8 ms·

This is at 66.9 km/h (40 mph) in order to greatly increase its range due to lower drag compared to normal highway speeds. As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 9

This is at 66.9 km/h (40 mph) in order to greatly increase its range due to lower drag compared to normal highway speeds. As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo. I found an EPA dyno test for the Model 3 at 77 km/h (48mph) for 708 km (440 miles). The Nexo and Model 3 have similar dimension and weight and price, while the Nexo advertises 380 miles vs 353 miles. It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for. Also fuel cell cars seem to use a buffer battery and have lower power output than BEV's as current fuel cells can't output as much burst power and can't store power from regenerative braking with out a battery somewhere. Pretty skeptical about hydrogen fuel cells compared to the continued advancement in battery tech. 1.https://electrek.co/2018/05/27/tesla-model-3-range-new-hypermiling-record/ https://electrek.co/2018/05/27/tesla-model-3-range-new-hyper... Edit: very good efficiency comparison of hydrogen vs batteries by Volkswagen, which to me shows the biggest issue with using hydrogen in cars the "well to wheel" efficiency: https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydroge...

new_realist 5y ago
The Nexo is much less aerodynamic than the Model 3. One is an SUV/CUV, the other is a low sedan which looks like wet poop. The Nexo has more frontal area and a higher CD. And the Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers.
- JPKab 5y ago
  I own a model 3 and I laughed pretty hard at your comment regarding it looking like wet poop.
- SigmundA 5y ago
  Ok so go to the Model Y which is slightly heavier (Actually closer to the Nexo) and the worse aerodynamics than the Model 3 should have minimal effect if hypermiling at low speed, which also helps the Nexo vs Model 3. Model Y will blow the doors off the Nexo in performance due to much larger electric motors.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- usrusr 5y ago
  Pretty much everything is aerodynamic at 25mph when comparing to something else at 40mph...
- vardump 5y ago
  > And the Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers. By that you must mean Tesla bothers to do the full suite of EPA tests instead of accepting a somewhat penalizing multiplier, like how other manufacturers do? There's no rigging whatsoever and the same option is available for other manufacturers as well. If they bother to do the longer and more demanding test cycle, that is.
  - sfblah 5y ago
    Nobody cares exactly how a company gets unrealistically high numbers. What matters is as a consumer your experience won’t match the company’s claims. Best would be for companies just to tell the truth. C.f. the “full self driving” falsehood.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Anyone who has bought a car in the last 50 years is already well aware of how much EPA mileage differs from actual mileage. My old 2010 Prius was EPA-rated for 50 MPG. If I drove it with kid gloves over flat terrain, I could hit that mileage. If I drove it in a way that doesn't piss other road users off, I would get closer to 46 MPG. If I was doing 80+ MPH over the Rockies on the Trans-Canada, I'd be getting a cool 35 MPG, because air resistance is very high at those speeds, and because most of my braking was exceeding the regenerative capacity of the car.
- ajross 5y ago
  > Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers. The Tesla numbers are correct and verifiable, actually. The problem is that the EPA "highway" test is designed to capture the "average highway mile" driven by a US vehicle (which makes sense, it was designed to inform purchasers of aggregate fuel use). Here's the driving schedule: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/hwfetdds.gif https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/hwfetdds.... Note that it never goes above 60mph, and spends most of its time between 40 and 50. This isn't wrong, but it corresponds to an urban highway commute (again, which is pretty much the "average highway mile"). The problem is that this does NOT match what typical consumers think of as "highway driving", meaning blasting 75mph+ down an open road. So people get in their Model 3's and measure their consumption at those speeds and it doesn't match. And it's true that other EV manufacturers (Ford, especially -- the Mach E actually does somewhat better than sticker consumption on the highway) chose not to run the full test and used other methods that put a higher number on their stickers. And in context that's probably more informative. But nothing was "rigged". In fact Teslas in stop-and-go urban commute traffic really do get close to their sticker mileage. It's just that no one cares because one's battery doesn't run out on an urban commute before you get home to charge it. Ironically, EV owners in this case care LESS about efficiency than gas owners.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > The Tesla numbers are correct and verifiable There are caveats. The lower end Model 3s hit their estimates pretty reliably. The Performance trim usually misses by a pretty big margin for most people. There are exceptions to every rule, but I owned a P3D and hung out with other P3D owners as well, and this was a commonly shared experience.
