Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Automotive' started by HadACoolName, Mar 6, 2015.
"How dare you!"®
No. You cant use what isnt there.
It is about taking entirely unnecessary risks. Disabling ESC when you can have it simple increases the risk for yourself and others without any benefit.
And yes, there is no benefit. You are not supposed to drive "spirited" enough on public roads to ever notice ESC is there outside of an emergency.
You dont need a seatbelt either if you have no accident. Since you cant look into the future however, you should always assume that something can happen and act accordingly.
I dont... but I am glad that it is now mandated by law because I actually favour getting old and this reduces my risk and the risk of my family to die in an accident.
It is a good idea to test a vehicles behavior at the limit (when you can do so without endangering anyone) and I recommend to anyone a safe driving training where you can get a feel for your car in extreme situations without any real risk.
Similary, i recommend to anyone to do a full brake power emergency stop. Both on dry ground and on wet and snowy ground. Of course only after making sure nobody is behind you
You are correct that modern driving and safety electronics can lead to a more risky behavior because people - incorrectly - assume that those can overrule the laws of physic. Which they obviously cannot. They however in general allow the average driver to reach closer to the physical limits.
I would still rather have a bad driver survive a situation due to ESC intervention than die because
- we are all human and we all make mistakes
- we can at least in theory learn from those
- changes are, he is not dying alone.
Keep in mind that the majority of drivers does not seek the highest possible cornering speed and that most accidents happen with everyone involved being very very surprised.
I drive a car for 17 years now and in this time I have learned that one should always expect the worst from any other traffic participant. You are not surrounded by idiots but assuming so could end up saving your life.. and their life.
You are correct that reckless driving in an ESC equipped car can lead to nasty surprises when switching to an non ESC equipped one.
Two things though:
1. You should never drive agressively enough on public roads to ever have ESC intervention.
2. All cars here have mandatory ESC.
I dont think that this slope is slippery at all. ESC on average simple makes driving safer as a loss of control crash is less likely. Yes, less likely... you cant still die if you exceed the limits of physics but it requires more going wrong in the first place.
Watched an highway accident live once.... car switched lanes rapidly because of fast approaching behind car (speedlimit anyone?)
I saw the suspension bending under the sudden weight distribution and predictable oversteering driver correction. Which resulted in even more countersteering and weight distribution..... a quite human reactions. With an entirely predictable results.... loss of control... slamming into the fast approaching car from the side with enough force to push it into the guardrail. Final tally: 3 people on the way to the hospital and two totalled cars.
A speedlimit would have reduced the probabiltiy of such a significant speed difference at highway speeds. ESC in the lane changing car would have avoided the crash.
It took maybe 3 seconds from calm driving to screaming loss of control and crash...... and this is why not having activated ESC if eqipped is so stupid. You cannot know when and if you need it and I promise you... you almost certainly have neither the time nor the presence of mind to reactivate it in time of need.
Not to mention that even a a very skilled driver, you simple lack the hardware to individually brake any of the 4 wheels in line with the need to maintain to control. Not to mention reaction speed and precision.
Computers are simple better at certain things. I fail to see why this is hard to accept, when it is painfully obvious.
Fully autonomous driving is a different philosophical question but when you look at the world arround you, you will notice that most things are made increasingly "idiotproof.".
The electricity that flows through your device when you are reading this on itself is a very dangerous force... yet we treat it hardy as such.... mostly because modern electric safety has reached an "idiotproof" level that you really have to be a really big one to electrocute yourself.
Regarding Tesla "propaganda":
That seems rather unjustififed pessimistic. Humans for the longest time have been trying to reduce the amount of difficult/unpleasant/dangerous tasks they have to do. Nuff said, dishwashers and washing machines exist.
I am sure most people both inside and outside the car would highly prefer the computer braking/steering in time instead of running over/getting runned over by a car because the driver is to slow/doesnt pay attention.
Short of autonomous driving, driving is not taken away by you. It just tries to mitigate your driving errors.
I doubt Toyota had the ESC designed for canyon racing.
