EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

Amusing electric car stats

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Amusing electric car stats

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

bitrex
Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:45 pm   



On 01/07/2019 01:21 PM, George Herold wrote:

Quote:
My pappy said "Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop
drivin' that hot rod Lincoln!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU1lV7Qkm4o

Now here's some quality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACO-HXvrRz8

I've seen a video or two about Jay's E-25 steam car before, that's a
wild piece of engineering. The drivetrain is sort of like an electric
(not really) but it has huge torque across its power band and at all
speeds, the crankshaft seems to be more-or-less the rear axle with the
pistons mounted directly to it and feed steam into that, no transmission
or torque converter or any of that.

and the antidote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y16ObVRvgOE


NT


but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to the
Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what it
is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU

https://youtu.be/nZJHAqo-cCY

Grin. Fine, hand crafted, German engineering.

George H.


US and Asian compact car offerings in the 1980s were better but not by a
whole lot.

<https://jalopnik.com/behold-the-glamorous-shitboxes-of-the-1987-chicago-auto-1670120281>

I had a friend in college in the mid 1990s with a Pontiac/Daewoo LeMans,
it only burned half a quart of oil every couple of weeks so it was a keeper.


Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Monday, 7 January 2019 19:19:29 UTC, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 01/07/2019 01:21 PM, George Herold wrote:

My pappy said "Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop
drivin' that hot rod Lincoln!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU1lV7Qkm4o

Now here's some quality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACO-HXvrRz8

I've seen a video or two about Jay's E-25 steam car before, that's a
wild piece of engineering. The drivetrain is sort of like an electric
(not really) but it has huge torque across its power band and at all
speeds, the crankshaft seems to be more-or-less the rear axle with the
pistons mounted directly to it and feed steam into that, no transmission
or torque converter or any of that.

and the antidote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y16ObVRvgOE


NT


but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to the
Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what it
is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU

https://youtu.be/nZJHAqo-cCY

Grin. Fine, hand crafted, German engineering.

George H.


US and Asian compact car offerings in the 1980s were better but not by a
whole lot.

https://jalopnik.com/behold-the-glamorous-shitboxes-of-the-1987-chicago-auto-1670120281

I had a friend in college in the mid 1990s with a Pontiac/Daewoo LeMans,
it only burned half a quart of oil every couple of weeks so it was a keeper.


The Yugo gets a lot of stick, but it did the job and didn't pretend to be anything more than it was, a bottom end car. A mid range used car was a better buy.

Ladas also got a lot of stick but were better than many of the western equivalents.

1.1 in a little fiesta size box is more than enough. I had a 1.1 in a mid-sized estate once - sluggish but drivable. A 1.3 in a Fiesta was a bit wild.


NT


Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Monday, 7 January 2019 17:36:22 UTC, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 01/07/2019 07:39 AM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 04:29:17 UTC, bitrex wrote:
On 01/06/2019 11:12 PM, tabbypurr wrote:

It sounds like it has a lawnmower engine.

2 cylinder 18 horses. Wasted spark, not even a distributor.

My first car was a used 1989
Chevrolet Celebrity with the base-trim engine, a single-point injection
"Iron Duke" four

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Duke_engine

It's the same engine used in the Grumman LLV mail trucks still in common
use here in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV

It probably made about 100 hp on a good day. Best I can say for that
car's performance is "unremarkable."

Who needs remarkable?


NT


Well, a Calvinist doesn't, that's sort of what a Calvinist would argue.
Life is a curse and every puerile desire of the flesh must be denied to
render it pure, and that includes the desire to enjoy driving a vehicle
that moves in a straight line any quicker than it has to by necessity.

Lol. If there's one thing USians talk a whole lot of nonsense about it's car horsepower.


My pappy said "Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop
drivin' that hot rod Lincoln!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU1lV7Qkm4o

Now here's some quality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACO-HXvrRz8

I've seen a video or two about Jay's E-25 steam car before, that's a
wild piece of engineering. The drivetrain is sort of like an electric
(not really) but it has huge torque across its power band and at all
speeds, the crankshaft seems to be more-or-less the rear axle with the
pistons mounted directly to it and feed steam into that, no transmission
or torque converter or any of that.

and the antidote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y16ObVRvgOE


NT


but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to the
Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what it
is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU


The Trabant, as bad as it is, is luxury compared to some things that have seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Sulky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars, some of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 wheels it didn't need a clutch.

It's a shame Doble went out of business.


NT


Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:45 pm   



On Monday, 7 January 2019 19:52:58 UTC, tabby wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 17:36:22 UTC, bitrex wrote:

but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to the
Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what it
is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU

The Trabant, as bad as it is, is luxury compared to some things that have seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Sulky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars, some of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 wheels it didn't need a clutch.

It's a shame Doble went out of business.


NT


The Trabi was a 1950s economy car for a poor communist country with an economy trashed by the war. It was a car people struggled to afford. With that in mind it was quite an appropriate design in its day. The west grew richer by the 90s, East Germany not so much. People still struggled to buy even Trabants. The Trabi shocked people by illuminating the economic differences between so-called communism & prosperous capitalism.

Given the economic circumstances in East Germany, a western style car would not have been appropriate in '90 or '91, it would be expensive for mass transport. Perhaps a 3rd version of the Trabant may have made more sense: an economical engine, better brakes, a fuel gauge and getting rid of the plastic-wasting fins.

