Limited charging posts is largely gone, but I appreciate that this may be different where you live.
Here in Switzerland, you can charge almost everywhere. Most people do have home chargers, but I know several who do not. They charge wherever it’s convenient. Several who work at the airport charge while they are at work. Most charge their cars when shopping at outlets which provide chargers, some of them even proviede one hour free.
I know one guy who is increadibly penny wise, not to use a more derogatory term. He owns a Fiat 500 electro but he claims that he has yet to pay for charging. His commute is about 20 miles. He claims that he charges for free at an outlet when doing his shopping and whereever he finds free chargers.
If I could find a cheapo e-car for commuting, I’d leave my beloved Camry for longer trips and do the same. My commute is 7 km and I got 2 shops with free chargers on the way. But the price for those entry level cars is still far to steep to actually make a profit.
Every now and again I’ll throw some fuel on the fire here (pun intended) and post the latest graph on growth of EV’s. My bet is that the rate of climb of that graph will continue to be rather nice with no sign of plateau-ing. We can debate all day long. All irrelevant, the market will speak. And the regulators.
I must admit that I haven’t used my calculator, shame on me. But maybe that’s a waste of time, charging both our cars on our own solar power and yet having to visit the garage for anything else than a change of brake fluid and check whether the original brake pads need replacing (not) gives me a a feeling that it’s been a pretty good investment, apart from the ecology and comfortable drive.
@BeechBaby, I have just one V12 powered car and the problem with it is that with the equivalent of €1.05 per liter gasoline cost a round trip to my hangar now costs $25 
So it gets used few times a year for fun. It burns less fuel per year than any of my other cars.
Otherwise gasoline cost is not a significant fraction of my budget for a combined family mileage of maybe 25,000 miles or 40,000 km per year. What I do with cars is buy the one that works for my needs, try to avoid contact with annoying and irrational activists who would like me to do something else, wear it out over 150 or 200K miles and buy another.
The motor industry was BTW built on the Model T Ford, with 15 million built and sold before 1927.
aart wrote:
All irrelevant, the market will speak. And the regulators.
I guess in this case we will see the regulators being the ones reacting to political pressure. And that will be very different depending wherever you are based. Germany, California, to name two, will most probably regulate all combustion engines out of existence and force people to switch. Which is not really free market. As Germany does, Europe will follow usually, even though here I am reluctant to think that all of them will. Switzerland and Austria for sure, maybe Benelux as well, but Southern Europe, forget it as it would turn 98% of their population into pedestrians.
Main thing is, eletric vehicles are still way too expensive for the middle classes, let alone low incomes. Until that changes without electricity prices exploding at the same time, I am sceptical.
Silvaire wrote:
What I do with cars is buy the one that works for my needs, try to avoid contact with annoying and irrational activists who would like me to do something else, wear it out over 150 or 200K miles and buy another.
Ditto.
Silvaire wrote:
The motor industry was BTW built on the Model T Ford, with 15 million built and sold before 1927.
Yes.
Remember diesel? Our leaders drove the masses to diesel cars, and then diesel cars were not only pretty crap, but priced out of the market, certainly in the UK. Same happening with the electric vehicles. I do not wish to be told what to do, and what to buy. I do not wish to be told where I can drive and where I cannot, especially when they drive their strategy with the absurd climate argument.
I also just do not like driving around in a souped up milk cart..I did that in the mid sixties
I do not wish to be told what to do, and what to buy. I do not wish to be told where I can drive and where I cannot, especially when they drive their strategy with the absurd climate argument. I also just do not like driving around in a souped up milk cart..I did that in the mid sixties
Democratically established laws indeed tell you what to do. And many fellow Glasgowers will surely appreciate seeing you whizz by in a nice Mercedes ‘milk cart’ not having to endure the fumes and noise, sorry beautiful sound, of your V12. You seem more than wealthy enough to get yourself an upscale EV. 
You should try one!
My wife asked me why the car burns less fuel on the motorway on 6th gear instead of 5th gear.
Despite my engineering studies, I was ashamed not to have a definitive answer.
I think of the lesser friction due to lower RPM. But I guess it is not the main reason.
Anyone may help ?
Germany, California, to name two, will most probably regulate all combustion engines out of existence and force people to switch.
Firstly that’s not their intent, the intent is to limit new vehicle sales not operation, and secondly it isn’t going to happen. In the US, for example, electric cars are a tiny minority of sales and if one state were to limit new car sales to electric, buyers will just go to another state to buy. States are not allowed to ban imports of used cars and you can bet that the market would reshape very quickly to provide what people want to buy and will pay for. For example in your example of California, people and businesses would buy new cars in Arizona and Nevada, drive them 7,000 miles (which is what’s required for them to be ‘used’) and then sell them to a huge market in California. Where there’s money to be made, and Federal laws limiting state tyranny, the market will act and overcome.
Democratically established laws indeed tell you what to do.
Happily in places where a meaningful constitution limits the scope of government, taxpayer funded activists usually do not succeed in using crises, real or imagined, to justify their excesses. And democracy functions better as a result.
My wife asked me why the car burns less fuel on the motorway on 6th gear instead of 5th gear.
Despite my engineering studies, I was ashamed not to have a definitive answer.
I think of the lesser friction due to lower RPM. But I guess it is not the main reason.
Anyone may help ?
Engines have always been more efficient at lower rpm. Decades before electronic ECUs etc, people found that they could win MPG competitions by driving at very low revs.
Why exactly, I don’t know, but yes mechanical (friction) losses are obviously lower, and the fuel has more time to burn properly. Engine design has always been a struggle to get the air+fuel in, burn it fast, get it out again, and repeat. 4 valves per cylinder, etc. The reason for doing it at ever increasing speeds (rpm) is because HP = torque x rpm so if you can get an engine to rev high you get more HP out of it.
Where engine size/weight is not an issue e.g. ships, you always see large and very slow revving engines.
Our leaders drove the masses to diesel cars, and then diesel cars were not only pretty crap, but priced out of the market, certainly in the UK
I don’t recall that. Diesel cars are nice to drive because of lots of low end torque and crucially they deliver great mpg. Typically, petrol to diesel meant 35 mpg to 55mpg, and that is huge. (Toyota Celica to VW Scirocco; cars of similar performance). The problem with diesel is the particulate emissions, addressed with DPFs which need a regular fast run to burn off the ash. People worry about these much more than they used to. Then diesels got hit with the (mainly) German-manufacturer ECU cheat scandal.
BMW’s eta car engine design of the 1980s is an example of how low RPM increases efficiency. It’s mainly interesting because they utilized an existing engine as the basis, providing direct comparison. The redline of the engine was circa 4500 rpm versus 6500 rpm for the original engine. They actually drive OK if you’re not trying to go anywhere fast.
“BMW engineers took an unusual approach to meet the targets by developing an engine that ran at lower RPMs to reduce frictional and pumping losses and maximize torque at lower speeds, resulting in the eta’s large displacement, high torque, flat torque curve, low horsepower, and low maximum engine RPM – 121 horsepower, 174 lb-ft of torque coupled to a very tall 2.93:1 final drive (2.79:1 for earlier models). The eta had the power and efficiency characteristics of a diesel engine with the smoothness of a gasoline engine”
Many casual observers confuse power density and efficiency.
