The bad news continues as the rental giant tries to untangle itself from its failed electric vehicle strategy:
Ryan Brinkman, automotive equity research analyst with J.P. Morgan, downgraded Hertz Global Holdings from neutral to underweight Monday.
The assessment, Seeking Alpha reports, comes as the company tries to reverse course from its failed EV strategy, which has cost the company as much as $1 billion. The losses stem from the vehicle's high depreciation rates and high collision repair costs. The lack of spare parts for repairs is also undermining utilizations of the company's electric fleet.
As reported on Yahoo! News:
The challenges don't stop there. Hertz's heavy debt load is tying its hands, potentially forcing the company to navigate choppy waters without the lifeline of share buybacks. With used-vehicle prices on shaky ground and high refinancing costs, Hertz is bracing for more cash outflows. Throw in a recent adverse court ruling that resurrected litigation risks from its bankruptcy, and the financial landscape looks even more daunting. The path to stability isn't just steep; it's laden with obstacles.
Previously:
- Hertz is Selling 20,000 Electric Vehicles to Buy Gasoline Cars Instead
- Hertz to Purchase 175,000 General Motors EVs Over the Next Five Years
- Hertz Plans to Buy 65,000 EVs From Polestar Over Five Years
« China Ramps Up Semiconductor Patents As It Plays Catchup | Don't Like the Facts? Declare Them Fiction »
Related Stories
Hertz plans to buy 65,000 EVs from Polestar over five years:
Hertz Global Holdings Inc. plans to buy 65,000 electric vehicles from Polestar over the next five years, betting its renters are both EV curious and eager to drive brands beyond Tesla.
The vehicles from Polestar, the all-electric automaker controlled by Volvo Car AB and its owner Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., will join some 100,000 Teslas that Hertz has said it's buying for more than $4 billion. The new deal delivered a boost to shares of Hertz and Gores Gugenheim Inc., the special purpose acquisition company planning to merge with Polestar.
The Tesla and Polestar purchases give Hertz a steady stream of some of the most coveted battery-powered cars, even as manufacturers scurry to keep up with swelling order books. Polestar expects to double sales this year, delivering 65,000 vehicles globally. It plans to produce 290,000 EVs a year by 2025, a tally Tesla now reaches in less than three months.
"It is our objective to build the largest fleet of electric vehicles, certainly in North America," Hertz Chief Executive Officer Stephen Scherr said.
[...] Hertz has said that, in time, its global fleet of cars — roughly half a million vehicles — will be electric and it intends to work with every EV maker on the market to make that happen.
Hertz to purchase 175,000 General Motors EVs over the next five years:
Hertz is once again growing its EV fleet, announcing Tuesday that it has struck a deal with General Motors to purchase 175,000 electric vehicles from the automaker's Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac and BrightDrop brands over the next five years. Customers will see the first offerings, namely the Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, arrive on Hertz lots beginning in the first quarter next year.
The deal, which runs through 2027, will bring a wide variety of models to Hertz's growing EV herd. Between now and 2027, the rental company expects its customers to drive about 8 billion miles in said EVs, preventing an estimated 3.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from being released. Hertz plans to convert a quarter of its rental fleet to battery electric by 2024.
[...] For folks who are already in line, having ordered a GM EV and are waiting on delivery, don't fret. This deal with Hertz shouldn't impact your existing delivery date. "Our first priority is delivering vehicles to customers holding reservations," a GM rep told Engadget via email Tuesday. "GM is installing capacity to meet demand from all customers, with annual capacity in North America rising to more than one million units in 2025."
CNN Reports: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/11/business/hertz-tesla-selling/index.html
Hertz, which has made a big push into electric vehicles in recent years, has decided it's time to cut back. The company will sell off a third of its electric fleet, totaling roughly 20,000 vehicles, and use the money they bring to purchase more gasoline powered vehicles.
Electric vehicles have been hurting Hertz's financials, executives have said, because, despite costing less to maintain, they have higher damage-repair costs and, also, higher depreciation.
"[C]ollision and damage repairs on an EV can often run about twice that associated with a comparable combustion engine vehicle," Hertz CEO Stephen Scherr said in a recent analyst call.
And EV price declines in the new car market have pushed down the resale value of Hertz's used EV rental cars.
[...] For rental car companies like Hertz, which sell lots of vehicles in the used car market, depreciation has a big impact on their business, and is a major factor when deciding which cars to have in their fleets.
SoylentNews previously reported when Hertz was expanding their EV fleet.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Saturday October 26, @01:14PM (1 child)
I've read far too many stories about how rips off their customers. Herz charged a EV renter for fuel. How they charge people with theft for vehicles they returned. There are several other variations including at least one where they sold the vehicle from their fleet. The person who ended up with got it stolen by herz because they claimed they still owned it. The last two times I rented a car it wasn't from herz and it will not be in the future.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:57PM
Well, maybe. I think it's more like I don't want my first experience with EV charging/range limits to be on vacation with a 200 mile drive into no man's land right after I get off the plane.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 26, @01:45PM (44 children)
6 years ago I bought a used 2011 Nissan Leaf, in part to gain first hand experience of an all electric vehicle. Sold it earlier this year, for several reasons. First, it had a range of 50 miles when I bought it, and that had degraded to 20 miles at best, if you babied it by going no faster than 30 mph and didn't use the A/C. 2nd, the state has instituted a new annual licensing fee of an additional $200 for electric vehicles only, supposedly to make up for not getting any revenue from the gas tax. I would have kept and used the car a bit longer, but 3rd, the HOA was griefing us about parking. I got 3 cars into our 2 car driveway by using the extra width that stops at the garage wall, but that slightly impeded the sidewalk. Pedestrians could easily get around the end of the 3rd car without leaving the concrete by veering all of 2 feet off the sidewalk down our driveway (only had to round one corner of the vehicle because the sidewalk crosses our drive at an angle), but the HOA President personally dislikes us. (The HOA President is one of 3 homes in the HOA sporting Trump 2024 political signs. We are 1 of 4 homes sporting a Harris 2024 sign.) And 4th, something had gone wrong with the charging system so that level 2 charging no longer worked, could only charge at level 1.