The Trabi got the country motorised. Wherever you look at cars that did that, they weren't good, they were just corner cutting cheap. Ford T, Austin 7, Polski Fiat 127p, Beetle etc.


NT

amdx
Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:45 pm   



On 1/7/2019 11:25 AM, Winfield Hill wrote:

Quote:

Hey, I didn't get any check. What am I missing?



Come on Win. I thought you were an intellectual.
The check, you're missing the check! Smile

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm   



On 1/7/19 3:26 PM, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 19:52:58 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 17:36:22 UTC, bitrex wrote:

but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to
the Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a
one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what
it is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU

The Trabant, as bad as it is, is luxury compared to some things
that have seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly
named the Willam Sulky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of
those. Or many pre-1910 cars, some of which are little more than a
pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for
example - someone decided that by having 5 wheels it didn't need a
clutch.

It's a shame Doble went out of business.


NT

The Trabi was a 1950s economy car for a poor communist country with
an economy trashed by the war.


And then stripped by the Russians.

It was a car people struggled to afford. With that in mind it was quite
an appropriate design in its day. The west grew richer by the 90s, East
Germany not so much. People still struggled to buy even Trabants. The
Trabi shocked people by illuminating the economic differences between
so-called communism & prosperous capitalism.
Quote:

Given the economic circumstances in East Germany, a western style car
would not have been appropriate in '90 or '91, it would be expensive
for mass transport. Perhaps a 3rd version of the Trabant may have
made more sense: an economical engine, better brakes, a fuel gauge
and getting rid of the plastic-wasting fins.

The Trabi got the country motorised. Wherever you look at cars that
did that, they weren't good, they were just corner cutting cheap.
Ford T, Austin 7, Polski Fiat 127p, Beetle etc.


By the end, the Trabant and Wartburg sold for less than the cost of
materials. IOW there was no rate of pay or of interest where they'd be
a paying proposition.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
https://hobbs-eo.com

Lasse Langwadt Christense
Guest

Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm   



mandag den 7. januar 2019 kl. 21.26.47 UTC+1 skrev tabb...@gmail.com:
Quote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 19:52:58 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 17:36:22 UTC, bitrex wrote:

but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to the
Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what it
is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU

The Trabant, as bad as it is, is luxury compared to some things that have seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Sulky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars, some of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 wheels it didn't need a clutch.

It's a shame Doble went out of business.


NT

The Trabi was a 1950s economy car for a poor communist country with an economy trashed by the war.


it was introduced September '57 so it was barely there for the 50's

Tauno Voipio
Guest

Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:45 pm   



On 7.1.19 22:57, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
Quote:
mandag den 7. januar 2019 kl. 21.26.47 UTC+1 skrev tabb...@gmail.com:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 19:52:58 UTC, tabby wrote:
On Monday, 7 January 2019 17:36:22 UTC, bitrex wrote:

but the award for worst _production_ car should probably go to the
Trabant, yeah? The Hoffmann seems mad but not mad for a one-off :)

The Trabant engine look "made on a budget" but well-made for what it
is...can't say the same about the rest of the car

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq5jTB9S5GU

The Trabant, as bad as it is, is luxury compared to some things that have seen varying levels of mass production. Take the aptly named the Willam Sulky. I'd be sulky if I had to rely on one of those. Or many pre-1910 cars, some of which are little more than a pallet, park bench & lawnmower engine. Briggs & Stratton Flyer for example - someone decided that by having 5 wheels it didn't need a clutch.

It's a shame Doble went out of business.


NT

The Trabi was a 1950s economy car for a poor communist country with an economy trashed by the war.

it was introduced September '57 so it was barely there for the 50's


There were IFA and Wartburg before the speed cardboard (Trabant), all
from EMW (Eisenacher Motoren-Werke).

The IFA had a resemblance to pre-war BMW.

--

-TV


Guest

Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:

It will be interesting to see if electrics are fads among enthusiasts,
or have genuine broad appeal. Currently, the electric buyers are
mostly virtue-signalling greenies or enthusiasts who enjoy calculating
ranges and charge times and such.


Lol! You can always count on John Larkin to provide an opinion on any topic based on as little knowledge he has no matter what.

For sure the early adopters of electric cars are willing to accept various degrees of inconvenience in the early days of acceptance.

What John refuses to accept is that EVs have enormous advantages over ICE vehicles and in some 10 to 20 years will come to dominate the market. This is not idle speculations, just ask the big iron auto makers. They all see the writing on the wall and are spinning the wheel to turn their ships. It will take some time and they understand that a large charging network will be needed. They also understand that the market is not centered in Detriot, but rather Shenzhen. That's where Tesla's next factory will be built and that is where GM will be selling their new EVs first.

While EVs have been bought to date mostly by "enthusiasts" it doesn't mean the cars are without value. I've had mine for over 6 months now and the main issue I have is that I am not a typical user in that nearly every mile I drive is part of a trip away from home. While most people will drive locally or take trips to places where they can charge overnight (it's not at all hard to find hotels with level 2 charging) many of my trips are to places with only 120 volt charging.

By the time all the big iron manufacturers are selling EVs (in three or four years) here in the US, there will be sufficient charging facilities and driving an EV will be a snap.

