Electric cars in the Winter

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Chris_V said:

It's an extra cost that adds value to the home. It should be considered part of the house cost, not part of the cost of an EV, as it stays with you and can be used for more than just the EV. I mean do you count the cost of the tools tools to do a new car build as part of the cost of the car, or are you amortizing them out over the entire lifetime of use you get out of them for the next car or home project you undertake? This is the same.

Sure, but it's still $15-20K out of pocket.

Exactly. That's a significant spend for a lot of people, even if they are willing to finance a new vehicle. And I'm not sure how you'd finance that upgrade unless you rolled it into a house mortgage.

80A charging doesn't make sense for a home charger. If you figure the normal use case is to charge overnight, the typical Level 2 charger is fast enough. Maybe you need the big 80A in order to backfeed into the house circuit, but you don't necessarily need an upgraded service to do that if I understand correctly. You can probably set the maximum charge rate to something your service can handle, I know we can program our car to only pull a certain power level from a given charger even if the charger is theoretically capable of more.

80A does make more sense for a work truck that might need a faster turnaround because it's being used on multiple shifts or something. That's basically half of a V2 Supercharger.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Chris_V said:

It's an extra cost that adds value to the home. It should be considered part of the house cost, not part of the cost of an EV, as it stays with you and can be used for more than just the EV. I mean do you count the cost of the tools tools to do a new car build as part of the cost of the car, or are you amortizing them out over the entire lifetime of use you get out of them for the next car or home project you undertake? This is the same.

Sure, but it's still $15-20K out of pocket.

? I was responding to the comment about upgrading from a 100 amp service to a 200 amp one. It's nowhere NEAR $15-20k... My upgrade from 100 amp to 200 amp service was <$2000 by a licensed electrician. The national average is $3500. This isn't that hard. If you can't afford that for your home and INCREASE it's value, then you really can't afford ANY new car.

In reply to frenchyd :

Big difference beta installing a panel and running a new service. 

If I'm reading this conversation right, the Ford thing wants a 100amp SERVICE. That means from the lines, to a meter, to its own panel. That's a lot different than running some 8/3 to the garage to put in a 50 amp sub panel for the welder and plasma cutter. 

Doesn't matter to me though, that full on lightning costs 3 times what me and the wife make in a year combined, so it's totally off the table for me. I just like seeing what's going on in the EV world. 

Chris_V said:

STM317 said:

As for the wiring, there are a lot of older homes that only have 100amp service to begin with. If a Lightning owner wanted to install the 80 amp charger to enable faster charging and home power backup, they might have to double their service.

This is a common refrain " But my older home only has a 100 amp service, so I can't have an EV!"

My 1932 home had a 100 amp service when we got it in 2001, but it had been upgraded from a 50 amp fused service before that and from a knob and tube wiring before THAT. At some point you just nut up and install a better service to you house if for no other reason that increasing home value. I did that back in 2006 with no vision of an EV in my future. More like a hot tub and a couple more useful circuits in the new 2 car garage, and simple future-proofing.

If you're even THINKING about an EV and you only have a 100 amp service, it's probably a good time to upgrade ANYHOW. And if you're spending the coin on a Lightning, might as well spend a bit more on a value-adding upgrade to your home as well. It's the one part of the equation that won't be depreciating. Saying you're limited by that old house service is BS.

Upgrading to 200 amp service usually includes burying the overhead wires.  Which significantly increases a homes value. Once all or almost all are buried the neighborhood gets a value increase by power provided being buried.   ( with the added benefit of fewer power interruptions ) 
Plus no trashy tennis shoes hanging from the wires or trees brutally trimmed  just to clear those.  
   Yes nice things cost money.  Upgrades cost money. But with EV's the coming thing you either do it now or pay more later to have it done.  ( or lose the value in your house as prospective buyers are told you haven't done that yet). 
  Might as well show them a fuse panel while you're at it.  
      I understand not being able to afford an EV. Or even not wanting one.   But they are faster, have sufficient range for daily use.  Aren't impossible to travel with beyond your normal trips.  And will cost less to own long run.  
    Look at where they are getting oil from now.  Some pretty inhospitable areas under oceans, Frozen tundra,  combat zones, etc. 