    - ajross 5y ago
      I have to wonder how much of that is down to the way the driving habits of people who buy a car labeled "long range" differ from those who buy one that calls itself "performance". It doesn't really refute the notion that the difference between measured and claimed performance is due to the different driving conditions being tested. IIRC there was some youtube video a year or two back that tested a few variants on a track using what they claimed to be a replica of the EPA highway test, and the cars came out almost dead on.
xiphias2 5y ago
Hydrogen makes much more sense for container ships, where electric batteries can't be made practical, but hydrogen storage can be scaled easily.
- SigmundA 5y ago
  I agree also perhaps for grid scale storage
  - himlion 5y ago
    Or aluminium smelters.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Ammonia is a better fit for marine applications, as it doesn't require high pressure or cryo storage. It can also be produced using renewable energy, and is cheaper to transport. One of the largest producers in the world (CF Industries in Louisiana) has committed to producing it using offshore wind, and renewables in general (and their terminals are located in geographic areas where there is already high penetration of renewables on the local grid). https://www.cfindustries.com/globalassets/cf-industries/media/documents/commitment-to-clean-energy-economy.pdf https://www.cfindustries.com/globalassets/cf-industries/medi...
  - darksaints 5y ago
    Cryo/pressurized storage isn't technically necessary for ships either. Liquid hydrogen with insulated storage works well enough. The key is evaporation rates. As long as the ship consumes fuel faster than it evaporates, there is no need to maintain pressurization. In practice, some buffering pressurization may be necessary, but the scale of pressurization needs will be a lot lower than is required to store hydrogen long term.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  And if the ship sinks I guess hydrogen pollutes less than oil ?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Mvandenbergh 5y ago
>It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for. Hydrogen has a better gravimetric scaling than batteries - as stored energy increases, the fixed weight of the fuel cell is amortised over more energy and the weight of high pressure tanks goes up with their surface area while the energy stores goes up with volume. So for applications where you want to store a lot of energy and are weight but not volume limited, hydrogen might make enough sense to pay the efficiency penalty required to turn electricity into hydrogen and back again. That's why it makes more sense for big trucks than it does for passenger cars where volume limitations matter a lot more and where total energy is less.
- eternauta3k 5y ago
  > the weight of high pressure tanks goes up with their surface area while the energy stores goes up with volume. Nope, tank mass scales with volume because bigger tanks need thicker walls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Scaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Scaling
  - abakker 5y ago
    With hydrogen this is especially problematic due to hydrogen embrittlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
    - semi-extrinsic 5y ago
      Nope, because you don't make hydrogen tanks out of materials that are susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. In particular, pressurized automotive-size hydrogen tanks aren't made from metal at all, they are typically epoxy/kevlar/carbon fiber composites.
      - abakker 5y ago
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Hydrogen needs to be a game changer to command a redirection of investment and effort for consumer transportation. Even if it offers 20% better range and some allegedly better refuel experience (H2 people keep handwaving that as "solved"), that wouldn't justify the gigantic infrastructure switchover cost. Electric vehicles can use the grid. That's a massive advantage for infrastructure readiness and scalability, even if the current grid isn't ready for full EV consumer transportation. EVs can use home solar as well. Easily scalable, adds redundancy and alleviates load to the grid. H2 would need a huge buildout of hydrogen generators, transporters, refuelling. EVs are so far ahead of all of that. By the time any significant H2 infrastructure was out there, it'd be 10 years even if they secured 100s of billions in financing yesterday. In 10 years, the alternative energy / solar / home solar / grid / battery / storage economic proposition is likely to be 50% cheaper in real dollars, and possibly even better. It's the same problem nuclear faces. Sure, throw some money at places like aviation or maritime shipping. But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen". Green hydrogen smacks of "clean coal". Granted the physics/engineering for it are a lot more realizable. But everyone should see that for the shell game it is.
