> ensure the marketplace can fulfill its duties in terms of safety etc. I think it’s pretty reasonable
I upvoted you because this contained some of the most useful information in the thread for folks who aren't reading the article (which they should). That said, it's beyond sad to me that we've reached a point where people are considering it very reasonable that only large corporate entities with the power and intent to censor are able to distribute software. The web had it right, and I'm really grateful it was around before mega-corporations and governments were keen to control the power of individuals using it.
If you haven’t seen it before you might find the pirate box interesting. No longer exists and definitely a relic of the era of piracy/crypto from a decade+ back.
Amazon sells a bunch of knockoff oil filters. I accidentally bought them for a Toyota and luckily noticed. Imagine blowing an engine because you tried to buy an OEM filter.
“Never cross a river that is on average 4 feet deep” comes to mind here, to borrow from Taleb.
Most people I know take annual or more frequent road trips for travel, sport, or to visit family in neighboring states. These aren’t edge cases, they’re normal and predictable parts of peoples lives.
EV driver here who takes many road trips a year in them, so my hobbiest enthusiasm certainly guides my thinking.
How impractical is renting a car for a once a year trip? EVs have a lot of upsides in terms of never going to a gas station and having less maintenance.
How impractical is it to rent a car for Dec 23 to Jan 1 if lots of other EV owners are doing the same thing?
We're a happy one ICE, one EV family, but there's no way in hell we could be all EV. Our Christmas road trip is 766 miles each way, and our gas car does it in about 11 hours of wall-clock time door-to-door, including the two fuel stops owing to that car having such a small gas tank.
I just saw the ABRP link below, so I played around with it abit. In our 2015 Nissan LEAF, that becomes a 29 hour trip with 22 charging stops. Obviously, that's a dumb car to take on a road trip.
In a Hyundai AWD Long Range, it's 14h02m with 5 charging stops. A Tesla M3LR shaves 28 minutes off that time, but still takes 23% longer than the sub-$5K 2005 Honda CR-V.
This is the way. Currently have one ICE. Would probably buy an EV for a second. Too many things are too hard or too unsafe in an EV and renting can be a nightmare sometimes.
I also think people forget what happened to rentals during COVID.
I'm not GP, but the towing capacities of most EVs are pretty abysmal (in both weight and range), which is a factor in our selection.
Finding one that can tow even 3000 lbs is uncommon and 6000 lbs or more puts you into the Rivian/Lightning/Hummer realm in EVs ($$$). Or any-old <$20K used half-ton or mid-size SUV can tow that all day long.
You can be stranded in the middle of nowhere because a road is closed for many hours or days due to inclement weather or an accident and the detour is 100-200km beyond anticipated, with no charging possibility in between. Some parts of the mountain west have 200km between exits. Has happened to me multiple times. In some places and some times of the year, getting stranded legitimately risks exposure to the elements.
You can find a road impassable because EVs almost universally have poor ground clearance. If a road is closed due to conditions, per the above, the alternatives that are remotely reasonable in terms of distance may require high ground clearance to safely traverse. Again, I have been able to circumvent road closures for various reasons because I had a high-clearance vehicle. There are parts of the US where I will not drive without one.
Many years ago, I would routinely rescue people out of the Sierra Nevada in winter that had foolishly taken their (ICE) SUV on unplowed roads they were not equipped to traverse. You can die from exposure to the elements in that country, both winter and summer. An EV is much, much more poorly equipped for these types of environments. They were lucky I trawled for people on those roads (it was a hobby), they may not have been found for days.
tl;dr: high ground clearance and robust reliable range are serious safety features in the mountain west. Lack of it may find you stranded for days in difficult survival environments. Same reason I also carry ample water when driving through the same areas, just in case.
This has very little to do with EVs in principle and a lot to do with everything else about a vehicle except its powertrain.
EVs have low ground clearance for efficiency, just like most sedans. That's been "almost universal" so far because extra range costs $$$ for an EV but almost nothing worth of space for an ICE, so every little bit of lowered resistance helps. But sedans "almost universally" have poor ground clearance too. In contrast, a Rivian's ground clearance is up to 14.9".
