As I was talking to a high-level electric vehicle (EV) engineer recently, I was surprised to hear him say that driving range shouldn't be an issue for EVs, and that the term "range anxiety" was unfairly harming sales.
"We've taught people to be very concerned about range," he told me. "But do you know what the range of your gasoline vehicle is? Most people don't, but they certainly know what the range of an electric vehicle is."
That engineer isn't alone in his beliefs. An auto industry analyst recently told me, "Range anxiety isn't a real issue for most consumers, but automakers still have to consider it." Similarly, a BMW study involving 1,000 consumers this year revealed that the "average daily distance covered was around 30 miles (45 km)." The movie Who Killed the Electric Car? hammered home the same message by saying 90 percent of driving is done within the range of a short-range EV.
Should range not be a buying issue? There are certainly many consumers who simply don't need a longer driving range. Urban commuters come to mind -- a short drive to work, a daily recharge at a parking garage, and then a brief ride home in the evening. As long as the car isn't needed for long night or weekend trips, the EV is a good choice.
But the implication here seems to be that those who don't share that vision are myopic or are resisting EVs because they fear change. It's more likely, though, that those consumers are resisting EVs for a different reason. They don't buy cars to satisfy their average needs. They buy cars to satisfy their exceptional needs.
"We think that a very, very small number of people will buy a car for their average use, rather than their exceptional use," Bill Reinert of Toyota told us in 2011. "Even if you're covered in 90 percent of the cases, you're unlikely to buy a car that leaves you uncovered 10 percent of the time." He was explaining why Toyota supports the idea of a plug-in hybrid with a backup gasoline engine to extend the range.
Designing for exception, of course, isn't a new idea. Engineers do it every day. Automotive seating is a prime example. Though the average number of people in a car for any given trip is about 1.4, most consumers prefer to buy vehicles with four or more seats. That doesn't mean they're suffering from some kind of phobia that causes them to crave extra chairs. It simply means they're buying for the exception, not the average.
So, no, I don't think it's quite fair to point a finger at range-anxious consumers and imply they're afraid of change. In truth, the problem is much simpler than that. Most of the people concerned about range just need to drive their kids to college, visit the in-laws, or take the family on vacation. After they've spent $30,000 on a new car, they don't want to have to get a rental car to fulfill those needs.
Besides, it's the job of engineers to figure out what consumers want and then design to it. It's not the job of engineers to say, "Here's what you should want."
I agree completely with Dennis - seems silly to me that the engineer is trying to project an unrealistic expectation that folks shouldn't be thinking about all of their driving scenarios - even if some are not as frequent as others. Selecting a car wisely includes considering all of the ways it will be used. I would not want to have to rent a car when I have car payments on an expensive EV, just to make the 5 hour drive to see our inlaws that occurs mostly on country back roads to get there...
"They don't buy cars to satisfy their average needs. They buy cars to satisfy their exceptional needs"
This formulation creates, I think, an artificially limited set of choices. I would say we buy cars to satisfy our full range of expected needs. The daily commute is only part of the picture for most drivers. It may be typical, the most frequent use, but the requirements for greater range are still frequent rather than exceptional for most of us.
My daily commute is only 35 miles round trip, great for EVs. Weekend events, sometimes more than one per week require far more range- not infrequently both of or vehicles will see this use for conflicting events. A dedicated EV to commute would mean a third vehicle.
People buy for the real world, not a theoretical scenario someone else imagines. Opinion.
Besides, it's the job of engineers to figure out what consumers want and then design to it. It's not the job of engineers to say, "Here's what you should want."' Amen.
I would ask this engineer in the first paragraph, "have you ever been driving along, looked at the gas gauge and and had an immeadiate question in your mind where the next gas station is and will you make it"? The question would possibly be phrased in involuntary explitives that indicate the anxiety. Now imagine that you are certain there is no place to "re-fuel" nearby. Fun.
Range anxiety happens in all types of vehicle (bet it's real fun in a plane). With EVs (current state of the art) unless you plan and monitor carefully it would be very frequent.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.