EV Discussion thread

JKenH

Tesla’s California market share tumbles

Tesla Inc controlled 59.6% of the battery electric market in California from January to March, down from 72.7% for all of 2022 and the lowest since 2017, according to Reuters calculations based on data from the California Energy Commission.

https://www.gulftoday.ae/business/2023/04/23/teslas---california---market-share--tumbles

This report was originally provided by Reuters but for paywall reasons I can’t access the original article hence the alternative link provided.

My calculations suggest Tesla sold 57182 cars in 2023 compared to 48038 in 2022 a 19% increase y-o-y. In total there were 95946 ZEVs sold in Q1 2023 compared to  81,292 in Q1 2022 so Tesla’s share of the ZEV market in Q1 2023 actually rose slight slightly compared to Q1 2022 when it was 59.0%.

Edit: original Reuters link attached https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/teslas-california-market-share-tumbles-despite-aggressive-price-cuts-2023-04-22/

JKenH

Used EV Sales Are Thriving As Prices Continue To Fall

Sales of used electric vehicles are growing at a rapid rate. Per a new report from industry analysts Cox Automotive, sales of pre-owned EVs rose 32% in Q1 2023. EVs now account for 7% of the used American automotive market, up from 3.1% in 2021.

Over 225,000 used EVs exchanged hands in the US last quarter, a new record. According to the most recent data, the average price of a used EV was $43,400. However, that figure is likely lower now with used prices continuing to fall. 

https://insideevs.com/news/663689/used-ev-sales-thriving/

Note, this article refers to the US market, where, relatively, used EV sales appear much stronger than in the UK. 

JKenH

Tesla Model Y tops EU27 Q1 chart

Model Y success was at the expense of Model 3

The Volkswagen Group came only 2,400 units behind Tesla in the Q1 ranking, with its total BEV volume up by 57%. Even during the reigning period for Tesla, VW’s rise equalled Tesla’s. With Volkswagen performing better in March, registrations grew by 75% in comparison to Tesla’s 44%. Geely Group, SAIC Group, and Toyota also produced good results in the BEV market during Q1.

https://www.just-auto.com/news/tesla-model-y-tops-eu27-q1-chart/

JKenH

EVs Fail To Meet EPA Estimates More Often Than Gas Cars: SAE Paper

Based on Car and Driver's 75-mph highway test, more than 350 ICE vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than the values on the window sticker. However, the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than what was stated on their labels.

Why the big disparity, though? One reason is the way the range is calculated, more specifically the fact only a combined number is presented to consumers – even though separate city and highway range figures are also calculated behind closed doors. The combined rating is then weighted 55 percent in favor of the city figure, where EVs typically perform better. 

https://insideevs.com/news/663901/evs-fail-meet-epa-estimates-more-often-gas-cars-sae-paper/

michaels

JKenH said:

EVs Fail To Meet EPA Estimates More Often Than Gas Cars: SAE Paper

Based on Car and Driver's 75-mph highway test, more than 350 ICE vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than the values on the window sticker. However, the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than what was stated on their labels.

Why the big disparity, though? One reason is the way the range is calculated, more specifically the fact only a combined number is presented to consumers – even though separate city and highway range figures are also calculated behind closed doors. The combined rating is then weighted 55 percent in favor of the city figure, where EVs typically perform better. 

https://insideevs.com/news/663901/evs-fail-meet-epa-estimates-more-often-gas-cars-sae-paper/

No S sherlock.  EVs are more efficient everywhere but even more more efficient in urban traffic situations....

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

EVs Fail To Meet EPA Estimates More Often Than Gas Cars: SAE Paper

Based on Car and Driver's 75-mph highway test, more than 350 ICE vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than the values on the window sticker. However, the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than what was stated on their labels.

Why the big disparity, though? One reason is the way the range is calculated, more specifically the fact only a combined number is presented to consumers – even though separate city and highway range figures are also calculated behind closed doors. The combined rating is then weighted 55 percent in favor of the city figure, where EVs typically perform better. 

https://insideevs.com/news/663901/evs-fail-meet-epa-estimates-more-often-gas-cars-sae-paper/

No S sherlock.  EVs are more efficient everywhere but even more more efficient in urban traffic situations....

… but in real life perhaps less efficient than what the official figures suggest. 

