Would you prefer range or super fast charging?

Shel_B said:
Definitely range.
Click to expand...
It is also important to highlight that manufacturer's love to advertise the full theoretical range of their vehicle (0-100%). However, the "usable" range is really from 10-80%, so it's roughly 70% of what's being advertised. Like EPA estimates, your mileage may vary, so even that number is often optimistic.

Keep in mind that EV's hate cold weather and extended highway driving. At "normal" highway speeds it is very common for consumption to be in the mid 300wh/mi range, at least on current Tesla products. Realistically you're looking at around 150 miles between charges, even on the current long range models.
 
LDB said:
It takes longer than that to fill a gasoline vehicle. Fully charging isn't a viable option in any instance as beyond 80-85% charging tapers off. A more realistic ask would be 400 mile range and ability to recharge to 80% in 15-20 minutes. That's a 15-20 minutes stop every 300 miles, a sensible amount of up out of the vehicle moving around and helping circulation time anyway.
Click to expand...
I timed the time it takes to fill my Wrangler (21 gal tank) and it's like 3-4 mins. If they can make a 500 mile range battery and the 20-80% charge range is 400 miles, that's fine too. EVs need to be on parity with ICE in every aspect in order for everyone to get onboard. I don't want to be hanging around in some random gas station or parking lot just for an EV to charge for 20 mins. That's ridiculous. Gas vehicles already work great, I don't get why going backwards in usability is okay.
 
JeffKeryk said:
I do the San Jose to San Diego loop a couple of times a year. About 460 miles. Not gonna take one of those stupid EVs that catch fire every 20 minutes. Southwest $49 ticket for me, baby! More time for tacos!
Click to expand...
Well you touched on a whole other topic there. Southwest used to have tickets that cheap for intra-Texas travel and even $39 Austin-Love Field. Those prices are rare now, so we drive. My point being Southwest takes their home state business for granted. But anyway...
 
RooflessVW said:
Sometimes but not always. And not hospital helicopter pads, especially when on the roof.

And anyway, who's buying those chargers? Installing them? How quick are 220V chargers?
Click to expand...
The charger is in the car. You need a recepticle to supply the electricity. Plug in and charge.
At home I installed a NEMA 14-50 on a dedicated 50A circuit. I get 28 to 32 MPH at 32A.
I have 3 mobile charger ends: NEMA 14-50, older dryer 220V style and 110V. I have never used the dryer plug; it probably gets about 12 to 15 MPH; the 110V gets like 4 MPH.

The Tesla Supercharger is the fastest charging option when you're away from home, allowing you to charge your car up to 200 miles in 15 minutes, depending on your car, state of charge and charger level.

1667010895672.png
 
The Critic said:
It is also important to highlight that manufacturer's love to advertise the full theoretical range of their vehicle (0-100%). However, the "usable" range is really from 10-80%, so it's roughly 70% of what's being advertised. Like EPA estimates, your mileage may vary, so even that number is often optimistic.

Keep in mind that EV's hate cold weather and extended highway driving. At "normal" highway speeds it is very common for consumption to be in the mid 300wh/mi range, at least on current Tesla products. Realistically you're looking at around 150 miles between charges, even on the current long range models.
Click to expand...
I agree with the very well made points you stated here. What I find very interesting is: "Realistically you're looking at around 150 miles between charges, even on the current long range models." That makes EVs an even bigger turn off for me, and they're one big turn off as it is. IMO waiting 15 minutes for enough juice to go 200 miles would suck on any road trip for me. At some point in history they'll be forced upon me no doubt, hopefully it takes at least another 25-30 years, odds are very likely I will no longer be driving so it won't matter.
 
RooflessVW said:
I don't think so. You underestimate the company size. The leases, maintenance, and insurance would be much more expensive.
Click to expand...
Without going into too many technical details, from a risk management perspective, significant non-auto exposures can be very problematic.
 
The Critic said:
Without going into too many technical details, from a risk management perspective, significant non-auto exposures can be very problematic.
Click to expand...

It's actually more a risk for us to let employees take our leased/purchased vehicles. When we give out company owned (lease included) vehicles, the company is liable for everything with the car, maintenance, tracking, insurance, parking violations, speeding tickets, etc. It's recorded on our company insurance history so if you happen to get into say 4 accidents in a year like one of our guys, the company's insurance premium skyrockets to the point that our CFO had to get involved, got extremely pissed, and we took away the employee's car. We also put on a lot of miles and idle time in the car so having to worry about rotating cars every 2-3 years goes away when you don't have to keep track of the car

We also had an event earlier this year where one of our new trailblazers was stolen from a worksite and then found 70 miles away with the Onstar and pretty much everything else inside ripped out. Trying to recover a stolen vehicle takes a lot of time and effort that could be used somewhere else for the company.