I learned that I should have held out for a Leaf no older than 2013. Seems the battery management was much improved beginning in that model year. Also, the electric outlet suffered some damage because a few times, the plug didn't hold. When the plug starts to slip out, so that the electrical connection is weak but still present, that's bad. Resistance is higher, which makes it get very hot. Hot enough to scorch and melt the plastic. So the outlets have sustained a bit of damage, and only one of the pair is now usable. I have been using the plastic base of a deodorant stick as a prop to hold the plug in place, and that has worked pretty well. (Why didn't they make the length of cord from plug to power brick slightly longer, so that the brick would rest on the ground, instead of dangle?)
Oh, I should have put in a 220V charging station, for level 2 charging? Really do not need that. It's not enough faster than charging from a 110V outlet (level 1 charging) to make a serious difference. So you need 4 hours to recharge instead of 8. But nights tend to last at least 8 hours. If you forgot to plug in, you're stuck whether or not you have a level 2 charging station. Besides which, when the range had declined to only 20 miles, a mere 3 hours of level 1 charging was enough to fully recharge.
One other gotcha I learned about: always use "eco mode", not full power "normal" or "regular" mode or whatever they call it. In regular mode, the car feels very powerful and grippy, with instant, smooth, fast acceleration. But that grippy feeling, I learned, is the feel of your tires being worn out twice as fast as they would wear on a gasoline powered car. Seems the power of electric motors is too much for the average tire. All electric cars have this issue. But that can be mitigated by taking it easy.
Despite all these problems, I consider the experiment a qualified success. Other than the tires, maintenance is very low. No annual emissions inspection with the accompanying expense. Was the quietest car I ever owned-- very nice being able to hear the radio at a low volume.
I now have a PHEV, with 40 miles of range on battery power. Really nice that one can get about town on battery power only, but if you have to go farther, you can. Yes, I do not like that it has a gasoline engine, with all the maintenance issues those have, but, the electric drive really helps reduce the maintenance. Can go for weeks without using gas.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by datapharmer on Saturday October 26, @02:00PM (16 children)
I think what you experienced was an old worn out vehicle - not an electric vehicle experience, just an old car experience where things don’t work like they should without major work.
We charge our Tesla overnight and the difference between 110 and 220 charge times is very noticeable (1.5 days for full charge from 0% vs about 8-9 hours on 220). Range is about 275 miles so I can drive on the interstate 4-5 hours and still have enough charge left to not have concerns about finding a charger.
The mobile adapter has la long enough cable the brick sits on the floor, and it has built in temperature sensors that would shut it off and send a warning to your phone if it started to overheat, long before melting anything.
I’m not saying phev isn’t a better option for you, but comparing a newer phev to an old leaf isn’t a fair comparison, and for what it was worth when we looked at electric vehicles we thought the leaf was a piece of garbage compared
to literallly
Everything else we looked at. It might have been one of the first to market but they never did anything to keep up with the technology.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 26, @04:23PM (4 children)
I do know "worn out vehicle", since I also own a 1960s car. The stuff that can go wrong after 60 years of wear and tear and aging is astonishing, and a vehicle of merely 13 years of age is almost as good as new compared to that. However, one other problem is that the first year of a new model is practically a beta test, and 2011 was the first year the Leaf went into mass production.
I need to go through all the wiring in that 1960s car. The aforementioned issue with the resistance heating because the plug loosened up afflicts that 60's car everywhere. It's not just the spade terminals either. The car doesn't have complicated electronics, but they did use circuit boards back then with some simple electronic elements such as resistors and diodes. The traces and wires are connected via rivets, and even those rivets have loosened up. Such boards are often inside switches such as the light switch and ignition switch. I had to disassemble the ignition switch and go over all those rivets, tightening them by squeezing with pliers. The windshield seal is no longer water tight, and a little water got in and did some damage before I realized what was going on. One of the crazier problems was with the brakes. There is a hose from body to rear axle, and over all those years, the inner wall had gradually absorbed brake fluid until it swelled shut like a blocked artery, and made the rear brakes inoperable. The kind of fitting that hose uses is no longer made, so I had a hydraulics company cut the tip off a modern fitting to make a match. Yet another problem was that the rubber in the suspension system had turned rock hard and brittle. Dealt with that too. The engine that car uses was the very first edition of an engine that was used into the 1990s, so getting parts for that has been relatively easy. Don't ask for parts for what it actually is, ask for parts for the 1980s cars that used that same engine. However, now the 1980s is long enough ago that that trick is much less effective.
As to your Tesla, perhaps you can enlighten me and correct my impression that the range is greatly overstated, assuming as it does near ideal conditions. For a long trip, I consider the usable range of all electric vehicles to be as little as half the manufacturer's range figures. Why? You can't charge fast to 100%, you have to stop at 80%. That's like not being able to fill your gas tank, but having to stop at 4/5ths full. So there's 20% off the range. Of course you won't run the battery down to nothing, got to keep a reserve. Traditionally, with gas tanks you kept a whopping 25% reserve, to account for grossly inaccurate gas gauges, and that you may have to drive a little further to reach a gas station, and other such issues. Let's say you can run a battery down to 10%. So now, the usable range is only 70%. In hot weather, you are strongly obliged to use the A/C, and that knocks another 10% to 20% off the range. Finally, the manufacturer's figures tend to assume a slower driving speed than the traffic goes. Every hypermiler knows that a practically universal way to extend range, doesn't matter if the car is gas or electric, is to go slower. (I can confirm that in the Leaf, the difference between traveling at 40 mph vs 30 mph is quite large-- see as much as 25% more range at the slower speed.) Drive that Tesla at 75 mph, and you can cut another 20% off the range compared to 60 mph. All in all, it leads me to conclude that on a long trip, a Tesla can manage about 150 miles between stops for recharging. You can start the trip at 100%, and get over 200 miles on the first leg before you have to recharge, but after that, 150 miles.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fliptop on Saturday October 26, @04:51PM (2 children)
This is a common problem, especially w/ vehicles that sit for a long time w/o being used. Brake fluid is corrosive and when the hose swells the fluid can only go in one direction (toward the wheel cylinders), but can't return so the brakes stay engaged. Whenever I get an older vehicle (80's and older) I always change the brake hoses to avoid the swelling issue.