Yes, drivers SHOULD pay attention..... but they sometimes dont - independent of safety system mind you - and even if they pay attention they may simple be to slow to avoid a crash.
Seing that the average bycycle uses far less public ressources and causes far less average damage to other humans, they are probably subsidizing your road with their tax.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Every time ESC has intervened while I was driving it has turned a controlled evasive manuever into an unsafe, unpredictable near loss of control. The computer has no idea what the driver is doing. It just sees wheels turning at different speeds and assumes driver incompitence. This means that any driver that knows how to control the car without assistence will automatically be better than any computer operated stability control. The computer doesn't know what is going on nor what is intended by the driver, and therefore cannot possibly be a help to a competent driver.
what would you trust more
someone with actual driving experience and proper eyesight
or an experimental computer that only has controls over brakes with sensor visibility range so short that its basically useless in an actual accident at lethal speeds
I dunno that Tesla avoidance stuff is pretty good
its basically only useful if you're within 30-40mph of whatever you're about to hit, sensor range is poor enough that by the time it realizes you're gonna hit something with a speed differential >40mph you're not gonna have a fun time
on highways or other straight roads with humans this is not anywhere near as much a problem as you can actually see further than ~50m ahead of you
alright but the point of the Tesla avoidance system is to be supplementary to a human person
naturally yes, but people aren't gonna use it like that
they're gonna see it as "oh cool an excuse to drive distracted" regardless of what anyone tells em
For this reason any modern EV makes some noise at low speeds.
Arround 99.9 % of credible science will tell you at we have lost balance long ago. A loss of balance that is getting increasingly expensive I wish to add....
You are right about sealing more and more surface being bad.
Yet energy efficiency is in fact paramount. Efficient use of energy and energy generation capacity is in fact the only way to maintain what we consider a modern civilized lifestyle without literallly destroying our means of living.
You can do a lot of things...... like going 10 km north of your location by first going 400 km south of it. It just doesnt make sense and is not going to win economically.
Driving style certainly is a huge factor in total energy consumption but it is relative independent of power source. And an EV can at least brake regeneratively.
Auxilaries not driven by the main engine tend to be more efficient as the rise of not belt driven ones should tell you even in ICE cars.
Also cooling or heating via main electricity is almost certainly going to be more environmental friendly than a cold combustion engine trying to do it.
Anything with this much power in a car is unreasonable realistically. And of course lighter batteries would be better. Yet there comes a moment where it is better to have an more efficient engine/motor than less weight:
Most diesel cars are heavier as the diesel engine is heavier than a comparable petrol one. Yet they consume less energy overall because the increased weight of the diesel engine is overcompensated by its higher efficiency.
Even more true for EVs.... lets generously assume 25 KW / 100 KM.... that is
2.95 L of petrol
2.55 L of diesel
So even when assuming bad EV consumption and good ICE consumption, that is twice the amount.
It takes less energy to move 1400 kg of petrol car 100 km compared to an 1800 kg batteryelectric one.
This advantage is however lost due to the petrol car creating the movement energy required to move 1400 kg so inefficient that it requires significant more initial energy supply to get the same distance.
But what is larger displacement really? Larger bore and longer stroke? A bigger engine block as a result? The actual mechanical differences may be relative minor. The really important question is the stress to material durability ratio. And the main enemy is not technical capability but eternal cost pressure. Ford had once reliable engines failing like mad at 50000km..... the single reason being that they decided to shave of one to much mm of material.
You buy a car with an "identical" engine that has lifetime of well above 250000 km not expecting any trouble... well... think again.
Yes, they fixed it by now but that is a rather moot point if you happened to buy a car in that time period with such engines from them.
I also find it difficult to argue economics when you intend to modify your car. Realistically for the money spent, most people could have bought a more powerful car in the first place.
Yet chip tuning is much easier with an turbocharged engine. Which tends to increase the reliability issues because almost any part of an 130 HP engine made today is cost cut to a level of never surviving much more than that longterm.
Turbos are also less forgiving of poor maintainance due to the enormous thermal stress put onto them and their oil supply.
At least Toyotas Hybrids tend to be extremely reliable.... there is a reason why so many taxi here use it... besides petrol being more expensive than diesel.
