
@mario I don't know the driving situation in Estonia, but in the USA it is far less than 1/6 of the time that people drive more than 230 miles in a day. There is also ample public charging and more and more Superchargers. Plenty of people would benefit from a 160 mile range and 20000 dollars in their pocket, particularly if supercharging were possible (in my estimation, leaving supercharging off of the 40s and making it an option on the 60s was a way to encourage higher option levels on early cars, until they decided to just axe the 40 entirely - there isn't a technical reason a 40 couldn't charge at a high rate, if a 22kWh Leaf can charge at 50kW, then surely a 40kWh Model S can charge at 100kW).�
May 29, 2014
RobStark Because Tesla CEO said the 40 S was "crippled" and "Our customers told us it was a mistake" with a 4% take rate.
And 160 mile range is under ideal conditions driving at a steady 55 mph.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO The latter point was refuted above, this was obviously a justification not a reason. The former point is subjective, and I believe was a result of these people zooming around in P85s and Roadsters for the past several years. Obviously Tesla wanted to give a good public justification for cutting the model they had been talking about for years, the "50,000 dollar car," so they threw whatever they could at it to see if it stuck. It did, and they managed the PR well, and they did the right thing for the 40 customers who remained. I don't have a problem with any of that, in context, as an investor. But as an EV advocate, and someone who wants the market to be larger, and someone who wants to breathe fresh air, and so on, as Tesla says is their mission, the 40 ought to exist again.�
May 29, 2014
Matias If people want Teslas with smaller battery, why is 60kWh sold on such small percentage? Almost all cars sold are with 85 kWh battery.�
May 29, 2014
c041v Who buys a 750Li for more money and less performance than an Model S?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The 40 should exist in a smaller car where the weight penalties are smaller, not the Model S. Back to your original comparison, the 40 is like a BMW 728i with a 10 gallon tank, there are very few people that want that.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO If people want such a large battery, why are Leafs sold on such a large percentage?
First of all, what's the percentage? I'm fairly sure there is no public information stating that, other than estimates, and nothing current. Second, Tesla does encourage the higher models, obviously, as a car company would want to do, particularly if they are supply constrained (they want to focus on higher margins). Third, the reason is because Tesla is attracting the "I want it all" buyer and other makes are attracting the "budget" buyer. Once you get past the 50k threshold, tons of people drop out of the market. The ones who remain will often not hit another psychological barrier until 100k. Right now, Tesla does not need to address this market, but they will have to eventually. Ignoring it will not help long term.
@c041v comparing to gas tank sizes is irrelevant, because gas tank sizes have a different penalty. It does not cost $20,000 for a larger gas tank, and a larger gas tank does not weigh down your car by 400lbs and make it less efficient in general.
And yeah, you're right, who does buy a 750Li instead of a Model S? It would be crazy to. But that's what I'm getting at, there's something for everyone. Right now Tesla doesn't need to address everyone, but they eventually will have to. Which is why I say the 40 "well could" be beneficial to bring back. Dropping the 60 would do exactly the opposite of that.�
May 29, 2014
RobStark The latter point can't be refuted because it is a fact.
It is absolutely a reason. Even if people make a logical decision that a 40 S is all they need they end up underwhelmed at the end of their customer experience. That is not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand. Tesla wants all S customers to be thrilled and become advocates for the brand and EVs.
The 40 S was a mistake, they recognized it, corrected it and should never be repeated.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO The latter point absolutely can be refuted, as has been done above. I think it's interesting you talk about the underwhelming customer experience when a) I have heard nothing of the sort from 40 owners, b) the car barely exists so which customers are you talking to, and c) the refutation included the "underwhelming customer experience" of stringing along 40kWh reservation holders for years, delivering thousands of cars before them, constantly pushing back their delivery dates, and otherwise not making it clear that the car would ever exist, thus causing many of them to cancel or move to another model. Which was all included in the refutation.
Canceling the 40 S was a mistake, was not good for expanding the EV market or the Tesla brand, they have not yet recognized it (or have, but that's why they did so much damage control), and they should correct it and never repeat it...once they get to the point where demand is waning, ASPs/margins aren't as crucial, etc. i.e., long-term, which is what we're talking about.�
May 29, 2014
RobStark Because Leafs are sold to hard core environmentalist that are willing to forgo a lot of practicality in order to reduce their carbon foot print. Roughly 2k $30k LEAFs per month sold in the USA is not exactly burning up the sales charts for a major OEM like Nissan. The goal of Tesla is to go beyond that niche and sell to the broader market. That requires more range and bigger battery packs.
With an average selling price of $105,981 last quarter the 60 S can't be more than a small fraction of sales.
Tesla does need to address the sub $50k market but not with its flagship sedan.
