Yeah the LEAF is not a road tripping vehicle.

In my experience (M3LR) you spend about 15-20 minutes charging every 2-3 hours. ABRP tells you how much time you spend charging, and otherwise assumes map drive time, which may not correspond to your “11 hours” depending on how aggressively you drive.

How much longer it takes also depends on how long you’d stop anyway — rarely go more than 2-3 hours without stopping anyway, even when we road tripped in our ICE.

A similar length trip (Sacramento to Seattle) takes 1h15m of charging for a 11h45m trip — about 10%. (23% seems high, but you may be making different assumptions, perhaps leaving with a low charge and having to arrive with a high charge.)

I took whatever the ABRP defaults were. I noticed it started at 90% SoC, but I didn't look at any of the other settings [nor change any]. I still have the M3LR tab open. It says 11h42m drive and 1h32m charge. From my experience in the LEAF, 85 mph highway cruising gives a substantial range penalty, which I'm assuming is baked into a sensible charging route planner.

Our ~11 hour actuals from this past trip were moving with a purpose, but not Cannonballing as a family of four in a 20 year old CR-V, averaging right around 70 mph door-to-door.

Right, but isn’t 92 min / 702 min (11h42m) is a 13% increase, not 23%? (Also, ABRP by default adds 5 minutes “overhead” to charging stops — reasonable for non-superchargers were you have to futz with everything, but the supercharger overhead is frankly less than a gas station. Pull up, plug in, done.)

I found the range penalty for going above 75 mph to be a weird thing…I typically target supercharger arrivals at 15%. If there’s…extra drag, let’s say…I might arrive around 10% or lower. But the battery charges really fast at that SoC, at least on the 250kW superchargers. If the extra drag gets me there 10-15 minutes sooner for a 2-hour segment, I’ll only see a charge penalty of 2-3 minutes.

Of course, I’m only thinking about all this stuff because I love spreadsheets more than is reasonable; most people won’t, shouldn’t, and don’t have to bother!

The one I typed above for the M3LR the first time was 13h34m vs 11h00m CR-V observed (2-way average). That’s the 23% increase, which I assume ABRP is choosing a time-optimizing cruise speed from the settings panel, so I took its time estimate. (I’m not a Tesla owner, so I’m taking route optimization choices at face value. My LEAF’s range suffers badly at even 70mph.)

Ah, I see. Then I think you may be comparing apples and oranges -- in my experience ABRP is not doing the right thing with charge curves and cruise speed, which is dependent on a large number of unknowable factors at the planning stage anyway (e.g., temperature, wind). The default settings also assume you are traveling at the speed limit, which it sounds like you are not.

Roughly, you get about 20% lower range by traveling at 80mph (80mi, 25 kWh, 3.2mi/kWh) vs 60mph (60 mi, 15 kWh, 4mi/kWh), and then lose another 20% going from 80mph to 90mph (90 mi, 35 kWh, 2.6mi/kWh). [0]

Peak charging speed is 250kW and is sustained from ~5%-~35%, and then tapers. Charging from 10%-60% is typical, and takes about 13 minutes for about 38 kWh, meaning that each kWh you use adds about 20 seconds of charging. [1]

We can integrate these into the speeds and consumptions above to construct effective speeds that account for the charging time required. E.g., at 60 mph you travel 60 miles in an hour, consume 15 kWh of energy, and thus spend 5 minutes charging -- 60 miles over 65 minutes is about 55 mph.

nominal -> effective speed (efficiency):

60 mph -> 55 mph (92%)

70 mph -> 62 mph (90%)

80 mph -> 70 mph (88%)

90 mph -> 75 mph (83%)

100 mph -> 80 mph (80%) - whee!

So even though you spend more of your travel time charging at higher speeds, your effective travel speed continues to go up well into speeds you're probably not cruising at.

In other words, that peak "optimized cruise speed" for a modern EV that can charge 38 kWh in 13 minutes (~175 kW) is well above what you're probably driving anyway.

For comparison, if you stop for 5 minutes every 3 hours in your ICE to refuel, at 80 mph you've got an effective speed of 77 mph, about 10% faster than your EV at 80 mph. (The above scenario has you stopping every 1.5h at 80mph in the 75 kWh-capacity EV; of course, you could stop less frequently but with a bit of a hit to your effective speed assuming 0 stop overhead.)

Not making any normative claims here about what's better, etc. -- just laying out the numbers as I see them!

[0]: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/15/tesla-range-plotted-rel... -- model 3 is slightly better than these numbers.

[1]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/24/tesla-model-3-on-superc...

Thanks! That’s helpful data and rules of thumb. We were moving comfortably with left lane traffic in the Northeast. Speeds varied by state but were still well within the ranges you calculated above.

ABRP's default assumes really close to the (often incorrectly mapped) speed limits. Having said that, your figures are probably pretty close. You'd just need to adjust the drive time for 80+ instead of ~70, and increase the charge times by maybe 10-15 minutes.

70mph is the upper end of the sweet spot for Tesla distance driving. I lived in Chicago for a decade and had a Model 3 for the majority of that (purchased it in 2018 new). From our house in Chicago to our family's house in Kentucky, it was 385 miles door to door. We'd stop in Indianapolis (or Lafayette, IN) and grab a bite to eat, stretch our legs, and use the restroom. It would always be done charging before we were finished eating, so no big deal at all. We've since purchased a Tesla Model Y and have done many road trips. I'm hoping to get the Cybertruck in the next year or so with the range extender. I do have a farm and plan on using it to haul stuff, but with 470 miles of range, we can drive generally longer than I'd ever want to with two kids and go camping.

