Driving LA to San Francisco

[Anonymous]

To drive to San Francisco from my home in LA, I would have to charge at the Harris Ranch which is a 220 mile trip. With a full charge, I could make the next leg of 183 miles easily. I am reluctant to try to make the first leg. Anyone been this venturesome?

I see 18kW consumption on a flat road at 65mph. This will give 216 miles out of 60kWh. If you drive 70mph (the speed limit on route 5), then consumption will be higher, and the range will be less. Hills, heat or AC use, etc. may also increase consumption and reduce range.

Not sure where you live, but the drive from Los Angeles to Harris Ranch is clearly NOT a flat road up to the Grapevine.

Plus, how do you compute that 216 miles will only consume 18KW? My experience is that on that stretch of road in optimum conditions, 17.9KW got me to the top of the Grapevine, where I then was able to regenerate 2KW on the 5 miles back down.

Finally, since there is NO DC Fast Charger compatible with the Bolt EV at Harris Ranch, he would have to use a Level 2 charger for approximately 5-7 hours to recover the 183 miles he would need for the remainder of his trip! There is only a Tesla SuperCharger at Harris Ranch.

 

[boltage]

Plus, how do you compute that 216 miles will only consume 18KW? My experience is that on that stretch of road in optimum conditions, 17.9KW got me to the top of the Grapevine, where I then was able to regenerate 2KW on the 5 miles back down.

No, I wrote that 60kWh will take you 216 miles at 65mph on a perfectly flat road consuming at a rate of 18kW. Obviously, consumption will be higher and range will be lower with hills or headwind.

Obviously, this means that even the best case won't cover a 220 mile freeway trip.

 

[Anonymous]

Plus, how do you compute that 216 miles will only consume 18KW? My experience is that on that stretch of road in optimum conditions, 17.9KW got me to the top of the Grapevine, where I then was able to regenerate 2KW on the 5 miles back down.

No, I wrote that 60kWh will take you 216 miles at 65mph on a perfectly flat road consuming at a rate of 18kW. Obviously, consumption will be higher and range will be lower with hills or headwind.

Obviously, this means that even the best case won't cover a 220 mile freeway trip.

I will ask you one last time how you compute your conclusions?

I was indeed able to drive 195 miles from Valley Village (North Hollywood/Studio City) to Paso Robles over the Grapevine with about 15KWh to spare and two nights ago driving a reasonably flat terrain from Valley Village to Moorpark and back, I only achieved 76.8 miles while consuming 16.7 KWh, which is extremely efficient for the Bolt EV (as that grosses up to about 270 miles over 60KWh)!

I think you are giving poor advice; and should refrain from doing so until you actually make the trip!

 

[boltage]

I will ask you one last time how you compute your conclusions?

For 65mph consuming 18kW, that means that 18kWh will take you 65 miles (in an hour) under ideal conditions (flat, no wind, no heat or AC use). Since 60KWh is 3.33 times 18kWh, 60kWh will take you 3.33 * 65 = 216.67 miles under ideal conditions.

Obviously, this is a best case scenario, but it shows that even the best case will come up short of the first poster's 220 mile highway trip, so there is no realistic way to do that without recharging somewhere along the way. That is all.

 

[Anonymous]

I will ask you one last time how you compute your conclusions?

For 65mph consuming 18kW, that means that 18kWh will take you 65 miles (in an hour) under ideal conditions (flat, no wind, no heat or AC use)...

Once again you have refused to give us the underlying basis of your equation that "For 65mph consuming 18kW, that means that 18kWh will take you 65 miles (in an hour) under ideal conditions..."

I challenge the legitimacy of that statement, but I choose to end my debate with you over it.

I prefer to point to the fact that I drove 195 miles with 16.5 KWh remaining and the Bolt EV's gauge indicating that 70 miles was remaining (overly optimistic, I believe) before I recharged using a DC Fast Charger in Paso Robles. So I find it inconceivable that the Bolt EV could not make it the additional 17 miles!

That is all!

 

[Zoomit]

I prefer to point to the fact that I drove 195 miles with 16.5 KWh remaining and the Bolt EV's gauge indicating that 70 miles was remaining (overly optimistic, I believe) before I recharged using a DC Fast Charger in Paso Robles. So I find it inconceivable that the Bolt EV could not make it the additional 17 miles!