Also had another incident early this year where an employee rear ended another car that was stopped on the highway for traffic. Texting was suspected but no way for us to tell.

Another instance late last year of one our company cars "ownership" being transferred from one employee to another and the interior was downright atrocious; fast food bags and trash everywhere, fries from who-knows-when; whoever had it last sat on a McDonald's bag instead of cleaning the car. (I have pictures here somewhere in my email....)

Multiple instances where the employees would unplug the GPS tracker and/or use it for personal drives.

Or we can pay $0.65/mile (IRS recommendation) and not worry about that. I'm also not 100% sure if OSHA records auto accidents as well which is a huge factor when applying for contracts and projects.
 
Last edited:
The Critic said:
Without going into too many technical details, from a risk management perspective, significant non-auto exposures can be very problematic.
Click to expand...
My "normal" day is a 56 mile round trip commute that is not reimbursed.

Right now I'm wearing two hats and occasionally a third. Me in a rental car may make financial sense for the company right now, but won't once things settle down, and it wouldn't make sense for me at all because I prefer my car, setup the way I like it, and I'm in the black on reimbursement.
 
The Critic said:
Without going into too many technical details, from a risk management perspective, significant non-auto exposures can be very problematic.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that you're suggesting a nationwide fleet of cars for a business you know very little (nothing?) about for a company that already manages a nationwide fleet of helicopters. We try to be proactive but aviation maintenance is a very reactive environment.

It makes more sense to reimburse your employees for travel when needed than to bloat yourself.
 
Pew said:
It's actually more a risk for us to let employees take our leased/purchased vehicles. When we give out company owned (lease included) vehicles, the company is liable for everything with the car, maintenance, tracking, insurance, parking violations, speeding tickets, etc. It's recorded on our company insurance history so if you happen to get into say 4 accidents in a year like one of our guys, the company's insurance premium skyrockets to the point that our CFO had to get involved, got extremely pissed, and we took away the employee's car. We also put on a lot of miles and idle time in the car so having to worry about rotating cars every 2-3 years goes away when you don't have to keep track of the car

We also had an event earlier this year where one of our new trailblazers was stolen from a worksite and then found 70 miles away with the Onstar and pretty much everything else inside ripped out. Trying to recover a stolen vehicle takes a lot of time and effort that could be used somewhere else for the company.

Also had another incident early this year where an employee rear ended another car that was stopped on the highway for traffic. Texting was suspected but no way for us to tell.

Another instance late last year of one our company cars "ownership" being transferred from one employee to another and the interior was downright atrocious; fast food bags and trash everywhere, fries from who-knows-when; whoever had it last sat on a McDonald's bag instead of cleaning the car. (I have pictures here somewhere in my email....)

Multiple instances where the employees would unplug the GPS tracker and/or use it for personal drives.

Or we can pay $0.65/mile (IRS recommendation) and not worry about that. I'm also not 100% sure if OSHA records auto accidents as well which is a huge factor when applying for contracts and projects.
Click to expand...
It works out better for the government to have fleet vehicles because they basically can't be sued for very much, and they are self insured. And if you're using vehicles out of a pool you won't have one person trashing the cars consistently, and if someone is doing that consistently they can be written up. Vehicles in the pool are also tracked 100% of the time. And the government has enough scale to have fleet fueling stations which reduces their costs as opposed to buying fuel at commercial stations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
RooflessVW said:
Keep in mind that you're suggesting a nationwide fleet of cars for a business you know very little (nothing?) about for a company that already manages a nationwide fleet of helicopters. We try to be proactive but aviation maintenance is a very reactive environment.

It makes more sense to reimburse your employees for travel when needed than to bloat yourself.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I am not familiar with your employer and we are probably not discussing all of the specifics on the public forum, but on the surface....this doesn't sound good from a RM standpoint.

Pew said:
Or we can pay $0.65/mile (IRS recommendation) and not worry about that. I'm also not 100% sure if OSHA records auto accidents as well which is a huge factor when applying for contracts and projects.
Click to expand...
That isn't exactly true. When an employee operates a personal vehicle for company business, it is a non-owned auto exposure. Many personal auto policies exclude coverage for when the vehicle is used for business purposes. Companies are supposed to carry Hired/Non-Owned Auto Liability Coverage for these situations since these claims are often severe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
What I have found is this: People who do not have an EV think range is #1, by far. People who own an EV, think that charging speed is #1, by far, so long as the range isn't just a complete joke like the MX30's 100 miles or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom