[volta83]

> In the European market the range advantage might not be a big deal,

It wouldn't be a big deal if charging time was < 5 minutes.

I do occasionally (once per month or two months) go somewhere that's 800km away.

Driving at 180-200km/h avg speed and refueling once that's a 5 hour trip.

If I have to drive at 120 km/h and charge multiple times I'm looking at > 8h trip or more.

I also drive to some places at 300km distance or so for the weekend, and these places might not have a charger close, and/or harsh conditions (e.g. some small village in the Alps).

I'm a bit skeptic that I can do a round trip to those without charging, and even if I charge, i'm skeptic that at very cold temperatures the battery will hold up well for the last 50-80km part of each way in which there might not be any charging stations (e.g. holding charge for 200km over the weekend or a full week at less than -20 C).

Also, in Europe, a significant chunk of the population rents and lives in apartment buildings, often without parking spots, which means you can't charge an electric car over night. Combine that with few charging stations and waiting at a charging station at 6 am for 1 hour is something people having electric cars actually do talk about. So if your commute is 80km, you probably want 800km of range to only have to charge the car once per week.

Also, charging in the street (there are very very few parking spots outside that do have charging) is extremely expensive (much more than just using gas).

Maybe all these fears are unfounded?

But in a nutshell: battery kilometers at high speed, battery holding at very cold temps for a week, and the ability to cheaply charge at night are what I see people talking the most about, when discussing electric cars.

In pretty much all discussions, diesel cars just sound like the better deal (they are cheap right now).

[andrepd]

Have you stopped to think about the insane infrastructure that goes into supporting car driving? There are millions of gas stations across the planet, that had to be built, then continually supplied. Not to mention the billions (?) of km of asphalt roads. We did all that in the 20th century. What's so impossible about building chargers? I don't get it.

As for driving at 200kph, that's just dangerous (unless you're in a no-speed-limit autobahn, where at least other cars expect you to go fast), not to mention fuel inefficient. By all means, please go ahead and crash your car, that's your risk, I guess. The snag is that you share the road with other users and you can kill them too. So don't be a selfish prick and please drive safely. Either way let's assume most people just want to go at 120kph.

[unwind]

Uh, not to be too much of an Internet nitpicker, but according to [1] there's around 168,000 gas stations in the US. That's a pretty big car-using market right there.

Numbers for China are harder to come by, a quick search yielded [2] which states around 120,000 stations in 2019.

So, extrapolating from those two data points, I still think "millions" is a bit too many-sounding.

1: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerquiz16.shtml

2: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190226005504/en/Chi...

[volta83]

> We did all that in the 20th century. What's so impossible about building chargers? I don't get it.

I never said its impossible, I said that right now they are not there.

In the 18th century, without proper roads, between the choice of a car with wooden wheels and a horse, I'd have 100% of the time would have bought the horse.

---

> As for driving at 200kph, that's just dangerous

No, it isn't. Driving 120kph in the autobahn is more dangerous than driving 200kph. You are forcing everyone that wants to drive at the recommended speed of 130kph to overtake you with 10 kph speed difference, blocking 2 lanes. Add a truck to the situation to block a 3rd lane, and you have just created a big blockage in the highway, which is what causes most autobahn accidents. This makes _you_ one of the biggest dangers to others on the high way.

> Not to mention fuel inefficient.

It is, however, very time efficient.

If you want to trade fuel efficiency over everything else, walking is better than using a car.

The moment you decide that walking is not "fast enough" you are already making a trade-off between time efficiency and fuel efficiency.

Just because your time is worth less than most people's time and you prefer driving at 120kph, 10kph below the recommended speed, does not mean that most people agree with you. The traffic guidelines actually disagree with you, which is why they recommend at least 130kph.

---

> Either way let's assume most people just want to go at 120kph.

The recommended autobahn speed is 130kph. The slowest lane usually goes at 140-150 kph.

I don't see the point of making an assumption that's clearly incorrect.

> By all means, please go ahead and crash your car, that's your risk, I guess.

If you think that driving at 200kph is dangerous, I have to assume that you never took highway driving classes as part of your driving license, most of which force you to drive at high speed. A consequence of doing this is that your comfort speed goes up with enough training, so when you are actually driving at 160kph or so, you are driving 20% slower than what you are trained to drive, which makes it actually much safer.

If you only were trained to drive at 120 kph, and have never received trained to drive substantially faster than that, you are always driving at 100% of your training / skill level, which means small mistakes have larger consequences than if you have a 20% buffer of error.

So arguably, _you_ should be driving at 100 kph through national roads, instead of driving on the highway until _you_ receive proper training.

[andrepd]

> In the 18th century, without proper roads, between the choice of a car with wooden wheels and a horse, I'd have 100% of the time would have bought the horse.