Tesla does not need to address everyone, it does not need to chase every microniche market. That is too expensive and stupid. Not even VW does that even though it has brands from Bugatti to SEAT and Skoda.
Tesla wants to increase coverage of the market to fill 95% or so of customer wants.
IF that other 5% can't be convinced to buy from a broad portfolio of options and would rather buy a micro niche car from another company so be it.�
May 29, 2014
MikeC Keep in mind the 40 kWh cars are actually 60 kWh. No one knows how well a true 40kwh performs except Elon and Tesla, and I take them at their word that it wasn't compelling enough to sell.�
May 29, 2014
RABaby Tesla never sold a 40 S. They sold some cars with software restricted 60 batteries to those customers who insisted on getting what they requested. The result is that you can't say for sure that the 40 delivers any sort of equivalent performance to what might have been delivered as a 40.
The Model S will never be sold with a 40. It is a luxury car and even the 60 battery is limited, but some people want to save and still experience the quality offered in a Model S. If no consideration of range or loss of charge when not plugged in, fine. Most who buy luxury cars do not want any consideration of inconvenience. You can certainly make an argument for a 40 in a Gen 3, but not in a Model S. And referring to those sold with a 40 is not entirely accurate since they really didn't. They are 60's limited by Tesla magic.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO And you think they're going to hit 95% by continually raising the price of their car, and giving more range than anyone but the .01% need? This is exactly *why* they need to stop cutting affordable cars. And why cutting the 60kWh would be a boneheaded move.
Can you imagine what would happen with the Gen 3? "I'm sorry, I know we said we would have a 35k car, but we've decided to give you this other car, it's "better" but not in any meaningful practical way for the vast majority of drivers, but it costs 50k...now buy half a million of them."
If Tesla were not supply constrained, it would have been a terrible decision. As it is, it was a fine business decision in the short term, and Tesla managed the PR nightmare it would have been had they done it differently quite well, but it was a bad adoption decision if this is the attitude that Tesla continues to take in the long term. And adoption is point #1 of Tesla's 1-point mission.�
May 29, 2014
RobStark The point has not been refuted above.
You think you have more customer data than Tesla? 40 S owners that post here and show up at EV events are not representative of the broader market. Unless you believe Tesla employees are a bunch of liars that are conspiring against EV adoption LOL.
Customers don't know what they want in the future. That is why marketing is as much art as science. Many potential Tesla customers were reserving base Model S for many reasons. That is all they can afford or that is as much as they feel comfortable spending on a car not only because they decided that is all they wanted or 40 kWh fills all their needs.
But once you are driving a car it is different than ordering based on spec sheet. The feedback Tesla got was not good and more than one Tesla executive has stated as much.
Cancelling the 40 S was the right move. Having a bunch of crippled S cars out there being reviewed and driven by regular folks filling out the brand image is not good.
Demand waning? really? Demand will exceed production for the foreseeable future and when capacity catches up Tesla will have good options in the sub $50k class not crippled S.
Crippled S cars dilute the brand and image of first class EVs. That is not good for electrification of the automobile.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO Yes it has.
You're talking about feedback from customers who don't exist. And you're saying that feedback from the customers who do exist should be disregarded. Basically, what are you talking about?
Read it again. Long-term.
Canceling the 40 S was not a good move. It was only acceptable because of the temporary business environment Tesla is in, and after they managed to do a lot of PR and made it right for the customers who did exist. It still put off a lot of people, and was not beneficial to adoption, and continuing with the same attitude will be similarly detrimental.�
May 29, 2014
Zaxxon 
�
May 29, 2014
JRP3 Yeah, FANGO, we've had this discussion before, absolutely no one agrees with you, which should tell you something about the potential market for a 40 S. How about we all acknowledge that you think the 40 S is a great idea, and you acknowledged that the rest of us, and Tesla, don't agree. You can then draw your own conclusions about how likely it is to be reintroduced. I give it a zero percent chance.�
May 29, 2014
FANGO
Absolutely no one! Especially not the people who bought the 40kWh. Or the people who had previously ordered it and changed their order after being uncertain that the car would ever exist. Or the people who never placed an order because the timeline kept getting pushed back and the wait was long to begin with. Or the people who dropped out to get another car in a price range which made sense to them. Or the people who would have heard of it later, since early reservations were disproportionately better-off, as is the case with early adopters, people in areas which had heard of Tesla, and Roadster owners. Nobody at all! Just like nobody wants a smaller-range EV, as so many people have been keen to point out in this discussion, which is why no other lower-range EVs exist, and none of them have sold any units whatsoever. Also, absolutely no one has ever bought the 60kWh, which is why it needs to be cancelled immediately! It was a mistake to ever think that any human being would drive less than 300 miles in a day or that charging stations exist. And continually increasing the price of cars by axing each successive most affordable model will remove all the hurdles which exist to EV adoption, because price definitely isn't one of them.
