Data from thousands of EVs shows the average daily driving distance is a small percentage of the EPA range of most EVs.
For years, range anxiety has been a major barrier to wider EV adoption in the U.S. It’s a common fear: imagine being in the middle of nowhere, with 5% juice remaining in your battery, and nowhere to charge. A nightmare nobody ever wants to experience, right? But a new study proves that in the real world, that’s a highly improbable scenario.
After analyzing information from 18,000 EVs across all 50 U.S. states, battery health and data start-up Recurrent found something we sort of knew but took for granted. The average distance Americans cover daily constitutes only a small percentage of what EVs are capable of covering thanks to modern-day battery and powertrain systems.
The study revealed that depending on the state, the average daily driving distance for EVs was between 20 and 45 miles, consuming only 8 to 16% of a battery’s EPA-rated range. Most EVs on sale today in the U.S. offer around 250 miles of range, and many models are capable of covering over 300 miles.
The stats I posted are history / survey results.
Consumer Reports conducts surveys where they ask car-owners of various model years how many issues, and what kind of issues, their cars have.
I know the difference from “predicted reliability” and their “Reliability history” page. There’s a reason why I’m posting history. These survey results look back into the past and is more appropriate for our discussion.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/car-reliability-histories-a1200719842/
Before criticizing my methodology, you probably should see what pages I’m posting and understand the material I’m quoting.
Oh look. We even got overall% problems.
Guess what? Its the battery again.
The only actual data you have is the percentage of problems being reported.
Re-read your page on reliability history, the scores aren’t much of a measurement and are derived from some in-house weighting of several things including comparison against other vehicles.
I’ll take the 3% as-is, but part of me is wondering if “battery problems” may be a catch-all for other self-reported electrical problems. It’d be alarmingly close to “moving goalposts” to assert anything, though.
Consumer reports states:
That’s it. There are other categories for electrical problems. Ex:
The Consumer Reports Survey is very clear. “EV Battery” problems mean exactly the battery. There’s other categories for other cases.
The whole table didn’t fit inside of my screenshot. (I can only screencap what is on my screen…). The “In Car Electronics” also have a 3% failure rate, but are at the bottom of the chart. But between that and EV Battery, they are the #1 failure points of a modern car.
You really have a bone to pick this evening, huh? Grab a beer and relax my friend.
Yes, and I’m deliberately wondering because it is self-reported data. Data that relies on an accurate assessment from whoever is doing the repair as well as the owner. Both of which are brand new to the tech if you’re picking first year models.
He’s been posting like this in multiple threads with one or two others. The way he’s pushing hybrids and talking up Prius makes it seems like a Toyota shill.
Of course it’s the battery. Nothing else breaks on an EV!
Similar to the rising rates of cancer these days because people are living longer and surviving everything else more due to medical science.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/electric-vehicles-are-less-reliable-than-conventional-cars-a1047214174/
It is physically impossible for an EV with much fewer parts, all of which require no maintenance, to be less reliable than a gas car with highly complex parts like transmissions and differentials and combustion engines.
I’ve worked on both for a living. I’ve seen first hand which cars come into the shop and how frequently. I used problem tracking websites like Identifix daily to see common failures on all the cars I work on.
EVs rarely break.
Gas vehicles turn into paperweights if you go too long without changing the oil.
And transistors, and transformers, battery management systems, and inverters aren’t complex?
Are you making fun of my degree? Power engineering is a masters-level subject at a minimum, and easily reaches into the PH.d level.
As I stated earlier. I’ve got an electrical engineering degree. When EV buffs talk about the “simplicity” of EVs I can’t help but roll my eyes. Yall probably can’t even pick out the right chips for a Li-ion BMS, or tell me the differences between LiFePo4 or NMC Li-ion is.
There’s some highly technical magic going on here. MOSFETs, Power-circuits, complex inverters, microcontrollers to carefully time the movement of electricity with the movement of those magnets. There’s a hell of a lot more complexity in there than people realize. And when things go wrong, there’s not much else to do but replace the entire damn part, because it requires a very advanced facility to create electric motors, the chemistry behind these cells, or PCBs for those battery packs.
Moving parts wear out due to friction. The electronic parts you listed are not moving parts and rarely fail. I would know, as an automotive technician they come to me when they break.
If you really were an engineer, you would know about minimizing points of failure. And you would be able to recognize gas vehicles have exponentially more points of failure due to the amount of moving parts and sealing surfaces and combustion temperatures.
It’s easy to claim you’re an engineer on the internet. But you’re definitely not talking like an engineer.
Hear hear.
Engineers look at empirical results most of all. They don’t dismiss large, 300,000+ car surveys just because they’re inconvenient to your argument.
I’ve said my piece on the reliability of battery designs over the past 5 years. Hopefully battery engineers improve their reliability moving forward. I don’t think it’s going to be easy though, as the simulated models of the internals of Li-ion cells is just such a devilishly difficult problem.
Technical magic???
BMS systems are far from it. Lots of technical work going into simplifying measuring techniques, automatic switching between series parallel linking of cells based on system needs (at my company)… but the essentials of measuring current, thermal and voltage? Lmao. I’m making fun of your degree, as a holder and EIT myself.
If you’re into BMS systems at all, you know that the ridiculous levels of modeling are chemistry / cell specific, to the point that would make the typical layman’s eyes glaze over. A litany of cell types (NMC, LiFePo4, NCA) and more as new chemistries are invented (or go in and out of fashion) requires updates to BMS, the modeling of how the internals of the cells work, and how all of that is related to the voltage/current/temperatures of individual cells.
Measuring voltage/current? Yeah, that’s easy.
INTERPRETING voltage/current? That’s the hard part. And requires a giant mess of R&D effort on these cells and their individual chemistries.
There’s nothing “simple” about that battery pack. The shear number of control systems that go into a modern battery-pack it should be proof enough to you.
https://stock-tesla.com/en/asy-tested-bms-96s-mdls-1021970-00-b
Not only is there difficulty in building and manufacturing this… there’s also difficulty in maintaining this item. I mean yeah, we don’t maintain it, its just replaced wholesale. But there’s also the whole 400V will-instantly-kill-a-technician problem if they’re not careful.
Sorry, I have designed complex 4 and 6 layer high speed FPGA boards, this BMS board looks moderately dense but not crazy, nor does it look like it’s dealing with high speed signaling.
Try dealing with RF or something, those PCBs are quite a bit crazier.
The models for the cells are implemented in software. You know what’s easy to update in place? software. You know what’s hard to update in place? Mechanical systems. That’s my point.
Then I’ll chalk it up to another FPGA programmer dissing Power Engineering and the complexities of handling of high voltage lines.