There were no automobiles in the 18th century.

> No, it isn't. Driving 120kph in the autobahn is more dangerous than driving 200kph.

Yes, it is. Data shows accidents increase with speed, yes, even in autobahns, let alone in highways with speed limit.

Also, you were talking about motorways/highways in general, the overwhelming of which have speed limits, and not about autobahns in particular.

> 130kph has to overtake you with 10kph difference

I used 120 as it's the highway speed limit in most of the world. Replace 120 with 130, the point is driving at the speed limit. You are talking about going 200kph, so I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

> Just because your time is worth less than most people's time and you prefer driving at 120kph, 10kph below the recommended speed, does not mean that most people agree with you. The traffic guidelines actually disagree with you, which is why they recommend at least 130kph.

Ahahaha, what the hell is your problem. I drive the speed limit instead of driving like a maniac because my time is not so valuable as yours?

> The slowest lane usually goes at 140-150 kph. I don't see the point of making an assumption that's clearly incorrect.

Again, simple data falsifies your assertion. Measurements taken put the percentage of people going over 130kph in German highways at between 35% and 60%. So your "slowest lane goes 150" thing is hilariously off the mark.

> If you think that driving at 200kph is dangerous, I have to assume that you never took highway driving classes as part of your driving license

Again with the German exceptionalism? Yes I did drive on the highway to get my license of course. No, I didn't drive nearly twice the speed limit in those lessons.

> training, I'm such a good driver, stick to taking the bus until you git good

Nothing you can say changes the fact that higher speed means more risk of crashes. This is documented, and you are no exception. Everybody thinks they're great drivers so the rules don't apply to them.

---

Finally: in your previous posts you complained that electric cars can't travel at 200kph when the temperature is -20°C. Well if you're such a good driver you should know that it's reckless (and indeed forbidden) to drive at such speeds in such cold weather.

[tonyedgecombe]

You may or may not be exaggerating but if you aren't then you are definitely an outlier. Which kind of sucks for you because it's going to be hard to keep doing this when the rest of the world has moved on.

[volta83]

Outlier in which sense ?

There is a lot of people from southern Europe and northern africa (morroco, algeria, etc.) living in central Europe (France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc.). There is a lot of people from East Europe (Poland, Ukraine, Czec republic, Croatia, Turkey) living in Central Europe as well.

How do you think these people travel to visit their families every couple of months ? They do 1000km per way trips with the car.

If you just have to cross Germany, you are not going to be driving there at 100km/h. I do 600-800km ways in Germany a couple of times per year, and do drive 220km/h everywhere where it is allowed and condition are good. Your average speed is never that cause traffic and so on, but over 190km/h average speed is doable if you travel at the right hours which I always do because... you don't want to spend 800km stuck on traffic.

Why not flying? Because while central europe has good airports, wherever they might be flying to might have an airport 3 hours away, requiring them to rent a car, etc. which as mentioned costs one month of net salary.

In Germany, for example, ~50% of the population rents. As a renter, its up to your landlord to retrofit your parking spot with an electric supply for your electric car. That costs money, and if the landlord says no, you can't do this yourself. Is not up to you.

Electric cars are more a "social problem" in europe than a technical one.

[tonyedgecombe]

How do you think these people travel to visit their families every couple of months ? They do 1000km per way trips with the car.

The average annual milage across the whole of the EU is 12,000Km per year, it's even lower in Eastern Europe.

Most people aren't making these sort of trips regularly.

You are an outlier.

[volta83]

> The average annual milage across the whole of the EU is 12,000Km per year, it's even lower in Eastern Europe.

I do these trips every 2 months.

My average mileage is 9,000 - 10,0000km per year.

I don't really know what point you are trying to make with average mileage or where you got that number from.

But average mileage doesn't say anything about the frequency and the length of the trips people do on their cars.

Most people I know don't have a car. The ones that do have a car commute to work via public transportation or bike. They only use the car on the weekends, or holidays.

[jiofih]

800km * 2 * 6 times a year = 9600km

So you don’t use your car for anything else at all during the year?

Either you’re misreporting how many times you travel (you said “a couple times” earlier) or your yearly mileage.

[tigershark]

So are you saying that you bought a car to use it only 6 times a year (going at 220km/h and risking to kill other people) and never use it for anything else? If you want to throw your life away at least don’t kill someone else. If you want to throw your money away it’s better to do some charity.

[3dee]

This is exactly the reason why I still have doubts about EVs (for now).

While hydrogen cars are less efficient I still think it will be a better option for the near future.

In a city like Stuttgart people have to park in double rows. Unless they can fully charge their EV in < 5 minutes those cars will never convert from combustion engines to a battery car. Hydrogen will solve this much faster than batteries.