Again, a common issue w/ older vehicles. It's always best to change all bushings, especially the ones in the control arms. Rubber just doesn't last forever no matter how much you baby it.
Your electrical issues aren't out of the ordinary. Most of the time the ones I see are due to rodent damage, but I will say I always prefer older, OEM electronic parts over newer Chinesium parts. Generally they're much more durable and most of the time can easily be taken apart and repaired.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 26, @06:30PM (1 child)
Yeah, rodents. Only issue I had with that was once, when someone left a candy bar in the back seat. Mice got in through the vents, ate the candy, and chewed up the seat belts, to make a nest. I guess I should be thankful they didn't do worse.
I also once had the spade terminal connected to the generator break in half. I was a bit more than an hour from home, when the generator light came on. I thought the generator had gone out, and decided to get as close to home as I could on battery power. The car has a switch on the dash to turn off the dashboard lighting, and I used that. I suppose it's for night driving if the driver finds the dash lighting interfering with visibility, but I never used it except that one time. Didn't want to stop and look, out of concern that cranking the engine to get going again would take more precious battery charge-- a sort of primitive range anxiety, you might say. Worse, it was getting dark, and soon I had to use the headlights. I pushed the battery to the limit, 30 miles later engine missing and finally stalling from lack of power to spark the spark plugs as I crested the last hill before the Interstate, throwing the car into neutral and coasting the rest of the way to the gas station there. The headlights went from very dim to completely out as I pulled into the gas station. I had cut the distance to home almost in half, and while waiting for help, took a look and saw what had really happened. I was disgusted, because even if I could rig up some sort of temporary electrical connection, I'd still need a jump to get going again thanks to me having drained the battery.
Another time, the weld holding the float onto its arm inside the carburetor broke. Instantly flooded the engine, making it quit while I was rolling along the highway. That one, I was, huh? Welds should never fail like that! Speaking of carbs, it seems a fairly common problem is that as the parts wear, it opens up gaps that let air in, and mess up the fuel/air ratio. Depends on the design, too. An older design connected the accelerator pedal to a rotating shaft in such a way that it put sideways force on the shaft, causing the hole in which the shaft is mounted to gradually widen and deform from circular to oval. The symptom is that the engine just won't idle, it'll stall, and to prevent that, you have to give it extra gas.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @07:06PM
Fuel injector / closed loop emissions cars suffer from the same cause of problem although the symptom is they refuse to let the idle drop below 2K rpm or sometimes run even higher even all the way up to emergency injector cut off at redline RPMs.
Most (probably not "all") engine control software will refuse to incinerate the catalytic converter catalysts by running super lean, so they'll inject fuel to prevent a lean condition which often means the car can't idle.
It's one of those problems where if you have a code scanner / live data scanner you can diagnose the problem in about 30 seconds whereas without a scanner its hours and $$$$ of guess-and-check. The problem being that for example another reason some engine computers will refuse to drop idle is the temp sensor thinks the engine is ice cold because the sensor failed to a false low value, or maybe (in the winter, where I live) the engine really is ice cold because the thermostat failed and stuck open so it never gets warm if its -30F outside, or maybe the throttle body cable is misadjusted so it quite literally cannot idle, or 90s era cars had a computer controlled vacuum powered throttle "kicker" to force airflow beyond normal idle at warm-up time (symptom if stuck open is same as an intake air leak, because too much air is entering).
Oh I can think of another possible cause although not air leak related. A former coworker installed aftermarket shit tier Chinese quality control failure broken out of the box Amazon branded injectors and the injectors dribbled in the wrong amount of fuel such that the closed loop just barely couldn't quite close anymore and the "just barely" aspect made the engine computer REALLY mad because apparently it didn't do hysteresis like you'd expect an industrial appliance to do. I forget the exact details but it was a huge PITA.
Additional fun with old cars is finding one failure does not preclude the concurrent existence of other failures, so fixing the cracked air plenum pipe thing from the filter to the intake manifold does not "prove" something else hasn't also failed so when the first repair is made it'll still be broken or at best broken slightly differently. I tend to buy cars and nurse them along for years, kind of turns into a game in later years, I nursed a 90s Saturn along for 16 years, for example. It had ALL the stereotypical Saturn failures, was kind of funny toward the end.
(Score: 4, Funny) by driverless on Sunday October 27, @11:17AM
Tell me about it. I have to give myself ten minutes written notice before I stand up quickly, get winded after a small run uphill, my right knee keeps playing up, and I'm feeling the urge to yell at clouds.
The car isn't doing so well either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @03:28AM (9 children)
"...about 8-9 hours on 220). Range is about 275 miles..."
That gives a whole new meaning to "miles per hour"...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Monday October 28, @08:47PM (8 children)
Akkerchewally, people do rate chargers in 'miles of range added per hour of charging'. It's a useful measure.
My current car has an 11 kW on-board convertor, so it 'slow charges' at a rate of roughly 45 miles of range per hour when plugged into nominal 230 volt 16 Amp 3-phase AC, which is what my home charger is.
When doing direct DC-to-DC charging, it can cope with up to about 80 kW depending on the battery state of charge, but averages out at about 50 kW.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday October 28, @08:57PM
I imagine so. But expressed as "twenty miles per hour" it doesn't sound so impressive. :O
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday October 28, @11:30PM (6 children)
3 phase?