You're certainly not being dogmatic or closed off to the reality of the world around you, not in the slightest. You can then draw the conclusions you've been told to draw, without having examined the reality of the situation.�
May 29, 2014
AlMc Yes. We seemed to have crossed the line of diminishing returns on the range need of drivers and batteries needed to either realistically or psychological satisfy those needs. Doubt any of the participants are going to change the mind(s) of the other(s).�
May 29, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Sorry, bad wording, In NA at least, Tesla does a two-for-one on HPWCs for businesses and has an email contact address for businesses who want to install the chargers: [email�protected].�
May 29, 2014
FANGO Do they still do this? I thought it was a Roadster program but not Model S. That's great if they still do.�
May 29, 2014
JRP3 No one in this discussion, or previous discussions about it. Plus, how many of the people who bought the 40, or were considering it, would do so if the Gen3 were available?
I'm not being dogmatic or closed off in the least, I'm reacting to the reality of the world around me, where the 40S no longer exists, nor will it. No one has told me what conclusions I should draw.�
May 29, 2014
ggies07 Hey, all I want is an affordable EV that ACTUALLY goes over 100 miles on one charge. No one has done that yet, still waiting...hopefully Tesla will with the Gen 3.�
May 29, 2014
Auzie I give you some credit for bravely defending your opinion despite being seriously outnumbered.
Although on a second thought one may be better served with a bit less bravery but it is really up to each individual to choose what serves them well�
May 30, 2014
Lessmog I seem to recall someone deliberately ignoring the real persons whom he defined as negligible because we constitute less than 0.1%. Although I do concede I could be wrong about that.
Edit: Sorry about the snippiness, but I felt that was a rather rude thing to do. So there.�
May 30, 2014
Auzie 
�
May 30, 2014
FANGO http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/jckrumm/Publications%202012/2012-01-0489%20SAE%20published.pdf
"Someone" provided statistics which "absolutely no one" seems to have read - except one person, who showed that the statistics supported exactly what I've been saying all along, because that's what the statistics say. Which is, of course, a major source of difficulty with this discussion - the fact that "the rest of us" are ignoring the numbers involved in it. Acknowledging the reality of statistics is not "rude," but thinking that your personal driving situation applies to the entire populace and that anyone who says otherwise is wrong might well be rude. If you drive over 300 miles in a day, you are literally on the order of one in ten thousand for that day. This is fact.
Now, recall last page where RobStark said that Tesla only needs to address 95% of people? 300 miles in a day is well less than .1% of people. So if anyone would like to do the math on that, go right ahead. Or do you think that RobStark was being "rude" too, by excluding 50x more people? (I don't, I think the point about 95% is essentially correct)
Or continue this epistemic closure because you think the rest of the world is being "rude" by not driving as much as you.�
May 30, 2014
Mario Kadastik We aren't talking about averages. If I drive 350 miles on Sundays, then my average will be 50 miles a day, which would be utterly useless. What really matters is how often do people drive more than 150 miles per day. If that comes to once a couple of months, then a 250 mile battery is needed (reserve buffer, realistic speed, bad weather, cold in cumulative reduce the actual range).�
May 30, 2014
JRP3 Of course, averages are meaningless in the discussion of range. We all know that the average person drives less than 40 miles a day, by FANGO's "logic" that means cars with more than 50 miles of range aren't necessary. The market says otherwise.
FANGO, why don't you start a thread about range where you can continue this campaign of yours, which really does not belong in the Long Term Fundamentals thread.�
May 30, 2014
Robert.Boston Moderator's Note: Ok, is everyone done being unpleasant? I've resisted moving posts because most have some content, but the tone has been less than civil. Please turn on your politeness filters.�
May 30, 2014
FANGO Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
The stats posted are not averages, and we aren't talking about averages, and I don't believe I have mentioned overall daily mileage averages at any point in this discussion. The stats say how often people drive over 150 miles per day. It is well less than 1%.
In fact, only .7% of cars are driven over 100 miles in any given day, as established previously in this thread, by me and by another poster. That means twice a year give or take. So 150 is even less than that. And 250 is even less...in fact it's literally off the chart.
These questions are all answered in the statistics.�
May 30, 2014
Lessmog Well, I'm going to obey the moderator and stay silent this time.
I still claim to exist, however.�
May 30, 2014
kenliles �
May 30, 2014
gene Completely un-scientific, yet arguably relevant to this thread. I live in Ventura, CA which is up the coast 50 miles from Los Angeles. Exactly one year ago I had to drive from here to John Wayne airport in Orange County. That is 110 miles each way going through LA and much of Orange County. One year ago I counted 23 Model S' along the round trip. Yesterday I did the same drive and stopped counting at over 40 Model S'! And that doesn't count the ones I happened to miss.�
May 30, 2014
Maknyuzz w/ regards to 40KWh no longer being offered. I think it's because Gen III is likely to have 40KWh battery capacity. Here is my thought:
Model S 40KWh can go 160Miles.