He was just stating that he has observed an instantaneous power usage of 18kW at a constant 65 mph. Given a 60kWh usable battery capacity, that equates to a range of 217 miles under optimal conditions (no hills, wind, etc.). The math is 60/18*65 = 217.

Your trip data is interesting but without knowing the speeds then it's not possible to relate it to other conditions.

For example, if you start with a full battery and drive at a constant 30 mph, you can go over 500 miles.

 

[Anonymous]

I prefer to point to the fact that I drove 195 miles with 16.5 KWh remaining and the Bolt EV's gauge indicating that 70 miles was remaining (overly optimistic, I believe) before I recharged using a DC Fast Charger in Paso Robles. So I find it inconceivable that the Bolt EV could not make it the additional 17 miles!

He was just stating that he has observed an instantaneous power usage of 18kW at a constant 65 mph. Given a 60kWh usable battery capacity, that equates to a range of 217 miles under optimal conditions (no hills, wind, etc.). The math is 60/18*65 = 217.

As Woody Allen stated in "Annie Hall" about Marshall McLuhan: If life were only this easy!"

Your trip data is interesting but without knowing the speeds then it's not possible to relate it to other conditions.

It appears that both of you are unfamiliar with the driving patterns of Interstate 5 north of the Grapevine. There are two lanes: the fast lane where driving is about 5 MPH faster than the speed limit but anything goes and the slow lane, inhabited by trucks and more reasonable drivers. Trucks have a 55 MPH speed limit, but generally drive a steady 60 MPH.

Drivers of electric cars that are not Tesla's are well advised to at least partially hypermile. In this case they should stay in the right lane, get safely between two 18 wheelers, use the "L" mode and set their cruise control to the same speed as the 18 wheeler in front of them, usually 60 MPH. In this way I would achieve 50MPG in my Chevy Volt before its lease ended last September getting sucked along by the vacuum created by the trucks.

For example, if you start with a full battery and drive at a constant 30 mph, you can go over 500 miles.

Really??? You are able to achieve 500 miles on your Spark driving in these conditions? Please reconfirm this for me.

 

[boltage]

Once again you have refused to give us the underlying basis of your equation that "For 65mph consuming 18kW, that means that 18kWh will take you 65 miles (in an hour) under ideal conditions..."

I challenge the legitimacy of that statement, but I choose to end my debate with you over it.

18kW was the observed power use from the dash with the cruise control set to 65mph on a flat road with no or minimal wind, and the heat and AC off. Is that not clear enough?

Obviously, this is ideal conditions, so estimating highway range from this gives a best-case estimate, so actual range will be lower.

 

[Nagorak]

I'd be reluctant to drive between two 18 wheelers. The most dangerous thing about a truck is being hit by it. A substantial number of truckers are overworked and sleep deprived. If they nod off or get distracted you can end up a sardine can crushed between two trucks.

My standard procedure is either to be behind a truck or leaving it in my dust. I'll sacrifice efficiency if necessary to meet that goal. If a standard car rear ends me I have no doubt I'd survive. If a truck does, I have little hope that I would.

With the 55 mph limit in CA if you drive 65 in the slow lane you'll probably leave the trucks behind (even accounting for speeding).

 

[Anonymous]

I'd be reluctant to drive between two 18 wheelers...

How often do you drive the two lane stretch of Interstate 5 between the Grapevine and parts north, say Interstate 580 or Sacramento?

 

[Anonymous]

For 65mph consuming 18kW, that means that 18kWh will take you 65 miles (in an hour) under ideal conditions (flat, no wind, no heat or AC use). Since 60KWh is 3.33 times 18kWh, 60kWh will take you 3.33 * 65 = 216.67 miles under ideal conditions.

The OP is asking how he can drive 220 miles on Interstate 5.

Let me ask you this: How do you account for the fact that I completed a 195 miles trip from Valley Village to Paso Robles in less than your "optimal conditions?" (202.3 actually when you include the initial mileage I drove to retrieve my sunglasses) and still had 16.5 KWh remaining in my Bolt EV?

And if I can complete this 195 mile trip on Interstate 5 (131 miles to Lost Hills and 64 miles to Paso Robles on Hiway 46), how is it impossible for the OP to drive 220 miles on Interstate 5 in his Bolt EV?

I do not know your credentials: perhaps you are a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at CalTech and conducted a test under verifiable conditions. Have you attempted yourself a drive of 220 miles on Interstate 5?