Lifetime depends on many factors and is also dependent on much more than just the engine in any modern car.
All my cars to date died from rust... not from mechanical failure. Most city commuter cars wont even reach 200000 km due to dying to rust and age long before the engine will give in.
The blackbox ICE with its uncertain longterm reliability (and very costly work hours to properly disassemble) is also a fact to ditch the whole car instead of repairing it. Nobody wants to spend 3000 € on anti rust measures and have the engine or related parts fail one month later.
Power to liquid will never be a thing outside of niche applications. It has far to many drawbacks to make a stand against batteryelectric or even hydrogen (which at least for cars is another dead end)
You need 3 - 4 times the electrical energy = wind turbines = to go get the same range as an battery EV.... it cannot win on costs under any circumstances. so it would need to win really really big in other areas..... but it likely wont.
- still local air pollution
- EV batteries get better by arround 5 % per year. Draw that line 10 years into the future and the remaining advantage of burning fuel is gone.
- No EV comfort features possible (no pre heating or cooling without significant modifications)
- Worse safety
- The population in the inner cities will almost certainly not tolerate toxic exhaust fumes in the next few decades anymore.
That is not correct.
German car owner club - which is hardly known for being green - says between 50000 - 100000 km on average.
The "greener" the electricity used, the sooner the breakeven point.
Most cars will go significantly longer than 100000 km in their lifetime.
Battery recycling is not without issues but ratios of arround 95 % are possible. At the moment, this isnt done because raw materials are to cheap in comparsion.
There is also the serious issue of not having enough batteries for large scale industrial recycling due to most EV batteries outlasting their lifetime expectactions by far.
The amount of are earth used in batteries has been significantly reduced in the last decade and according to the Frauenhofer Institut will prove not to be an particular issue:
I am not saying burning coal to power EV is a good idea.... just that it is probably still better than burning diesel and petrol directly due to better overall efficiency.
Keep in mind that drilling for oil and refining it is far from being without issues, too. Including human right ones.
We cant fix all those issues overnight without breaking our civilization... but we surely can work on it.
You are correct that germany car industry wasnt exactly unhappy about new emission laws leading to a lot of older vehicles leaving the market.
Air pollution laws always end up as an lobby shit show.... one of the many reasons I want cars (primary emission) removed from that particular equation.
My first car drunk 13 L of petrol..... got a nice green badge while contemporary diesel (7 Liters) got a deep red one.
It is true that there are a lot of secondary (not combustion related) emissions in any car and that there are other source of emissions.
We are increasingly fixing those other sources and for cars at least brake wear is reduced due to regenerative braking.
Synthetic fuels can be cleaner but you still cant get arround the basic issue that you are burning something.
CO2 is vital.... but we are producing to much of it. We cant afford a to significant imbalance.
I assume you mean biofuels?
I dont have the numbers for algea which is indeed a fascinating topic but for any land farming based biofuel solutions, science says a clear no.
The problem is energy efficiency and the resulting amount of farm land required to fuel our energy demands.
PV besides having only arround 20 % efficiency (which is horrible bad but get away with it due to the sun being free) creates more power overall than any energy corn. The transformation losses kill it. You need to plant, care, harvest, refine transport it and you loose so much of the potential energy in the process that even lousy 20 % PV beats it casually.
Biofuel is a nice niche... my local city runs its busses with it...... biofuel based on bio trash is a good idea..... but to fuel our civilization.... you would have to farm a very large area just for fuel and while it is possible, it is unlikely to be economically or ecologically viable long term.
Yes, car companies want you to sell a shiny new car as often as possible. Yet replacing an old ICE car with a new one is unlikely to reduce global emissions as the difference in energy efficiency is way to small to regain the energy lost in producing the new car with anything below 1 million km.
Yes. Have been playing that game for a while now. The question remaining is merely if this time society as a whole could actually benefit in a meaningfull way..... and I think it can.
Replacing ICE with ICE is almost certainly bad overall.
But replacing an ICE with an EV could very well do more good overall than bad.