- taneq 5y ago
  > But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen". Hydrogen was always a distraction. Fuel cells have been 10 years away from practicality since the 80s, and hydrogen production was only ever non-fossil-fuel-based in theory. It's 100% a smokescreen to protect fossil fuels.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  Plus, unlike gas, the hydrogen is never directly burnt "in the engine", it's always converted to electricity first. A hydrogen car is always going to use EV motors (and batteries, because while denser, H2 doesn't yet have anything near the ability to supply power at high demand that current battery tech has) and have all the complexity of an EV, often without the convenience of grid charging (home charging) given much smaller batteries to compensate for the weight of the fuel cell and fuel. Even the greatest H2 car is always just going to be a second class EV with "weird fuel needs".
bjourne 5y ago
> This is at 66.9 km/h (40 mph) in order to greatly increase its range due to lower drag compared to normal highway speeds. > As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo. > It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for. I'm curious to know how you come to this conclusion? I don't know much about aerodynamics other than at, as a first order approximation, drag is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. Driving 887.5 km at an average speed of 66.9 km/h is, afaict, much more impressive than driving 975 km at 40 km/h.
- SigmundA 5y ago
  Drag isn't the only thing in play. They both are driving below highway speeds, one more so than the other, I wish there was some data for a Tesla at 40 mph vs 25 or 48 to compare more directly the difference. The Tesla will have between 975 and 708km range at 40 mph the NEXO is 887km, I will make an assumption the Tesla is less, but how much less, is it "much" different? What is the energy density delta between a HFCV and BEV currently?
  - donaldcuckman 5y ago
    drag really is just about the only thing at play
  - BombNullIsland 5y ago
    Doesn't matter much. Below about 80km/h rolling resistance is dominant. >What is the energy density delta between a HFCV and BEV currently? Depends on what you're counting. Mirai's fuel cell stack, composite overwrapped tank, additional underbody and rear impact crash protection, high pressure filling system, cooling and fan intake system, and lithium battery together masses well over 400kg. Also takes up a lot of cabin and cargo space necessitating a larger vehicle. Tesla's new 4680 batteries form part of the vehicle's structure and add free torsional rigidity, and will weigh roughly the same as a fuel system for 600km range. I imagine in the compact they'll package it into the unused area under the rear seat in order to drop the floor which should help with CdA.
jvanderbot 5y ago
The one thing H has going is quicker fills at the pump, right? Being low on joules is a pain when you're going to work in the morning, but it's a royal pain if you have to wait a half hour to charge.
- SigmundA 5y ago
  Yep if you have a hydrogen pump nearby it will probably fill faster than a charger. Not sure if they need attendants like a propane fill. If you have a plug at home though thats much more convient at least to me when going to work.
  - barney54 5y ago
    You do not need an attendant the hydrogen stations I’ve been to.
- jfengel 5y ago
  At least you get a half hour to think about how you should have plugged it in last night.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    For me that'd be half an hour to ruminate on how my apartment has no place to charge a car. I am not getting an EV anytime soon unfortunately.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      The general lack of EVs in multifamily housing is concerning for EV adoption - the only places where it's really possible is if the community offers a garage and the site's willing to book an electrician to install the 240v outlet.
      - _carbyau_ 5y ago
        I am fortunate that my building committee is pretty forward looking. It helps that many owners actually live there. But it is a significant project and it doesn't look like EV charging standards (plugs, power delivery) are set across all manufacturers. The balance of effort+money vs benefit/risk means we will keep driving what we know for now. I know the tide will turn sometime, but not anytime soon.
thatfrenchguy 5y ago
And a Hyundai Kona Electric did 1000km as well, probably at ridiculously low speeds as well :) ( https://thedriven.io/2020/08/14/three-unmodified-kona-electrics-drive-more-than-1000km-on-single-charge/ https://thedriven.io/2020/08/14/three-unmodified-kona-electr... )
- gnicholas 5y ago
  > The results of the test – conducted over 3 days with three vehicles in Germany in conditions mimicking heavy urban traffic – are impressive for the Hyundai Kona Electric which is already one of the longest range vehicles on the Australian market. Wow, it must have been brutal to drive 1,000km under faux heavy urban conditions.

new_realist 5y ago

The Nexo is much less aerodynamic than the Model 3. One is an SUV/CUV, the other is a low sedan which looks like wet poop. The Nexo has more frontal area and a higher CD. And the Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers.

JPKab 5y ago
I own a model 3 and I laughed pretty hard at your comment regarding it looking like wet poop.
SigmundA 5y ago
Ok so go to the Model Y which is slightly heavier (Actually closer to the Nexo) and the worse aerodynamics than the Model 3 should have minimal effect if hypermiling at low speed, which also helps the Nexo vs Model 3. Model Y will blow the doors off the Nexo in performance due to much larger electric motors.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
usrusr 5y ago
Pretty much everything is aerodynamic at 25mph when comparing to something else at 40mph...
vardump 5y ago
> And the Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers. By that you must mean Tesla bothers to do the full suite of EPA tests instead of accepting a somewhat penalizing multiplier, like how other manufacturers do? There's no rigging whatsoever and the same option is available for other manufacturers as well. If they bother to do the longer and more demanding test cycle, that is.
- sfblah 5y ago
  Nobody cares exactly how a company gets unrealistically high numbers. What matters is as a consumer your experience won’t match the company’s claims. Best would be for companies just to tell the truth. C.f. the “full self driving” falsehood.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Anyone who has bought a car in the last 50 years is already well aware of how much EPA mileage differs from actual mileage. My old 2010 Prius was EPA-rated for 50 MPG. If I drove it with kid gloves over flat terrain, I could hit that mileage. If I drove it in a way that doesn't piss other road users off, I would get closer to 46 MPG. If I was doing 80+ MPH over the Rockies on the Trans-Canada, I'd be getting a cool 35 MPG, because air resistance is very high at those speeds, and because most of my braking was exceeding the regenerative capacity of the car.
ajross 5y ago
> Tesla is known for rigging its EPA tests for higher, but illusory, numbers. The Tesla numbers are correct and verifiable, actually. The problem is that the EPA "highway" test is designed to capture the "average highway mile" driven by a US vehicle (which makes sense, it was designed to inform purchasers of aggregate fuel use). Here's the driving schedule: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/hwfetdds.gif https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/hwfetdds.... Note that it never goes above 60mph, and spends most of its time between 40 and 50. This isn't wrong, but it corresponds to an urban highway commute (again, which is pretty much the "average highway mile"). The problem is that this does NOT match what typical consumers think of as "highway driving", meaning blasting 75mph+ down an open road. So people get in their Model 3's and measure their consumption at those speeds and it doesn't match. And it's true that other EV manufacturers (Ford, especially -- the Mach E actually does somewhat better than sticker consumption on the highway) chose not to run the full test and used other methods that put a higher number on their stickers. And in context that's probably more informative. But nothing was "rigged". In fact Teslas in stop-and-go urban commute traffic really do get close to their sticker mileage. It's just that no one cares because one's battery doesn't run out on an urban commute before you get home to charge it. Ironically, EV owners in this case care LESS about efficiency than gas owners.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > The Tesla numbers are correct and verifiable There are caveats. The lower end Model 3s hit their estimates pretty reliably. The Performance trim usually misses by a pretty big margin for most people. There are exceptions to every rule, but I owned a P3D and hung out with other P3D owners as well, and this was a commonly shared experience.
  - ajross 5y ago
    I have to wonder how much of that is down to the way the driving habits of people who buy a car labeled "long range" differ from those who buy one that calls itself "performance". It doesn't really refute the notion that the difference between measured and claimed performance is due to the different driving conditions being tested. IIRC there was some youtube video a year or two back that tested a few variants on a track using what they claimed to be a replica of the EPA highway test, and the cars came out almost dead on.

xiphias2 5y ago

Hydrogen makes much more sense for container ships, where electric batteries can't be made practical, but hydrogen storage can be scaled easily.