As you note an ill-equipped ICE SUV on unplowed roads is just as much as disaster.
"An EV" is not inherently more poorly equipped for unplowed roads and going off-road. Most EVs on the market today are, just as most sedans on the market today are too. You make serious compromises on efficiency to support going off-road, and for an EV that adds a lot of cost. (And frankly for an ICE that also adds a lot of cost, especially if most of the time that vehicle drives on a clear highway, in terms of operational expenses and externalities.)
As that cost continues to drop for EVs, though, we'll see more vehicles that are actually equipped for the mountain west at prices that are less stratospheric.
> You can find a road impassable because EVs almost universally have poor ground clearance.
Define: "poor ground clearance"
Tesla Model 3: 5.2"
Tesla Model S: 5-7" (in has a manually adjustable pneumatic suspension)
Ford F150: 8-9.5"
You can get bigger wheels for bigger clearances and you can also obviously put snow chains on Teslas as well.
As of September 2023, 11.05% of new vehicle registrations in Colorado were electric. It has a lot of both mountains and snow. It depends on the specific model and how cold, but a Tesla generally speaking can keep the heat on for ~72 hours or so if it is not moving in the cold. I lived in Chicago and survived three polar vortexes (the worst was -22F in front of my house) and my Tesla did just fine.
You are confused if you conflate chains with ground clearance. They are not fungible. If your sole frame of reference is “snow” and cold weather then you don’t understand the problem. 5 inches of ground clearance is a joke in many areas. There is a reason people religiously buy Subarus with almost 9 inches of ground clearance. It isn’t negotiable if you actually understand the problem.
My minimum requirement for ground clearance for many years, and based on real-world experience, is 8 inches. I’ve owned vehicles with less and more, and used all in less than ideal circumstances re: ground clearance. The last time I had a vehicle with ground clearance as low as a Tesla, it wasn’t great for the vehicle, and I have a lot of experience navigating those conditions to minimize damage.
Just because it never has applied to you, clearly, doesn’t mean it isn’t a real problem.
In my experience (M3LR) you spend about 15-20 minutes charging every 2-3 hours. ABRP tells you how much time you spend charging, and otherwise assumes map drive time, which may not correspond to your “11 hours” depending on how aggressively you drive.
How much longer it takes also depends on how long you’d stop anyway — rarely go more than 2-3 hours without stopping anyway, even when we road tripped in our ICE.
A similar length trip (Sacramento to Seattle) takes 1h15m of charging for a 11h45m trip — about 10%. (23% seems high, but you may be making different assumptions, perhaps leaving with a low charge and having to arrive with a high charge.)
I took whatever the ABRP defaults were. I noticed it started at 90% SoC, but I didn't look at any of the other settings [nor change any]. I still have the M3LR tab open. It says 11h42m drive and 1h32m charge. From my experience in the LEAF, 85 mph highway cruising gives a substantial range penalty, which I'm assuming is baked into a sensible charging route planner.
Our ~11 hour actuals from this past trip were moving with a purpose, but not Cannonballing as a family of four in a 20 year old CR-V, averaging right around 70 mph door-to-door.
Right, but isn’t 92 min / 702 min (11h42m) is a 13% increase, not 23%? (Also, ABRP by default adds 5 minutes “overhead” to charging stops — reasonable for non-superchargers were you have to futz with everything, but the supercharger overhead is frankly less than a gas station. Pull up, plug in, done.)
I found the range penalty for going above 75 mph to be a weird thing…I typically target supercharger arrivals at 15%. If there’s…extra drag, let’s say…I might arrive around 10% or lower. But the battery charges really fast at that SoC, at least on the 250kW superchargers. If the extra drag gets me there 10-15 minutes sooner for a 2-hour segment, I’ll only see a charge penalty of 2-3 minutes.
Of course, I’m only thinking about all this stuff because I love spreadsheets more than is reasonable; most people won’t, shouldn’t, and don’t have to bother!