Which ultimatively is what legislature - should - be about. Do the drawbacks of the new ways justify ditching the old ones? Will more people benefit overall?
You dont need an ultimate battery.... we dont drive arround 200 L of petrol in car even though it would give really great range. There is a moment when the price of further range begins to outweight the benefits. My first car had a 70L fuel tank... current one only has 55 which is really annoying because that results in a similar range besides being notable more fuel efficient overall.
What you need is a fast charging network arround highways... and slow charging at home/work. With that being done and with battery ranges increasingly exceeding 400km, we reach mainstream parity now.
Yes, there are some niche cases where you need 1000km of non interrupted range.... but those are not mainstream..... and never will be, not for cars at least.
Fun fact.... there is increasing interest in battery powered trucks because the transport business is very very cost driven and some people think that the improvement of batteries + charging infrastructure will make battery charged trucks cheaper to run than hydrogen ones in a mere decade.
You are correct about consumerism. Yet this is a society question and requires societal changes. It is a long term project certainly..... and in the meantime maybe we should look at technical solutions because those can actually work or at least mitigate the problems.
For an fossil powered ICE car, the majority of its lifetime pollution cost is created in driving, not manufacturing.
Fewer car in the average life would be good, but this requires
- forcing manufacturers to do more against rust, probably one of the main causes of premature end of many cars and also annoying, because they could produce almost rust free cars in the 80s.... but stopped doing that for greed reasons.
- More modular construction. Wearing parts that require half the car be be disassembled to replace can economically total a car besides the rest of the car being in good shape.
Overall I think battery EV are better for this. Cells of the battery can be replaced and even if not, the mid term cost of a 500km range battery will be lower than ICE related failures and replacement parts. Those may be invidually cheaper but in summary easily reach 8000 € and more. Not to mention the higher maintanance like oil changes.
As long as you would replace your old ICE car with a new ICE car, yes.
Germanys no speed limit time is likely going to end within the next 5 years.
I also doubt you have much opportunity to drive much faster than 130 km/h on your work route.... traffic and such.... and even if you manage to temporarely be much faster, you will hardly notice any benefit in travel time. It has been repeatedly tested by various german automagazines over very long distances... the benefits of "racing" are slim, the risk significant and the fuel consumption beyond ridicolous.
You are correct, yet from a technical standpoint an EV can outlast an ICE car significantly. Batteries are so far surprising everyone with their lifetime and even if you one day need to replace it (you might even still get money from it when it is used in its second life) that costs is going to be cheaper midterm than any of the wear and tear parts of the ICE drivetrain.
What car would that be?
Statistics clearly show that ESC reduces both the amount of the severity of accidents.
@Harkin Labs Gaming what year and model car are you driving with ESC? Some makes don't have it tuned as well and it will respond strange depending on how the driver reacts. The system does have a very vague idea of what the driver is doing from the steering wheel angle sensor. It works best if you apply minimal inputs.
ESC is a good technology but in production vehicles it is tuned for the lowest denominator(dumbest driver). Very many times a day, every minute, it saves someone from crashing. Many people literally cannot drive to save their lives.
It is a very good feature IMO as long as it is easily, entirely defeat-able...
That being said VAG stability control systems can go to hell.
then they shouldn't have a license and shouldn't be nannied by a car into almost killing people
Car crashes are going to happen. You can cry about it or accept the advancements in technology which have greatly mitigated crashes as well as making them more survivable.
Or you can just take everyones license away right...
Electric motor is more efficient than human muscle, and battery charging is more efficient than digestion, so we should kill people and replace them with robots. /s
This is getting highly political, you cannot say what is bad just because you don't like them.
Then drive flat-out before it ends.
However it never actually happened.
--- Post updated ---
The author of the video is literally called SaskTesla
--- Post updated ---
Also from a technical standpoint
1. Most EVs(including that Tesla) don't have heat pump in their HVAC, they use resistive heating (I^2*R) to provide heating. Resistive heating is only about one-third efficiency compared to heat pump. This drains much more energy than your average air conditioner.
