3 ms·

and?

• vel0city 4y ago
  They (somewhat reasonably) took "filled up" as "times charged". I did originally, but then when that distance was pointed out I got you meant you did a few smaller charging sessions and only one big to 100% charging session to make the trip. If that's not what you're suggesting then that was not done in any commercially available EV in the US today. Even starting closer to the California border like El Centro and only making it to fringes of Houston like Katy is ~1330 miles, so ~665mi a leg. No generally available EV in the US has that range. So I take it you did a number of like 10-60% or whatever charge jaunts. Even then though, if you were to sum up all of those shorter charging sessions you probably had to recharge your car a total of at least four charges energy-wise. If you get 300mi of range on a full.charge, 1,330 / 300 = 4.4333...
  • natch 4y ago
    Yes, you got it right, the “natch must be claiming to have a special car” is a bad take. It’s more just that it really, really matters time-wise that the car is not charging up to full on any given stop, because that means the charging stops are significantly faster. People who latch on to the idea of judging EVs on their time to get “fully”‘charged are going to get such a distorted idea that they will never believe current EVs could be a good option. But, they would be mistaken.
    • vel0city 4y ago
      Yeah, there's a bit of complexity around it and in the market today you could have two cars which both have the same "max range" but have vastly different times to complete a 1,200mi trip depending on a large number of factors. If you had two cars which state 300mi of range, one charged at 50kW and the other at 350kW, the 350kW car would win that marathon by a large margin. There's more to think about with EVs than just range, that's for sure.