I don’t really ever even use the brakes with one pedal driving. In fact, the only time I ever use the brakes is with an unplanned stop or when the light turns yellow and I need to make a decision to either step on the gas or the brake.
When do you think you will buy a 100% pure electric vehicle?
- Thread starter dmclone
- Start date
With this few miles, I haven't noticed tire wear. The Telsa has regenerative braking that work dreamy, so I don't think we'll need new brake pads for at least 100k miles. There will be times where I drive 60+ miles and not use the brake one time.
Brake wear is pretty much non existent on an EV. Tire wear on the other hand is a problem for a lot of them. There's a used Rivian on the lot here in town with 16k miles on it and the tires are damn near bald on it.
I just had my 7500 service done on my Rivian. They rotate the tires and do a multi point. My tires were at 9/32s and in excellent condition. Depending on how you drive in a Rivian has a lot to do with how well the stock tires last.
My brakes looked brand new of course. You almost never use them in an EV, as others have said.
My brakes looked brand new of course. You almost never use them in an EV, as others have said.
I doubt you will ever need new brakes, I use mine sometimes just to get the rust off of them. But I can go weeks without touching the brakes.
I am going to get about 30k from my original tires on an EV. I would say that is horrible, but my wife has a Subaru and I just replaced the tires with 28k on them.
Going electric to save money is kind of like cutting the cable to save money. Eventually, the price will increase.
"Since 2020, the residential electricity rates in California have risen by as much as 40% after adjusting for inflation. While there's been "a lot of finger-pointing about the cause of these increases," the authors note that the impact on rates is multiplied when customers install their own generation and buy fewer kilowatts-hours from the grid because those households "contribute less towards all the fixed costs in the system." These fixed costs include: vegetation management, grid hardening, distribution line undergrounding, EV charging stations, subsidies for low income customers, energy efficiency programs, and the poles and wires that we all rely on whether we are taking electricity off the grid or putting it onto the grid from our rooftop PV systems."
"Since 2020, the residential electricity rates in California have risen by as much as 40% after adjusting for inflation. While there's been "a lot of finger-pointing about the cause of these increases," the authors note that the impact on rates is multiplied when customers install their own generation and buy fewer kilowatts-hours from the grid because those households "contribute less towards all the fixed costs in the system." These fixed costs include: vegetation management, grid hardening, distribution line undergrounding, EV charging stations, subsidies for low income customers, energy efficiency programs, and the poles and wires that we all rely on whether we are taking electricity off the grid or putting it onto the grid from our rooftop PV systems."
I just saw a story on how California is producing too much solar, which is nuts. The thing about california is that their electricity is crazy expensive but so is their fuel.
Yeah it's a real mess there right now - last couple years they have jacked up the fixed cost spending by billions to deal with overdue upgrades and defensive measures, while at the same time people are buying less kWh because they are installing solar. Numerator up, denominator down = big % rate increase. However, I don't know if that necessarily means it will be more expensive forever. At some point, they won't need a new power plant for increased demand, and that will save billions in fixed costs, as well as the fuel costs avoided. So I don't think it will go up forever like this, I think its more of a perfect storm situation.
They are talking about adding a fixed charge per customer to bills for all this, so the rate increases aren't quite so bad. But then that basically subsidizes usage and penalizes solar and conservation - perverse incentive 101. BUT... if you leave it as is, then you are incenting people to get solar, but the poorest can't afford it in the first place, so the rate increases hit them most - which is also bad. I am sure there is a balance there to be had, a reasonable solution.
But of course being Cali, they are arguing about making the fixed charge variable based on income. So now the parties can argue even more about it. That's useful.
Increase your fuel cost on the gas car by 65% and that’s why 25% of new cars in California are already EV.
But if there are still costs associated with the infrastructure, those don’t go away for solar users. They will still want to be connected to the grid, and if they’re not storing the power on-site they’re using that grid to sell the power they produce.
In the end, if you want to completely disconnect from the grid, then I guess you’d be entitled to stop paying for the infrastructure of it? But how many people have a system that’s self sustaining year round?
Generally, you are not allowed to disconnect from the grid. Not in Iowa for sure, or I would have tried! But its not allowed, precisely because they want my $13 per month connection fees to cover infrastructure costs...
That's why it does make sense to charge everyone some kind of flat fee ($10-20) to cover the infrastructure, even if you aren't using any of it 80% of the year. I don't actually mind paying it, tbh, it doesn't seem unreasonable, either the ask or the amount.
I would prob still want/have to be connected, because I would not have enough juice in January to run the clothes dryer... Iowa is a lot different than Cali, esp SoCal, in terms of sunshine.
Just had the Mach E in for a tire rotation and I'll need to put tires on it for winter. We'll have gotten the low 30s out of them.
My wife's last Grand Cherokee got new tires at 25k.
My last F150 they lasted until about 60k.
The F150 before that lasted 40k.
Currently, people driving all electric vehicles are using our roads and bridges for free. That simply isn't fair. I know I've opened myself up to all kinds of comments about saving the planet, but we also have to save our roads as well unless we decide to establish a toll on all local, state and federal roads. If you have a plan for this that will pass the legislative process, please let me know.
I've just been appointed to a commission to study this. I'm listening.
I've just been appointed to a commission to study this. I'm listening.
You may want to do a little more research before you start this task.
Iowa charges all EV owners a yearly fee and there is also a fee on non residential chargers.
This isn't true in a LOT of places. Between higher state registration fees for EVs, local wheel taxes for EVs, and other methods this has already been dealt with all over the country.
If one drives a PHEV with the electric drive 80% of the time would not any tire wear increase effectively be the same as an EV?
Asking because I just sold my PHEV at 46K miles and the original tires were just to the point of needing to be replaced. The service tech told me they'd wear down fast when I first got it but I was surprised they seemed to last a lot of miles. I drive pretty conservatively, maybe that helps.