The one I typed above for the M3LR the first time was 13h34m vs 11h00m CR-V observed (2-way average). That’s the 23% increase, which I assume ABRP is choosing a time-optimizing cruise speed from the settings panel, so I took its time estimate. (I’m not a Tesla owner, so I’m taking route optimization choices at face value. My LEAF’s range suffers badly at even 70mph.)
Ah, I see. Then I think you may be comparing apples and oranges -- in my experience ABRP is not doing the right thing with charge curves and cruise speed, which is dependent on a large number of unknowable factors at the planning stage anyway (e.g., temperature, wind). The default settings also assume you are traveling at the speed limit, which it sounds like you are not.
Roughly, you get about 20% lower range by traveling at 80mph (80mi, 25 kWh, 3.2mi/kWh) vs 60mph (60 mi, 15 kWh, 4mi/kWh), and then lose another 20% going from 80mph to 90mph (90 mi, 35 kWh, 2.6mi/kWh). [0]
Peak charging speed is 250kW and is sustained from ~5%-~35%, and then tapers. Charging from 10%-60% is typical, and takes about 13 minutes for about 38 kWh, meaning that each kWh you use adds about 20 seconds of charging. [1]
We can integrate these into the speeds and consumptions above to construct effective speeds that account for the charging time required. E.g., at 60 mph you travel 60 miles in an hour, consume 15 kWh of energy, and thus spend 5 minutes charging -- 60 miles over 65 minutes is about 55 mph.
nominal -> effective speed (efficiency):
60 mph -> 55 mph (92%)
70 mph -> 62 mph (90%)
80 mph -> 70 mph (88%)
90 mph -> 75 mph (83%)
100 mph -> 80 mph (80%) - whee!
So even though you spend more of your travel time charging at higher speeds, your effective travel speed continues to go up well into speeds you're probably not cruising at.
In other words, that peak "optimized cruise speed" for a modern EV that can charge 38 kWh in 13 minutes (~175 kW) is well above what you're probably driving anyway.
For comparison, if you stop for 5 minutes every 3 hours in your ICE to refuel, at 80 mph you've got an effective speed of 77 mph, about 10% faster than your EV at 80 mph. (The above scenario has you stopping every 1.5h at 80mph in the 75 kWh-capacity EV; of course, you could stop less frequently but with a bit of a hit to your effective speed assuming 0 stop overhead.)
Not making any normative claims here about what's better, etc. -- just laying out the numbers as I see them!
Thanks! That’s helpful data and rules of thumb. We were moving comfortably with left lane traffic in the Northeast. Speeds varied by state but were still well within the ranges you calculated above.
ABRP's default assumes really close to the (often incorrectly mapped) speed limits. Having said that, your figures are probably pretty close. You'd just need to adjust the drive time for 80+ instead of ~70, and increase the charge times by maybe 10-15 minutes.
70mph is the upper end of the sweet spot for Tesla distance driving. I lived in Chicago for a decade and had a Model 3 for the majority of that (purchased it in 2018 new). From our house in Chicago to our family's house in Kentucky, it was 385 miles door to door. We'd stop in Indianapolis (or Lafayette, IN) and grab a bite to eat, stretch our legs, and use the restroom. It would always be done charging before we were finished eating, so no big deal at all. We've since purchased a Tesla Model Y and have done many road trips. I'm hoping to get the Cybertruck in the next year or so with the range extender. I do have a farm and plan on using it to haul stuff, but with 470 miles of range, we can drive generally longer than I'd ever want to with two kids and go camping.
If you have a collector car or an unreliable car, I can see how that could make financial sense. If you have anything that people would describe as a "normal, reliable car", that does not seem like a money-saving move. 1600 miles of mostly highway usage is not particular stressful on a car.
Depending on your car, it could easily be 30 cents / mile in depreciation + maintenance costs. So that's "worth" $480. Depending on how long of a trip and the type of car, the rental may well be cheaper.