There is some real irony that John Larkin's biggest use case against driving an EV is his infrequent drive to Truckee where there are already two charging stations and a third is being built. Further there are half a dozen places to charge on the way. He acts like it is an incredible imposition for him to stop along the way for 10 or 15 minutes which many people will want to do anyway on a long drive. I just drove a trip of the same length last week in the cold and made it no problem. His trip would start in the much warmer SF climate and driving a model 3 he would make it to Truckee with 16% to spare.

Rather than learn something about driving an EV, John just wants to denigrate things he knows nothing about.

Rick C.

++ Get 6 months of free supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209


Guest

Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 1:57:15 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:03:56 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:21:01 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 3:17:20 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:11:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:54:27 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:54:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 01:03:36 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:
On 01/03/2019 10:23 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/2/2019 10:47 PM, bitrex wrote:

snip

Charger congestion could become a limiting turn-off for electric car
owners. Gas fillups are faster than recharges, but gas stations are
already crowded in many places; the real estate is more valuable as
apartment buildings.

But everybody has electricity in their homes, and their garages. The average car spends 95% of its time parked, and it makes sense to charge it where it's parked, rather than having to make trip to a charging station.

That's a great idea, often expressed as ABC, "Always Be Charging" and can work all the time except when it doesn't. Your support of it is based on a single data point and as we've discussed before this is not enough information to adequately characterize the situation.

Which "single data point" would that be?

You don't like the whole idea, but that makes you a single data point.

You know exactly what I am talking about,

You may like to think so, but it's revealing that you didn't identify the "single data point" that you are claiming that you have identified.

but you like to turn to personal attacks when you don't have a valid argument.

There's nothing particularly personal in asking you to identify the "single data point".

Your 95% number seems to be the be-all factoid that justifies so much of your thinking regarding EVs. Unfortunately there is a *lot* of information that single datum hides.

An average is single data point.

Ah, so you do know the single data point in question.

After you identified it. It wasn't actually a single data point - as I went on to point out.

The UK average is 96.5%

The Australian figure seems to be 96% - 80% of the time parked at home, 16% of the time parked away from home.

95% parked does seem to capture a common feature of car ownership.

We did discuss how the proportion of cars parked changes during the day, and I dug up a link that showed that proportion didn't drop much below 88% at any time - it may look as if every car in the area is on the road at peak commuting times, but the figures don't seem to support that point of view.

And none of that is relevant because the car is not useful at a single point in time. It is only useful when used to store energy to be released at another time. If the car is in transit at the time its energy is needed, it can't be used. Energy needs to be drawn at peak usage times. This is exactly when the availability drops to the minimum for commuting cars.

BTW, what does "not much below 88%" mean? Does that mean 87%? 85%? 80%, 50%?

The devil is in the details.

I posted the link at the time.


What time?

Besides, the cars being available is a much deeper issue than just the cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful argument other than that people "will be compensated". You ignore the issue of people not wanting to degrade the most expensive and fragile part of an EV. There is no reason why it would be less costly for the power company to rent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use. The idea of time sharing is invalid because they are a consumable rather than a capital item.


Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-drivers-are-on-the-road-at-any-given-time-in-the-US

You didn't really read this link did you? It doesn't say what you think it says or at least not what you are claiming.

You don't seem to have understood what it says. Peak road occupancy isn't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.


We have discussed this and I believe your facts are not accurate. Wasn't that based on accident rate or something not necessarily a constant?


Quote:
There are two big issues, the first of which is travel. Tesla built a Supercharger network to support travel.

But few people spend much of their driving time "travelling". You seem to be unusual in this respect.

Not at all relevant. Nearly everyone takes trips that will require refueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care about recharging on route.

But there aren't many of them, so en-route recharging doesn't demand massive investment in charging stations.


That is clearly an assumption on your part. If it weren't a massive investment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand? Instead there are very few level 3 chargers in this country other than the Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems with that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remotely similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large investment required.


Quote:
The other issue is that many locations simply don't have facilities and there is no money to add them. L2 chargers are all that is needed for long term parking (home and work are the most useful). But many home locations simply don't have facilities to support this and it can be very expensive to add them.

For some undefined value of "very expensive". It's just another power point.

One example I know of a person was quoted $8,000 to install a 240 volt outlet by her parking space in the garage of the apartment building in CA. CA has a law that says the apartment owners have to accommodate her needs, but at her expense. They seem to be cooperating with her, but the work involved is not like adding a 20 foot wire and outlet in your garage.

That's exactly the physical work involved. It's easy enough to find ways to charge more on top of this - mechanically robust protection for what otherwise would be an accessible power lead, and an insurance inspection to prove that putting in the wiring is not going to set up any kid of potentially hazardous situation. Lazy apartment owners know how to get out of inconvenient requests.

Not sure what your point is.

Your $8000 estimate isn't the cost of doing the job. It was inflated to allow the apartment owner to avoid doing the job - with enough margin built in to allow them to over-compensate themselves if the person had persisted.


You don't know what you are talking about. That was the quote from an installer to the consumer. The apartment owner had nothing to do with it. In fact, once they went through the process of learning the law which only says they can't refuse the installation but puts all the expense on the renter, they realized their was little down side and a lot of upside for future renters, so they were very much behind it.


Quote:
There are other issues involved in such situations. One that would concern me is vandalism. Because they are new I would expect some percentage of them to be damaged or the cables stolen for the copper inside. But then I'm not an apartment type of person.