Then they have to get it to a refinery somehow, tankers , trains, or pipeline.  Refine it and then get it to the neighborhood gas station where you go to pick it up.  
    Or you plug it in when you get home on your way inside.  If you have solar panels or a wind generator there won't be any transmission losses.  Those will add further to the value of your house.  
    There will be a point in the not too distant future where those will be expected. 
      

Just saw an article about Rivian "real world" towing test resulted in a 64% reduction in range (which seems lousy, since a diesel probably is 15% reduction and gasser maybe 30%). Now, how low does that go towing in the winter? Wonder if there are any things in the works to make towing more tenable - range-extender batteries on the trailer (or bed) the way there are range-extender gas tanks?

RevRico said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Big difference beta installing a panel and running a new service. 

If I'm reading this conversation right, the Ford thing wants a 100amp SERVICE. That means from the lines, to a meter, to its own panel. That's a lot different than running some 8/3 to the garage to put in a 50 amp sub panel for the welder and plasma cutter. 

Doesn't matter to me though, that full on lightning costs 3 times what me and the wife make in a year combined, so it's totally off the table for me. I just like seeing what's going on in the EV world. 

Do I have this right?   Together you make less than $30,000 annually?   I hope it's not $13,000 the price of a base  F150 EV @$40,000  

      My house is average for the neighborhood. In fact I might be a little low with just 200 amp service.   
       I've seen some homes with many many multiples of that. Panels  the size of a typical refrigerator times 3.  ( that's not the really big estates mind you! ) 

But I think you are wrong. Why would they need separate service to the house?  If they shut off the service to the panel and Fed the house they would be back feeding to the street.  
  They need to isolate the existing panel so it won't back feed to the street. I believe it's called a transfer switch to isolate the house from the street.  If you want I'll check on that for you. Let you know what one costs. 
 

Chris_V said:

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Chris_V said:

It's an extra cost that adds value to the home. It should be considered part of the house cost, not part of the cost of an EV, as it stays with you and can be used for more than just the EV. I mean do you count the cost of the tools tools to do a new car build as part of the cost of the car, or are you amortizing them out over the entire lifetime of use you get out of them for the next car or home project you undertake? This is the same.

Sure, but it's still $15-20K out of pocket.

? I was responding to the comment about upgrading from a 100 amp service to a 200 amp one. It's nowhere NEAR $15-20k... My upgrade from 100 amp to 200 amp service was <$2000 by a licensed electrician. The national average is $3500. This isn't that hard. If you can't afford that for your home and INCREASE it's value, then you really can't afford ANY new car.

Tell that to the various electricians who quoted that exact job to me 5 years ago.  It varies a lot, $2K is only going to get it done if everything lines up right.

Keith Tanner said:

80A charging doesn't make sense for a home charger. If you figure the normal use case is to charge overnight, the typical Level 2 charger is fast enough. Maybe you need the big 80A in order to backfeed into the house circuit, but you don't necessarily need an upgraded service to do that if I understand correctly. You can probably set the maximum charge rate to something your service can handle, I know we can program our car to only pull a certain power level from a given charger even if the charger is theoretically capable of more.

Exactly. A 7.2 kW charger (about 30 amps at 240 volts) could theoretically charge up a 100kWh battery from empty to full in about 14 hours.

On a 200A service a 30A EVSE will usually not be too much of a burden. On a 100A (or less) service it can be a different story. 

The high current charger that does bi-directional vehicle to home power does require some  specialized equipment.

Ford is offering 3 different wall chargers for the Lightning:

1) They all get the basic 32 Amp EVSE that can plug into 120 or 240V outlets

2) The Standard Range trucks will also get a 48A charger (240V only)

3) The Extended Range trucks will include the 80A that offers the fastest charging and the ability to do home back up power.

The Extended Range trucks have faster onboard chargers that can utilize the full 80A charging speed, but the Standard Range trucks will have slower onboard chargers that won't be able to fully utilize the 80A charging speed.