Theoretically, renting a car for rare long drives is a reasonable proposal. In practice, it's a PITA in most areas. You go to pick it up, the rental office is understaffed, so you wait 20-30 minutes or more. Then they spend time trying to upsell you on the car and insurance and fuel plans, and then tell you they don't have the actual car model you reserved but they have a [not really comparable] substitute. Then you have to spend time walking around the car, looking for dents and scratches so they don't get charged to you when you turn it in.
It would be more practical if it worked like on the TV ads where you just walk up to your car, get in, and go.
Throw in the risk of Hertz randomly charging your credit card $30,000 because they thought you stole the car.
Or they fancied some extra revenue and ding you for a bogus $500 scratch
Or they downgrade you but lie and say it’s actually an upgrade
Enterprise give me actual proper attitude when I decline their extra insurance. Their snotty 20 year old new recruits are all like “would you mind explaining why you’re declining?” in an aggressive tone
Enterprise also basically threaten you in to taking it. They mention they charge £1000 per piece of damage, reiterating this multiple times. They remind me of the mafia. I reminded the manager of my local branch that such intimidation is illegal
I rent cars approximately all the time (I live on an island, so when I go anywhere, it's by air, and except for NYC, I always get a car wherever I go). Maybe 20 rentals/yr, a few years it was 50+ rentals.
Any of the big company "frequent renter" programs, like National Emerald Aisle/Executive, Hertz #1, etc., gives all the stuff you want. Usually I'm at airport locations (which do have extra taxes/fees), but it's "walk up to car, walk around one time just to make sure there's nothing obviously wrong, get in, adjust mirrors, configure usbc/carplay, stop at booth where they take my drivers license and credit card, drive off". With National I get my pick of any car on the lot (and with a corp discount code, usually around $30-40/day all-in).
The local branches suck a little more due to limited selection and lack of cannelized check out, but they're pretty close. Also way worse at most non-US locations (with the exception of big gateway airports).
I've returned cars and aside from one time where I drove over a concrete curb at CDG which I couldn't see (sigh, at the airport itself, returning the car), and had to pay for damages, it's always been painless. One time I returned a car where thieves at Stanford had broken the rear glass, and at SFO they just said "oh, another one", and checked a box on the return form; everything was handled via email after that.
There are also day-rate car rentals through Uber and some other programs like that where you use an app, find car, and drive off.
I would have no problem relying on rental for the last 5% of car needs (e.g. if I had a 2 seater or something, or didn't want to get snow tires to go into the mountains, etc. The "get to the rental location" is the biggest friction, and in true emergency cases where I absolutely need a car right then, which is why I usually rent for the whole trip.
> With National I get my pick of any car on the lot (and with a corp discount code, usually around $30-40/day all-in).
When I fly and need a car I also use National to avoid the hassle of long lines and forms, just walk to the lot, pick a car get in and go, zero hassle. But this only works at airport locations so it is not a solution for the local use being discussed.
With local rentals I've never managed to get out in less than ~45 minutes of paperwork and waiting, it's a huge hassle.
Also as you'll know, with the Emerald Aisle the minimum class is midsize so there's a price premium for the convenience. Just got back from a trip yesterday using a National rental, $644 all-in for 6 days for the smallest car I can get on Emerald Aisle. Over $100/day. You must have a nice corp discount.
I live ~10m away from my territory's biggest airport so I guess I'm spoiled on local rentals that way. But I was mainly thinking about the long-distance road trip use case for a vehicle, in which case an hour+ trip to the airport to pick up the vehicle isn't necessarily unreasonable, either -- I've rented for weeks at a time, and if you're putting 300+ miles/day on a car, makes sense even if you own a comparable vehicle. If the 1-4 road trips/yr which exceed your EV's capabilities require an hour to set up for a road trip, might still be worth it, especially if the EV saves you time with HOV lane access every day.
(My favorite rental car option of all time was Silvercar -- they had a fleet of identical Audi A4 sedans, no-hassle app based rental, good for the time prices ($50-60/day), and zero hassle overall. Something happened and they became audiondemand and became vastly more expensive, though.)