2. Laptop battery simply doesn't work in -30 degree Celsius. The only possible explanation is he left the HVAC on overnight, in order to make sure the battery temperature stays above zero.
A more efficient way is to leave that Tesla plugged but switch the HVAC off overnight, only use HVAC(powered by the grid, since battery at -30 doesn't work) to heat up the battery pack 15 minute before driving. However, no EV can actually do that AFAIK.
Like it or not, some measure of spirited street driving is necessary for the car hobby to thrive. I would go so far as to say that spirited street drivers and sanctioned racers have a symbiotic relationship, as long as sanctioned racing is functioning properly (which, these days, it often isn't).
I wear my seatbelt religiously. I still oppose making it illegal not to wear one.
Imagine living your life in constant fear of everything. Trying to worry your way to a longer lifespan will just make you and everyone around you miserable.
I understand what you're saying - it's nice in the moment to have a get-out-of-jail-free card when something bad happens and your brain short-circuits - but the problem is, you can't have one without the other. People can "get closer to the physical limits" because they have a crutchy get-out-of-jail-free card. Having someone or something that you can count on to bail you out of the mistake dulls the psychological impact of a mistake and reduces the incentive not to make mistakes. Instead of going "whoop, guess I better not do that again!" you go "whoop, I'm glad I have that computer!" So when they "get closer to the physical limits", instead of learning from their experience and becoming better drivers, they just learn that they can count on the computer to hide their mistakes.
While most drivers will never deliberately go past about 5/10ths if that, that's not entirely the point. The difference is one of mentality. Unassisted driving requires you to master both your car and yourself. It requires you to actively pay attention to what you are doing. This, in turn, will make your a better and safer driver - at any speed - than the people who trust their cars to sort everything out.
When am I at my most dangerous? It's not when I'm shredding along some backroad. It's when I'm just loafing along in slow traffic, unconsciously matching the speed of whoever is in front of me, looking around instead of ahead.
Even the manual-versus-automatic debate has relevance here. If you've spent any time driving stick, you know that having a manual transmission makes it nearly impossible to eat, drink, talk on the phone, or otherwise do things that aren't driving, while driving. This is a good thing.
This is true regardless of whether anyone is seeking a higher cornering speed or not. In my experience, the closest calls don't happen because of excessive speed or insufficient electronics, they happen because of somebody not paying attention. So, then people come up with even worse crutches like lane keep and auto brake. And when those inevitably lead to even more inattention, what will your solution be then? Take away the crutches and make people actually drive? No, you're going to take the same arguments you currently apply to ESC, and apply them against anyone who won't let the computer do all the driving for them.
It's not necessarily about the people who drive aggressively on purpose. Without going into details, let's just say I'm more interested in ways to accomodate those people than in ways to get rid of them. The ones I'm worried about are the ones who don't necessarily realize they're driving that aggressively. The problem with ESC is that it lets you be sloppy and stupid and get away with it.
It's as slippery as it gets. See what I said above. The most dangerous thing you can do, at any speed, is split your attention between driving and some other task. So instead of demanding that people stop doing this, we simply add more electronics to cover their inattention. Eventually, people will get used to this and pay even less attention, thus continuing to cause crashes. Then comes the robocar. And when we get to that point, you will, without even thinking about it, take the same argument you currently apply to ESC - "if you have it, it's reckless and irresponsible not to use it" - and apply it to automatic pilot. After all, your attention might lapse momentarily! This is as predictable as it gets.
A speed limit or ESC could have prevented the crash. So could better lane and mirror discipline. If you set out making rules to bandage stupidity, you will never stop making rules, because you will never run out of stupidity to bandage. I would go so far as to say, the more onerous or intrusive a given rule is, the more likely it is to be papering over some sort of much deeper systemic problem.
First, because they're not always better at the right things. Computers can react very quickly to things, but on the road, that's only part of the picture. The problem of getting them to react correctly and to the correct stimuli is much more difficult.
Second, because maybe people like doing things for themselves and resent being replaced?
True, but when you try to take it all the way and create a world which is entirely free of hardship... well, first, you're never going to do it, because in this fallen world, there will always be hardship of some kind or other, and second, you're going to take away so much from life that it won't even be worth living anymore. What's the point when nothing especially good or bad is ever allowed to happen?