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Tuesday October 29, @07:43AM (5 children)
Yes, three phase.
16A per phase, 230V RMS nominal. 3 x 16 x 230 = 11,040 Watts i.e. 11 kilowatts. That's the voltage phase-to-neutral (phase voltage). Voltage phase-to-phase (line voltage) is 398V.
I charge at another domestic charger occasionally which is only single phase, so I get 16A at 230V nominal, which is 3.68 kilowatts. 8 hours of charging overnight there gives me about an extra 120 miles of range, which is enough for my needs.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday October 30, @03:40AM (4 children)
Very interesting. No need to reveal location, but I'm curious where in the world such voltage is used. I'm in the US and we have 240V "split-phase" (120-0-120) in residential buildings. It's very rare to have 3 phase in a residence.
In the US, 3 phase is usually 208 line-to-line, which gives 120V line to neutral, in most commercial buildings. Many things that require 240V also run okay on 208, but some require an autotransformer.
And then 480V phase to phase is pretty standard in industrial, and sometimes commercial buildings. 277V phase to neutral, and the 277 is very common in large building / warehouse lighting, parking lot lighting, etc. Hurts really bad if you touch it. (cough cough).
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday October 30, @06:27AM (3 children)
My home (France) is fed with 3 phases, although only one is used for domestic purposes. The same is true for the half dozen houses around me. They were built in the 1970s (or much earlier but have been renovated around that time).
A few years ago the overhead power cables were replaced by underground cables but the 3 phases were maintained to the company's connection box and meter on my property. They are still available to me should I choose to have them.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RS3 on Thursday October 31, @02:48AM (2 children)
I didn't know that, very cool. Could you attach to all 3 phases if you wanted to?
Generally 3-phase motors are more efficient. I've always spec'ed them, or at least recommended them where 3 phase is available, which is generally not in residences in the US. I supposed there are exceptions, but I've never seen it nor heard of it.
That said, and interestingly, VFD (Variable Frequency Drive) motor controllers do an interesting thing. They take in 3 phase AC, rectify (now DC), filter (big capacitors), then synthesize 3-phase AC using six transistors. That way they can control motor speed and torque, sense load, including doing much analysis of motor currents, harmonics, etc.
In fact most of them will run on single-phase AC lines power, but usually at reduced output load capability.
I'm seeing that topology being used in water well pumps. Some are even doing "tankless" systems- the motor is kept running at very low speed to maintain pressure, and when water is needed, the system runs the pump motor speed up. I'm not sure how power efficient that system is, being that it keeps the motor running at all times. But I am in favor of doing 3-phase pumps wherever possible, so you could use a VFD and small pressure tank for a good overall system.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday October 31, @04:16AM (1 child)
The previous occupant had connected to all 3 phases in order to drive a sawmill.
In 2007, one of the requirements of purchasing the house was that it had to be fully checked by an company electrician who switched to single phase as the sawmill had been removed. However the the phases are still provided up to my house.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday October 31, @10:47PM
For anyone who doesn't know, but might be interested: in the US we have 240V center-tapped ("split-phase") to our residences. Hence, 120V normal outlets, and 240V for higher-power things. 240V outlets exist for US in various configurations depending on amperage, typically 15, 20, 30, 40, 50. So 50 amps at 240V is 12KW.
Most residential main breaker panels ("panelboard", "load center", other names) are 100, 125, 150, 175, or 200 amps main breaker. 200 is pretty common these days, and 200 is pretty much the maximum for one breaker panel. So, more and more houses are being built with two 200A panels. Yes, crazy. It's not so much the total KW need, more that they need more breaker spaces than the normal maximum panel size of 42. (yes, 42. Someone probably has a sense of humor.)
Since we do the split-phase thing, a single space breaker is 120V, typically 15 or 20A for normal outlets. 20 is required for kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, and many other higher-power potential areas.
To get 240V you need a double breaker- one of each phase. Having many 240V things can eat up panel spaces fast, hence houses having two 42 space breaker panels.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Monday October 28, @10:10PM
Those model Leaf, specifically, had a known issue with short battery life because of dumb design. It wasn't a worn-out vehicle; it was terrible design from a company that should have known better. Nissan put a tiny pack (strike 1) in the car, programmed the BMS to charge them to 100% to maximize the small capacity (strike 2), and didn't put active cooling on the batteries. (Strike 3). If the car had 50 miles of range in 2018, that means it probably had at least one battery replacement already.
Judging EVs by a 2011 Leaf is like judging gas cars by the Pinto or Fiero. There's something to be learned from them, yes, but it's not representative of the whole.
Similarly, judging EVs by a Tesla is also not representative of the whole. Tesla is significantly closer to the mean, though.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by epitaxial on Saturday October 26, @02:47PM (25 children)
Why the fuck did you buy it in the first place?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @03:06PM (24 children)
Not OP, but posting AC due to your tone.
I currently have a 4 mile (6.4 km) commute. I would buy a Leaf, or other much more efficient EV for my daily commute and/or other local trips, in a heartbeat if I had the budget to add a car.
"much more efficient": small battery = much less weight to lug around. Even if you use regenerative braking, which all EVs should, you still have less overall efficiency with a heavier car with bigger battery because things aren't 100% efficient- realities of friction. Bigger car with heavier battery = bigger heavier motors and drivetrain, more tire friction, more loss in charge / discharge electrochemistry, more loss in electronic voltage / current converters / controllers, etc.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @04:44PM (17 children)
While I'm at it, I almost rear-ended a Tesla the other day. It slowed very quickly, no brake lights. Fortunately I'm an extremely attentive driver, but at any time a driver could be looking left or right, or glance down to adjust HVAC, etc.
Point is: regenerative braking is a very Good Thing, but who TF allowed EVs to regeneratively and rapidly slow down with no brake light illumination?
