Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The guide to real-world EV battery health

geotab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#91

Post by _ea1k »

happyopossum wrote: post #45
conception wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always drive my EV6 in eco mode because normal and sport feel dangerously fast. I think my 0-60 in sport mode is 4 seconds? The Niro however is spot on.

The only ev6 that will do 0-60 that fast is the GT, the standard one is in the 6-7s range which is the same as a typical gas crossover.

Cheap crossovers and compact SUVs tend to be >8s. In practice even that makes them sound faster than they are, as they require an aggressive launch and consistent high RPMs to get there.

The 6-7s EVs feel much faster than that!

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#92

Post by tpm »

graemep wrote: post #50
303uru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike is the most efficient form of transportation, period.

Shoes have a lower environmental impact and cost than than steel, plastic, rubber tyres (which AFAIK use at least some synthetic rubber made from oil), etc. Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. It requires less physical extortion so is more efficient that way, but another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise.

> another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise

Biking is less demanding on some parts of the body that only can take so much stress. So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints. That's not less exercise, that's several times more than a walker or runner can do. So in the same time as walking you can either be faster at your destination and save time and/or energy, or go further while spending the same or less energy, or output more energy. The choice is yours.

Anyway, from the CO2 perspective, biking vs walking is splitting hairs really.

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#93

Post by SR2Z »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #66
SR2Z wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, a big part of why is the magnitude of subsidies China has given its domestic EV suppliers.

It's less than the $7500 per car the US gave until very recently.

The US gave $7500 per car sold in the US to any manufacturer, with the "Buy American" restriction added only in the last two years of the policy.

I'm also curious to hear your source for the subsidies - from what I can see China has spent anywhere from 3x to 5x propping up the domestic EV industry as the US has over the last 15 years. The US had Tesla which almost went bankrupt multiple times despite the subsidies; China has a dozen EV manufacturers, half of whom are on life support now that the government is withdrawing subsidies.

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#94

Post by graemep »

tpm wrote: post #92
graemep wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shoes have a lower environmental impact and cost than than steel, plastic, rubber tyres (which AFAIK use at least some synthetic rubber made from oil), etc. Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. It requires less physical extortion so is more efficient that way, but another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise.

> another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise Biking is less demanding on some parts of the body that only can take so much stress. So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints. That's not less exercise, that's several times more than a walker or runner can do. So in the same time as walking you can either be faster at your destina…

> So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints.

Very few people are top cyclists, or top anything else. Top cyclists are doing it as a sport, not as a means of transport.

> Anyway, from the CO2 perspective, biking vs walking is splitting hairs really

I agree. I am responding to people who are claiming it is better than walking to a significant extent.

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#95

Post by graemep »

bluGill wrote: post #82
graemep wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to get more exercise. Therefore I should walk rather than bike.

This is about transportation. Walking doesn't get you far. A bike uses similear energy but you get farther.

Walking covers most of my journeys for which a bike would work. I am not going to bike a hundred mile, or even 15 and back. Nor is it practical to bike to the supermarket. On the other hand its easy to walk a few minutes to the local shops and pubs.

Transportation and exercise are linked. Walking kills two birds with one stone.

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#96

Post by tpm »

graemep wrote: post #94
tpm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise Biking is less demanding on some parts of the body that only can take so much stress. So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints. That's not less exercise, that's several times more than a walker or runner can do. So in the same time as walking you can either be faster at your destina…

> So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints. Very few people are top cyclists, or top anything else. Top cyclists are doing it as a sport, not as a means of transport. > Anyway, from the CO2 perspective, biking vs walking is splitting hairs really I agree. I am responding to people who are claiming it is better than walking to a significan…

> Top cyclists are doing it as a sport, not as a means of transport.

Well you were mentioning exercise, so I reacted to that. The point is everyone biking as exercise can push more watts than when walking, if they want to.

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#97

Post by conception »

happyopossum wrote: post #45
conception wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always drive my EV6 in eco mode because normal and sport feel dangerously fast. I think my 0-60 in sport mode is 4 seconds? The Niro however is spot on.

The only ev6 that will do 0-60 that fast is the GT, the standard one is in the 6-7s range which is the same as a typical gas crossover.

Nah the awd does it in 5- https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/9c43348

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#98

Post by epistasis »

jeffbee wrote: post #80
epistasis wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rivian is a truck, the F150 is by far the best selling truck, I don't think there could be a better comparison. What would you compare the Rivian to?

That only works if you take it at face value that buying either of them is a rational transportation choice, which I reject. Even if I accept the people need a weird truck-shaped thing with a useless 4.5-foot bed, a far better choice on emissions grounds would be the Ford Maverick XL, which has a battery 1% as massive as the R1T's battery, yet this tiny battery cuts the per-mile GHG emissions in half. The embodied ca…

I don't find either truck a rational choice, but the car market can stay irrational longer than the climate can stay liquid.

The cultural irrationality of the truck/car market in the US crosses all ethnicities and class lines. If we are trying to evaluate the effectiveness of EVs, I think we need to compare the Rivian to the closest fossil fuel powered vehicle, even if it's something that causes me to disrespect the people making these choices.

Re: The guide to real-world EV battery health

#99

Post by bryanlarsen »

SR2Z wrote: post #93
bryanlarsen wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less than the $7500 per car the US gave until very recently.

The US gave $7500 per car sold in the US to any manufacturer, with the "Buy American" restriction added only in the last two years of the policy. I'm also curious to hear your source for the subsidies - from what I can see China has spent anywhere from 3x to 5x propping up the domestic EV industry as the US has over the last 15 years. The US had Tesla which almost went bankrupt multiple times despite the subsidies; C…

The Chinese spent more money on an absolute basis, yes. They gave less per car, but built > 10x as many cars, so your number of 3-5x sounds about right.

The best source IMO is the commission that came up with the European countervailing duty of 17%.

Post reply on HN