Of course if all your motoring is in town then you may well be able to achieve the quoted range. Today someone who lives in a National Park where the speed limit is 40mph posted a photo on Facebook showing a range of 337 miles for his Kona electric and another Kona driver said he sees 325 on his GOM in favourable conditions but as low as 200 in winter after high speed driving. 

All these figures are entirely credible and that is why your use case will dictate what efficiency you achieve. The point of EPA and WLTP ratings is to give the consumer useful information about what mileage he might reasonably expect from his EV or ICE car. The fact that manufacturers are able to quote such high figures under approved testing regimes results in disappointment in real life for new EV owners. Social media was awash this winter with people moaning about what poor range they were getting from their EVs - particularly Teslas (as there are so many of them) and electric Corsas (because they are so bad in cold weather). Experienced EV users aren’t surprised by these variations in range but new users and potential EV buyers are.

It’s bad press and the industry is bringing it on itself by pushing theses figures. As an example:

What range might someone new to EVs reasonably expect from a Tesla Model 3 RWD? Around 300 miles perhaps? Will they get that in the TM3s natural environment- the third lane of a motorway?

And that is before we start talking about useable range! Manufacturers advertise how quickly their latest cars will charge from 10 to 80% but that’s talking about 70% of the range and for a lot of people they are more comfortable stopping before the battery drops below 20%. Those of us with LeafSpy know that when the Leaf is showing 10% battery remaining there is actually 20% but not everyone is as into EVs as we are and stopping to charge a Leaf at 20% battery remaining on the display and taking it up to 80% is probably only adding 50-55% off the battery’s capacity or around 20kWh in the case of a 40kWh model. 

EVs are great when your journey is within round trip range of your home and tbh most of us use them that way. Most of my trips fitted into that category so most of the time running an EV was fine but not everyone’s use pattern is like that and as EVs penetrate further, more and more people outside that usage pattern will be buying them and a lot of them are going to be disappointed.

Is it wrong for a motoring magazine to flag this issue up and call for better, more representative, information to be presented?

1961Nick

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

EVs Fail To Meet EPA Estimates More Often Than Gas Cars: SAE Paper

Based on Car and Driver's 75-mph highway test, more than 350 ICE vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than the values on the window sticker. However, the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than what was stated on their labels.

Why the big disparity, though? One reason is the way the range is calculated, more specifically the fact only a combined number is presented to consumers – even though separate city and highway range figures are also calculated behind closed doors. The combined rating is then weighted 55 percent in favor of the city figure, where EVs typically perform better. 

https://insideevs.com/news/663901/evs-fail-meet-epa-estimates-more-often-gas-cars-sae-paper/

No S sherlock.  EVs are more efficient everywhere but even more more efficient in urban traffic situations....

… but in real life perhaps less efficient than what the official figures suggest. 

Of course if all your motoring is in town then you may well be able to achieve the quoted range. Today someone who lives in a National Park where the speed limit is 40mph posted a photo on Facebook showing a range of 337 miles for his Kona electric and another Kona driver said he sees 325 on his GOM in favourable conditions but as low as 200 in winter after high speed driving. 

All these figures are entirely credible and that is why your use case will dictate what efficiency you achieve. The point of EPA and WLTP ratings is to give the consumer useful information about what mileage he might reasonably expect from his EV or ICE car. The fact that manufacturers are able to quote such high figures under approved testing regimes results in disappointment in real life for new EV owners. Social media was awash this winter with people moaning about what poor range they were getting from their EVs - particularly Teslas (as there are so many of them) and electric Corsas (because they are so bad in cold weather). Experienced EV users aren’t surprised by these variations in range but new users and potential EV buyers are.

It’s bad press and the industry is bringing it on itself by pushing theses figures. As an example:

What range might someone new to EVs reasonably expect from a Tesla Model 3 RWD? Around 300 miles perhaps? Will they get that in the TM3s natural environment- the third lane of a motorway?

And that is before we start talking about useable range! Manufacturers advertise how quickly their latest cars will charge from 10 to 80% but that’s talking about 70% of the range and for a lot of people they are more comfortable stopping before the battery drops below 20%. Those of us with LeafSpy know that when the Leaf is showing 10% battery remaining there is actually 20% but not everyone is as into EVs as we are and stopping to charge a Leaf at 20% battery remaining on the display and taking it up to 80% is probably only adding 50-55% off the battery’s capacity or around 20kWh in the case of a 40kWh model. 