We all get very used to seeing brake lights, our reactions are trained: brake light in front of us, foot to brake pedal, maybe hard if needed. No brake lights, but car in front getting closer rapidly: confusion.
IMHO ALL EVs should be recalled and somehow retrofitted with brake light illumination upon regenerative braking (and I'd bet it can be done in software in almost all EVs).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @04:52PM (14 children)
Not sure what mode that Tesla was in or if it was working properly, but I'm given to understand you can operate them in a mode that simulates the engine braking of ICEs. In that case, the brake light shouldn't come on when it uses regeneration to simulate engine braking since that's not a had deceleration. OTOH, if the user initiates braking, or if the self-driving program brakes harder than a certain force then it should definitely illuminate the brake light. I wonder if the FSD has such a threshold, always or never illuminates the brake light when regenerating, only when using the friction brake. In any event, there's a lot more to consider with regards to when the light should come on vs.the simple switch attached to the braking system with ICE cars.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 26, @05:13PM (13 children)
A good friend has a Chevy Bolt, at least 5 years old. He demonstrated regenerative braking for me. Not sure what they do now, or what other brands do, but his had 3 levels of regen. The highest level would throw you forward, very hard, when you let off the accelerator pedal. Much like an ICE car, held in a low gear but moving pretty fast, engine revs way up, then you let off the gas.
You're correct- in that scenario you wouldn't have brake lights, but hopefully people aren't doing that very often. It's very hard on all moving parts, especially piston rings and rod bearings.
Most ICE cars don't decelerate hard when you let off the accelerator. Another good friend had an older ('70s) Saab that had a sprag clutch (one-way drive thing) that totally decoupled the engine on engine deceleration.
So in accord with your point, how about: EVs must show brake lights when decelerating any more rapidly than a typical ICE car with foot off accelerator pedal.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 26, @05:17PM (4 children)
I'll take it a step further: I think Porsche does this, but here would be my absolute design:
1) Foot off accelerator pedal = coasting.
2) Foot on brake pedal = regenerative braking, proportional to pedal pressure, and only apply friction brakes if and when regen isn't doing enough. As an EE and somewhat car nut, I'll state this would be trivial to implement in most EV designs.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Saturday October 26, @05:42PM (3 children)
It's almost that simple.
On a Volkswagen e-Golf, Level 1 braking is as your describe - foot off brake pedal = coasting. It coasts a long way, because there's no engine braking. I loved it, but some people simply can't get used to it.
Level 2 braking simulates engine braking - foot off pedal, it slows down gradually, using the energy to recharge the battery,
Level 3 is 'assertive' simulation of engine braking: it allows you to drive in 'single-pedal mode', and slows you down quite rapidly when you take your foot off the accelerator, to the extent that you (almost) don't need to use the brake pedal. It also recharges the battery.
If you set a maximum speed limit on the car, then going downhill it will regeneratively brake to hold your maximum speed to your set speed. The wrinkle is that on a steep hill, it will apply the friction brakes. It only applies the friction brakes once maximum regen is happening.
It turned out that e-Golfs didn't use the friction brakes enough - so much so that a frequent problem was the brake-discs rusting enough to require replacement. The newer Volkswagen ID.whatever models have drum brakes because they (a) don't need the stopping capability of disc brakes as regen is good enough, and drum brakes are not affected the same way by rust.
My current EV doesn't have a mode where it only coasts - I always have simulated engine braking at three choosable levels. I hate it.
Regen gets less effective as the car slows down. It is very effective at high speeds, but at very low speeds cars need friction brakes to stop (or some fancy power electronics to get the motor to apply reverse torque - I don't think any cars do this).
The eGolf would also not regen more than the battery could accept charging, so some power control was needed to split the braking between regen and friction, which depended on battery charge state. Most braking, unless you drive like a maniac, was regen.
But regen braking is great - 'free' fuel!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday October 26, @11:34PM (2 children)
Thanks for the info. Yes, to me regen is absolute no-brainer- just do it.
Again, friend's Bolt in level 3 regen braking will throw you into the windshield if you're not strapped in (as all should be). It's equivalent to slamming brakes very hard. I'm pretty sure it could control speed on most downhill roads.
But I have to wonder: if the battery is fully charged, do you still get regen braking? You must not overcharge a battery, so I wonder if regen braking stops working once it has charged the battery fully.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Monday October 28, @11:49AM (1 child)
Regen braking with a full battery isn;t possible - because the battery is full.
However, there are a couple of things here: you don't lose braking: the car switches over to using friction brakes instead. I guess that legally, cars are required to have brakes that work at all times, so friction brakes are required.
The other thing is that it is possible to have electromagnetic brakes that work without charging the battery. I don't know if any cars have them, but large (articulated) lorries/trucks can have retarders that help to manage their speed going down-hill. Often they are hydraulic: an axle has vanes put on it, and a container put around the vanes which is filled with fluid with a pump to apply a retarding force. The fluid can be circulated through a radiator to cool it down. They are not functional brakes for stopping the vehicle, because they generate less and less retarding force as the vehicle gets slower and slower, but they are very effective at high speeds. However, you can also get electromagnetic retarders that work by applying a strong magnetic field to a rotating metallic disk fixed to an axle. The field induces eddy currents in the rotating disk, which causes a retarding force, and the currents heat up the disk - which can be cooled by air blowers. The point about retarders is that they don't suffer from brake-fade which friction-brakes do as they heat up - for example when going down a long incline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarder_(mechanical_engineering)#Electric_retarder [wikipedia.org]
https://telmausa.com/products/operating-principle [telmausa.com]
However, I don't know of any cars that use eddy-current generated electromagnetic retardation.
Another method, used on some railway locomotives, is to use the current generated from the electric motors when the train is slowing down and pass it through a set of resistors (rheostatic braking), which are cooled by forced air. Again, it's a retarder, not a brake, because it can't bring the locomotive to a full stop.