But by telling the OP that it is impossible for him to drive the 220 miles he wants to drive, you are not only giving him incorrect information, you are doing him a disservice of misleading him into believing that his trip is impossible for him to complete in his Bolt EV.

 

[SparkE]

Calm down, MichaelLAX, no need to be so aggressive.

To answer your question " How do you account for the fact that I completed a 195 miles trip from Valley Village to Paso Robles in less than your "Optimal conditions?" (202.3 actually when you include the initial mileage I drove to retrieve my sunglasses) and still had 16.5 KWh remaining in my Bolt EV? "

You answered it in your post describing your trip : you usually drove between 55-60 mph, sandwiched between big rigs for hypermiling, AND drove 25-30 mph down the grapevine for max regen. Since his statement was pretty clear "at 65 mph ...etc..." (i.e., NOT generally between 55 and 60 mph, and NOT at 25-30 mph) obviously, consumption would be different.

Again, chill on the aggressive responses - you seem to be reading a lot more negativity into this (others responses) than anybody else.

 

[Anonymous]

Calm down, MichaelLAX, no need to be so aggressive.

To answer your question ...

You answered it in your post describing your trip ...

Again, chill on the aggressive responses - you seem to be reading a lot more negativity into this (others responses) than anybody else.

Of course, I answered my own question in my earlier post; my hope was to see how Boltage would address my earlier answer.

That seems to be a common pattern on online forums: some of the posters just do not bother to carefully read the post, or do not want to accept the facts that are posited in those earlier posts.

In the case here, the OP (Original Poster) wants to drive 220 miles up Interstate 5 on a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Boltage then creates a hypothetical that seems completely devoid of the factual basis for how one could possibly drive on that trip; that is, 65 miles per hour on a flat terrain! It is just not possible with all the other automobile and truck traffic and elevation to drive in that way.

So his conclusion, that a 220 mile trip is impossible is not only incorrect, it is giving the OP the a false narrative about a drive that is probably important to him after a $29,995+ purchase/lease! If this member does not have direct experience, why give incorrect information?

As to your suggestion about my "aggressive" responses, I think you are confusing my passion for how I state my beliefs, with aggression; especially given how a specific member may respond to me.

For example, I assume you are referring to my thread on the missing navigation system that was promised by GM CEO Mary Barra, that has been discussed as missing in the media and for which I was attacked by others on this forum who don't particularly want or need that feature (navigation system).

I would think you would want to suggest to those other members that their attacks on me were inappropriate, because after all, isn't a forum like this the exact place to have such a discussion for those who want and need such a promised, missing feature? Yet that thread was prematurely locked after a member who specifically announced he did not want nor need a navigation system came back to the thread to attack me again!

I specifically note that some of these members, including that one, responded to me with ad hominem attacks and with no cautionary responses by the administration to those members!

Thank you for your continuing efforts at moderation.

 

[SeanNelson]

So his conclusion, that a 220 mile trip is impossible is not only incorrect, it is giving the OP the a false narrative about a drive that is probably important to him after a $29,995+ purchase/lease!

I didn't see him saying was impossible, I just saw him say that based on his experience at 65MPH he expected to get 220 miles of range. And he also said that if you drive faster, you'd get less range (which implies that if you drive slower, you'll get more range).

It seemed to be just a data point, which from my point of view you seem to have interpreted in a somewhat prejudicial way.

 

[Anonymous]

So his conclusion, that a 220 mile trip is impossible is not only incorrect, it is giving the OP the a false narrative about a drive that is probably important to him after a $29,995+ purchase/lease!

I didn't see him saying was impossible, I just saw him say that based on his experience at 65MPH he expected to get 220 miles of range. And he also said that if you drive faster, you'd get less range (which implies that if you drive slower, you'll get more range).

It seemed to be just a data point, which from my point of view you seem to have interpreted in a somewhat prejudicial way.

Check this out (I added the emphasis):

For 65mph consuming 18kW, that means that 18kWh will take you 65 miles (in an hour) under ideal conditions (flat, no wind, no heat or AC use). Since 60KWh is 3.33 times 18kWh, 60kWh will take you 3.33 * 65 = 216.67 miles under ideal conditions.

Obviously, this is a best case scenario, but it shows that even the best case will come up short of the first poster's 220 mile highway trip, so there is no realistic way to do that without recharging somewhere along the way. That is all.

