EV Reviews are DUMB!

#charging #ev #reviews

We need to Use kW to measure charge speed, instead of saying how many miles over how much time. This kind of language stops consumers from being able to effectively compare vehicles regarding charge speed.

Can I review your EV? Any Make/Model/Year Let me know at this Email

WV EV Owners Facebook Group

Tesla
Tesla Model 3
Tesla Model Y
Model 3
Model Y
Model 3
Cybertruck
Superchargers
V2 Supercharger
V3 Supercharger
Urban Supercharger
Software Updates
Adapters
J1772
EV Charging
Road Trips
Electric Vehicles
ChargePoint
EVGo
Electrify America
Nerd Data
Tips
How to
Tricks
Level 1
Level 2
Evse
Maps
A Better Route Planner
Route planning
Low battery
Battery Replacement
Tsla
Plugshare
Infrastructure
OBX
Outer banks
North Carolina
Stack em high
Arby's
Sheetz
Fast
Tesla
Dealership
Reviews
Screens
Reset
Software Updates
winchester
virginia
maryland
west virginia
j1772
vacation
Level 2
Level 3
Dc Fast
Plugshare
Challenge

[Deveonn]

No, don’t use kW as it doesn’t equal range! It’s easier to fill a big battery with high current, however a big battery also hurts efficiency thus range.

Referring to distance per time unit does take efficiency into account. Some cars run 3 km on a single kWh and some reach 6+ km per kWh. That efficiency cause it to charge twice as fast on the same kW.

[RenardThatch]

The cars tested milage is a good baseline. There are too many variables to make a basic kilowatt number useful to consumers.

[VitorOliveiraInc]

I’ve never once been confused by Doug’s description of EV KW and KWh. Obviously there is a distinction between the way petrol-powered engines and EVs operate. It makes sense to specify how long an EV needs to charge for to meet a desired range, since it functions so differently from gasoline vehicles.

EDIT: it’s also pretty obvious not everyone needs to charge for X amount of minutes. It’s clear Doug was relaying what Cadillac noted in its charging and range info with respect to fast charging and the respective range you’d get in that time. Not sure what the issue is with explaining EV charge in terms of minutes charged to range available.

[conejo]

As the battery gets closer to capacity, the rate at which it charges slows significantly. Manufacturer claims on time vs range give a real world indication of what it’s like to live with the car assuming battery drops to say 20% and then you charge to 80%. Peak KW tells you very little. They optimize the batteries to charge from 20 to 80.

[tangerinestorm]

It's about the curve not the peak kW.

[lexlopez]

i kind of disagree...kilowatts is not something people are used to in order to determine the distance they can go in their car. the average consumer isn't going to want to pull out a calculator to figure out how far they can go....

i'd rather someone say "charging for this long will let you go this far". so as an example, if i charge my ev for 1 hour and that gives me 100 miles when my full range is 300 then that would be easy to figure out. but if a reviewer or car dealer starts telling me "this car or that car is better because it takes in 250kw in 20 minutes from a 350kw fast charger but it takes 50kw on a level 2 charger and doesn't tell me much else, then i'll have to call my accountant or bill nye the science guy to figure out how many kilowatts i need if i'm just driving for an hour...

It's not about being too lazy to figure it out, it's about convenience. the number one reasoning there are ev haters is because of convenience. they'd "rather spend 5 minutes at a gas station than several hours on a charging station"....in contrast from that, ev's are attractive to a lot of people because of convenience...no oil changes, better technology, etc...that provides....convenience....

now you're telling people they NEED to learn how to measure kilowatts for their cars?....that's not so convenient. it's like telling a chef who only studied in the u.s to measure in liters and milliliters instead of cups and teaspoons. it's a big learning curve to overcome when you're used to doing things a certain way for so long.... if you're selling or buying cars then you want to simplify things as much as possible.

[stonedwookiee]

Also maybe make EV's more energy efficient, instead of ridiculous acceleration.

[andreasklossek]

He just stated what cadilac did mentioned. Wrong? I would not even consider what he does as an review. More like showcase.

[RandomNoun]

I enjoy Doug’s channel, I think he’s an entertaining guy, but I literally just finished watching the review you clipped, and I cringed when he said that. To me, if the range of the car is supposed to be 300 miles and you’re talking 195 in 30 minutes, that’s only about 65%. When you have a Kia EV6 with a similar range getting from 10% to 80% in 15 minutes, it’s clear that the only reason for the Lyriq people to want to express the charging figure that way is because they don’t want to admit how long it takes to charge in comparison to less expensive competitors. And it’s a shame because I think Lyriq is a nice looking car. I would love to own one. But at that price point it’s disappointing to see they skimped on the charge rate.

[creekninja]

Ban EVs.
Why?
If you knew how expensive they are to make, you’d ban the idea in your life too.

[dizzywow]

"charger etiquette" my ass. There is no, and will be no, such thing. A-holes will always be hogging the chargers.

[gmanblue]

I don't need to drive 50KW, I need to drive100 miles.

[krafter]

lol I love the gas station comment on 2 mins of gas.

[Kenbark]

You are not wrong. However it is also important to consider efficiency along with charge rate. Wh/mile is important to know. Vehicles that can charge at high rates, but have terrible efficiency, or too large of battery packs can be fooled into thinking 1 car is better than the other when it comes to charging performance. Which is where I think the "miles per minute" thing comes from. I also dislike this method of car advertising.

All that matters is
1. Battery size
2. Charge curve (peak rate means nothing if its only achievable between 10-15% battery)
3. Wh/mile

Companies get away with advertising only "range" when they conveniently leave out battery size, and charge rate. They get away with it for the same reason auto makers have gotten away with advertising only HP figures without covering torque and at what RPM those figures are made. Its been a deceptive practice for decades. You should also get on Fiskers a** for their pathetic marketing BS too btw. I know the car is styled nice, but they have ONLY released "estimated range" and they are 1 month away from SOP. Hold these auto makers to the fire. They are the ones creating deceptive marketing and pulling the wool over their customers eyes. Fisker has been by far the worst offender here.

[donhagerty]

❤❤❤ I WOULD RATHER HAVE A HORSE THAN A ELECTRIC VEHICLE❤ I HAVEN'T EVER HEARD OF ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY MILES A HORSE CAN GO FOR A BALE OF HAY❤❤❤❤

[blendpinexus]

kw also makes it much easier to determine how much battery is being charged per hour.

[newsomsr]

What they need to do is they're talking about the battery of Tesla can go over $300, 000 Mi or 150, 000 MI which may be true I don't know but I do know the battery don't last beyond 10 years no matter how many miles when I say 10 years at full capacity the batteries degrade and do not last past 15 years that doesn't matter how many miles you can drive on it it is timed not by mileage battery life span

[usaverageguy]

Wrong. Because cars charge on a curve. The max charging speed in KW tells you nothing about how quickly it charges.

[rodrigonegrete]

KW is power KWh is energy... So you don't understand it either!

[SleepyMongoose]

Your just wrong about this, technical specs don't matter to the majority of users. Use cases matter to users, reviewers are making reviews for the general users, not for engineers.

I need to go on a trip that is 450 miles, my EV has 350mile range and take 30min to charge 150 miles, meaning I need to make a 30min or so charge stop on the way. Is far more useful to the actual users than the technical spec that the EV charges at.