EVs are great when your journey is within round trip range of your home and tbh most of us use them that way. Most of my trips fitted into that category so most of the time running an EV was fine but not everyone’s use pattern is like that and as EVs penetrate further, more and more people outside that usage pattern will be buying them and a lot of them are going to be disappointed.

Is it wrong for a motoring magazine to flag this issue up and call for better, more representative, information to be presented?

It's not the manufacturer's fault that BEVs don't achieve the WLTP range. The test clearly doesn't work for BEVs but this is the range that has to be advertised in Europe. I have seen some manufacturer websites that now include a range calculator where you can enter you driving parameters & get a more accurate winter & summer range to go along with the WLTP figure. A new test for BEVs is needed along the lines of the EPA test which is far more accurate - Model 3 (60kWh) WLTP 305 miles ~ EPA 272 miles. The situation for hybrids is even worse with the headline mpg figure being flattered by using the electric miles as 'free' miles. A sensible test for a hybrid should include an MPG figure when the test starts with an empty battery.

The third lane of the motorway is definitely not the best place to get maximum miles from your Tesla (290-310Wh/mile). In my experience (M3P) daytime A road driving produces the best result typically around 240Wh/miles.

Martyn1981

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

EVs Fail To Meet EPA Estimates More Often Than Gas Cars: SAE Paper

Based on Car and Driver's 75-mph highway test, more than 350 ICE vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than the values on the window sticker. However, the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than what was stated on their labels.

Why the big disparity, though? One reason is the way the range is calculated, more specifically the fact only a combined number is presented to consumers – even though separate city and highway range figures are also calculated behind closed doors. The combined rating is then weighted 55 percent in favor of the city figure, where EVs typically perform better. 

https://insideevs.com/news/663901/evs-fail-meet-epa-estimates-more-often-gas-cars-sae-paper/

No S sherlock.  EVs are more efficient everywhere but even more more efficient in urban traffic situations....

… but in real life perhaps less efficient than what the official figures suggest. 

Of course if all your motoring is in town then you may well be able to achieve the quoted range. Today someone who lives in a National Park where the speed limit is 40mph posted a photo on Facebook showing a range of 337 miles for his Kona electric and another Kona driver said he sees 325 on his GOM in favourable conditions but as low as 200 in winter after high speed driving. 

All these figures are entirely credible and that is why your use case will dictate what efficiency you achieve. The point of EPA and WLTP ratings is to give the consumer useful information about what mileage he might reasonably expect from his EV or ICE car. The fact that manufacturers are able to quote such high figures under approved testing regimes results in disappointment in real life for new EV owners. Social media was awash this winter with people moaning about what poor range they were getting from their EVs - particularly Teslas (as there are so many of them) and electric Corsas (because they are so bad in cold weather). Experienced EV users aren’t surprised by these variations in range but new users and potential EV buyers are.

It’s bad press and the industry is bringing it on itself by pushing theses figures. As an example:

What range might someone new to EVs reasonably expect from a Tesla Model 3 RWD? Around 300 miles perhaps? Will they get that in the TM3s natural environment- the third lane of a motorway?

And that is before we start talking about useable range! Manufacturers advertise how quickly their latest cars will charge from 10 to 80% but that’s talking about 70% of the range and for a lot of people they are more comfortable stopping before the battery drops below 20%. Those of us with LeafSpy know that when the Leaf is showing 10% battery remaining there is actually 20% but not everyone is as into EVs as we are and stopping to charge a Leaf at 20% battery remaining on the display and taking it up to 80% is probably only adding 50-55% off the battery’s capacity or around 20kWh in the case of a 40kWh model. 

EVs are great when your journey is within round trip range of your home and tbh most of us use them that way. Most of my trips fitted into that category so most of the time running an EV was fine but not everyone’s use pattern is like that and as EVs penetrate further, more and more people outside that usage pattern will be buying them and a lot of them are going to be disappointed.

Is it wrong for a motoring magazine to flag this issue up and call for better, more representative, information to be presented?