With the Standard Range truck, I don't see how the 80A really makes sense, particularly as a costly option unless you just HAVE to have a few hrs of backup power and are willing to pay thousands for that. But for an Extended Range truck, I can definitely see advantages of the 80A charger vs the other options. This thing charges slowly, especially on a regular 240V outlet. If you want to be able to fully charge the Extended Range battery in a single overnight period, it's probably the only option. For normal commuting the slower charging options are probably fine, but if you use this thing for any kind of work on a regular basis, then the faster charger makes tons of sense to me. Especially since it can also be used for backup power. It's just going to add to the cost to have the increased functionality. The amount of cost added will be a case-by-case situation, but it could easily amount to several kilobucks, especially if it's needed for home backup power.

frenchyd said:

Upgrading to 200 amp service usually includes burying the overhead wires.  Which significantly increases a homes value. Once all or almost all are buried the neighborhood gets a value increase by power provided being buried.   ( with the added benefit of fewer power interruptions )

Maybe in some places, but there are lots of places where 200 amp overhead service is common.  The area where I grew up, once you get out of downtown, buried lines are unheard of.  Where we live now, the lines are overhead until they hit the property line, then they're buried under the yard (but we're the only house on the street with buried lines). 

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

And that test was done with a mustang on an open aluminum trailer.

 Count on ANOTHER 10,15% loss if towing an enclosed or camper?

 EV towing isn't looking to feasible for racers or rv use.

STM317 said:

Ford is offering 3 different wall chargers for the Lightning:

1) They all get the basic 32 Amp EVSE that can plug into 120 or 240V outlets

2) The Standard Range trucks will also get a 48A charger (240V only)

3) The Extended Range trucks will include the 80A that offers the fastest charging and the ability to do home back up power.

The Extended Range trucks have faster onboard chargers that can utilize the full 80A charging speed, but the Standard Range trucks will have slower onboard chargers that won't be able to fully utilize the 80A charging speed.

 

 

With the Standard Range truck, I don't see how the 80A really makes sense, particularly as a costly option unless you just HAVE to have a few hrs of backup power and are willing to pay thousands for that. But for an Extended Range truck, I can definitely see advantages of the 80A charger vs the other options. This thing charges slowly, especially on a regular 240V outlet. If you want to be able to fully charge the Extended Range battery in a single overnight period, it's probably the only option. For normal commuting the slower charging options are probably fine, but if you use this thing for any kind of work on a regular basis, then the faster charger makes tons of sense to me. Especially since it can also be used for backup power. It's just going to add to the cost to have the increased functionality. The amount of cost added will be a case-by-case situation, but it could easily amount to several kilobucks, especially if it's needed for home backup power.

It would be rare to need to fully charge your battery.  The  typical user has a daily trip average of 50 miles.  200 miles is something like 4 hours in a metro area. Even using freeways. 
 I see the need for an 80 amp charger if and only if you spend 1/2  or more of your working day  driving.   

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

Just saw an article about Rivian "real world" towing test resulted in a 64% reduction in range (which seems lousy, since a diesel probably is 15% reduction and gasser maybe 30%). Now, how low does that go towing in the winter? Wonder if there are any things in the works to make towing more tenable - range-extender batteries on the trailer (or bed) the way there are range-extender gas tanks?

That Rivian's owner disputes that figure, though, and says it's nowhere near accurate. Still too early to tell what the impact will be. 

My diesel sees about 30-40% decrease in range when towing the enclosed two car trailer. My old Tundra used to see about 40-50% loss with the enclosed single car. Towing sucks for energy use. 

frenchyd said:

It would be rare to need to fully charge your battery.  The  typical user has a daily trip average of 50 miles.  200 miles is something like 4 hours in a metro area. Even using freeways. 
 I see the need for an 80 amp charger if and only if you spend 1/2  or more of your working day  driving.   

It's a truck. It's going to be used for work by at least some of the buyers. Especially when it's gotten a lot of marketing as a commercial vehicle. The faster charging isn't needed if this is only used as a commuter, but if it's being used for work, even occasionally, I can see why people might want to spend a bit more to use the faster charger that's included with the truck.

What if you're a contractor, and use quite a bit of the truck's battery on the jobsite to power tools, a radio, a generator, compressor, etc and still need enough juice to get to the supply shop and back most days?

Maybe you take the family camping some place sort of remote one weekend, use the onboard power for a few things while you're there, and then drive back home in time to charge up for the Monday morning commute.

Or, since you live in MN, what about hauling some snowmobile's out on Sunday with towing and cold temps both depleting range, and then need to drive to work the next morning (again in range depleting cold temps).

What if you only have a 1 car garage, and your better half parks inside most nights, but allows you to charge up one night a week or so? After a few days of commuting you probably need more than 'a top off' on the battery. Doesn't it make sense to maximize that limited time spent on the charger?