SigmundA 5y ago
I agree also perhaps for grid scale storage
- himlion 5y ago
  Or aluminium smelters.
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Ammonia is a better fit for marine applications, as it doesn't require high pressure or cryo storage. It can also be produced using renewable energy, and is cheaper to transport. One of the largest producers in the world (CF Industries in Louisiana) has committed to producing it using offshore wind, and renewables in general (and their terminals are located in geographic areas where there is already high penetration of renewables on the local grid). https://www.cfindustries.com/globalassets/cf-industries/media/documents/commitment-to-clean-energy-economy.pdf https://www.cfindustries.com/globalassets/cf-industries/medi...
- darksaints 5y ago
  Cryo/pressurized storage isn't technically necessary for ships either. Liquid hydrogen with insulated storage works well enough. The key is evaporation rates. As long as the ship consumes fuel faster than it evaporates, there is no need to maintain pressurization. In practice, some buffering pressurization may be necessary, but the scale of pressurization needs will be a lot lower than is required to store hydrogen long term.
wiz21c 5y ago
And if the ship sinks I guess hydrogen pollutes less than oil ?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Mvandenbergh 5y ago

>It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for. Hydrogen has a better gravimetric scaling than batteries - as stored energy increases, the fixed weight of the fuel cell is amortised over more energy and the weight of high pressure tanks goes up with their surface area while the energy stores goes up with volume. So for applications where you want to store a lot of energy and are weight but not volume limited, hydrogen might make enough sense to pay the efficiency penalty required to turn electricity into hydrogen and back again. That's why it makes more sense for big trucks than it does for passenger cars where volume limitations matter a lot more and where total energy is less.

eternauta3k 5y ago
> the weight of high pressure tanks goes up with their surface area while the energy stores goes up with volume. Nope, tank mass scales with volume because bigger tanks need thicker walls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Scaling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Scaling
- abakker 5y ago
  With hydrogen this is especially problematic due to hydrogen embrittlement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
  - semi-extrinsic 5y ago
    Nope, because you don't make hydrogen tanks out of materials that are susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. In particular, pressurized automotive-size hydrogen tanks aren't made from metal at all, they are typically epoxy/kevlar/carbon fiber composites.
    - abakker 5y ago

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Hydrogen needs to be a game changer to command a redirection of investment and effort for consumer transportation. Even if it offers 20% better range and some allegedly better refuel experience (H2 people keep handwaving that as "solved"), that wouldn't justify the gigantic infrastructure switchover cost. Electric vehicles can use the grid. That's a massive advantage for infrastructure readiness and scalability, even if the current grid isn't ready for full EV consumer transportation. EVs can use home solar as well. Easily scalable, adds redundancy and alleviates load to the grid. H2 would need a huge buildout of hydrogen generators, transporters, refuelling. EVs are so far ahead of all of that. By the time any significant H2 infrastructure was out there, it'd be 10 years even if they secured 100s of billions in financing yesterday. In 10 years, the alternative energy / solar / home solar / grid / battery / storage economic proposition is likely to be 50% cheaper in real dollars, and possibly even better. It's the same problem nuclear faces. Sure, throw some money at places like aviation or maritime shipping. But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen". Green hydrogen smacks of "clean coal". Granted the physics/engineering for it are a lot more realizable. But everyone should see that for the shell game it is.

taneq 5y ago
> But it's just distraction, because I think the oil industry knows that the hydrogen will come from natural gas for the foreseeable (10-40 years) with some "future switchover" to "green hydrogen". Hydrogen was always a distraction. Fuel cells have been 10 years away from practicality since the 80s, and hydrogen production was only ever non-fossil-fuel-based in theory. It's 100% a smokescreen to protect fossil fuels.
WorldMaker 5y ago
Plus, unlike gas, the hydrogen is never directly burnt "in the engine", it's always converted to electricity first. A hydrogen car is always going to use EV motors (and batteries, because while denser, H2 doesn't yet have anything near the ability to supply power at high demand that current battery tech has) and have all the complexity of an EV, often without the convenience of grid charging (home charging) given much smaller batteries to compensate for the weight of the fuel cell and fuel. Even the greatest H2 car is always just going to be a second class EV with "weird fuel needs".

