Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwbas1c | Hacker News Reader

I do most of my long trips in my Model 3 in the winter, to go skiing. I usually do ~300 miles round-trip in a day. Here's what I do:

I leave my car plugged in overnight, in the "normal" charging mode.

While I get dressed, I turn on extended range mode and turn the heat on. This warms up both the car and the battery. It usually takes me about ~20 minutes to get dressed.

I stop at a Supercharger to use the bathroom.

If I can, I grab meals at a Supercharger.

Most of the time, I don't need to "wait" while the car charges, usually because I'm in the bathroom or waiting for food prep. If I do need to wait, it's usually about 5 minutes. Thus, total stopping time is about as much as a gas car.

The only limitation is that there's waaaay less Superchargers than gas stations. The only time I really had to wait a long time at a Supercharger was when I went to a ski area with a charger, and because it was early season, there were no lifts / shuttles to the parking lot with the charger. (Otherwise I'd have been able to drive home without charging.)

Edits: I have a 2018 long-range. It got a total of 307 miles new, now that it's 3 years old it's total range is ~280. (This is very close to the 2022 standard range, BTW.)

I get about 2/3rds of stated range in cold weather. I drive with the heat at 68, and I use the but warmer for a few minutes. I try not to exceed 75MPH on 65MPH roads, or 80MPH on 70MPH roads. Where I drive, often traffic exceeds the posted speed limit.

View on HN

Sounds like you own a horse more than a car. If I have to plan my day around waking my horse up, feeding it breakfast, stopping so it can rest at a supercharger, arranging my bathroom breaks to suit its needs ... I would rather own a car.

I'm at work right now. I have not seen green grass since early November. It's currently -12c. Predictions for next week are lows below -20c. We had a good two months below -30, with a couple weeks touching below -40 in the mornings. Last year I had to drive to work once at -47c. My tiny Honda lives outside in the elements but always starts without complaint. It gets me to work each morning without fail. (Fyi,-40c is the same temp as -40f. -12c is about +10f)

An EV would also get you to work each morning without fail, unless you are 200 miles from work. It doesn't even need to start up.

My nearest airport is 200miles away, 400 for the trip. I will be making that drive next week to pickup a work college.

I believe that Tesla and every other lithium-using EV only rates their cars to -30c. Below that might void a warranty, a financial risk I cannot afford. And I shudder at the concept of DRM deciding to brick my car because it is "too cold to drive". That nightmare is coming at us soon. I will then be in the market for a snow machine, which are regular on major roads in my area when the weather is really bad.

I think the current guidance is not below -30 for more than 24 hours because the battery coolant will freeze and then everything blows up.

Based on your weather reporting. I would stick with ICE. As heat isn't free on an electric car in general. So, at the more extreme ends of the spectrum it will be hard to beat ICE

In our town (about 15,000 people, about 1/2 military-related) there are only a handful of EVs, and only two Teslas. Everyone knows who owns them. They all hibernate through winter in warm garages beside giant ICE pickup trucks. They are just fashion statements rather than 24/7/365 daily drivers. EVs are not an option for those of us who cannot afford multiple vehicles.

The chart in that OP only goes down to freezing. Where I live it hasn't gotten up to freezing this winter but four or five days. It's been single-digit or subzero for months.

Likely that EV is not going to work here, not reliably. There's something to be said for ICE.

They might be reliable, but with reliably poor performance. A battery-powered EV relies on chemical reactions and all chemical reactions are sensitive to temperature. Hot or cold, it will always be an issue for everyone beyond socal.

It certainly would need to run for a bit to thaw out the window and warm the passenger compartment. One cannot just push start and drive off in climates with actual frost and snowfall.

Wow so a lot of people go out and warm their cars up before they leave for work. I have done it on days where it's not even below freezing... You're really exaggerating the amount of work it is to warm up the Tesla.

And it also sounds like you're in a place where an EV doesn't make sense. They don't make sense for everybody, but that doesn't mean they aren't fine for the majority of people who drive. So don't buy an EV. I'm not sure that your argument makes sense for most people. I've never even experienced -40, or anything close, and neither have most people that I know.

The difference is that people warm up their car for comfort, not necessity. At sub-zero temperatures a modern gasoline-burning car[1] doesn't need to warm up for more than a few seconds, at least once it is properly started. The only practical reason to let them warm up before moving is to get some heat into the passenger compartment.

[1] The issues regarding diesel in winter is a whole other discussion. Diesel fuel is longer molecules and gets very thick in cold. Diesel cars/trucks/generators can have real issues in winter.

But enough people do it for comfort that my last two cars came with remote start as standard.

You're being too negative saying starting your car early is the same as taking care of a horse, which undermines your point - it makes you look anti-EV and less sincere.