There is a type of electromagnetic brake that can bring an object to a full stop - the magnetic hysteresis brake. The magnetic field is usually generated electrically.
Example: Magtrol Hysteresis Brake (PDF) [magtrol.com]
It generates a torque as long as current is applied, so is capable of being a holding brake without any friction assembly. I don't think the principle is used in any vehicle brakes, though.
The benefit of regenerative braking is that it increases the effective range of the battery-powered electric vehicle (BEV) - the energy that is dissipated as heat in conventional brakes is used to recharge the battery. This is important enough to make incorporating the complexity worthwhile.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday October 29, @12:03AM
Wow, I didn't know all of that, thanks. Very interesting. I deal mostly only with cars and light trucks.
Yeah, generally, and from simple physics, to slow a vehicle you have to do something with all that kinetic energy. Pretty much going to end up as heat somewhere. I'm aware of resistors used for braking, but I never thought about (nor calculated) how many watts they'd have to dissipate to effectively slow a vehicle.
Industrial motor controllers often have an option to add a power resistor for braking, if needed.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @07:23PM (7 children)
You probably need to include a disclaimer of "on level ground at low RPM" as my internal combustion cars decelerate HARD at higher RPMs when going downhill on a long steep mountain. There are not many where I live but I have traveled. "Somewhat high RPMs" going downhill in low gear really does feel like stamping the brakes medium hard.
I wonder about the ring and rod bearing claim. Surely if the rod bearings experience a torque of X at wide open throttle and redline during the compression stroke, then engine breaking during a compression stroke with the throttle closed has to be a lower torque because if it was a higher torque then the RPM would rapidly be way beyond redline... My guess is people who blew up engines doing engine breaking merely did not want to admit they accidently took her up to 12K RPM for a few seconds, OR, they're doing something like a logging truck where its ultra heavy duty which was going to kill the engine "real soon" anyway even if they never engine braked. IF the effect exists, well, then it exists even if I don't understand it, but I can't see how the torques could be higher when engine braking than when flooring it. I bet the ratio is even more extreme for turbo engines because the turbo is probably not spooled up while engine braking.
Maybe rephrased more clearly, if the piston in compression stroke is treated like an air compressor, I'm not sure how the torque during compression can be higher when the throttle is closed and high vacuum conditions than during redline wide open throttle.
It may be the case that running an engine at redline and WOT will kill it in X hours and simultaneously engine braking is much easier on the engine but still kills it in 100X hours so its simultaneously very hard on the engine compared to letting it idle in park and its 100x less damaging than flooring the accelerator but it'll still blow it up eventually.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Saturday October 26, @11:12PM (6 children)
Please forgive me if I'm a bit direct- we EEs are like that.
You used the word "torque", then went on a tiny soapbox about it. _I_ never said anything about torque. Also, your writing is more in the theoretical / ideal, rather than from direct empirical experience.
If you look at most ICE designs, the connecting rods are quite stout in compression and power stroke- pushing, not pulling on them.
However, pulling on them puts all the force on the connecting rod cap. It's much thinner, and the pulling action tends to "egg-shape" them a bit, so that you now have excess bearing clearance, which means there's excess movement from pulling to pushing (each round) and that beats up the bearings. Yes, again, I'm a bit of a car nut, work on them extensively, including engine builds (and rebuilds).
Just to clarify if it's not obvious: during "engine braking" there will be very high intake vacuum, so the pistons and rings are pulling hard against that vacuum. That's how you get the braking- the vacuum is fighting the piston's natural function to pump air (and a bit of fuel).
Not sure if you or others have heard this, but when you get a new (or newly rebuilt) engine, you're supposed to "break it in". There are several rules of thumb on this, but much of it involves the piston rings "taking a set"- lapping themselves and the cylinder walls together. All of those very tiny changes in shape of everything means the system of cylinders, rings, and pistons are all well mated to each other, but in compression. Pulling on them in high vacuum changes the wear dynamic.
Also the vacuum tends to pull some crankcase oil into the cylinders which fouls the valves, mostly exhaust, and contaminates the catalytic converter.
I try to tell people: use your brakes to slow your car. They're cheap! Clutches (if you have one) and engines are much much more expensive.
Disclaimer: there are situations, like very long steep hills, where you must use some engine braking- put trans in somewhat lower gear. Be careful of RPMs of course.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @03:39AM
Such as in icy conditions. There sometimes it's much better to slow the vehicle by gearing down -- way less likely to lose traction, at least with an automatic. But you're not usually slamming it, just achieving a gradual slowing without touching the brakes.
Unless you're my F350, which slows nicely in 2nd, but thinks 1st means "pull really hard" (it's a tow rig, and it knows it).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Monday October 28, @11:51AM
I concur. Very Good Advice.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 28, @01:12PM (1 child)
Ah that's interesting, I was thinking of the compression stroke going up to well over 100 psi as being most of the braking force rather than the intake stroke only being able to pull at an absolute maximum against 14 psi (probably less with some flow losses). I suppose at closed throttle during engine braking the compression is not too high so what you're saying makes sense.
Engines do have better cooling systems than brakes for the really long downhill mountain runs. Brakes are physically light weight so they get pretty hot if you go down a serious mountain.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday October 28, @11:53PM
I have an ongoing problem of thinking that everyone understands what I understand. Yes, compression only works if you have air to compress. If the throttle is closed and RPM well above idle, you'll have vacuum in the intake manifold. Not quite interstellar vacuum, but it's very high vacuum. Engine computers measure intake air pressure in absolute pressure. Running an engine computer analyzer in a car I've observed nearly zero intake manifold pressure during hard engine braking. Sorry I don't have numbers, but it's darn near true vacuum.
Quite right, and some years ago I almost found out the hard way. Took a trip in a fairly mountainous area. More so than I had ever driven in. Very long steep downhill run and my front rotors started warping and shuddering badly. I was in a panic. I still remember it too well. I knew to downshift, but was afraid it wouldn't be enough. Fortunately it was. Also, fortunately the car has a computer-controlled transmission, so it won't over-rev the engine.