Maybe you're browsing Marketplace at work one day and see your next project vehicle for a steal? You strike a deal and rush home to grab the trailer and some extra juice so that you can hurry off to 'Lord Knows Where' to get your prize before somebody else snatches up the sweet deal. Wouldn't the ability to add 30 miles of range/hr be pretty helpful compared to just 13 miles of range per hr with a regular 240V outlet?

I think the 80A charger has lots of appeal to lots of different customers, as long as we're talking about the Extended Range truck. Adding the ability to offer some backup power (even if it's significant cost) will appeal to even more people. Sure, these scenarios aren't the most common, but they do happen often enough that truck buyers will base purchase decisions on this type of thinking.

Tom Suddard said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

Just saw an article about Rivian "real world" towing test resulted in a 64% reduction in range (which seems lousy, since a diesel probably is 15% reduction and gasser maybe 30%). Now, how low does that go towing in the winter? Wonder if there are any things in the works to make towing more tenable - range-extender batteries on the trailer (or bed) the way there are range-extender gas tanks?

That Rivian's owner disputes that figure, though, and says it's nowhere near accurate. Still too early to tell what the impact will be. 

I read that the Rivian's owner is also a Rivian employee, and has ignored or dodged all questions regarding range. Time will tell of course, but they're not exactly shouting from the rooftops about how impressive the range is while towing a fraction of the truck's rated capacity.

With the price of used cars what they are now, I've seriously considered selling our '18 Mazda 3, taking the $10-12k of equity that's expected to be in it and buying a Tesla 3 Performance model. 

But that's still a hefty payment for a car that wouldn't be used much since we both work from home. That's why I sold the Miata 9 months ago and haven't bothered to replace it with anything. 

In reply to z31maniac :

Looking ahead a Tesla 3 performance model will be the fast car at a lot of auto tosses.   And hold onto it long enough and it will be the fast car in Vntage racing. 

STM317 said:

frenchyd said:

It would be rare to need to fully charge your battery.  The  typical user has a daily trip average of 50 miles.  200 miles is something like 4 hours in a metro area. Even using freeways. 
 I see the need for an 80 amp charger if and only if you spend 1/2  or more of your working day  driving.   

It's a truck. It's going to be used for work by at least some of the buyers. Especially when it's gotten a lot of marketing as a commercial vehicle. The faster charging isn't needed if this is only used as a commuter, but if it's being used for work, even occasionally, I can see why people might want to spend a bit more to use the faster charger that's included with the truck.

What if you're a contractor, and use quite a bit of the truck's battery on the jobsite to power tools, a radio, a generator, compressor, etc and still need enough juice to get to the supply shop and back most days?

Maybe you take the family camping some place sort of remote one weekend, use the onboard power for a few things while you're there, and then drive back home in time to charge up for the Monday morning commute.

Or, since you live in MN, what about hauling some snowmobile's out on Sunday with towing and cold temps both depleting range, and then need to drive to work the next morning (again in range depleting cold temps).

What if you only have a 1 car garage, and your better half parks inside most nights, but allows you to charge up one night a week or so? After a few days of commuting you probably need more than 'a top off' on the battery. Doesn't it make sense to maximize that limited time spent on the charger?

Maybe you're browsing Marketplace at work one day and see your next project vehicle for a steal? You strike a deal and rush home to grab the trailer and some extra juice so that you can hurry off to 'Lord Knows Where' to get your prize before somebody else snatches up the sweet deal. Wouldn't the ability to add 30 miles of range/hr be pretty helpful compared to just 13 miles of range per hr with a regular 240V outlet?

I think the 80A charger has lots of appeal to lots of different customers, as long as we're talking about the Extended Range truck. Adding the ability to offer some backup power (even if it's significant cost) will appeal to even more people. Sure, these scenarios aren't the most common, but they do happen often enough that truck buyers will base purchase decisions on this type of thinking.

That's like saying once in a while my 1/2 ton pickup is straining.  So I need a 1 ton dually.   
 You are of course right about some people and certain applications.   Since it's a free country the choice is theirs regardless of what others think.  

My Level 2 charger has no problem running off my 100A Service.