I warm up my Pete car for engine longevity.

That was a bigger thing in the past. Once upon a time engines were made with different metals that expanded/contracted at different rates. Then is was a good idea to let the engine get all up to the designed temp before putting any load on the engine. And carburetors were sensitive to temperature too. But modern engines with modern tolerances are all built out of one metal, mooting most of the reason behind letting the engine warm up completely. I wouldn't go racing on a cold engine, but running at 2000rpm driving slowly won't do more damage than idling at 1500rpm. Some even argue that doing so will get the engine up to temperature more quickly, reducing wear.

New engines are however made en masse out of alu which expands more than iron/steel. The argument that driving reduces wear makes little sense to me since whatever you do outside of sitting in neutral (fast idling if need be/not already programmed into the ECU) is increasing stress on the components that are not (optimally) lubricated and at a tighter than optimal clearance. Then again manufacturers know people can't even wait 30 seconds so engines are designed with that stress in mind so it's not the end of the world.

Most of the car manuals for the last few cars I've owned (VW Passat, Kia Rio) all state to avoid excessive idling in general. Cylinder wash from unburnt gas at idle as the car warms up being the main culprit in engine damage. It rarely gets below 20F or so here so at most I start the car and give it a few seconds to get oil moving and once I see the revs come down its careful sub 2.5K rpm driving as the car warms up.

Weren't the excessive idling warning introduced as an emissions thing? Correct me if I'm wrong. Just did a little search and found a nice compilation of user manual info regarding startup procedure [1] and they all pretty much go on about wasted fuel.

[1]https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/pub61263.pdf

Engines are lubricated almost immediately. The oil pump is typically camshaft driven, so it's only a matter of seconds before everything is lubricated. In addition, modern oils tend to "stick" to parts better and don't drain off as easily. It takes quite some time before they're completely dry.

As far as the material, at one time engines had components of various materials. Blocks of cast iron, heads or intake of aluminum. Now as you state, they are mostly aluminum. While it may expand more than steel, the majority of the components are going to expand at the same rate, unlike in the past.

Oils are definitely better but I really don't believe the marketing in winter. At low temperatures even modern oil has high viscosity. Combined with tight bearing clearances I firmly believe in waiting a bit to be sure everything is nicely coated. Maybe I'm just paranoid from horror stories of dudes getting on their bikes and ragging them right off the bat, seizing the engine.

I mentioned the aluminium mainly because piston slap came to mind. More slop, more slap. It's better than everything twisting though.

I use full synthetic engine oil for cold weather startability, primarily.

> The only practical reason to let them warm up before moving is to get some heat into the passenger compartment.

Which can be pretty critical for safety - my breath fogs the windows if I don't let the engine warm up for at least a couple minutes before driving when it's -20C.

This makes no sense to me. I drive at or around those temps all the time. Sure today it was only -16C but it has been like that for forever now. Like the GP since about November. Some breaks with warmer weather, some stretches of -25C for weeks on end.

I have yet to have my breath fog up the window even if I start the car and drive off right away.

Of course it's cold. Of course the radio display is sloooooow. You can feel how much slower releasing the clutch is. Can't get into first gear at all unless the car is fully stopped either. So rolling stops need to use 2nd gear.

Make sure you don't use the washer fluid. Scrape everything free. Even with pure "-40" fluid you will get it to freeze and you will have to wait or use the wiper fluid constantly until things get warm. Have the blower on de-fog for the windshield and even if you don't wait even a second before driving off you should have no issues at all. Even the cold moving air is enough to keep things fog free. And defog actually runs the AC too, not that it's needed when the cold outside air you're blowing onto your windshield there has much need to be dehumidifierd.

Not sure what to tell you. I do all those, obviously, I live in a place where I also experienced -25 for couple weeks straight straight (and never anywhere close to -40). Agree on clutch and LCD, agree on not using washer fluid and scraping the windshield properly, and I'd add on lift your wiper blades now that the sun has some heat as your wipers will easily freeze on top of the mini-greenhouse that is your dash. But if I hop in my car and drive away immediately, the windshield will be foggy before I've gone a km - regardless whether I have the compressor (defog) on or not.

It is necessary to let my internal combustion van warm up for at least a minute on a cold day, otherwise the steering and brakes feel heavy to me. Plus, I don’t like to think of the damage being done to the engine cylinders if I drive without letting the oil warm up. And it takes many seconds just to start.

Either way, it is not my experience that you can drive a combusting car “seconds” after ignition.

This has not been necessary for quite some time. With modern tolerances in manufacturing, it is not necessary, even wasteful (burned gas and small amounts of wear that add up over time) to warm up a vehicle.

It may have been another story at long ago with larger gaps between rings, differential expansion of materials, newer oil formulations and so on.

With my daily driver 1995 Grand Prix (which just a few weeks ago bit the bullet, non-engine related), I never, even in the coldest weather let it sit idling warming up. Most mornings even around 0F, I turned the key and drove off. It died with ~289,800 miles. It did not consume any oil or coolant, the spark plugs are clean as new.

In fact, driving off easy will warm the engine up faster than letting it idle.

My partner’s 2017 Subaru asks us with an indicator to let it warm up on cold mornings.

Interesting, I have never seen such a thing. Perhaps it's more for comfort than mechanical reasons?

My Tesla auto warms up every morning on a schedule. If I didn't set the schedule it's literally a button tap on from my phone. That's a far cry from burdensome.

Sounds like you don't live in Canada.

Also sound like they don't live in Botswana. So?

"I've never even experienced -40, or anything close, and neither have most people that I know."

I can easily say that most of the people I know haven't not experienced -40, it just depends where you live.

Vancouver Island&lower mainland, as well as the eastern half of Ontario, southern half of Quebec, all of NB, NS, PE, Newfoundland - none of these places experience -40, and contain give or take 28 of Canada's 38 million people

I wonder what you call the southern half of Quebec. Quebec goes way up north. Southern half of Quebec would exclude almost the entire population of Quebec.

But let's assume you meant stuff close to the US and Ontario border vs. Quebec City. I had to find something where Weathernetwork had data and for some reason the border crossing town of Lacolle, which is about as far south as Quebec goes showed no data but Hemmingford is the same height, just a bit to the west:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/monthly/quebec/hemmingf...

Now you are right in that -40 is not a temperature that will be had for a long time, that is relegated to the prairies. It also does not happen every year. It's seldom that it dips that low. But here some close enough for my taste examples:

Jan 24: -33.3C Jan 26: -34.1C Jan 27: -34.1C Jan 28: -32.7C Jan 29: -33.1C

And then if you look at the Laurentians, which is a popular ski and overall winter destination for the millions of people living in and around Montreal and both of these are basically just going "straight up north" (as in highway direction, not map direction) from Lacolle, these temperatures become more frequent and it's more likely to dip that low more often. And all of these are way south of Quebec City. Climate change is not helping, i.e. more historical data would be better. Weather network doesn't seem to have that.

I definitely know more people that have experienced -40C in their life than ones that don't. I have and I do not live in the prairies.

> I definitely know more people that have experienced -40C in their life than ones that don't. I have and I do not live in the prairies.

Yes, the -40 is what I was using for my differentiator. You provided an example of a location that didn't come anywhere close to -40.

Pretty much everyone I know complains about it being -40 out, but it never actually is (they're all talking about -30 with a strong windchill). It is particularly egregious to me, as the difference between -30 and -40 is as significant as -15 (standard chilly) and -25 ("ok I hope there's no wind today"). And when it comes to a technical discussion about something like battery temperature, those few degrees matter a lot.

> I wonder what you call the southern half of Quebec. Quebec goes way up north. Southern half of Quebec would exclude almost the entire population of Quebec.

Yes, I was not being geographically precise - I was mostly referring to the St Lawrence Valley, which contains most of Quebec's population. Obviously Saguenay, etc would have experienced -40. I basically just checked environment Canada's historic records for Montreal, Quebec, and Trois Riviere. It wasn't intended to be terribly precise.

Fair enough on the exact temp and like I mentioned, yes it seldom is actually -40C. I've seen it on a thermometer tho and like you say, you really just don't want to be outside. I don't live in that place though, so no idea how often that would happen.

Environment Canada is a good one, didn't think of checking that for historical data. Makes sense tho come to think of it. Another thing is the real local conditions vs. actual weather stations. I've seen quite a difference between my thermometers (that all agreed with each other within a degree) vs. what various online sources provided for our location. The next actual weather station where I am is ~15km straight line distance from here for example.

Most of Canada doesn't live in Canada, if your standard is "months of -30 and lows hitting -40". That's pretty much constrained to the prairies and the territories.

> sounds like you're in a place where an EV doesn't make sense. They don't make sense for everybody, but that doesn't mean they aren't fine for the majority of people who drive. So don't buy an EV

Sounds great, the problem is when law makers get involved - BC is banning the sale of ICE vehicles within the next 10-15 years, the law is already on the books. Plenty of real cold places here, not to mention the fact the our electrical grid will never be able to keep up

> Sounds like you own a horse more than a car. If I have to plan my day around waking my horse up, feeding it breakfast, stopping so it can rest at a supercharger, arranging my bathroom breaks to suit its needs ... I would rather own a car.