I think we have beaten this horse to death and won't ask what you mean by, from my point of view, the somewhat pejorative term: "prejudicial."

 

[SparkEVPilot]

Let's give the "OP" a little help so he doesn't have a horrible experience making a long trip. If OP lived in Valley Village too, his first charging stop on his way to San Francisco, CA could be in Valencia - 26 miles North - just to top off. He wants to go up I-5. His next closest charging stop, going North up I-5, is in Tracy, CA. This is about 286 miles North on I-5 with respect to Valencia [312 miles from Valley Village]. He will not be able to make it. Harris Ranch only has super chargers for Tesla vehicles. The best route for OP is to go up Hwy 99 where chargers are plentiful and will fit his Bolt - and this assumes he has the quick charge option. He can also do the Paso Robles cross-over and go up the coast on Hwy 101. But, at Watsonville or Santa Cruz, he will have to go over the hill into Gilroy or the Silicon Valley area and take Hwy 101 North to San Francisco.

 

[Anonymous]

But, at Watsonville or Santa Cruz, he will have to go over the hill into Gilroy or the Silicon Valley area and take Hwy 101 North to San Francisco.

If he stays on 101, he need not go to Hiway-1 in Watsonville (and then Santa Cruz) but stay on 101 to San Jose (north) to San Francisco.

His DC Fast Charger options north of Paso Robles appear to be King City and then Salinas, Gilroy and Morgan Hill, and then become more plentiful as he enters the San Jose metropolitan area at the bottom of the Peninsula to San Francisco.

Going up the I-5 through the Grapevine and then Hiway-46 to Paso Robles and then the 101, instead of using the 101 directly from Los Angeles, takes 40 miles off of the trip.

I personally have no experience on the 99 since they finished Interstate 5 back in the 1970's. I lived in the East Bay from 1967 - 1978 (with one partial year in San Francisco) and visited my parents often in Los Angeles during that time, mostly by driving. I missed the 210 overpass collapse due to the earthquake by 24 hours in 1971; I was not so lucky in 1994!

Like Sammy Hagar: in those days I could not drive 55 and challenged it in traffic court on constitutional grounds and won every time!

 

[SeanNelson]

So his conclusion, that a 220 mile trip is impossible is not only incorrect, it is giving the OP the a false narrative about a drive that is probably important to him after a $29,995+ purchase/lease!

I didn't see him saying was impossible...

Check this out (I added the emphasis):

I obviously missed that. Mea culpa.

 

[Anonymous]

I obviously missed that. Mea culpa.

For what its worth...
I did another sample drive tonight:

Valley Village to Moorpark; reasonably flat except for summit to and from Rocky Peak
Hiway 170 to I-5 to Hiway 118 to Hiway 23 and return
Cruise Control 65 MPH
"L" Mode
Seat warmer and headlights, which I am informed uses negligible energy
Cabin heat for 10 miles to warm the car, then OFF (3% of total energy)

Energy used: 20.0KWh (I overshot my destination slightly to achieve this round number)
Distance Traveled: 75 miles

Hence, if the trip were tripled, utilizing the complete 60KWh of the Bolt EV's battery, I would have traveled 225 miles. Not exactly the flat portion of the Hayward - San Mateo Bridge, but an interesting drive nonetheless!

In the photo below, I hit 20KWh at a point where I was unable to exit the freeway and take a photo. The next exit was 2 miles, so as the energy increased to 20.3KWh, I then slowed the Bolt EV to regen back down to 20.0 as I exited at the next available stop to take the photo by coincidence.

 

[Nagorak]

I'd be reluctant to drive between two 18 wheelers...

How often do you drive the two lane stretch of Interstate 5 between the Grapevine and parts north, say Interstate 580 or Sacramento?

Not very much, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. I've driven an 8000 mile round trip of the US and I've tried to follow my advice of not being sandwiched between 18 wheelers. I'm not sure why I'd change that just because I was driving up north instead of east/west, etc?

The truth is driving between trucks is probably fine and will very likely never be a problem in most people's lives, but it still stands that semitrucks are the most dangerous thing on the road, simply as a result of pure size and weight. People have been killed by inattentive truck drivers and it's not as uncommon as I'd like it to be.

It's just not my cup of tea. You're obviously welcome to do it, if you feel differently.