It's not the manufacturer's fault that BEVs don't achieve the WLTP range. The test clearly doesn't work for BEVs but this is the range that has to be advertised in Europe. I have seen some manufacturer websites that now include a range calculator where you can enter you driving parameters & get a more accurate winter & summer range to go along with the WLTP figure. A new test for BEVs is needed along the lines of the EPA test which is far more accurate - Model 3 (60kWh) WLTP 305 miles ~ EPA 272 miles. The situation for hybrids is even worse with the headline mpg figure being flattered by using the electric miles as 'free' miles. A sensible test for a hybrid should include an MPG figure when the test starts with an empty battery.

The third lane of the motorway is definitely not the best place to get maximum miles from your Tesla (290-310Wh/mile). In my experience (M3P) daytime A road driving produces the best result typically around 240Wh/miles.

I find it quite ironic that the US with their poor fuel efficiency for most vehicles, has a much better estimate of BEV range. The EPA figures seem quite reliable for good weather, the WLTP is achievable but needs a lot of work and is about 12% more than the EPA, and the Chinese CLTC (which replaced the NEDC ('not even damn close')) is pretty much ridiculous.

Hopefully BEV estimates, particularly the EPA, are better than most mpg's quoted for ICEV's. 

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

… but in real life perhaps less efficient than what the official figures suggest. 

What range might someone new to EVs reasonably expect from a Tesla Model 3 RWD? Around 300 miles perhaps? Will they get that in the TM3s natural environment- the third lane of a motorway?

I think it is obvious, to me anyway, that the WLTP range for an EV is equivalent to the quoted mpg for an ICE. 
So, if I buy a petrol car quoting 50 mpg, I might expect 35-40 mpg real world (20-30% worse).
Similarly an EV quoting 300 miles, I might expect 225 miles or thereabouts real world.  A bit less in winter, maybe 200 miles...

I also understand that an EV will excel by comparison to an ICE in town, given that the stationary EV uses nothing for motive power while the ICE engine is still ticking over (even on ICE's with stop-start, the conditions are often not correct for the stop-start to be active).

I suspect that I may not be typical of the ICE-driver aspiring EV-driver. 

The misunderstanding is not helped by sales representatives, for example when I looked at the Toyota BZ4X, the individual presenting the car repeatedly stated the range was 310 miles in all conditions...

My older brother, however, purchased his i3 on the "worst-case" assumption regarding range and has then been pleasantly surprised at exceeding expectations.

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

… but in real life perhaps less efficient than what the official figures suggest. 

What range might someone new to EVs reasonably expect from a Tesla Model 3 RWD? Around 300 miles perhaps? Will they get that in the TM3s natural environment- the third lane of a motorway?

I think it is obvious, to me anyway, that the WLTP range for an EV is equivalent to the quoted mpg for an ICE. 
So, if I buy a petrol car quoting 50 mpg, I might expect 35-40 mpg real world (20-30% worse).
Similarly an EV quoting 300 miles, I might expect 225 miles or thereabouts real world.  A bit less in winter, maybe 200 miles...

I also understand that an EV will excel by comparison to an ICE in town, given that the stationary EV uses nothing for motive power while the ICE engine is still ticking over (even on ICE's with stop-start, the conditions are often not correct for the stop-start to be active).

I suspect that I may not be typical of the ICE-driver aspiring EV-driver. 

The misunderstanding is not helped by sales representatives, for example when I looked at the Toyota BZ4X, the individual presenting the car repeatedly stated the range was 310 miles in all conditions...

My older brother, however, purchased his i3 on the "worst-case" assumption regarding range and has then been pleasantly surprised at exceeding expectations.

That might have been true for pre 2017 cars but WLTP figures are now a lot closer to real world mpg for ICE cars. If you are basing your 20-30% shortfall on your experience of older cars then it might be worth having another look at something post 2017. 

Fleet News:

On average, vehicles were 5.4% less efficient than the WLTP figures suggested, but the research revealed significant differences between models.

The new WLTP test is significantly more accurate than the NEDC test, according to What Car?’s figures. In a previous study of 159 vehicles tested under the NEDC protocol, there was an average discrepancy of 20.2% between True MPG and the manufacturer quoted figures - with the worst performers as much as 40% less efficient than advertised.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/manufacturer-news/2020/06/18/new-cars-are-54-less-efficient-than-wltp-figures-suggest-says-what-car

VAG cars fare particularly well for mpg compared to WLTP - maybe they learnt their lesson.