This is without a doubt the best take I’ve read on EVs. Certainly they fit many use cases, and certainly they’ll improve to fit more in the future. In the meantime, the hoops that some fans jump through to justify their suitability for tasks at which they’re inadequate are amusing.

Did you read the article? Barring a few exceptions, most EVs have 88%+ of their range in freezing cold weather. Those EVs also tended to have longer range in general.

I read the article. A 41% loss when I need to run the heater is totally unacceptable.

>> AAA found the loss in driving range could be as high as 41% with the heater on full blast.

Here's the AAA article in question [1]

Notice, that these are all 2018 or older models. Why does that matter? Because battery capacity has increased and newer models have heatpump heaters (which are roughly 4x more efficient).

This is the primary difference in range in the opening info-graphic on the page. Why for lower temps some cars only lost 10% of their range while others lost 40%.

But further, WHY is 40% range loss "totally unacceptable"? What is acceptable? How do you deal with range loss of ICE from overly hot weather?

[1] http://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/AAA-Electric-Vehicle...

> Notice, that these are all 2018 or older models

I've never bought a car newer than 5 years old. And it looks like the EVs that handle cold better tend to be the more expensive models and brands. So the problem here isn't so much that no EVs work in the cold, as that it reduces the economic feasibility of using an EV for many people.

> But further, WHY is 40% range loss "totally unacceptable"?

Because EVs often already have smaller ranges to begin with, have fewer charging stations than gas stations, and take longer to charge, and a significant decrease in range exarcerbates those problems, and may make an EV completely impractical in some situations. Hopefully all those things improve in the future.

Are there any concerns about cold weather charging?

You don't stop at gas stations when you are doing road trips? You don't plug your car into a heater to make sure it will start (I assume yes because you are hitting -40C. That requires an engine block heater or housing for your "horse"). You don't take your horse to the vet every 3000 miles to give it dialysis (oil change).

To heat up my Tesla, I pull up the tesla phone app and tap the "preheat" button. That's it. I keep it plugged in when it's at home (takes me less time to plug it in than it takes you to fill up your car with gas). While my tesla charges, I'm usually doing other stuff at home. It's completely neglected (the poor thing). All in all, the ONLY time I might wait additionally on my EV vs a gas car is when I go on longer road trips (450+km). That's somewhat rare.

And I don't have oil changes, engine problems, etc. The only maintenance I've done are new tires, car washes, and window wiping fluid. This is with a 2018 long range model 3 with 110,000km.

My tiny tesla doesn't have a "start", it is effectively always on. I've never worried that I can't put it in gear and start driving.

Why heater for engine block in -40? I haven't heard about such thing, the only issues I know is for Diesel engines in low temperatures but gasoline ones?

Most people still opt for block heaters in cold weather (<-20). They used to be standard on all cars sold in Canada/Alaska. I use mine when a plug is available. It keeps the engine oil from thickening, making it easier to crank the engine during start. Imho a battery heater is more effective as it increases the cranking power available to the starter. Many use both.

Battery heaters can be fairly important at temps that low just to prevent it from an early death.

Never buy a car with a high PSI turbo then. I owned a 2010 Mazdaspeed3 and a 2016 WRX and I felt like they both always needed an oil change.

Any horse owners here who can speak up? Major differences that come to my mind are exercise requirements, socializing time, health care (grooming and vet care), stable cleaning, needing a stable at the work location. And how far can you take horses in -40c?

>socializing time

I've now come to realize that part of me looks forward to having a chat with people at charging stations in 2035.

Well, my dad tells stories of their "self driving wagon". Take the wagon (or sled in the winter) in to town, do a bit of shopping (or picking up mail order goods) and head home in the evening. The horse knew the way home (in the dark even). I'm hoping some day to have a car as smart as my dads horse. :-)

> And how far can you take horses in -40c?

I had to check, because I know Siberians don’t just stay inside all Winter in the bad old days (actually I learned from “Gift of the Raven” that siberians travel less nowadays because they can only carry so much gasoline, whereas old fashioned beasts of burden are self refueling aka eat grass under the snow)

Check out this winter adapted horse, complete with antifreeze coursing through its veins:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutian_horse

Where you live, EVs only make sense if you have a very big battery.

Edit: The reason to heat up an EV's battery on a cold day is for regenerative breaking. You don't have to, the car just drives a little weird until the battery heats up otherwise.

> Sounds like you own a horse more than a car

Yes, long trips require more planning. That will change once high speed chargers are more common.

> Sounds like you own a horse more than a car

The situation is extremely different for day-to-day driving.

When I owned a gas car, I had to put gas in it about once a week. Each stop at the gas station was about 10 minutes out of my way. Now I charge in my garage and I never need to go out of my way to buy gas.