The parking area in our garage is not accessible to the public. There are key-operated gates on every entry point. The cars stored there are a lot more valuable than a length of copper cable.

Your point? Kids don't see a car as a "new" thing. There is also not much they can steal for money. I know of people stealing copper for the monetary value and I know of chargers that have been vandalized.

So?


Charger vandalism happens.


Quote:
$8,000 on top of a $35,000 car is a bit rich for a lot of people.

It isn't going to be the price an average car owner would have to pay..

No, exactly, it can't be averaged. It would need to be paid by the individual who lives in the apartment. There are lots of those.

And if electric cars get to be common-place, apartment owners are going to have provide charging if they want to be able to rent their apartments to people who need to keep a car.


Yeah, so? Common place is a long way off. In the meantime it is an expense borne by the renter. Even if the apartment owner installs the charging equipment it is a significant expense which is what you were contradicting.


Quote:
So charging at fast chargers is a better option for them just like they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

Scarcely parallel examples. The average garage has a light circuit. Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car charger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

You seem to be smoking dope on this one. I've already explained it to you.

Your "explanation" is more a a restatement of your irrational prejudice.


Lol. You always fall back to non-arguments when you lose a point. So we can just stop discussing this issue. Adding even L2 charging is a long way from "free". Sure it can be done. In a new installation it is likely much less money, but as a retro fit it is not inexpensive.


Quote:
Go back and read why you are off target here.

I'm not addressing your particular obsession? What a pity.


Lol. Ok, further confirmation.


Quote:
Even though they are just 240 volt circuits someone has to pay for the electricity so they need to be connected to the appropriate meter and then run to an appropriate parking space.

The current drawn has to be metered - which isn't a big deal - and even parking meters can now recognise regular cash cards.

Yep, some day they will happen. I recall paying $2 an hour to park in Bethesda, MD (a restaurant Mecca). It would be nice to get something for that money. But those meters don't have power.

The local parking meters have enough power to run a cash-card reader. In Canada a parking meter has a low-powered power socket for your car's radiator warmer - and your parking charge pays for that current.

So the problem is solved for Canadian cars parked at public parking meters... after they've increased the power capability ten fold or more.

Would they have laid ultra-thin cable to save money? Cheaper to put load-limitng
resistors in the parking meter, and even cheaper (these days) to put in an active current limiter that turns off the voltage if the load gets too greedy.


Huh??? You mean just don't even try to charge cars? Yes, I suppose that makes sense, but mitigates your point of charging cars from existing meters.


Quote:
Someone would need to pay for installing chargers at each meter. That's a *lot* of money to cough up even if it makes money in the end. It won't happen overnight and in the mean time there aren't good places to charge in general, other than at the fast chargers or at home if possible.

Parking meters already cost $500-$600 each. Smart meters already need a mains electricity supply and the information link to report and verify credit card transactions, and beefing that up to support domestic charging currents isn't going to make much difference to the price - which is mostly digging the holes and filling them in afterwards.

https://www.concordma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1495/Concord-Technology-Memo-PDF

I don't know that all parking meters have power lines to them rather than just having batteries.

Who recharges the batteries?


You mean replace? The same person who removes the coins I expect.


Quote:
But more importantly is the widespread adoption of multi-space meters where you walk to a kiosk to buy a parking permit. Then you would need an extension cord half a block long. They would be stolen.

They might be, if they weren't chased into the ground or the walls. Parking garages have lights, and the copper leads to those lights don't get stolen - it's a known problem with a known solution which you seem to lack the wit to have noticed.


I have no idea what your point is. You just seem to be grasping at anything you can contradict rather than trying to discuss the issue. The problem is installing charging where street parking is in use is expensive. Typical low current L2 charging is 30 amps at 240 volts. That will require a separate wire for each outlet unless a single high current wire is run to multiple outlets such as 3 gauge. The wire has to be run in a conduit and in the case of curb side parking that conduit would be underground requiring digging up the sidewalk or road. The quote for one of these installations was $8,000 and in the discussion thread on the Tesla site no one said this quote was grossly over priced. So figure the average price for similar outlets to be installed is this number and about 10 cars per block, that's $160,000 per block on each street. That is millions just in a smaller city like Frederick, MD of which there are many in the US... so yes, installing conveniently located level 2 charging universally is an enormous expense.

Rick C.

--- Get 6 months of free supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209


Guest

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:45 am   



On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:44:41 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 1:57:15 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:03:56 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:21:01 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 3:17:20 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:11:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:54:27 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:54:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 01:03:36 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:
On 01/03/2019 10:23 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/2/2019 10:47 PM, bitrex wrote:


<snip>


Quote:
BTW, what does "not much below 88%" mean? Does that mean 87%? 85%? 80%, 50%?

The devil is in the details.

I posted the link at the time.

What time?


Beat me.

> Besides, the cars being available is a much deeper issue than just the cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful argument other than that people "will be compensated".

That sounds like a pretty useful argument to me.

> You ignore the issue of people not wanting to degrade the most expensive and fragile part of an EV.

The bodywork of the car is more expensive and much more fragile.

>There is no reason why it would be less costly for the power company to rent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use.

There are going to be more car batteries around (when electric vehicle penetration gets over about 30%) than the utility companies would ever need.