bjourne 5y ago

> This is at 66.9 km/h (40 mph) in order to greatly increase its range due to lower drag compared to normal highway speeds. > As a comparison a Tesla Model 3 got 975km (606 miles) at 40 km/h (25 mph) [1]. I can't seem to find any range tests at a similar speed as the Nexo. > It doesn't seem like current fuels cell have much of a energy density / range advantage even though hydrogen itself is much more energy dense, the fuel cell weight and efficiency and high pressure liquid hydrogen tanks must be accounted for. I'm curious to know how you come to this conclusion? I don't know much about aerodynamics other than at, as a first order approximation, drag is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity. Driving 887.5 km at an average speed of 66.9 km/h is, afaict, much more impressive than driving 975 km at 40 km/h.

SigmundA 5y ago
Drag isn't the only thing in play. They both are driving below highway speeds, one more so than the other, I wish there was some data for a Tesla at 40 mph vs 25 or 48 to compare more directly the difference. The Tesla will have between 975 and 708km range at 40 mph the NEXO is 887km, I will make an assumption the Tesla is less, but how much less, is it "much" different? What is the energy density delta between a HFCV and BEV currently?
- donaldcuckman 5y ago
  drag really is just about the only thing at play
- BombNullIsland 5y ago
  Doesn't matter much. Below about 80km/h rolling resistance is dominant. >What is the energy density delta between a HFCV and BEV currently? Depends on what you're counting. Mirai's fuel cell stack, composite overwrapped tank, additional underbody and rear impact crash protection, high pressure filling system, cooling and fan intake system, and lithium battery together masses well over 400kg. Also takes up a lot of cabin and cargo space necessitating a larger vehicle. Tesla's new 4680 batteries form part of the vehicle's structure and add free torsional rigidity, and will weigh roughly the same as a fuel system for 600km range. I imagine in the compact they'll package it into the unused area under the rear seat in order to drop the floor which should help with CdA.

jvanderbot 5y ago

The one thing H has going is quicker fills at the pump, right? Being low on joules is a pain when you're going to work in the morning, but it's a royal pain if you have to wait a half hour to charge.

SigmundA 5y ago
Yep if you have a hydrogen pump nearby it will probably fill faster than a charger. Not sure if they need attendants like a propane fill. If you have a plug at home though thats much more convient at least to me when going to work.
- barney54 5y ago
  You do not need an attendant the hydrogen stations I’ve been to.
jfengel 5y ago
At least you get a half hour to think about how you should have plugged it in last night.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  For me that'd be half an hour to ruminate on how my apartment has no place to charge a car. I am not getting an EV anytime soon unfortunately.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    The general lack of EVs in multifamily housing is concerning for EV adoption - the only places where it's really possible is if the community offers a garage and the site's willing to book an electrician to install the 240v outlet.
    - _carbyau_ 5y ago
      I am fortunate that my building committee is pretty forward looking. It helps that many owners actually live there. But it is a significant project and it doesn't look like EV charging standards (plugs, power delivery) are set across all manufacturers. The balance of effort+money vs benefit/risk means we will keep driving what we know for now. I know the tide will turn sometime, but not anytime soon.

thatfrenchguy 5y ago

And a Hyundai Kona Electric did 1000km as well, probably at ridiculously low speeds as well :) ( https://thedriven.io/2020/08/14/three-unmodified-kona-electrics-drive-more-than-1000km-on-single-charge/ https://thedriven.io/2020/08/14/three-unmodified-kona-electr... )

gnicholas 5y ago
> The results of the test – conducted over 3 days with three vehicles in Germany in conditions mimicking heavy urban traffic – are impressive for the Hyundai Kona Electric which is already one of the longest range vehicles on the Australian market. Wow, it must have been brutal to drive 1,000km under faux heavy urban conditions.