I also don't need to deal with oil changes.

My gas car was a lot more of a "horse" than my Tesla!

> The only limitation is that there's waaaay less Superchargers than gas stations.

Hopefully this changes with time, but it is a GIANT limitation. Skiing around Arizona I have noticed all the chargers have EV's parked in them. I want to buy a used BMW i3, but the convenience factor is still a ways off for me. My Prius gets awesome mileage and I run the heater full blast in the winter and A/C full blast in the summer.

I have half a mind to put a giant DIY battery in the trunk. Wire in a dead man switch of some kind and run on pure 18650's around town... gonna flirt with the idea a bit more. My DIY electric bike has probably given me a bit more confidence in the area than I need, but YOLO!

Most i3s I’ve seen have the range extender engine equipped

Capped at like 2 gallons of gas iirc because otherwise it wouldn’t qualify for the EV incentives

> "Hopefully this changes with time, but it is a GIANT limitation."

Look at it this way: There'll never be less chargers than on the day you buy your EV. Charging networks are expanding constantly, with more sites, bigger sites, and faster chargers. So the utility and convenience of an EV is only going to improve. If you can get by with the chargers that exist today in your region, it'll be even better in the future.

A Shell gas station near me in London [1] recently reopened after a renovation, and guess what? There's no gas pumps there anymore. Just ultra-rapid charging points.

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/LM4h7Xz8pwWxcPkeA

There will never be fewer electric cars either. I think this is a significant concern as whether demand will outstrip suply.

Hopefully charging stations will be lucrative enough, or hopefully good supply/demand competition kicks in -- few charging stations and high demand --> high prices to recharge --> more charging stations.

> Hopefully this changes with time

Looking at Europe, nearly every gas station is starting to get a fast charger installed (along major roads, at least). A couple of years ago there were waiting lines at super chargers during the yearly migration to the Alps, but I haven't seen any similar stories this year.

Sounds like EV stations are the modern day equivalent of building a railroad. Right now gas vehicles are able to traverse from EV location to location and EV range is limited to specific pathways and regions (unless you have a portable charging station of some sort). As more EV stations become available all the isolated EV regions will become connected. Regarding the heat, it’s too bad they do not have an auxiliary battery that maintains charge within resistance coils around temperature sensitive parts of the EV setup. If the aux battery goes dead it’s dead until the next charging station. It shouldn’t draw too much current to keep internal temperature around 40-50 degrees f.

> unless you have a portable charging station of some sort

Teslas come with those by default. You just plug them into a socket and you're charging. Sure, it's slow, but it works. I used it to charge overnight at my hotel during a winter sports vacation, for the trip to the slopes and back. (I even brought a power meter so I could pay for the power I used.)

The trip to the area was over 1000km and took all in all about an hour more than it did with my diesel car. Like the previous person said, the only major downside was being less flexible in stopping locations due to Superchargers.

"A portable charging station" is actually just a power cable. For basic overnight charging all you need is a 30A 240V circuit (the same kind of wiring as for induction cooktops and electric dryers) and the right plug. That won't fast-charge anything, but it'll get you about 20 miles of (temperate) weather range per hour plugged in.

> Most of the time, I don't need to "wait" while the car charges, usually because I'm in the bathroom or waiting for food prep. If I do need to wait, it's usually about 5 minutes. Thus, total stopping time is about as much as a gas car.

If I'm driving 300 miles in a day, I'm probably not stopping (definitely don't need to gas up partway). If it's 300 round trip (two 150-mile legs), I'm definitely not stopping for gas or bathroom.

Are there not places to charge on the slopes? I'd think this would be a useful perk for resorts to offer, and shuffle cars between. Perhaps they don't have the energy to spare?

For a 5 hour drive (300 miles at 60mi/h), you should be - driver fatigue is a thing.

> Are there not places to charge on the slopes?

Unfortunately, I only know of two ski areas that have them. One ski area with a charger is about a mile away from a supercharger, and that supercharger happens to be next to an awesome restaurant. The other one is the place that I mentioned where they didn't have snow at the parking lot with the charger because it was early season.

Sounds like a pain. I have a regular Hyundai Elantra and get significantly more than 300 miles of range on a tank, winter or not. And I live in the mountains in Canada, where there's some roads that don't have a gas station for 150 miles, never mind charging stations...

On a road trip there is some inconvenience yes, but for the rest of your driving life there is less gasoline station trips you have to make. Say you road trip twice a year and have to waste 45 extra minutes in an EV. But in an ICE vehicle you also have to make about 30 gas station trips a year, where with an EV you just plug in at home and never do that, and no oil changes as well.

So the relative total pain depends on how often/long you road trip.