Why should the power company tie up capital in their own battery storage when they can rent car batteries in parked vehicles?

> The idea of time sharing is invalid because they are a consumable rather than a capital item.

People drive cars despite the fact that the cars break when they hit something or get hit. The batteries are consumable only if the car doesn't get consumed in a traffic accident before the batteries wear out.

Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-drivers-are-on-the-road-at-any-given-time-in-the-US

You didn't really read this link did you? It doesn't say what you think it says or at least not what you are claiming.

You don't seem to have understood what it says. Peak road occupancy isn't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

We have discussed this and I believe your facts are not accurate.


So find your own. If you can't find other evidence to contradict mine, your beliefs are mere expressions of irrational prejudice, and posting them is a waste of bandwidth.

> Wasn't that based on accident rate or something not necessarily a constant?

Check out the link. It's based on the incidence of fatal accidents - if you don't like it, find something better.

Quote:
There are two big issues, the first of which is travel. Tesla built a Supercharger network to support travel.

But few people spend much of their driving time "travelling". You seem to be unusual in this respect.

Not at all relevant. Nearly everyone takes trips that will require refueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care about recharging on route.

But there aren't many of them, so en-route recharging doesn't demand massive investment in charging stations.

That is clearly an assumption on your part. If it weren't a massive investment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand?


Who invests in providing services that won't be used or paid for?

> Instead there are very few level 3 chargers in this country other than the Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems with that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remotely similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large investment required.

Of course it's not here yet. Electric vehicle penetration is at about 1% in the US, if rising rapidly, and people have to find the money to invest to exploit the new and expanding market.

Quote:
The other issue is that many locations simply don't have facilities and there is no money to add them. L2 chargers are all that is needed for long term parking (home and work are the most useful). But many home locations simply don't have facilities to support this and it can be very expensive to add them.

For some undefined value of "very expensive". It's just another power point.

One example I know of a person was quoted $8,000 to install a 240 volt outlet by her parking space in the garage of the apartment building in CA. CA has a law that says the apartment owners have to accommodate her needs, but at her expense. They seem to be cooperating with her, but the work involved is not like adding a 20 foot wire and outlet in your garage.

That's exactly the physical work involved. It's easy enough to find ways to charge more on top of this - mechanically robust protection for what otherwise would be an accessible power lead, and an insurance inspection to prove that putting in the wiring is not going to set up any kid of potentially hazardous situation. Lazy apartment owners know how to get out of inconvenient requests.

Not sure what your point is.

Your $8000 estimate isn't the cost of doing the job. It was inflated to allow the apartment owner to avoid doing the job - with enough margin built in to allow them to over-compensate themselves if the person had persisted.

You don't know what you are talking about. That was the quote from an installer to the consumer. The apartment owner had nothing to do with it. In fact, once they went through the process of learning the law which only says they can't refuse the installation but puts all the expense on the renter, they realized their was little down side and a lot of upside for future renters, so they were very much behind it.


The installer realised that they could rip off the tenant big-time, and the apartment owners realised that they could get a bigger kick-back from the installer on future jobs. It's not difficult to make a job look expensive, and if the renter couldn't get alternative quotations they'd be hard pressed to prove that they were being ripped off.

Quote:
There are other issues involved in such situations. One that would concern me is vandalism. Because they are new I would expect some percentage of them to be damaged or the cables stolen for the copper inside. But then I'm not an apartment type of person.

The parking area in our garage is not accessible to the public. There are key-operated gates on every entry point. The cars stored there are a lot more valuable than a length of copper cable.

Your point? Kids don't see a car as a "new" thing. There is also not much they can steal for money. I know of people stealing copper for the monetary value and I know of chargers that have been vandalized.

So?

Charger vandalism happens.


So does every other kind of petty crime. It's not something that can't be coped with.

Quote:
$8,000 on top of a $35,000 car is a bit rich for a lot of people.

It isn't going to be the price an average car owner would have to pay.

No, exactly, it can't be averaged. It would need to be paid by the individual who lives in the apartment. There are lots of those.

And if electric cars get to be common-place, apartment owners are going to have provide charging if they want to be able to rent their apartments to people who need to keep a car.

Yeah, so? Common place is a long way off. In the meantime it is an expense borne by the renter. Even if the apartment owner installs the charging equipment it is a significant expense which is what you were contradicting..


Implausible anecdotal evidence of what sound like a rip-off is exactly persuasive.

Quote:
So charging at fast chargers is a better option for them just like they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

Scarcely parallel examples. The average garage has a light circuit. Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car charger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

You seem to be smoking dope on this one. I've already explained it to you.

Your "explanation" is more a a restatement of your irrational prejudice..

Lol. You always fall back to non-arguments when you lose a point.


You think that restating your irrational prejudice is "proving a point".

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:45 am   



On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:02:38 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:44:41 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 1:57:15 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:03:56 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:21:01 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 3:17:20 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:11:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:54:27 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:54:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 01:03:36 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example..net> wrote:
On 01/03/2019 10:23 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/2/2019 10:47 PM, bitrex wrote:

snip


BTW, what does "not much below 88%" mean? Does that mean 87%? 85%? 80%, 50%?

The devil is in the details.

I posted the link at the time.

What time?

Beat me.


Exactly...


Quote:
Besides, the cars being available is a much deeper issue than just the cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful argument other than that people "will be compensated".