Also, important to note: many people think the handbrake / parking brake is for emergencies. It could be, but only in very unique situations. Most handbrake / parking brakes apply the rear wheels only. If you do that in a bad situation, you could lock up the rear wheels, ABS has no say in the situation, and you'll go very out of control. Crazy drivers intentionally lock the rear wheels to do a big slide / drifting.
Anyway, I did consider applying the rear-only parking brake somewhat to relieve the overheated front rotors, but I was afraid of locking the rear wheels. I don't remember if I did apply some of the parking brake.
Also: using engine braking will only affect the driven wheels- front, rear, or AWD if you have that. So again, using engine braking and adding parking brake could cause rear wheel lockup and loss of control if you have RWD (Rear Wheel Drive).
Thermodynamically an engine is making very little heat during decel. Most engine control computers will totally stop fuel flow during decel.
Some cars, certainly race cars, have some kind of cooling system for brakes. There are aftermarket kits available too. Probably a good idea in general, and especially if you live in a mountainous area.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Tuesday October 29, @08:07AM (1 child)
Re: Engine braking
Diesel engines can use an 'compression release engine brake [wikipedia.org]' (aka a 'Jake brake').
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday October 30, @03:33AM
Yes, and it's very LOUD and you often see signs saying they're not to be used in residential areas. Horrible thing that.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday October 29, @02:31PM (1 child)
I don't believe you. You are just a shit driver.
I have a Model 3 and the display shows the real-time status of all the car's lights. You can see the brake light come on under regenerative braking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31, @02:52AM
Fuck you asshole. Maybe the Tesla I was following had a problem with its brake lights. Asshole.
(Score: 3, Informative) by epitaxial on Saturday October 26, @06:16PM (1 child)
I meant why would you buy an EV with a nearly dead battery?
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday October 28, @04:05AM
The battery health meter was 9 out of 12 when I bought it. Hardly dead. It lost approximately 1 health bar per year, and was down to 4 when I dumped it.
It was in part an experiment, to gain firsthand experience, and in part a sudden need. My grandmother's car that no other grandchild wanted when she passed had abruptly suffered a problem that required a new engine. Apparently it's a known flaw in its engine design. As that car did not have airbags, had those annoying shoulder belts attached to the door, and was just 2 years too old to have ODBII making inspection more difficult (the previous year, I had to drive it to another city-- no inspection station nearby had the means to test a pre-ODBII car) and had a few other problems, I decided to let it go, and put my choice of cars where my mouth is, trying an electric. I hoped that the simplicity of electric drive would mean the slimy used car salesperson would have much less room to lie about the condition, but they still got me. The Leaf was a "salvage" title, and I didn't fully understand what that meant. It means that if you ever want to trade it in, you won't get diddly for it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @08:35PM (3 children)
I have a zero mile commute and would totally consider a 10 mile range car for in-town trips. Its pretty rare for me to drive more than 10 miles round trip and when I need more I have my wife's car. I have to think back a LONG time to the last time my wife and I had to drive separately to two places simultaneously where both were more than 10 miles away. Maybe back when we both worked W-2 commute jobs, but those days are permanently over.
I think the fundamental problem is battery chemistry. The first gen Leaf per Wikipedia had a brand new range of 100 miles so the worn out battery, at 50 miles reported, only had half range. Back in the days of 1990s rechargeable nicads and 2020s lead acid cells, if the battery has 50% capacity its probably headed to the recycler next week if not sooner. However Wikipedia claims the first gen Leaf was a Li-ion cell pack.
I found a recent journal article on Li Ion life vs capacity and it seems that a "half dead" Li Ion probably has very hand wavy 20% of its life left. So its not that crazy to buy a half dead Li Ion car battery if you know you're buying one that's about 80% used up. Its not as bad as a NiCad or Lead Acid where 50% capacity means its about 98% used up.
I think it would be pretty crazy, looking at those graphs, to buy a Leaf with only 4 miles range left. That means it'll be completely dead in just a couple more cycles. I bet a Leaf with only 4 miles capacity left will drive less than 25 miles total before final utter battery failure, or maybe a month of calendar time looking at graphs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484724000660 [sciencedirect.com]
I wish batteries were modular. I would buy a 4 mile range Leaf and rip out and recycle the heavy old dead battery and replace it with a couple golf cart batteries giving maybe 15 miles range for the next decade, then drive it around all day every day to my grocery store (less than 2 miles round trip) my daughter's school (about 3 miles round trip) where my son works (about 5 miles round trip) my favorite local park (about 3 miles round trip) my gym (2 miles round trip) church (maybe 3 miles round trip?) etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Saturday October 26, @11:26PM
Yes yes! I've written that several times before. I don't have the time to search but I vividly remember some EV manufacturer making them with a relatively small easily user-replaceable battery. You just exchange them at a charging station, and you can vary the number you need depending on how far you need to go.
All that said, I wonder how difficult it would be to make your own replacement EV battery. I guess it would all depend on how integrated the battery pack is with the control system. If I had more time and money I'd probably do an ICE to EV conversion on something- maybe one of my own vehicles. I know you can buy various kinds of batteries to use in an EV conversion.
Here's one company or reseller that carries lots of batteries that could be used to rebuild the Leaf (I have no connection to them- just did a quick web search): https://www.evwest.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=4 [evwest.com]
Oh wow- they have a lot of cool stuff, including full conversion kits, battery packs for Teslas and others. Oh this opens things up.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @03:41AM
That sounds like my 2023. I drove just over 200 miles for the whole year. Bought gas exactly once.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bussdriver on Sunday October 27, @08:48PM
They are modular. Nissan always did that. I do not know about Tesla. It's not USER serviceable, but they could find exactly which ones were defective and swap them out. They are sold on ebay as well.