We have two EVs and in the last 18 months they were charged away from home a grand total of 5 times. Even if they were full 45 minute charge session and not just quick top ups to get home, that's significantly less time that people spend going to the gas station each year with one vehicle.

That’s a interesting metric I never thought about it. How much time pre year spent gassing up? that’s crazy to think about.

Most people will say you spend less than 5 minutes at the gas station, but that's about as accurate as the "30 minutes to assemble" instructions that accompany flat pack furniture. It also doesn't take into account how you adjust your route or schedule to accommodate the frequent stops.

With at home EV charging you just plug it in when you get home and unplug the next day.

I "raced" a couple neighbors home one night from an outing and arrived home first. I joked with them that it was on top of "stopping for gas" and sent them a text of my car plugged in.

This. I hear people demanding at home fast chargers. It doesn’t make any sense. Most folks look at ev’s though an ICE lens. Most don’t understand that you wake up every day with a full battery. it’s a complete routine change, most don’t see it

I really, really want the Aptera [1] folks to succeed. Their vehicle is so aerodynamically efficient and relatively light that you'll be able to charge overnight on 110v and get about 130 miles of range - pretty much all the range I need 99% of the time. It would be a lot of gas station time saved. (being able to charge on 110v and get an appreciable amount of range everyday would also mean less stress on the grid if lots of people were to adopt vehicles like this).

[1] https://aptera.us/ (yes, they are overplaying the "driven by the sun" part, though maybe in a very sunny climate you could get possibly 20 or 30 miles of range if you park it in the sun and for a lot of folks that's all they need most days)

I would love one as well, but at 43 years of age I have seen so many weird, eco car ideas come, and none of them take off. Then Tesla came along and offered a big, powerful EV and everyone went wild. There is a lesson there.

Sure, but I think the Aptera fills a sizeable niche, though. Or possibly multiple smaller niches: 1) people who want a really efficient vehicle for whatever reason (mostly environmental reasons). 2) people who would buy it as a 2nd vehicle. 3) Renters who want an EV but only have access to 110v. ... (probably other niches I'm not thinking of at the moment). They claim to have ~15,000 pre-orders and folks on their forums are pretty much in the "Just take my money!" mode.

Yes, it is only a 2 seater, but if it's a 2nd car that's not much of a limitation. And it does have a pretty surprising amount of cargo space.

I think you're also missing 4) people who want a car that looks and feels like it came straight out of a scifi movie.

> but at 43 years of age I have seen so many weird, eco car ideas come, and none of them take off

I imagine you forgot about the Prius; the weird eco car that really took off.

The target audience for the doorstop Prius (and also the Nissan Leaf) was that overlap of super eco friendly people and attention seekers. Like the old joke, how do know someone is vegan||into-crossfit? They'll tell you.

The latest models of the Prius and Leaf aren't that visually striking, though some of that might come down to being desensitized.

What sets the Prius and Leaf apart from the Aptera, and other weird cars, is that they're actually practical and functional. They're hatchbacks that you can cram a boggling amount of stuff into, and as commuter cars they just work. The Aptera looks completely impractical for anything other than transporting 2 people and a purse from point A to point B. Where would you fit a suitcase in that thing?

They seem to be getting a lot of groceries in the back of that thing [1], also shows them putting in a surfboard. It has a lot more space than would seem to be the case from looking at the exterior.

> Where would you fit a suitcase in that thing?

Unless it's some kind of huge suitcase where the smallest dimension is 3+ feet... in the back cargo area under the hatchback.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWukO5TLssM (about 15 seconds in)

Thanks, I didn't see that video showing off the hatchback. The photos make it look like the back is pretty narrow both vertically and horizontally.

It's not huge, but it's definitely a lot more than I first imagined.

Of course it's not a real car so will crumble in an accident and probably have terrible handling.

Handling seems fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wi9xEVH6mU crash testing apparently in progress or soon to be.

You know there's only 3 wheels so it'll be classified as a bike and not need to meet car standards, right? And in that video there's shocking amounts of leaning and back tire slippage at low speeds...

> Say you road trip twice a year

More like I have no commute and road-trip once a week...

Right, for that kind of scenario an EV is currently not a good idea for most people.

EVs are not for you at this point. Luckily most people do commute, and don't take weekly road trips.

The issue is, often when you’re driving to places to ski you’re also going massively uphill. So you have the combination of cold + uphill driving which really takes a hit on the range. I can’t say I haven’t felt range anxiety in those situations….

Sure, but it is downhill on the way home. I always get a kick out of it when travelling motorway speed downhill and the battery is actually charging from the regenerative braking.

> I always get a kick out of it when travelling motorway speed downhill

You'd probably get some giggles out of the OG Nissan Leaf. We have a steep hill near our house and it takes 6 miles of range to get up one side, but I've gotten 10 miles back coasting down the other side.