This is the way. Currently have one ICE. Would probably buy an EV for a second. Too many things are too hard or too unsafe in an EV and renting can be a nightmare sometimes.

I also think people forget what happened to rentals during COVID.

Can you name two of the "too many things" that are "too unsafe" about EVs?

I'm not GP, but the towing capacities of most EVs are pretty abysmal (in both weight and range), which is a factor in our selection.

Finding one that can tow even 3000 lbs is uncommon and 6000 lbs or more puts you into the Rivian/Lightning/Hummer realm in EVs ($$$). Or any-old <$20K used half-ton or mid-size SUV can tow that all day long.

The Dual motor Cybertruck can tow 11,000 lbs. It also has a max range of up to 470 miles if you get the range extender.

>The Dual motor Cybertruck can tow 11,000 lbs. It also has a max range of up to 470 miles if you get the range extender.

Let's wait until we actually get some real world towing figures, shall we?

Isn't Tesla currently involved in a scandal to cover up exaggerated range claims?

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...

That counts as being in the Rivian/Lightning/Hummer realm.

Sure.

You can be stranded in the middle of nowhere because a road is closed for many hours or days due to inclement weather or an accident and the detour is 100-200km beyond anticipated, with no charging possibility in between. Some parts of the mountain west have 200km between exits. Has happened to me multiple times. In some places and some times of the year, getting stranded legitimately risks exposure to the elements.

You can find a road impassable because EVs almost universally have poor ground clearance. If a road is closed due to conditions, per the above, the alternatives that are remotely reasonable in terms of distance may require high ground clearance to safely traverse. Again, I have been able to circumvent road closures for various reasons because I had a high-clearance vehicle. There are parts of the US where I will not drive without one.

Many years ago, I would routinely rescue people out of the Sierra Nevada in winter that had foolishly taken their (ICE) SUV on unplowed roads they were not equipped to traverse. You can die from exposure to the elements in that country, both winter and summer. An EV is much, much more poorly equipped for these types of environments. They were lucky I trawled for people on those roads (it was a hobby), they may not have been found for days.

tl;dr: high ground clearance and robust reliable range are serious safety features in the mountain west. Lack of it may find you stranded for days in difficult survival environments. Same reason I also carry ample water when driving through the same areas, just in case.

This has very little to do with EVs in principle and a lot to do with everything else about a vehicle except its powertrain.

EVs have low ground clearance for efficiency, just like most sedans. That's been "almost universal" so far because extra range costs $$$ for an EV but almost nothing worth of space for an ICE, so every little bit of lowered resistance helps. But sedans "almost universally" have poor ground clearance too. In contrast, a Rivian's ground clearance is up to 14.9".

As you note an ill-equipped ICE SUV on unplowed roads is just as much as disaster.

"An EV" is not inherently more poorly equipped for unplowed roads and going off-road. Most EVs on the market today are, just as most sedans on the market today are too. You make serious compromises on efficiency to support going off-road, and for an EV that adds a lot of cost. (And frankly for an ICE that also adds a lot of cost, especially if most of the time that vehicle drives on a clear highway, in terms of operational expenses and externalities.)

As that cost continues to drop for EVs, though, we'll see more vehicles that are actually equipped for the mountain west at prices that are less stratospheric.

> You can find a road impassable because EVs almost universally have poor ground clearance.

Define: "poor ground clearance"

Tesla Model 3: 5.2" Tesla Model S: 5-7" (in has a manually adjustable pneumatic suspension) Ford F150: 8-9.5"

You can get bigger wheels for bigger clearances and you can also obviously put snow chains on Teslas as well.

As of September 2023, 11.05% of new vehicle registrations in Colorado were electric. It has a lot of both mountains and snow. It depends on the specific model and how cold, but a Tesla generally speaking can keep the heat on for ~72 hours or so if it is not moving in the cold. I lived in Chicago and survived three polar vortexes (the worst was -22F in front of my house) and my Tesla did just fine.

You are confused if you conflate chains with ground clearance. They are not fungible. If your sole frame of reference is “snow” and cold weather then you don’t understand the problem. 5 inches of ground clearance is a joke in many areas. There is a reason people religiously buy Subarus with almost 9 inches of ground clearance. It isn’t negotiable if you actually understand the problem.

My minimum requirement for ground clearance for many years, and based on real-world experience, is 8 inches. I’ve owned vehicles with less and more, and used all in less than ideal circumstances re: ground clearance. The last time I had a vehicle with ground clearance as low as a Tesla, it wasn’t great for the vehicle, and I have a lot of experience navigating those conditions to minimize damage.

Just because it never has applied to you, clearly, doesn’t mean it isn’t a real problem.

Chains are for snow. They’ve got nothing to do with clearance. You mentioned unplowed roads. If that also includes mountains you tend to use chain.

Get over yourself buddy. The level of arrogance is astounding.

> Chains are for snow. They’ve got nothing to do with clearance.

Yes, and you were the one who mentioned chains in response to clearance issues. GP was asked to provide examples, and did. That's not arrogance.

Many people rent cars for these types of excursions to prevent wear-and-tear on their own cars.

If you have a collector car or an unreliable car, I can see how that could make financial sense. If you have anything that people would describe as a "normal, reliable car", that does not seem like a money-saving move. 1600 miles of mostly highway usage is not particular stressful on a car.

Depending on your car, it could easily be 30 cents / mile in depreciation + maintenance costs. So that's "worth" $480. Depending on how long of a trip and the type of car, the rental may well be cheaper.

Make sure that you set the speeds in abrp to your actual driving speeds. It sounds like you are doing ~85?