GenIII is said to be 20% smaller. With the same 40KWh capacity, but with less mass and size, and rough napkin math, Gen III should be able have 20% more range than Model S:
160 * 120% = 192Miles. By 2017, the battery density is likely improved by another 20-30%. So 200+ miles can be reached w/ 40KWh battery
Also, with improved density, 60KWh Model S should be able to go further 20-30% range to 240-250miles, and 85KWh range to 300-320 miles.
I think in the future Tesla will no longer name the vehicle by capacity. My guess is it will be by range:
Model S-250 (sucessing 60KWh) and Model S-320(sucessing 85KWh). Kinda like Mercedes-Benz
similarly with Model X perhaps.. X-250 and X-320.
I dunno.. I long for the day Model S and X that can go 300miles EPA rated range.
I hope superchargers can charge at 200KWh rate speed by 2017, and the number of station will reach 500 stations:
2014: 300 stations
2015: 500 stations
2016: 600 stations, each stations have more stalls available
2017: 700 stations, pushing the battery storage that JB mentioned in each stations.
2018: 800 stations, pushing more battery storage, more stalls available
2020: 1000 stations milestone, half of them are solar-powered, and have battery storage.
I hope battery swapping will also come into play soon.
I think superchargers availability and charging speed will play a crucial role in EV adoption. We really need that 200KWh charging rate. 10 minutes, for half a charge.�
May 30, 2014
mibaro2 Well said. I've had to do a few emergency trips which I would not have been able to do with a smaller battery.�
May 30, 2014
daxz So I downloaded the NHTS data and did some more analysis on it. A lot more than what you can query with the online query tool.
What I got was 3.4% of each household had a vehicle with 100+ miles per day.
The way the data was collected was the subjects had 1 week of journal entries of their estimated miles/time (some were exact and some were rounded) and there was a few problematic data points (either that or they can drive 195 mph for an entire day).
I think this may skew the data also as I would assume there would be more traveling in certain times of the year than others (non-school days).
This data really shows that people have lots of short trips during the day.
So for a primary vehicle 100 miles/day is tough for 3.4% of the households.�
May 30, 2014
Robert.Boston Nice data. Could you please slice it for various other distance, e.g. 150, 200, and 250?�
May 30, 2014
Norbert When Leaf and Volt were a new thing, statisticians were arguing the range should cover most driving for most people. But later on I kept reading about how the range is too limited. And they weren't just saying: if it only had 30 miles more range, then it would be enough. And it wasn't just because the CHAdeMO network wasn't installed the way it had been promised.
Tesla sold more battery capacity than Leaf and Volt together (I know it did so at one point, and it is probably still the case), and that is what will drive the developments necessary, for electric cars to become the majority of cars sold: battery price improvements. That is what counts, and it is done by Tesla. Along with demonstrating that electric cars can be compelling ("better") in many ways.�
May 30, 2014
daxz I guess it wasn't that nice as I found a mistake in the way I was grouping before. Households that travel >100 miles/day have multiple days >100 miles in there sample weeks.
Code:Miles Daily Distance 10 57.5% 20 30.6% 30 18.0% 40 11.7% 50 8.4% 60 6.6% 70 5.3% 80 4.5% 90 3.9% 100 3.4% 110 3.0% 120 2.7% 130 2.4% 140 2.2% 150 2.0% 160 1.8% 170 1.7% 180 1.5% 190 1.4% 200 1.3% 250 0.9% 300 0.6% 400 0.3% 500 0.2% 1000 0.05%
I would be one of the .2% drivers 4+ times a year and .05% once a year. I have also rented cars for traveling trips before and its a big pain and/or cost a lot. It's a lot easier to fly and rent at a destination then renting locally for a long trips.
The .7% noted before indicates percent of trips > 100 miles not daily travel distances. Most of the vehicles of the households in the data set had 4 trips in one day with a median trip length being 9 miles. To cover 95% of the trips you would need be able to go 53 miles and be able to charge back up quick enough to go on the next trip.
note about the figures I found:
I found max trip distance per vehicle per day in each household and filtered where it was an automobile, van, pickup truck or SUV and distance was more than 0 miles (no trucks/rv/motorcycles) (199,074 records). I then found which vehicle per house drove the furthest per day (128,835 records).