That's a rounding error for a Tesla but 10% of the charge on a Leaf.

I drive a 2013 Leaf.

But it probably takes 15 miles to get back up the other side and you only get 3 coasting down the original side. All in all for a given horizontal distance flat terrain is the most efficient

> I get about 2/3rds of stated range in cold weather. I drive with the heat at 68, and I use the but warmer for a few minutes. I try not to exceed 75MPH on 65MPH roads, or 80MPH on 70MPH roads. Where I drive, often traffic exceeds the posted speed limit.

Thats pretty good and far better than I got in my 2019 M3 in the winter. I think the differentiator here is you are using plugged in power to heat the battery rather than the battery itself.

Its a clever and effective hack, but ultimately it shouldn't be a requirement.

Kind of. I wouldn't say it's a hack but more so just using energy from a charging source like your house to heat the battery versus the car using the battery charge to heat the battery. TBH it's kind of standard operating procedure for EVs and not really fundamentally different than "warming the car up". It's why Tesla for example has a scheduling feature (they really need an ad-hoc one though) where they anticipated that you'd commute, say doing a 9-5, and your car would be heated, battery heated up, etc. by the time you leave for work based on your schedule preferences.

Ultimately it's not a huge deal for most of the country (weather-wise) and it'll be yet another item that will improve over time.

> I have a 2018 long-range. It got a total of 307 miles new, now that it's 3 years old it's total range is ~280.

I feel like the range estimate is as much about individual driving habits as it is battery condition. I noticed the max range was reporting in the low 280s up until December when I had to make eight ~100 mile trips on the highway and suddenly my range is reporting in the high 290s.

Mine was built in fall of 2018 and at delivery it got around 300+ miles, a year or so later Tesla released an OTA update that boosted range to 315+. We only charge to 80% and the reported range at that charge as slid from 275 down to 235 miles over time. Today it reports a max charge of 294 miles.

I drive on the less efficient side. Our driving habits since the pandemic have been almost exclusively short 10 mile trips under 50mph on very hilly terrain. We charge about once or twice a week up to 80%, usually only putting 50-100 miles back on with each charge.

I've noticed the same thing with our Nissan Leaf. When it was my 50+ miles a day commuter it reported 80-100 miles range but now it's only driven short trips a couple times a month it reports 75 miles range. That being said, the reported range on that car fluctuates with your farts so idk...

> I try not to exceed 75MPH on 65MPH roads, or 80MPH on 70MPH roads. Where I drive, often traffic exceeds the posted speed limit.

Here I was thinking you were in the Seattle area until I read the last bit.

In ~3 years it lost only 8.7% of battery capacity, looks good. I wonder whether capacity loss accelerates with time or it's linear.

The Capacity variable when looking at the calculus of EV's sucks, quite frankly. On a depreciating asset (supply chain/covid issues notwithstanding) (vehicle)) you are buying something that degrades and depreciates the entire purpose of the asset in the first place. TCO factoring in loss of range over time is probably something you just have to ignore if you really want to buy an EV. Otherwise, most people would just buy a Prius or a Corvette.

Offset by the fact that you get many of the good properties of a Prius and a Corvette at once, and don't pay for gasoline or oil changes. (electricity is generally an order of magnitude cheaper)

As well, anyone buying an EV today, should the worst happen and they need a new battery after ~8 year warranty, the prices of batteries has been steadily dropping.

> electricity is generally an order of magnitude cheaper

Electricity is not an order of magnitude cheaper.

You can figure on getting about 4 miles per kWh. Where I live, the kWh delivered is $0.20, so $0.05 per mile for energy.

A gas car getting 25 miles per gallon with a gallon costing $4.00/gal (slightly more than it costs around here) costs $0.08 per mile for energy.

If you could buy electricity for half of my price, you'd be $0.025 per mile, meaning a 25mpg car would need to be buying $6/gal gas in order for electricity to be an order of magnitude cheaper.

For what it's worth, energy prices in kentucky have us paying on average 9 cents per kilowatt. That gets you within striking distance of an order of magnitude. It's a significant savings either way.

Gasoline is only going to get more expensive. Electricity _might_ get cheaper

We’re only .12ish per kWh in Florida but they have an time based plan where I can get .08 off peak hours which would be ideal for an electric.

(I may have the math wrong it’s kind of confusing … https://www.fpl.com/content/dam/fpl/us/en/rates/pdf/res-jan-...)

Don't feel bad-- it's incredibly confusing. We have solar, and I have no idea what we actually "pay". We over-generate in the summer months but re-use those credits at a different value over less-sunny months.