Frankly, I think too little hardship actually drives people insane. When people have nothing important to worry about, they blow stupid, petty little inconveniences out of proportion until they see those things as the end of the world. This may be related to the concept of the hedonic treadmill. To struggle is to be human, and to be human is to struggle - try to take that away and people will just find stupider and stupider things to struggle over.
It isn't, and yet, it is. The need to know yourself, to know your machine, and even to look where you're going are slowly taken away until, long before full autonomy is reached, what we used to call "driving" becomes, instead, simple navigation.
Well, I mean, yeah, that's kind of the problem.
The problem is, the safety systems will actually promote inattention by making allowances for it. See the people who think that they can set their Tesla on autopilot and then settle in to read a book. Designing safety systems to solve this problem will just end up making it worse, thus paving the way for full-on automation.
Aaaaaaaand here we go. In terms of consideracy, it's not about resources or taxes, it's about the vast majority of road users are motorized and bicycles no longer fit into that environment. If you want to very succinctly say "I don't care at all about other people but I fully expect everyone else to care about me", then I can't think of many more effective ways to say it than riding a bicycle on a dark and/or narrow road, and most of the ones I can think of would get me banned on here.
It's likely not intended to assist a competent driver. It's intended to crutch someone who knows absolutely nothing about driving and will have all the wrong reactions. The rest of us just get to put up with it as if we are that person.
...thus providing an excuse to force robocars into the mainstream. Again, predictable as it gets.
Now there's a made-up number if I ever saw one. Define "credible science". What makes science credible or not in your eyes? And, while we're at it, what is "a loss of balance" to you?
Diesels are efficient. They're also so dirty, in terms of both NOx and particulate (i.e. the actually-problematic pollutants), that they actually caused a smog crisis in some major cities... which then resulted in gasoline cars being muzzled with particulate filters that eat horsepower the way catastrophic converters did when they were first introduced. That's what "muh efficiency" gets you. Except next time, it won't be a smog crisis, it'll be a capacity crisis as the grid struggles to keep up with everyone going BEV, followed quickly by a mobility crisis as no electricity = no motion.
The problem with this argument is time. Someone may not be able to afford a more powerful car all at once, or at least not without going deep into debt. But they may be able to scrape off smaller amounts of money here and there, and use that money to improve their car incrementally over time. There is also the psychological aspect of making your car your own; of having something that's not exactly like everyone else's.
To me, this is an argument for returning to simpler, less "efficient" ICE designs. I would also argue that a return to production based and non-BoP rulesets in sanctioned racing would drive improvement in terms of ICE longevity.
Again thinking as if places outside of inner cities don't exist.
Muh enviromeent tho!
I can't argue with you on this one because my opinion is unapproved and therefore will get me banned. I'm sure you're safe to make political statements like this thought, simply because you're in the mainstream.
Let's lock everyone to major highways so no one can go off the beaten path! Great idea!
That's exactly where this type of thinking leads.
The car that I got closest to crashing because of the stability control was a 2013 Nissan Altima. A car ran a red at high speeds on the right, so I swerved left and then quickly steered right once clear. I was almost two lanes over halfway in the middle turn lane and the other half in the oncoming lane to avoid the crash.When I felt the suspension hit the bump stops I slammed on the brakes to initiate a very slight controlled slide to get back on the right side of the road as quickly as possible. This works perfectly fine in the Regal, but not in a car with ESC. The car tried to correct for me and tried to pull me back towards the oncoming lane. After that time, ESC goes off every time I get in a car I am comfortable with.
jesus god is this an mla format college essay?
Yeah, I come back to just walls of text
On the topic of not being able to drive fast when your comuting i regularly drive above 150-160 in normal traffic because most traffic is driving those speeds and the most times your allowed to drive faster is when there is little traffic so 200+ isnt that rare sometimes on weekends traveling great distances with 200+ is absolutly normal. Also my car has every safety feature you can want on a modern car (autopilot is possible i dont want it though) but lots of them dont work properly or make driving more dangerous the worst offender here is the lane assist because when you take a corner it randomly steers in a diffrent direction because it thinks it sees a road marking.