That sounds like a pretty useful argument to me.


And there is the crux of the issue. You believe stuff that you can't support in any meaningful way. There are no small number of plans that sound good on the surface, but fail because the public isn't sure they want to participate. This is one that people will clearly be very cautious about and provides no economic benefit to the power utilities. For the same net costs they can utilize dedicated batteries and be certain they will be available when needed. Or they can base the stability of the grid on an easily spooked populace.


Quote:
You ignore the issue of people not wanting to degrade the most expensive and fragile part of an EV.

The bodywork of the car is more expensive and much more fragile.


Perhaps the Tesla model S or the overly complex model X, but not the high volume produced model 3 and the following autos a system like this will be based on. Heck, the Nissan Leaf barely has enough battery to make the trips it needs to make with little to spare to the utility company.


Quote:
There is no reason why it would be less costly for the power company to rent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use.

There are going to be more car batteries around (when electric vehicle penetration gets over about 30%) than the utility companies would ever need.

Why should the power company tie up capital in their own battery storage when they can rent car batteries in parked vehicles?


They are a capital intensive company. Their compensation is regulated and based on their capital investment. That sounds like a reason why they would hate your plan. Also, they can use other people's capital if they want. The power company can contract with investors to use batteries they build, just like power generation. It's all profit to the utilities who don't compete, they just have to get the regulators to approve.


Quote:
The idea of time sharing is invalid because they are a consumable rather than a capital item.

People drive cars despite the fact that the cars break when they hit something or get hit. The batteries are consumable only if the car doesn't get consumed in a traffic accident before the batteries wear out.


Yeah, I suppose some portion of cars are destroyed before the battery would be worn out. Who banks on that??? You keep raising all the same stupid arguments that make no sense what so ever.


Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-drivers-are-on-the-road-at-any-given-time-in-the-US

You didn't really read this link did you? It doesn't say what you think it says or at least not what you are claiming.

You don't seem to have understood what it says. Peak road occupancy isn't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

We have discussed this and I believe your facts are not accurate.

So find your own. If you can't find other evidence to contradict mine, your beliefs are mere expressions of irrational prejudice, and posting them is a waste of bandwidth.


So because your data is not very accurate, we should accept it until we can come up with better numbers???

Your evidence is invalid based on a prima-facie analysis. Clearly there are a lot fewer cars on the road at 1 AM than at 5 PM. Your data says otherwise. Which should I believe, your data or my first hand experience? Is you experience different? Do you see only half as many cars on the roads at 1 AM as at 5 PM?

In fact, the table lists Sunday, midnight to 2:59 AM as the most accident prone time of the week. I suppose that is also the time of heaviest traffic???

Clearly you are pretty poor at interpreting data.


Quote:
Wasn't that based on accident rate or something not necessarily a constant?

Check out the link. It's based on the incidence of fatal accidents - if you don't like it, find something better.


Better than that? My personal experience which I'm sure closely matches yours says your data is total crap!


Quote:
There are two big issues, the first of which is travel. Tesla built a Supercharger network to support travel.

But few people spend much of their driving time "travelling". You seem to be unusual in this respect.

Not at all relevant. Nearly everyone takes trips that will require refueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care about recharging on route.

But there aren't many of them, so en-route recharging doesn't demand massive investment in charging stations.

That is clearly an assumption on your part. If it weren't a massive investment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand?

Who invests in providing services that won't be used or paid for?


Uh, anyone who sees the service is enabling for the product they are selling... like Tesla... and VW (entirely separate from Electrify America which is in response to their Dieselgate fraud penalty).

https://autoweek.com/article/green-cars/volkswagen-launches-ev-charging-and-energy-storage-group


Quote:
Instead there are very few level 3 chargers in this country other than the Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems with that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remotely similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large investment required.

Of course it's not here yet. Electric vehicle penetration is at about 1% in the US, if rising rapidly, and people have to find the money to invest to exploit the new and expanding market.


Not even 1%. But like color shows and TVs there won't be much EV sales if there aren't good ways to charge them. It's still early days and many chargers will be built over the next few years, but they are an essential enabling component to selling EVs. Tesla and VW get that. GM didn't, so the Bolt has barely sold.


Quote:
The other issue is that many locations simply don't have facilities and there is no money to add them. L2 chargers are all that is needed for long term parking (home and work are the most useful). But many home locations simply don't have facilities to support this and it can be very expensive to add them.

For some undefined value of "very expensive". It's just another power point.

One example I know of a person was quoted $8,000 to install a 240 volt outlet by her parking space in the garage of the apartment building in CA. CA has a law that says the apartment owners have to accommodate her needs, but at her expense. They seem to be cooperating with her, but the work involved is not like adding a 20 foot wire and outlet in your garage.

That's exactly the physical work involved. It's easy enough to find ways to charge more on top of this - mechanically robust protection for what otherwise would be an accessible power lead, and an insurance inspection to prove that putting in the wiring is not going to set up any kid of potentially hazardous situation. Lazy apartment owners know how to get out of inconvenient requests.

Not sure what your point is.

Your $8000 estimate isn't the cost of doing the job. It was inflated to allow the apartment owner to avoid doing the job - with enough margin built in to allow them to over-compensate themselves if the person had persisted.