Code:
WHERE DAYV2PUB.TRPTRANS in (1,2,3,4) AND DAYV2PUB.TRPMiles>0
GROUP BY DAYV2PUB.houseid, Right(DAYV2PUB.tdcaseid,2), DAYV2PUB.TDAYDATE, DAYV2PUB.TRAVDAY, DAYV2PUB.VEHID�
May 31, 2014
Robert.Boston @daxz: thanks for the data. A problem the EV industry has is that people don't really pay attention to their own driving habits; I'm frankly surprised by these data at how few long trips there are. As demonstrated by the fact that Tesla chose to do its Coast-to-Coast drive, there are a lot of Americans who like the idea of being able to get up one morning and drive across the country. Even if they never do it, and few will, there's something about knowing that one can that some people appear to find liberating. The "option value" of more range has tangible value, even if it is never (or infrequently) used.�
May 31, 2014
Norbert The impression I got a year or two ago was that the statistics on this subject are quite problematic, and it is difficult to find out what exactly they say. For example, with the information you have given above, it doesn't seem one could tell whether it is mostly the same 3.9% each day that travel >= 100 miles, or mostly different "households" each day. Maybe you know the answer in this case, but it seems to be that in general those numbers aren't well defined and often somehow misleading if not plainly wrong. Another question would be: what does the term "household" mean in this context, at all, as opposed to "driver" or "car"? Is each household giving its average, or total, or worst case? Does it depend on the person filling out the questionnaire? And so on.�
May 31, 2014
Norbert I'm in the process of (re-)calculating these numbers, and getting larger numbers, more like your first result. I'll double-check before posting my results.
Are you sure about including this in the group-by: Right(DAYV2PUB.tdcaseid,2) ?
Are you also using the data file here: NHTS Data Center ?
(2009 NHTS - Version 2.1, February 2011)
Update: I'm getting 14.7% of households for 100+miles, and 4.8% for 200+ miles, for a period of 1 week. I'll post more detailed results later on.
I would get numbers quite close to yours if I were to calculate the percentage of single trips, instead of complete days. I think it might be the result of including DAYV2PUB.tdcaseid in the GROUP BY clause, which you perhaps accidentally left in there from experimenting.
Now here is the (additional) thing: 14.7% per week can be the same per month if all households are repeating that exact same result each week. But if these are random distributions, then the percentage per month would be much larger: 47% in 4 weeks, and 87% per quarter, for a 100+ miles day. And 48% for a 200+ mile day in a quarter. And this comes much closer to the "anecdotal" data, the impression I get from people writing about their experiences. But that doesn't mean that there aren't yet more problems with interpreting those statistics.�
May 31, 2014
Norbert These are my results in detail, using (only) the ASCII CSV file DAYV2PUB.CSV (2009 NHTS - Version 2.1, February 2011) at NHTS Data Center
Please keep in mind that i am *not* recommending using this data as a basis for decision making. I am more trying to show how much such statistics depend on interpretation and evaluation.
The "weekly" percentages are calculated from the data, whereas the "4-weeks" and "quarterly" percentages are extrapolated using the same formula as used to calculate the likelihood to throw at least one six when throwing dice twice.Code:Read CSV file with string length 439,716,964 in encoding 4. Read 1,167,323 lines. Found 955,513 trip records with vehicles types between 1 and 4. Excluded vehicle types: '-9' '08' '-7' '06' '97' '-8' '07' '-1' '05' Found 180,489 vehicles of type 01 - 04, and of those, 179,598 vehicles with more than zero miles. Found 125,043 households, and of those, 124,455 households with more than zero miles. Found 107939 households with at least one 10+ miles vehicle-day (86.72934% weekly, 99.96899% 4-weeks, 100.00000% quarterly). Found 87834 households with at least one 20+ miles vehicle-day (70.57491% weekly, 99.25033% 4-weeks, 99.99999% quarterly). Found 70407 households with at least one 30+ miles vehicle-day (56.57226% weekly, 96.44312% 4-weeks, 99.99805% quarterly). Found 56472 households with at least one 40+ miles vehicle-day (45.37544% weekly, 91.09668% 4-weeks, 99.96145% quarterly). Found 45309 households with at least one 50+ miles vehicle-day (36.40593% weekly, 83.64440% 4-weeks, 