But the kicker is, in the winter, production is so low that even our off-peak charging hits tier 2 so the rates are thrown all out of whack.

It's probably actually cheaper to charge our car at a supercharger in november/december/january than to charge at home, tbh.

Where I live, gas is $1.56/L and electricity is around 11¢/kWh.

So assuming 6km/kWh and 100km/9.5L, the difference is a factor of 8. Also, my car is not nearly this fuel-efficient—I get about 14L/100km.

I assume you made those prices up as unrealistic, but it just depends on where you live.

Going by the prices you listed, I assume you are also from quebec ? Keep in mind gas prices in parts of the US are much lower than ours, and 14L/100km sounds like a lot for a sedan (which is the type of vehicule that gets 6km/kwh). So I don't think their figure is that unrealistic for the average North American use case, and you have to factor in the fact that we just have exceptionally cheap electricity too.

Degradation is nonlinear and front-loaded. Expect to lose 5% by 25K miles, another 5% off the top by 125K miles, and then the final 5% no sooner than 200K miles (data is sparse after that). https://insideevs.com/news/525820/tesla-battery-capacity-ret...

It's not as simple as that.

"keep in mind that time, temperatures and other factors (like how long the battery stayed at a high state-of-charge levels) also influence the battery degradation."

I have yet to even put 25K on my Model3, but I have already lost 9% in my 3.5 years of ownership.

That just about lines up with our experience. Our 2014 S 85 has about 200k miles and we're sitting at 13.5% degradation. 230 miles vs. the 265 it was rated new.

Right battery degradation over time is also a serious consideration and why I'm still in the "buy max range" camp. I've lost 9.5% range in 3.5 years. So you need to multiply all these factors out. Rated Range x Battery aging x weather impact x speed impact x % charge

So for example on a 310mi rated Model 3 after 4 years, taking a 75mph highway road trip in winter it might look like

310mi x 0.9 battery age x 0.9 weather x 0.8 speed x 0.9 charge % = 180mi..

This roughly checks out with some of my Christmas road tripping recently. Another reason I'm never buying a "240mi-ish" EV and target buying something closer to 400mi than 300mi, and only with access to a huge charging network like Tesla in 2022.

> and only with access to a huge charging network like Tesla in 2022.

There are a lot more non-Tesla chargers than Tesla Superchargers.

Though they're slower and more expensive.

Whoever decided 7.2 kW J-1772 chargers should exist needs to be dragged out back and shot. They did a lot of damage to EV adoption by feeding the notion that EVs take several hours to charge. Chargers below 150 kW shouldn't exist, IMO.

Yup, our 2018 Model 3 LR with 60k miles on the clock can charge currently claims it can charge to 296 at 100%, but I don't think I've seen over 284 recently. I have no idea what it was when new. 300 maybe? 306 sticks in my head? But then at some point they "unlocked" more range and said it was either 315 or 325, but I can't remember. I do remember for a fact the most I've seen on a 100% charge was 314mi, but that was after 6+mo of ownership so it wasn't a new pack at the time.

> While I get dressed, I turn on extended range mode and turn the heat on.

What is "extended range mode" sorry? I'm aware of preconditioning, setting departure time etc.

Generally you don't want to charge the battery past about 80% unless you're going to use it right away. So the "extended range" charge would be charging past that 80%.

That is where you fill the battery to 100%, this puts extra wear on the battery so you want to minimize the amount of time at 100%.

So how bad is 30 minutes at max charge vs say 24 hours?

https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-808-how-to-prolong-...

Lithium Ion batteries don't like being completely full or completely empty. They're happiest somewhere in the middle.

Teslas allow you to set the max charge %. The interface has changed over the years but it's more or less a slider allowing you to set the max charge %. In it's latest incarnation you can do 1% increments, in the past it was less granular.

When you plug the car in, an interface appears on the main display allowing you to adjust the % as well as charge rate and some other things. You can also adjust the settings from the App on your phone.

Typically you'd set it to X% and forget about it until you were planning a road trip then you might crank it up to 100% either the night before or while sitting at a supercharger.

> Teslas allow you to set the max charge %

This should really be a standard OS feature on Android phones.

It's been alleged that when some EVs report 0% charge, they're just preventing you from over draining the battery and damaging it. I wish they'd put bounds on both ends of the battery like that.

Absolutely correct. IIRC teslas (at least older models, not sure about recent ones) use standard 18650 lithium ion cells. Discharging those past a certain voltage (~2.5v?) will permanently damage the cell and is prevented by the battery management subsystem.

In theory it is possible to keep driving the car past a "0%" charge, assuming the safety systems could be bypassed, but you would never get the same range/acceleration on subsequent charges. Worst case would need am entirely new battery pack.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com