I dont see what is political about physics. A newer ICE vehicle may be slightly cleaner and slightly more efficient compared to an older one but the difference in fuel consumption/emission is likely going to be so small that the new one will need to be driven for a very very large amount of km to compensate the ressources spent in its production.
Errm.... you cant say that. There are some EVs with very high mileage arround, the difficulty however is that this is in the end at least to an extent dumb luck and often we dont know what parts have been replaced and under what conditions they have been used.
For the same reason it is surprisingly difficult to get an accurate estimate on ICE lifetime. Some sources I found speak about arround 200000 km for a petrol engine, yet this number can be both surpassed and not reached.
And then there is of course the question what qualifies as the end of life of an ICE. Catastrophic failure or just wear and tear on a level unsustainable (like drinking more oil than fuel)
For most older used car, replacement or even major repair of the internal combustion engine is usually uneconomical.
Since EVs only quite recently are used in any significant numbers there is a lack of data regarding their average lifetime.
Beyond drivetrain and power source, EVs use mostly the same parts als an ICE. The reliability of those parts is mostly unaffected by the power source.
So the question primarly comes down to:
Durability of electric motor and battery compared to durability of ICE parts and fuel system.
Electric motors are an well known technology existing for more than 100 years and as such can be built very reliable.
So the actual question comes down to the battery lifetime
There is insufficient hard available at the moment to have a credible long time/distance expectation of EV batteries. What is known however, is that in general, the batteries tend to outlast expectations significantly.
Most EV batteries also dont fail catastrophically but rather loose capacity = range. Larger batteries tend to last longer due to a lower amount of charging/discharging cycles. They also reduce the issue of dwindling range in older vehicles as the remaining range is still sufficient for most trips. Larger batteries also allow faster range gain at high speed chargers, further mitigating the issue.
Finally with batteries on average getting 5 % better each year, changes are very high that if you need to replace the battery in 20 years, that you will get the same capacity for half the money initially spent. Or twice the capacity/range.
While likely still being cheaper than the wear and tear parts of an 20 year old ICE, not to mention the reduced maintainance costs.
Yes, he is probably a fan but that that doesnt change whats happening as no amount of fan love can bend the laws of physics.
Also ask yourself the question, would be be a Tesla fan in such a cold climate if he had any serious issues with the car?
1. Among ID 3 owners there is some discussion ongoing of the heat pump is really worth it. Time will tell.
Resistive heating is indeed a major power draw, yet one should not underestimate the amount of heat you can create with several KW of energy available. Keep in mind that most electric room heaters draw arround 2 KW per hours which means that a 50 KW/h battery would last arround 25 hours. A car while almost certainly much worse insulated and a modern building is also still a pretty small space and once warmed up the draw goes down as you now only need to compensate for the insulation losses.
Did it occur to you that engineers have foreseen the car being parked outside in the cold? I mean, it is not exactly a thing not to expect from a car? Batteries used in EVs tend to dislike heat far more than cold, the usable capacity at very low temperatures however goes down.
At very cold temperatures, the battery is more like a fuel tank partially frozen. You dont "lose" the fuel/energy, it is just not available until the battery has warmed up.
What actually happens is that the EV uses a part of the battery charge to warm the battery before it becomes to cold. Hence the draw overnight. Which costs a bit of range depending on how cold it is outside but remains well within useful limits.
And that is when it is not plugged in. Plug it in and it will draw whatever it needs from the mains as seen in the first video.
At the end it comes down to EVs long time but now increasingly fixed problem: Battery capacity. When you have 100 km of range, you are very wary of spending energy on heating or cooling.... but if you have 500 km... you probably dont care anymore.
I would assume that the software of the Tesla actually knows the exterior temperature and the battery temperature and as such will maintain a healthy battery temperature without any user intervention. It just makes sense, the car will be outside and be exposed to glowing heat and bitter cold. it is to be expected and thus planned for.
Guys can we keep it short and concise
--- Post updated ---