99.72176% quarterly). Found 37033 households with at least one 60+ miles vehicle-day (29.75614% weekly, 75.65367% 4-weeks, 98.98630% quarterly). Found 30279 households with at least one 70+ miles vehicle-day (24.32928% weekly, 67.21225% 4-weeks, 97.33276% quarterly). Found 25294 households with at least one 80+ miles vehicle-day (20.32381% weekly, 59.69915% 4-weeks, 94.78480% quarterly). Found 21232 households with at least one 90+ miles vehicle-day (17.05998% weekly, 52.67872% 4-weeks, 91.21112% quarterly). Found 18265 households with at least one 100+ miles vehicle-day (14.67599% weekly, 46.99888% 4-weeks, 87.29641% quarterly). Found 15714 households with at least one 110+ miles vehicle-day (12.62625% weekly, 41.71942% 4-weeks, 82.70372% quarterly). Found 13781 households with at least one 120+ miles vehicle-day (11.07308% weekly, 37.46358% 4-weeks, 78.25135% quarterly). Found 12051 households with at least one 130+ miles vehicle-day ( 9.68302% weekly, 33.46079% 4-weeks, 73.39260% quarterly). Found 10701 households with at least one 140+ miles vehicle-day ( 8.59829% weekly, 30.20613% 4-weeks, 68.92535% quarterly). Found 9554 households with at least one 150+ miles vehicle-day ( 7.67667% weekly, 27.34829% 4-weeks, 64.59627% quarterly). Found 8632 households with at least one 160+ miles vehicle-day ( 6.93584% weekly, 24.98816% 4-weeks, 60.71995% quarterly). Found 7825 households with at least one 170+ miles vehicle-day ( 6.28741% weekly, 22.87562% 4-weeks, 57.00945% quarterly). Found 7173 households with at least one 180+ miles vehicle-day ( 5.76353% weekly, 21.13650% 4-weeks, 53.77816% quarterly). Found 6569 households with at least one 190+ miles vehicle-day ( 5.27821% weekly, 19.49932% 4-weeks, 50.58617% quarterly). Found 6091 households with at least one 200+ miles vehicle-day ( 4.89414% weekly, 18.18572% 4-weeks, 47.91716% quarterly). Found 4154 households with at least one 250+ miles vehicle-day ( 3.33775% weekly, 12.69732% 4-weeks, 35.68096% quarterly). Found 3070 households with at least one 300+ miles vehicle-day ( 2.46676% weekly, 9.50789% 4-weeks, 27.72556% quarterly). Found 1901 households with at least one 400+ miles vehicle-day ( 1.52746% weekly, 5.97127% 4-weeks, 18.13527% quarterly). Found 1251 households with at least one 500+ miles vehicle-day ( 1.00518% weekly, 3.96051% 4-weeks, 12.30760% quarterly). Found 292 households with at least one 1000+ miles vehicle-day ( 0.23462% weekly, 0.93519% 4-weeks, 3.00753% quarterly).�
May 31, 2014
daxz I agree the data is not correct for determining how many households travel long distances.
Collecting data like this as a "voluntary" thing does skew the data a lot. The sampling method may be flawed in how they get the data too - it appears it was cold calls asking to keep a journal then they called back. If you were on vacation or traveling for a holiday I doubt you would get much voluntarism for that week. It looks like this data is better to use for normal weekly drive habits. It may be better to work backwards. Use this data to find the normal distance traveled (mean) and extrapolate for the year and subtract that from normal annual mileage of a car. What is left is what is driving on those vacation/holidays.
The data also has multiple records for each trip - one for each member of the household look at the person's ages - this is why I grouped on Right(DAYV2PUB.tdcaseid,2)�
Jun 1, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney I'm not really surprised, but the summary is not especially relevant to manufacturers, and to Tesla or any manufacturer of a PEV in particular because they only address a subset of travelers. A PEV manufacturer only cares about new car buyers/lessees who'd be able to plug in. I would expect that subset to take have more long trips simply because they have more disposable income.�
Jun 1, 2014
Norbert This would explain the difference in result only if each and every household had 5 persons reporting every trip. And I do get your numbers (approx) if I look at single trips only, which would have to mean that there is rarely more than one trip reported per day. The latter might be the case, the former not by itself. I'll look further into it today.
Update: Turns out we were both wrong.
DAYV2PUB.tdcaseid is unique for each trip report (1167321 records). This means that using it in group-by has the side effect of counting only single trips with n miles (instead of complete days with a sum of n miles).
In consequence, your numbers are not valid for "miles/day".