You don't know what you are talking about. That was the quote from an installer to the consumer. The apartment owner had nothing to do with it. In fact, once they went through the process of learning the law which only says they can't refuse the installation but puts all the expense on the renter, they realized their was little down side and a lot of upside for future renters, so they were very much behind it.

The installer realised that they could rip off the tenant big-time, and the apartment owners realised that they could get a bigger kick-back from the installer on future jobs. It's not difficult to make a job look expensive, and if the renter couldn't get alternative quotations they'd be hard pressed to prove that they were being ripped off.


Again, the actual facts don't agree with your narrative, so you make up your own facts. lol Are you working for Trump?


Quote:
There are other issues involved in such situations. One that would concern me is vandalism. Because they are new I would expect some percentage of them to be damaged or the cables stolen for the copper inside. But then I'm not an apartment type of person.

The parking area in our garage is not accessible to the public. There are key-operated gates on every entry point. The cars stored there are a lot more valuable than a length of copper cable.

Your point? Kids don't see a car as a "new" thing. There is also not much they can steal for money. I know of people stealing copper for the monetary value and I know of chargers that have been vandalized.

So?

Charger vandalism happens.

So does every other kind of petty crime. It's not something that can't be coped with.

$8,000 on top of a $35,000 car is a bit rich for a lot of people.

It isn't going to be the price an average car owner would have to pay.

No, exactly, it can't be averaged. It would need to be paid by the individual who lives in the apartment. There are lots of those.

And if electric cars get to be common-place, apartment owners are going to have provide charging if they want to be able to rent their apartments to people who need to keep a car.

Yeah, so? Common place is a long way off. In the meantime it is an expense borne by the renter. Even if the apartment owner installs the charging equipment it is a significant expense which is what you were contradicting.

Implausible anecdotal evidence of what sound like a rip-off is exactly persuasive.


So you don't like my evidence? Come up with your own! lol


Quote:
So charging at fast chargers is a better option for them just like they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

Scarcely parallel examples. The average garage has a light circuit. Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car charger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

You seem to be smoking dope on this one. I've already explained it to you.

Your "explanation" is more a a restatement of your irrational prejudice.

Lol. You always fall back to non-arguments when you lose a point.

You think that restating your irrational prejudice is "proving a point".


I just know when you are flailing around looking for support. You can be such a trip! Not really much different from JL, except he posts stupid stuff we all can see is wrong, but he doesn't realize it. You post stupid stuff we all can see is wrong and you actually know it is wrong, but don't like losing an argument, so you won't acknowledge it.


Rick C.

--+ Get 6 months of free supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209


Guest

Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:45 am   



On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 12:47:55 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 8:02:38 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 8:44:41 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:01:47 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 1:57:15 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:03:56 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:21:01 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 3:17:20 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee..org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 4:11:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 8:54:27 PM UTC-5, bill.....@ieee.org wrote:
On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:54:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 01:03:36 -0500, bitrex <user_at_example.net> wrote:
On 01/03/2019 10:23 PM, amdx wrote:
On 1/2/2019 10:47 PM, bitrex wrote:

snip


BTW, what does "not much below 88%" mean? Does that mean 87%? 85%? 80%, 50%?

The devil is in the details.

I posted the link at the time.

What time?

Beat me.

Exactly...


Besides, the cars being available is a much deeper issue than just the cars not being driven which we have also discussed and you have no useful argument other than that people "will be compensated".

That sounds like a pretty useful argument to me.

And there is the crux of the issue. You believe stuff that you can't support in any meaningful way.


I can support it, but you don't like the evidence, even if you can't find counter-evidence.

> There are no small number of plans that sound good on the surface, but fail because the public isn't sure they want to participate. This is one that people will clearly

In your opinion.

> be very cautious about and provides no economic benefit to the power utilities.

The capital investment they could avoid by renting access to existing batteries would look like an economic benefit to anybody who knew anything about economics.

> For the same net costs they can utilize dedicated batteries and be certain they will be available when needed. Or they can base the stability of the grid on an easily spooked populace.

You'd have to spook a lot of them, all at once, to make a perceptible difference. This is improbable.

Quote:
You ignore the issue of people not wanting to degrade the most expensive and fragile part of an EV.

The bodywork of the car is more expensive and much more fragile.

Perhaps the Tesla model S or the overly complex model X, but not the high volume produced model 3 and the following autos a system like this will be based on. Heck, the Nissan Leaf barely has enough battery to make the trips it needs to make with little to spare to the utility company.


Your crystal ball is telling all kinds of things that you like to hear.

> > >There is no reason why it would be less costly for the power company to rent auto batteries than to utilize dedicated batteries for grid use.

Capital investment is a cost. You could get interest on the money you would invest in buying batteries.

Quote:
There are going to be more car batteries around (when electric vehicle penetration gets over about 30%) than the utility companies would ever need..

Why should the power company tie up capital in their own battery storage when they can rent car batteries in parked vehicles?

They are a capital intensive company. Their compensation is regulated and based on their capital investment. That sounds like a reason why they would hate your plan. Also, they can use other people's capital if they want.. The power company can contract with investors to use batteries they build, just like power generation. It's all profit to the utilities who don't compete, they just have to get the regulators to approve.


The regulator won't look kindly on capital investment in batteries that utility companies could hire. It's call gold-plating the grid, and doesn't go down well.

Quote:
The idea of time sharing is invalid because they are a consumable rather than a capital item.