This sounds like a very outdated view. I rent cars semi-frequently and the pick-up and drop-off are usually very fast if not nearly instant. This assumes you made the reservation online. I've had some annoyingly long waits in recent years but those have been exceptions and weren't really all that long, more just annoying.
I have the top tier of Avis loyalty program, almost exclusively on corporate rates, and even then arriving at SFO often results in a > 30 minute delay between arriving at the rental car centre and getting on the 101.
If you try to rent at an in-town location, forget about it, you're going to be dealing with someone who has spent a long time watching The Apprentice and thinks they know what business is about trying to sell you a 2008-era navigation system.
Just not my experience I guess. No upsells, never a 30 minutes wait. I haven't owned a car in 15 years so renting is pretty normal for me and almost always effortless.
I've rented cars on and off for ~15 years, my experience: there are certainly regional differences but renting has certainly got shittier and shitter over the years, perhaps skewed by my experience in Europe:
- Car class inflation (cheaper models, models being bumped up a category i.e. "Luxury" not actually being Luxury)
- Instead of raising prices sufficiently, they use 'damage' as a revenue stream more and more
- Reticence to give you a printed paper contracts, making it harder to inspect them.
- Far less thorough damage recording. It's like they just delete existing damage in the records at the beginning of the rental. I always get a blank damage sheet when I rent.
- Higher and higher mileage vehicles
- Bigger and bigger deposits and damage excess ("co-pay")
- Dynamic Currency Conversion scam
- Fuel recharge scam
This isn't just a post-pandemic cost-recovery thing. Renting was getting shittier in the years prior
Once a year? not terrible. More, potentially bad. Car rentals are crazy expensive.
I took a week vacation with friends last year and it cost me more to rent a car to get to the location than the combined cost of every thing else. The car was only used to get there and get back, but it's not like I could only rent it for the start and end days.
Just having to rent a car a few times a year would kill most/any potential savings from an EV.
But is it still expensive compared to the situation where you're buying fuel for the ICE instead? For many places, the saving on the fuel costs will more than offset the occasional trip.
It's kind of similar to why we got rid of the second car. Sure, it's useful, but for all the extra costs, I can take multiple taxi trips a year. (I barely do 1 in practice)
I mean it really depends. There are probably some circumstances where it's cheaper. But I think it's not a forgone conclusion. Renting costs money, and you'll need gas for it too. Motortrends estimates 1300 to 2000 a year in fuel for an Accord. And 400-1200 for electricity in a tesla model 3 (charging at home not a supercharger). I can easily imagine eating up the savings in one or two rental trips, and that's certainly less convenient.
Depends on many factors. I’ve lived where I could grab an SUV from the rental shop down the street anytime I wanted, and I’ve lived where the drive to the rental shop would almost exhaust some EVs.
So own an EV and rent the SUV, camper, hybrid, whatever once or twice a year. Normal and predictable events can get good discounts with advance reservation. Obviously if the trips are more frequent, eg. monthly, the economics will shift toward an ICE vehicle.
But >90% of folks can probably just rent once or twice a year.
It’s happening nation wide. Seattle is down ~10% yoy. Overall housing costs have been coming down nationally, and the last inflation report actually had us in deflation month over month.
A lot of commenters not reading the article. For clarity: rents in San Francisco HAVE decreased compared to 2019 in absolute dollar terms, this is despite rents in the state increasing overall, and the city of San Francisco has seen this in a more pronounced manner than the Bay Area overall.
This points to a localized impact that is not explained by broader trends in inflation, housing, etc.
The obvious explanation is that Sf tech workers have increasingly worked remotely since 2020, and working remotely encourages them moving to further-away housing with lower rent.
Keep in mind that inflation is measured with a basket of goods that often excludes housing. Inflation being 10% does not imply that housing has gone up 10%.
It’s not hard to figure out - it was crazy expensive - San Francisco the city is poorly managed - and there are much better places to live in the Bay Area.