However you are correct about person-miles vs vehicles-miles, and I'm currently working on that.�
Jun 1, 2014
Norbert The documentation actually defines the intended way to derive vehicle miles (apparently valid, or defined, only for privately owned vehicles):
So I modified the method to filter by transportation mode, and attribution to driver. The results:
Again: Please keep in mind that i am *not* recommending using this data as a basis for decision making. I am more trying to show how much such statistics depend on interpretation and evaluation.Code:Read CSV file with string length 439,716,964 in encoding 4. Read 1,167,323 lines. From a total of 1,167,321 records (trip reports), 955,513 trip records are with vehicles types between 1 and 4. Excluded vehicle types ('VEHTYPE'): '-9' '08' '-7' '06' '97' '-8' '07' '-1' '05' From a total of 1,167,321 records (trip reports), 1,019,762 trip records are with transportation modes between 1 and 7. Excluded transportation modes ('TRPTRANS'): '18' '10' '19' '11' '12' '20' '13' '21' '-7' '14' '22' '-8' '97' '08' '15' '23' '16' '09' '-1' '-9' '24' '17' From a total of 1,167,321 records (trip reports), 748,807 trip records are attributed to the driver. Excluded driver flags ('DRVR_FLG'): '-1' '-9' '02' (Unique tdcaseid's: 1,167,321) Out of the above, 728,603 trip records fulfill all 3 criteria. Found 175,908 vehicles in the filtered records, and of those, 175,096 vehicles are with more than zero miles. Found 122,233 households in the filtered records, and of those, 121,701 households are with more than zero miles. Found 102771 households with at least one 10+ miles vehicle-day: 84.44549% weekly, 99.94146% 4-weeks, 100.00000% quarterly. Found 79440 households with at least one 20+ miles vehicle-day: 65.27473% weekly, 98.54594% 4-weeks, 99.99989% quarterly. Found 59918 households with at least one 30+ miles vehicle-day: 49.23378% weekly, 93.35799% 4-weeks, 99.98512% quarterly. Found 44975 households with at least one 40+ miles vehicle-day: 36.95532% weekly, 84.20231% 4-weeks, 99.75144% quarterly. Found 34033 households with at least one 50+ miles vehicle-day: 27.96444% weekly, 73.07301% 4-weeks, 98.59360% quarterly. Found 26176 households with at least one 60+ miles vehicle-day: 21.50845% weekly, 62.04302% 4-weeks, 95.70762% quarterly. Found 20342 households with at least one 70+ miles vehicle-day: 16.71474% weekly, 51.88587% 4-weeks, 90.72346% quarterly. Found 16087 households with at least one 80+ miles vehicle-day: 13.21846% weekly, 43.28351% 4-weeks, 84.16728% quarterly. Found 12893 households with at least one 90+ miles vehicle-day: 10.59400% weekly, 36.10502% 4-weeks, 76.67794% quarterly. Found 10632 households with at least one 100+ miles vehicle-day: 8.73616% weekly, 30.62630% 4-weeks, 69.52924% quarterly. Found 8815 households with at least one 110+ miles vehicle-day: 7.24316% weekly, 25.97409% 4-weeks, 62.37321% quarterly. Found 7480 households with at least one 120+ miles vehicle-day: 6.14621% weekly, 22.40973% 4-weeks, 56.15970% quarterly. Found 6332 households with at least one 130+ miles vehicle-day: 5.20292% weekly, 19.24305% 4-weeks, 50.07308% quarterly. Found 5465 households with at least one 140+ miles vehicle-day: 4.49051% weekly, 16.78799% 4-weeks, 44.96935% quarterly. Found 4772 households with at least one 150+ miles vehicle-day: 3.92109% weekly, 14.78572% 4-weeks, 40.54818% quarterly. Found 4182 households with at least one 160+ miles vehicle-day: 3.43629% weekly, 13.05277% 4-weeks, 36.52814% quarterly. Found 3741 households with at least one 170+ miles vehicle-day: 3.07393% weekly, 11.74030% 4-weeks, 33.36107% quarterly. Found 3379 households with at least one 180+ miles vehicle-day: 2.77648% weekly, 10.65188% 4-weeks, 30.65301% quarterly. Found 3055 households with at least one 190+ miles vehicle-day: 2.51025% weekly, 9.66921% 4-weeks, 28.14344% quarterly. Found 2786 households with at least one 200+ miles vehicle-day: 2.28922% weekly, 8.84721% 4-weeks, 25.99647% quarterly. Found 1701 households with at least one 250+ miles vehicle-day: 1.39769% weekly, 5.47463% 4-weeks, 16.72162% quarterly. Found 1104 households with at least one 300+ miles vehicle-day: 0.90714% weekly, 3.57949% 4-weeks, 11.17184% quarterly. Found 529 households with at least one 400+ miles vehicle-day: 0.43467% weekly, 1.72738% 4-weeks, 5.50568% quarterly. Found 277 households with at least one 500+ miles vehicle-day: 0.22761% weekly, 0.90732% 4-weeks, 2.91882% quarterly. Found 40 households with at least one 1000+ miles vehicle-day: 0.03287% weekly, 0.13140% 4-weeks, 0.42644% quarterly.