People drive cars despite the fact that the cars break when they hit something or get hit. The batteries are consumable only if the car doesn't get consumed in a traffic accident before the batteries wear out.

Yeah, I suppose some portion of cars are destroyed before the battery would be worn out. Who banks on that??? You keep raising all the same stupid arguments that make no sense what so ever.


Make no sense to you. The stupidity here is yours.

Quote:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-drivers-are-on-the-road-at-any-given-time-in-the-US

You didn't really read this link did you? It doesn't say what you think it says or at least not what you are claiming.

You don't seem to have understood what it says. Peak road occupancy isn't sharply peaked - there are no more than twice as many cars on the road at peak times as there are in the middle of the day.

We have discussed this and I believe your facts are not accurate.

So find your own. If you can't find other evidence to contradict mine, your beliefs are mere expressions of irrational prejudice, and posting them is a waste of bandwidth.

So because your data is not very accurate, we should accept it until we can come up with better numbers???


That's the real world situation. No data is perfectly accurate, and you need to appreciate how what you can know might differ from what's actually happening right now.

> Your evidence is invalid based on a prima-facie analysis. Clearly there are a lot fewer cars on the road at 1 AM than at 5 PM.

What's your evidence for this claim?

> Your data says otherwise.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-drivers-are-on-the-road-at-any-given-time-in-the-US

You don't like the evidence but can't find anything more convincing than your own irrational prejudice to set against it.

Quote:
Which should I believe, your data or my first hand experience? Is you experience different? Do you see only half as many cars on the roads at 1 AM as at 5 PM?

In fact, the table lists Sunday, midnight to 2:59 AM as the most accident prone time of the week. I suppose that is also the time of heaviest traffic???

Clearly you are pretty poor at interpreting data.


While you seem to specialise in inventing it - which makes your "data" a lot easier to interpret, if totally unreliable.

Quote:
Wasn't that based on accident rate or something not necessarily a constant?

Check out the link. It's based on the incidence of fatal accidents - if you don't like it, find something better.

Better than that? My personal experience which I'm sure closely matches yours says your data is total crap!


You don't like it, but you can't find anything better, and feel free to imagine that my experience matches yours. I live close to the centre of Sydney, and there is always traffic on the roads around our appartment.

Quote:
There are two big issues, the first of which is travel. Tesla built a Supercharger network to support travel.

But few people spend much of their driving time "travelling". You seem to be unusual in this respect.

Not at all relevant. Nearly everyone takes trips that will require refueling along the way, even if only on the return trip. So they care about recharging on route.

But there aren't many of them, so en-route recharging doesn't demand massive investment in charging stations.

That is clearly an assumption on your part. If it weren't a massive investment why wouldn't the chargers be in place well above demand?

Who invests in providing services that won't be used or paid for?

Uh, anyone who sees the service is enabling for the product they are selling... like Tesla... and VW (entirely separate from Electrify America which is in response to their Dieselgate fraud penalty).

https://autoweek.com/article/green-cars/volkswagen-launches-ev-charging-and-energy-storage-group


Instead there are very few level 3 chargers in this country other than the Tesla network of Superchargers and there are spot congestion problems with that. No, the investment required for a robust charging network remotely similar to the network for ICE autos is not here because of the large investment required.

Of course it's not here yet. Electric vehicle penetration is at about 1% in the US, if rising rapidly, and people have to find the money to invest to exploit the new and expanding market.

Not even 1%. But like color shows and TVs there won't be much EV sales if there aren't good ways to charge them. It's still early days and many chargers will be built over the next few years, but they are an essential enabling component to selling EVs. Tesla and VW get that. GM didn't, so the Bolt has barely sold.


The fact that you can usually recharge an electric when it is parked at home seems to have escaped you. At present this isn't always easy, but as electric vehicle penetration rises above 1% it is going to get a lot easier.

<snip>

Quote:
The installer realised that they could rip off the tenant big-time, and the apartment owners realised that they could get a bigger kick-back from the installer on future jobs. It's not difficult to make a job look expensive, and if the renter couldn't get alternative quotations they'd be hard pressed to prove that they were being ripped off.

Again, the actual facts don't agree with your narrative, so you make up your own facts. lol Are you working for Trump?


Your anecdote has become a "fact"?

<snip>

Quote:
Implausible anecdotal evidence of what sound like a rip-off is exactly persuasive.

So you don't like my evidence? Come up with your own! lol


$8000 dollars to install a power point? I don't have to bother.

Quote:
So charging at fast chargers is a better option for them just like they don't have their own wells or grow their own food.

Scarcely parallel examples. The average garage has a light circuit. Most have power points adequate for regular power tools. Plugging a car charger into such a power point isn't comparable with digging a well.

You seem to be smoking dope on this one. I've already explained it to you.

Your "explanation" is more a a restatement of your irrational prejudice.

Lol. You always fall back to non-arguments when you lose a point.


Strange that you should mention this.

Quote:
You think that restating your irrational prejudice is "proving a point"..

I just know when you are flailing around looking for support. You can be such a trip! Not really much different from JL, except he posts stupid stuff we all can see is wrong, but he doesn't realize it. You post stupid stuff we all can see is wrong and you actually know it is wrong, but don't like losing an argument, so you won't acknowledge it.


Dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Amusing electric car stats

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map