Like where?! The rest of the Bay Area (except maybe Oakland and Berkeley) strikes me as a cookie-cutter, suburban hell-scape. I've visited Palo Alto, San Matteo, Pleasanton, Fremont, and San Jose in the course of my time in the East Bay, and I couldn't help but ask myself why the heck anyone would live there. I don't see anything unique in those places--why not live in a suburb anywhere else, at 1/8th of the cost?
I would say just about anywhere in the Bay Area would be nicer than SF. Cupertino, Campbell, southern San Jose, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Cruz (not quite Silicon Valley but sort of), Alameda, Gilroy, etc. I'd say the only place I'd avoid more than SF is Oakland.
I mean... I'm not about to go giving away info on all the nice spots... But there are some places out there with good schools, a reasonable balance of transit/development and open space, and affordable (by bay area standards) housing.
No, but it was will marginally bid up the price of housing, which is my number one expense right now and my expected number one expense for the foreseeable future.
Maybe this whole thread is a mislead and someone has their eyes on the peninsula ;)
I've lived in Palo Alto, and there are nicer bits and others less so, but overall it's just the suburbs. All suburbs feel the same to me: empty and lifeless.
I moved to the Tenderloin in SF and I was much happier, it was very lively indeed.
As much as I hate SF, there aren’t any real cities in the US besides SF and NYC. If you can afford to live in Europe or Asia then obviously what are you doing here
Chicago is just new enough (post-fire) to have been infected with the insane setbacks and building codes that plague the rest of the country to the point that they prohibit any interesting pedestrian-friendly spaces. Mostly, Chicago is like the rest of the country, car-focused and absent of urban fabric.
For having lived in Chicago I would say it’s much more walkable than SF. Actually I’d say the only city thats more walkable that I’ve been to in the US is nyc
What? Have you even seen Chicago? You don’t even need to drive in most of the city. Same with Boston. America has cities that don’t require car dependence and they’re sure not on the west coast.
Most of the city is definitely an exaggeration. Chicago is absolutely a car-first city, and it's pretty obvious having moved here 20 years ago.
You can very easily live in areas of the city without a car and I have done so. Plenty of places on the Northside - but those places will be somewhat expensive compared to the city average. The good news of course is that Chicago is generally far cheaper than other large cities, so most folks posting on HN can probably find something that fits the bill.
Vast swaths of residential neighborhoods are simply not well serviced by public transit. Especially on the south and west sides where to be blunt, most folks on HN will never visit. These areas look much like the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in elsewhere in the midwest, just slightly more density due to lot lines being closer together.
It really is a tale of two cities here. If you can afford to, you can easily live in one of the most walkable and transit friendly cities in the nation. I posit it's only behind NYC for that. However, if you live just 5 miles away in the "wrong" neighborhood your options will be car or relatively poor bus service.
Of course your definition may be different than mine. My father considers places like St. Louis livable without a car - but I totally disagree. Sure you can make it work, but at ridiculous expense to your time and lifestyle.
I personally bought a place specifically in relation to how close it was to functional rapid transit. I'm privileged enough to do so, but many friends and family simply couldn't afford to live in such areas of the city - if they moved here they would certainly be daily car drivers.
Detecting a cars arrival at an intersection has been a solved engineering problem for many decades (pressure plates 60+ years ago, induction loops today). It’s a much harder problem for a 150lb pedestrian with a small footprint who isn’t magnetic. The other challenge with induction loops is for cyclists on higher end bikes with carbon frames/rims.
Enough of subsidizing fancy tech to for drivers convenience. Taxpayer should not pay for drivers not to have to open their windows. If they can't roll down their windows, then they should not be driving.
I upvoted you because this contained some of the most useful information in the thread for folks who aren't reading the article (which they should). That said, it's beyond sad to me that we've reached a point where people are considering it very reasonable that only large corporate entities with the power and intent to censor are able to distribute software. The web had it right, and I'm really grateful it was around before mega-corporations and governments were keen to control the power of individuals using it.