My Volt only uses 16A, but we've plugged my buddy's Tesla in for an extended period and it happily pulled the full 30A that my Level 2 will provide.

frenchyd said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Looking ahead a Tesla 3 performance model will be the fast car at a lot of auto tosses.   And hold onto it long enough and it will be the fast car in Vntage racing. 

I typically don't keep cars long. The longest has been maybe 3-4 years. And I don't care about racing, I don't even do HPDE anymore because of the amount of time and money it sucks up. 

z31maniac said:

But that's still a hefty payment for a car that wouldn't be used much since we both work from home. That's why I sold the Miata 9 months ago and haven't bothered to replace it with anything. 

You sold the Miata because you're working from home now and rarely drive, right? That's actually the PERFECT time to have a fun car.

I bought my MINI Roadster in December BECAUSE I was only teleworking now and could justify a fun car. I've put 8k miles on it in about a year, ONLY for pleasure use. (and most of that was with the top down).

I don't get car guys who think teleworking means no fun cars anymore, and that commuting is the only reason to own a car. Telework meant that my car didn't have to be so practical. So now we have an EV for daily errand running, poor weather, and road trips, and the convertible for every other sort of fun driving. Get the Model 3 Perfomance and justify it as a "just because."

Chris_V said:

z31maniac said:

But that's still a hefty payment for a car that wouldn't be used much since we both work from home. That's why I sold the Miata 9 months ago and haven't bothered to replace it with anything. 

You sold the Miata because you're working from home now and rarely drive, right? That's actually the PERFECT time to have a fun car.

I bought my MINI Roadster in December BECAUSE I was only teleworking now and could justify a fun car. I've put 8k miles on it in about a year, ONLY for pleasure use. (and most of that was with the top down).

I don't get car guys who think teleworking means no fun cars anymore, and that commuting is the only reason to own a car. Telework meant that my car didn't have to be so practical. So now we have an EV for daily errand running, poor weather, and road trips, and the convertible for every other sort of fun driving. Get the Model 3 Perfomance and justify it as a "just because."

Oh, it's not that I think telecommuting means no fun car. But I literally put about 900 miles on it in the 11 months I had it, basically the only time it was driven was a nice Sunday drive to brunch or around the lake. 

This part of Oklahoma (OKC) doesn't have a bunch of fun roads close by like Tulsa does. So driving around straight city streets and highways isn't all that much fun. I still plan on picking up a fun car again next year. Likely wait for the '23 BRZ, but may spring for the new Z. 

But financing a $50k car that would get driven maybe one full charge per month seems silly. So a $1000 payment + insurance = at least as much as my $1100/mortgage (which includes insurance/taxes/etc). And the '18 Mazda 3 will paid off next year with less than 45k miles on it.

 Hopefully that illustrates why I think it's silly, for me at least. 

z31maniac said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Looking ahead a Tesla 3 performance model will be the fast car at a lot of auto tosses.   And hold onto it long enough and it will be the fast car in Vntage racing. 

I typically don't keep cars long. The longest has been maybe 3-4 years. And I don't care about racing, I don't even do HPDE anymore because of the amount of time and money it sucks up. 

That is your choice.  I bought my MGTD in 1962.  That's coming up on 60 years now.  ( that works out to $5 a year assuming it's worth nothing and ignoring what the restoration  cost in 1974) 

As for racing. I love it.   Again it's been 60 years of a hobby for me.  ( first race car was a 48 Buick straight 8 hobby stocker )  Paul Newman was racing well into his 80's and I'd like to race until they start digging my grave) 

   I'm sorry, I digress. An EV is potentially a high performance car and if not at least inexpensive commuter.  A Chevy Volt, or Bolt certainly meets that standard and no one on this site claims otherwise. 
     All the objections I hear are just people who are reluctant to change.  

Battery info as I slowly learn.

I just made it out to my shop to clean up. I have not bern out there in a while and it has been very cold. My favorite MP3 player has a deformed lithium battery. I am assuming, but I do not really know, that it froze. The plastic case has bend damage, but no heat damage. It is probably 8 years old, but has gone months without use, before.

As I think about the nice-to-have features of a hybrid, it occurs to me that some late model vehicles (Toyota Highlander as of a half dozen years ago) seem to be still running NiMH batteries. This is way down on range performance per pound, but much better cold weather survivability. For a "roll my own hybrid" solution, I think that may be my path forward for enjoying places that get deep snow.

Does anyone see something I am missing?