The cost of driving an EV?

[Throwcomputer]

But also brings up a big negative of driving a mega-truck (of any flavor, Ford/ Dodge/ GM started this mess). It's tough to park a mega truck in the city without being a bit of a jerk.

And that's why i have my nimble vintage two stroke Vespa for most casual Manhattan trips where I'm not transporting equipment.

Even more nimble than every other car, and incredibly easy to park!

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

...And in California, motorcycles can filter and lane-split, which is awesome downtown.

-Crissa

 

[ajdelange]

I don't know what the rated consumption for the 3 is so I'll have to WAG it at 240 Wh/mi. I don't know what the CT's consumption is either but it is thought that it will be around 450 Wh/mi. Thus for a 100 mile trip on level road I'd guess the 3 would use 24 kWh and the CT 45 kWh.

Ouch, I didn't think I would take that much of a hit driving slow in the back roads. I am sure I will see real world numbers by the time it is my turn.

It's a substantially bigger vehicle. It only stands to reason that it is going to take more energy to move it, that it is going to take longer to charge it and that energy is going to cost more. On a range basis though we have twice the consumption but twice the battery. 100 miles will be 20% of the CT's range. OTOH on a 3 LR+ it is 28% of the battery. So from that perspective you are better off with the CT.

 

[Diehard]

It's a substantially bigger vehicle. It only stands to reason that it is going to take more energy to move it

Bigger is matter of size and weight. At low speed the effect of size should be minimized. As for weight, as you noted, during acceleration more energy is used to build a larger momentum so when you hit the breaks you recover more energy as well which is why I mentioned efficiency of regen. If regen mechanism is 100% efficient, there is no penalty for driving heavier CT. The question is how much loss there is in that recovery and proportion of coasting to stop and go. Hypermiling is the new 0-60 for me.

I can’t weight to test these myself. By then I am sure all you guys have already posted your experience with CT.

 

[ajdelange]

All your comments about regen and weight apply equally to the 3. The 3 has rated consumption below 250. The CT will have rated consumption > 400. Why would you think the physics for the CT will be different from those for the 3? And regen efficiency is perhaps 80% - not 100%. And the CT is going to be pushing a bigger tyre over substrate which is not going to be so favorable to low consumption as, presumably, the smooth bitumen on which the 3 operates. I don't, of course, know what the actual consumption for the CT will be relative to the 3 but the ratios of their rated consumptions is a good place to start.

 

[Crissa]

All your comments about regen and weight apply equally to the 3. The 3 has rated range below 250...

-Crissa

 

[2000prerunner]

I have a 8,000 Watt solar system (paid off). Average (year round ave ) output per day is 42kwH.

The Tri motor is set to have 200kwH battery that will take it 400 miles (safe under est.). That means per day I make about 1/5 the energy to fully charge a battery = 84 miles a day. That's 84 miles a day free. That will be more than enough free daily driving from my case.

I currently drive a 2018 Tacoma on 32" mud tires. I drive a lot (40-80 miles ave). So with that same range of 84 miles, I would pay around $20 daily. hummm seems like the electric cyber truck is a no brainer in my case b/c of my paid off solar. Free energy , or ~$400 bucks a month... duh.


Also more savings: No oil change, auto trans service or T-case service. Also no need to spend $3,000 bucks on a differential re-gear just so I can run 35" tires. Also no need to buy aftermarket skid plates and rock sliders. also no need for carwash and paint preservation.

Also being less pissed off because: Waiting for Transfer case (or getting stuck) between 2H-4H-4L. Can run air-condition in enclosed parking lots or garage with out building up deadly fumes. Not worrying about turning off the AC going up steep grades in summer. not waiting for engine to heat up in order to defrost windshield so I can drive to work in the winter. no power loss at high altitude. not worry about flooding engine or getting trans fluid all over the place when I roll over. Can hear nature, when I off road creep on animals.


Oh dang I forgot towing. When I tow 2-4,000lbs with the Tacoma that shit is slow as hell and my fuel consumption drops down to 12 mpg. I do mostly 50 mile tows (boat + home projects) so the free range will be great and most importantly I'm not going to be as slow or worry about cooking my auto trans ...that poor torque converter

 

[ajdelange]

I have a 8,000 Watt solar system (paid off). Average (year round ave ) output per day is 42kwH.

The Tri motor is set to have 200kwH battery that will take it 400 miles (safe under est.). That means per day I make about 1/5 the energy to fully charge a battery = 84 miles a day. That's 84 miles a day free. That will be more than enough free daily driving from my case.

It isn't free in the sense that you are presumably using at least a part of that 42 kWh per day to do something else such as run a washer/dryer, lights, computers, refrigerator etc. I don't mention HVAC because you list locale as San Diego where you don't need any of that. If you use the total solar production to charge the car you will have to buy the electricity for the dishwasher etc. from someone else. Now if you are an average American you drive 27 miles a day which requires only 12 kWh. The solar wouls, thus, be free charging only if your total consumption now is 42 - 12 = 30 kWh/da or less IOW if you have excess capacity left over to charge the truck.

If your solar system is only covering part of your electric bill (as is the case in much of the country because of heat and A/C requirements) then you must add enough capacity to it to cover the mileage you intend to drive. If you do that there will be no marginal increase in your electric bill and you can say you are driving free.

Example:

• Electricity from the utility costs 13¢ a kWh. The truck takes 0.45 kWh/mi. The cost of a mile is 5.85¢/mi

• I add solar panels which supply, over the year, 50% of my total consumption (including BEV). That means 1 kWh now costs me 6.5¢ and the cost of driving a mile is 2.93¢.

• Not happy with this I add more panels so that the system covers 90% of my consumption (including BEV). A kWh costs now 1.3¢ and the cost of a mile is 0.585¢

• Still not satisfied I add still more panels so that the system generates as much or more than I consume (including BEV). Now the charging for the truck is free.

How far you can go in this progression is going to depend on the utility. I'm at the 3rd bullet now. If I went to the last step they would get nothing from me except their puny $6.58/mo "Distribution Service" fee. I don't think they'd be happy with that.

 

[GnarlyDudeLive]

The battery replacement for a Model 3 is about $16k. The average price for electricity in the US is 16¢ a kWh. A Model 3 does about four miles per kWh. So even if a battery failed at 100,000 miles, that's an additional cost of $17,000.

Let's say a similar car to the Model 3 uses 30mph (it's lower, actually), it would consume 3.3 thousand gallons of gasoline in 100,000 miles.

So in this absolutely ridiculous situation, that has never happened, the Model 3 would cost just less than double for 'fuel' than the gas car. If that Model 3 batter makes it to 200,000 miles, it will cost less. If gas prices climb again, the Model 3 comes into parity sooner.

But that's not how this works. At all. Batteries rarely need to be replaced if they got to 100k miles in the first place. EVs have lots of other things they do cheaper, like they don't have engines that wear out, or fluids that need changing frequently. They reach parity of cost within a few years and don't take ten to do so.

-Crissa

All true but EV do tend to eat up tires fairly quick with the added weight and added acceleration. Folks need to really add that into maintenance costs that will exceed that of an ICE counterpart.

On the flip side an EV battery that needs to be replace because it has dropped below a usable charge capacity, say 70%, still has a long and $valuable$ secondary life in stationary backup utility such as DIY home power backup solution where weight to storage power is a non-issue.

 

[Crissa]

EVs don't eat up tires.

Drivers do.

I'm used to eating up tires, I drive a tuner in the mountains ^-^

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

I kind of need to back off a bit on mileage comments for my Model Y because there is a pretty huge caveat.

When I'm doing long trips, I almost always have 2-3 bikes on the hitch rack. That almost certainly has a huge effect on my range.

I get ~200-220 miles... with 2-3 mountain bikes.

I'm hoping that with the CT and being able to tuck the bikes under the vault I'll be able to get closer to rated range.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Crissa]

I get ~200-220 miles... with 2-3 mountain bikes.

That's still pretty good! That's what, 2/3rds range? I can get that with them on on the roof of our Mazda.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

All true but EV do tend to eat up tires fairly quick with the added weight and added acceleration. Folks need to really add that into maintenance costs that will exceed that of an ICE counterpart.

On the flip side an EV battery that needs to be replace because it has dropped below a usable charge capacity, say 70%, still has a long and $valuable$ secondary life in stationary backup utility such as DIY home power backup solution where weight to storage power is a non-issue.

Personally, I doubt I will ever replace the battery in an EV.

If your car has a range of 300 miles and drifts down to 70% capacity, it still has a range of 200 miles. That's plenty for a lot of people and the car will fetch a decent amount in the used car market. There are lots of older Teslas selling for $30k+ with ranges in that ballpark.

So you sell your used Tesla with a lower capacity battery for $25k-30k and you add the $16k you would be spending to upgrade the battery, then get a newer car with a full capacity battery. It will likely cost you more than just replacing the battery, but you get a new car in the deal, not just a new battery.

 

[Ogre]

That's still pretty good! That's what, 2/3rds range? I can get that with them on on the roof of our Mazda.

In my old Jetta I think my mileage dropped from 24MPG to 20MPG (what a pig, never buy a turbo!). Roughly a 17% drop in fuel economy.

Sounds like more typical is 275 miles going at 70MPH on the highway. So I'm losing about 18% from typical.

My original frustration, that you never get rated range still stands, just the numbers are a bit off.

 

[Ogre]

On the flip side an EV battery that needs to be replace because it has dropped below a usable charge capacity, say 70%, still has a long and $valuable$ secondary life in stationary backup utility such as DIY home power backup solution where weight to storage power is a non-issue.

Now I'm picturing a redneck in 50 years with 3 beat to hell Cybertruck's on blocks in his yard daisy chained together with thick gauge wiring duct taped to tee posts between his home and a bodged together solar array.

Cyber Redneck

Sponsored