Hacker News Reader

Comment by fshbbdssbbgdd | Hacker News Reader

It seems like you are comparing a theoretical modern EV to the terrible efficiency of the old LLV. They didn’t choose to continue buying the old LLV, they are buying a vehicle with a new ICE. So the comparison makes little sense.

View on HN

Repair and maintenance are probably far more expensive than the gas costs, especially as a government contract. Gas prices will also increase as demand falls of a cliff over the coming decade.

Electric wins on all fronts in cost, simplicity, and city health

I doubt maintenance & repair costs be more expensive for an ICE engine. The actual engine part requires little maintenance: occasional oil changes each year, spark plugs every five years, and maybe a belt in 10 years? I guess brake pads might be more common, but those are still a once every few years thing and inexpensive.

All other common repair items would the same for an EV: suspension, various ball and CV joints, tires, AC, body damage, sensors, bushings, etc

I sometimes try to find an article I’m sure I read here at hacker news. It said something to the effect that the top ten wearables on a ICE car, measured by revenue in the auto shop market, don’t even exist on an electrical vehicle.

Well that’s hard to believe, unless you pedantically itemize every tiny little thing. For example, a single oil change typically requires a new oil filter, a new crush washer on the drain plug, oil, possible additives, and sometimes an air filter swap. So that’s five items right there, but we’re still talking only 20 minutes of work and $50 of maintenance.

Ye ... my experience with old cars is that the ICE is not the main time or money sink.

Thinks like drive axis, suspension parts, wheel bearings, brakes etc is common with EVs - and those fall apart.

The timing and generator belt headache is replaced by two selfdriven motors/pumps on EVs for the oil or water cooling system and servo. Hardly less mentainance and more expensive parts.

The main thing is that most EVs are new so most have not had their exposed systems beaten out of spec and turned into rust yet, I assume.

Smooth delivery of power has surprising downstream effects. The wear on ball joints and tyres for EVs can be significantly less due to not having as much jerk (derivative of acceleration) from their motor.

Wear on tires and ball joints are more due to increased weight and high torque from zero RPM.

https://www.fleetowner.com/equipment/tires/article/21147010/...

Not sure why you thought otherwise.

Cited article is about _potential_ torque loads and the need to design for it, and does not address light duty typical use case for mail delivery.

Jerk causes chatter (slippage) between parts and can significantly reduce designed life. Electric motors are amazing at smoothing out discontinuities. Nokian has stated EVs are easier on tyres for this reason.

In this case for short-distance batteries I estimate battery pack mass of 150kg more than ICE equipment. Increased mass would not have a major impact on ball joints and tyres, these loads will be designed in.

There are literally hundreds of sources you could find for how EVs have worse wear.

I have no idea what you're on about with "chatter" without specifying any specific part of a drivetrain...

Like your whole comment reads like someone trying to apply extremely general theoretical concern while handwaving away actually connecting it to practical application...

And where are you getting the idea that:

a) the weight difference will only be 150kg. These things can end up doing 50 miles with a heavily loaded truck in high heat. They'll need the same cooling systems the ICE does, they'll need battery packs over-provisioned to meet their 25 year life span mandate.

b) even 150kg wouldn't increase weight. I don't know what you think "designed in" means. It means either make the parts beefier so that they can withstand greater wear before replacement, or it means replace parts more... neither option erases the problem.

ICE or EV obviously they're going to design the suspension to handle the curb weight + occupants and cargo but adding to the curb weight will have the result of making something more expensive. Doesn't really matter if you're paying for it upfront or later, you're paying for it.

My Spec Miata's suspension alignment was designed with my weight in mind and literally every pound counts. Even the weight of the gas in the tank opposite me can have a noticeable effect on how the suspension sits, which in turn affects tires wear.

The same thing plays out on a "normal" car in much slower motion

My comment only addressed wear on components, and specifically mentioned tyres and ball joints. I am not making a statement on upfront costs. I’m also not considering behavioural changes of users when switching to electric motors.

There is no reason an efficient ICE can't have cheaper maintenance than an EV.

In this day and age, reliable ICE drivetrains are pretty much a solved issue if you're not trying to make tons of horsepower (which they're not)

Most of the maintenance with a modern ICE has nothing to do with the drivetrain. Tires, brakes, suspension components, filters, all things that EVs still have (brakes get a respite from regen, but the extra weight takes the savings back for the tires).

Oil changes with modern synthetics and low performance demands can be 15k+ apart.

Then there's the fact you can get an ICE drivetrain repaired anywhere and fuel up anywhere.

The cost of building up a repair and charging infrastructure alone would probably have killed any savings.

This is not an anti-EV post, but it is an anti-antiquated-ideas-about-ICE post.

> brakes get a respite from regen

The brake cylinders might seize instead. The pads and disks are quite cheap to replace.

How many private cars actually change brake systems because of braking too much and not environment attrition.

Decreased demand would tend to result in reduced prices, not increased prices.

The laws of supply and demand only work that way if supply is limited, which is very often not the case. A lot of production benefits from economies of scale, where fixed overheads are dwarfed by unit costs. In such cases, decreased demand results in reduced production, which results in the loss of economies of scale as production overheads remain the same or similar, thereby increasing in magnitude relative to unit costs.

Maybe it costs ten gajillion dollars to produce one litre of petrol, but twenty gajillion dollars to produce one bazillion litres of petrol.

We are thousands of times over capturing economies of scale in gas production, we support thousands of independent drilling and refining sites.

Only instantaneously. In the long term supply decreases to meet decreased (now niche) demand which decreases duty cycle on operations, hence increasing per unit cost.

Refined petroleum products will certainly not be niche within a decade. So much of global transportation simply can't swap out ICE with electric now, or in many cases ever. Huge swaths of the globe lack the electrical grid infrastructure to entertain even small moves in that direction. And huge numbers of drivers in countries with adequate infrastructure can't plug in at home due to living in apartment complexes, urban street parking, etc. Electric transport is a great growth area but it will not make gasoline niche any time soon.

More likely the decreasing cost of electric transportation options will have downward competitive price pressure on gasoline.

I have seen one concern expressed as potential imbalance in demand for different refined components. For example, if demand for diesel were to hold steady, but for gasoline diminish, to some degree gasoline potentially becomes a leftover pollutant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com