The battery controller system is not open on anybody's and they want only their batteries used. This needs to be a right to repair situation.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bussdriver on Sunday October 27, @05:10PM
Yes, 2013 was when they fixed most the issues. I waited 2 years because it takes a few to work out things they missed or had to tolerate to get to market.
Most reliable car ever. Just replaced the front brakes for the 1st time.
Just last month? the hacker who undid their whole battery lock-in system open sourced it. 3rd party solutions are now possible! I'll be able to replace the battery with a bigger one and cheaper. I'm still charging at 80% and have about 55 range. I'm also in the midwest so the heat hasn't shorted the battery life.
Yes, tire companies love EVs. It's fun at first to zip around better and more quietly than a sports car but it does cost tires... and tire pollution and brake pollution are problems without much data to upset people...yet. Regen braking is great but it has jerks changing lanes around me just to get to the stop sign faster... so they can save insignificant amounts of time (which they likely lose staring at their phone and starting out late when the sign turns green.) I'm looking forward to http://ensotyres.com [ensotyres.com] but driving in eco mode and also like an old lady so my average power use stays above 4. (3.8 in winter.)
As far as changing how I live because of my only car being an early EV-- I have changed how I live; but I'm not a spoiled brat American. I know why feeding company became tradition... why people would stable and feed your horse when you visited... now people act like it's odd to pay $1 of electricity for your car when you visit them. If you want me to visit, then it's your problem - and you're just as much as an asshole if you wouldn't take care of my horse if I spent hours riding out to visit. ALSO, saving easily over $1,000 per year not buying gas (including EV tax which is still less than I'd pay in gas tax) I can afford to RENT a car or pay too much at a EV charging station (most of which charge many times the electricity cost.)
NOW, an EV has 100s of miles of range because batteries improved since 2011 - I see even less reason to go hybrid. When I had ICE, it was old and I didn't want to break down 100s of miles away to be stuck with whatever Bubba Backwater demanded I pay to get my car working so, I rented a car to go long distance. They replace it if it breaks and it's not your problem or even much time delay. Unless I'm hauling long distance, take a jet and save days of time and accident risk, tire wear, etc.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ChrisMaple on Saturday October 26, @04:37PM (3 children)
Electric cars have been around for a while now. Hertz should have started earlier and tried a one city rollout, say in Miami. When it failed, they would have been out a few million dollars, instead of threatening the financial viability of the company.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Saturday October 26, @04:49PM
Craziness abounds. One CEO makes an absurd decision and millions lose billions.
Sometimes absurd decisions result in huge profits. Investors are, well, gamblers.
Many wise people have said there's too much $ in stocks ("market capitalization") and I strongly agree.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Saturday October 26, @06:18PM
Hertz is incompetent. Besides getting lots of innocent customers arrested https://www.npr.org/2022/12/06/1140998674/hertz-false-accusation-stealing-cars-settlement [npr.org] they bought a bunch of EVs and didn't install any charging infrastructure. People would rent an EV with a nearly empty battery and Hertz would tell them to go charge it themselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @06:17AM
Hertz usually auctions off the fleet more or less annually; sales of used cars are a BIG part of their profit margin.
Seems the resale value on EVs isn't making that margin.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @07:36PM (2 children)
I'll give you an analysis of how this was a management failure:
They are in a market that is hypercompetitive commodities. Walk up to a counter at an airport and gimmie a rental. Or the company HQ signed some semi-corrupt deal to do all their rentals with some company.
They don't have the business brain-cycles to burn to do crazy new ideas, just do the same old commodity a little cheaper than the competitors or a little faster or a little better.
Now, if they had a monopoly, or huge profit margins, or a financial structure where they don't need profits for years, etc.. Its like a coal mining company suddenly deciding to pivot into aerospace rocket engine turbopump manufacture, this just doesn't fit the company personality.
Could a little startup have gambled and won? Sure. Maybe even one founded and funded by Hertz. But no they tried to teach the dinosaur "learn how to tap dance in 24 hours" and got stomped instead. Maybe if other more agile faster moving companies had already successfully moved, they could get away with trying to chase after them having seen what works and what doesn't or at least having some assurance its even a good idea.
The idea is being spun as some kind of overall message about EVs or really being spun as anything other than upper mgmt totally F-ed up. But I assure you, the only problem is upper mgmt totally F-ed up. It was a huge mistake to even try to do this for a company in their current market and their current operating conditions.
The stated reasons in the article are far downstream of the actual cause. The real problem is big companies in competitive commodity markets can't innovate the way they tried to. Would have failed just as well if they were a grocery store cereal manufacturer trying to pivot into mobile gaming apps or something. Like the upper mgmt just got drunk one day and decided F-it we're doing something crazy or die trying, and that way of making decisions is the problem, not "EVs" or "Supply chains". Well, I guess the latter outcome was inevitable LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @08:54PM
The EV rental would be near DEAD when you picked it up and then you had to find and charge it yourself. Then they'd charge you filling it with gas later when it doesn't need gas... and they dumped it on you uncharged... don't know how much charge it needed when being returned either but it wasn't fair at all when i returned it reasonably charged. I don't think they even had decent charging setup at their own stores!
If they had any brains they'd have had serious charging at all their locations and let you quick swap cars at their locations so you didn't have to wait to charge it. IN TOWN -- out of town they should only rent hybrids. The new purpose for rental is for long distance driving...
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Sunday October 27, @08:55PM
They should buy a fleet of Aptera cars with 1000 mile range and they charge themselves while sitting around! That would be smart...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday October 26, @08:43PM (3 children)
Hertz is good at radio, not electricity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @11:28PM (2 children)
Your pun hertz. Hurts.
(Score: 2, Funny) by pTamok on Monday October 28, @12:06PM (1 child)
Hertz puns are frequently painful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 29, @03:35AM
And painfully frequent.