(EDIT: In order to reflect the instructions in the documentation, at least one more step is asked for: to consider the "weights" assigned to households and travel days. Since I'm not sure if that has much of an effect on the numbers, I'll keep that refinement for another day, probably. But will report back here.)�
Jun 1, 2014
Papafox I think JRP3 has hit the nail on the head. Those of us who bought 40KWH Teslas most often did so because of cost issues. I would most likely have gone for a Gen III if it had been available, but the wait would have been too long and so I ordered an affordable Model S. Fango has a point, too, because I would not have bought a Model S if the 40KWH car had been unavailable. Since I live on an island that is 44 miles long, there's really no point for a bigger battery. Interestingly, I still manage 90 miles a day with my S and the 40KWH option has been a good decision for me. I could upgrade to the 60KWH battery through a software purchase, but I'd rather spend $10K on Tesla stock than on a bigger battery.�
Jun 1, 2014
Norbert Agree that it should be its own topic, yet continued:
Maybe you were confused by the labels in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the report you are quoting.
On Figure 3, �1� is the fraction of cars, meaning 100%, not 1%. Plus, in Figure 2, the labels seem incorrect (too small) by a factor of 10x.�
Jun 2, 2014
FANGO .005 means .5%. I was always referring to figure 2.�
Jun 2, 2014
Norbert I know that's what you would think, but the label on Figure 2 is incorrect by a factor of 10x. It should say .05, meaning 5%. (It's easy to tell as it wouldn't add up to 100% otherwise.)
Furthermore, Figure 2 isn't cumulative, so 5% (in that statistic) is just the average percentage of (vehicle-) days exactly between 50 miles and 60 miles, not the percentage with 50 miles or more.
And in addition to that, very few people would buy a car based on average single day miles. They want to know: how many times per week, per month, per quarter, or per year, would they have to rent a car (or do something else). For example, if the percentage of days with more than 60 miles is just 17% (in that statistic), this could still mean that it might be more than 60% who have such a trip once or more often per month. That is something which that report (and the underlying data) doesn't tell. But that would be the more important number, I'd say.�
Jun 2, 2014
FANGO You can stop it with the patronizing, it's pretty obvious that those are percentages, and what a histogram is.
A histogram isn't an "average." Nowhere are "averages" ever mentioned in my portion of this discussion. Of course I already said this, and yet you still persist in talking about averages. Which is why I've been uninterested in this for a long time.
Luckily this is its own thread now, so I can unsubscribe instead of listen to people pretending to teach me how to read a histogram.�
Jun 2, 2014
Norbert When it says 17% of the days are with 60 miles or more, than that is an average per vehicle. It does't tell you whether all those days come from the same 17% of the vehicles (and the others have none of those days), or if all of the vehicles have a few of those days. It doesn't tell you what the distribution is. It is a single statistical number, which doesn't tell you enough about the individual cases.
Are you able to confirm that its 5% and not 0.5%, in Figure 2 of the report you quote?�
Jun 2, 2014
Norbert For example, if each and every vehicle made a more-than-60-miles trip every 6 days, that would result in a number of about 17% as well. But it would mean that 100% would want a car with more than 60 mile range, if they can have such a car for a similar price.�
Jun 2, 2014
Norbert Are you sure the data is meant to have 1 week for each subject? ... guess I have to write code to check for that.
Update: I'm deleting my previous message with the question about the report's SQL since it turns out that the database has only (and exactly) 1 day for each vehicle.
Sorry, but there are no "sample weeks" in DAYV2PUB. The data is for one day only, for each vehicle.
This means that the percentages I have calculated are for single days, not for 'at least one day in a week'. This means the extrapolation for one week is higher than the percentages I have given. The same applies to the longer-term extrapolations.
But before posting new results, I'll make more double-checks (and try to include the weighting).�
Jun 2, 2014
Norbert The question now is this: If an average of about 6% of vehicles drive 100 or more miles on randomly chosen days, how many can be expected to have at least one such day in a week (or month, quarter, year) ?�
Jun 2, 2014
Norbert I think the weighting should be done in this way:
In general (without considering the weights), for each vehicle, a 1 or 0 is added, if the sum of trips for its test-day is larger or equal to a certain milage.
Now, there are vehicle weights and travel day weights in that database. While the report (quoted above) uses only travel day weights, I think that each 1 and 0 should be weighted by the combination of vehicle weight and travel day weight. The combined weight is the 2 weights multiplied with each other. And then used in the same way as a single weight is used normally.
As an example, without weights, if there are 2 vehicles, one with a large mileage, and one with a small mileage, the calculation would be (1 + 0) / 2 = 0.5 (50%)
With weights: Let's say the first vehicle weight is 5, the first travel day weight is 4, the second weights would be 7 and 2.
Then the combined weights would be 5*4 = 20 and 7*2 = 14.
then the calculation would be (20 * 1 + 14 * 0) / (20 + 14). Which is 20 / 34 = 0.588 (59%).
Objections?�
Jun 3, 2014
aronth5 Too much over analysis and reliance on stats. There are enough owners and prospective owners that want and whose driving experience would improve with greater range that Tesla will increase it. The only question is how much and what is the timeframe? Verified by Elon who stated at today's annual meeting that "you should expect improvement in range over time."�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét