Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:OK. So they do have a Shelby version...
YARG!! I *want* to be chill about it but I cannot help but get annoyed at the mustang thing still. Oh well, I also dated a girl who annoyed me so much because she didn't pronounce her name per the spelling but per her own pronounciation. I guess it's a personality thing more than anything.
/rant
/opinion doesn't matter anyway, I don't buy new
/let the dead horse rest in peace ..no pun intended.
John Welsh said:So, here is a question that I have as a non EV owner but a potential future owner.
The hotels all around me have a charger or two. That seems great for long distance travel. The question I have is... On my cross country drive, if I arrive at my hotel late, I can plug in and awake to a fully charged car...great. But, if I arrive late-late, is it possible that an EV will already be parked at the charger and then the car sits there until morning. Am I blocked out from getting charged until those cars leave?
Do the charger apps have some sort of way to see how long the current car has before finishing?
Do the charger apps have some sort of way to ping/wake/alarm the current owner who may be sleeping in their room?How is "waiting in line" handled by the charging apps if there is no other charger in the immediate area?
Yes, this is an issue in some places. Handling it with an alarm to move your car in the middle of the night is IMO not a neat solution (I would not want to move my car when I am trying to sleep).
What I want to see is that each charger could have say 4 charging plugs. It will only charge one car at a time but could automagically switch to the next when the first one has reached the desired charge level.
Doing it this way, we can all plug in an nobody has to move their car. This would be great for destination charging.
Gustaf
grover said:Actually- I just thought about it and the car probably won't go into drive until you unplug.
I can confirm that the Teslas are like that. Very first time I tried to drive my new car off the dealership lot, it refused to proceed until I unplugged it. I felt like an idiot, but not as much as I would have. That interlock is a very good idea :)
In reply to therealpinto :
Interesting idea. Or you just charge each car at 25% power. I know some of the Superchargers are set up that way, they have two plugs and 150 kW total capacity shared between them. If only one car is plugged in, it gets all the power. If there are two, they share.
Semi-serious question about electric travel in general-How much harder is it to do with a flip phone?
Maybe carry a laptop, and get online at McDonalds?
I don't use my phone for anything during the trip. But if you're trying to use a no -Tesla charging network life would probably be easier if you could run the apps. If it's required, well that'll depend on the network.
I wonder what the intersection between flip phones and EV ownership is. Probably restricted to only the weird little Citycar types of EV :)
In reply to wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) :
I did a quick google search for EV charging in Maryville TN and found the site solvingev this is a screen shot of partial results
Well they are all now recalled and Dealers were issued a stop sale because they stop running with no fix until at least the end of July.
Not quite all, but about half.
Interesting that the OTA fix will take longer than the in-person, which may be a reflection of Ford's OTA systems being a bit of a lash-up.
Ford says the problem can be fixed with an over-the-air software update, which will be issued “next month.” Mustang Mach-E owners can also take their vehicles to a Ford or Lincoln dealership for a more immediate software fix.
wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) said:Semi-serious question about electric travel in general-How much harder is it to do with a flip phone?
Maybe carry a laptop, and get online at McDonalds?
Some networks, included the one I stopped at, require a smartphone for payment (it's a cheaper/more reliable method than maintaining a million credit card readers).
But asking that question is a little bit like saying "How hard is it to drive a gas car cross-country without using any fuel hoses at gas stations?" Like, yeah, you could transfer the gas out of the underground tanks with an empty soda can one scoop at a time, but why wouldn't you use the infrastructure that's been built?
If you don't enjoy having/using a smartphone, I suspect that you will not enjoy having/using an EV car either.
Tom Suddard said:Some networks, included the one I stopped at, require a smartphone for payment (it's a cheaper/more reliable method than maintaining a million credit card readers).
Based on my experience with smartphone apps (and I could go on a whole diatribe about how having an "app" instead of just using an html5 page with responsive design basically breaks the whole point of the internet for a majority of use cases, but I'll go yell at a cloud on my own time...) I would much prefer tapping my credit card. I get that if payment is all processed remotely, there's no chance of a card skimmer and there isn't a card reader on-site to break. But I think an NFC card is probably more secure than having the charging company store my credit card in a server somewhere, even with PCI standards. And while an NFC reader can break, so can all the other stuff that the charging station would need to process a remote payment, so I'm not sure that's much of a gain either.
I may frequently criticize Tesla on here, but honestly their app is very useful, even for just checking on charge, alerts, preconditioning etc. No comments on security of CC information, but the app I like a lot and use frequently.
wae said:Tom Suddard said:Some networks, included the one I stopped at, require a smartphone for payment (it's a cheaper/more reliable method than maintaining a million credit card readers).
Based on my experience with smartphone apps (and I could go on a whole diatribe about how having an "app" instead of just using an html5 page with responsive design basically breaks the whole point of the internet for a majority of use cases, but I'll go yell at a cloud on my own time...) I would much prefer tapping my credit card. I get that if payment is all processed remotely, there's no chance of a card skimmer and there isn't a card reader on-site to break. But I think an NFC card is probably more secure than having the charging company store my credit card in a server somewhere, even with PCI standards. And while an NFC reader can break, so can all the other stuff that the charging station would need to process a remote payment, so I'm not sure that's much of a gain either.
In the recent study of CCS chargers in the Bay area, the greatest cause for "non-functional" chargers was authentication difficulties, and that's most likely due to network problems. IoT is hard :) Had a great talk with a gas station owner about what's inside your average pump. The big difference between a gas station and a charging station from an availability standpoint is the staff at the gas station convenience store can walk out and reset the gas pump in response to an in-person customer complaint, while a standalone charger remains broken because there's nobody there to fix it and nobody knows it's not working until someone calls in. It's notable that in that study, they specifically did NOT call for help if a charger was unresponsive. Which is probably typical, but doesn't help the next person.
I would like to see legislation that if a charger cannot authenticate payment, it defaults to "on". From what my Tesla insider friends have told me, I believe this is how Superchargers work already. It would motivate all the charging networks that are currently building out as fast as possible with grant money to maintain their stuff once the grant money is spent.
Keith Tanner said:grover said:Actually- I just thought about it and the car probably won't go into drive until you unplug.
I can confirm that the Teslas are like that. Very first time I tried to drive my new car off the dealership lot, it refused to proceed until I unplugged it. I felt like an idiot, but not as much as I would have. That interlock is a very good idea :)
I'm sure all gas station owners wished all cars had such a feature.
My neighbor with a Model 3 also bought a Model Y, so they now have two Teslas. But they still only have one charger at their driveway - which is inside their property fence. It looks like they may have planned to have two cars, since the charger is placed more or less in the middle of the driveway so it can reach either car parked in line.
In reply to wae :
Idk, charging the Mach E was pretty painless. Tap my phone to open the random power company app, double click to start charging with Apple Pay, done. The app (or the charge company) never saw my payment info.
Meanwhile, my card gets comprised at gas pumps about once per year due to how much I travel.
Re: apps, I have figured out that if I have three of them it covers 95% of charging needs where I live and generally drive. Super-long road trips to other regions of the country may be different, but for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, I have been okay with ChargePoint, EVgo, and Electrify America.
I like having the apps and using my iPhone to initiate charging/payment because I can leave the car and get notifications about charging status, track costs, etc. BUT I 100% support every charger having a credit card reader. If a friend borrows my car for a few days, why should they have to download three apps? Swipe card, charge, leave.
Agree with the card swipe. I use my phone for a lot of things, but I haven't set up any sort of payment app on it. Still a bit of a luddite when it comes to that.
Too bad they don't need to return to the dealer. The recall could include removing those wrong badges from the front.
I still find it endlessly amusing that people are so very upset that the car is named Mustang.
The ultimate "get off my lawn" thing.
It's the car in Ford's line up that has the best name recognition over time than any other car. If this car bothers you so much, should the utter POS of a car, the Mustang II, have it's name changed? From a "Mustang" perspective, it's a far worse car than the MachE is.
I put the Mach-E in the catagory as what some people insist on calling a "vodka martini".
A martini is gin, vermouth, olives, and a little bit of the brine from the olive jar.
Nothing else.
You want to make it with vodka instead of gin? Fine. But that's not a martini anymore. It may be a perfectly good drink (spoiler alert: it's not, you philistine), but it needs its own name because it is its own thing. Don't even get me started with this apple-flavored E36 M3.
If you asked me to go get you a wrench and I came back with a screwdriver would it be an acceptable answer to say "well, I call this thing a wrench!"?
We have names for things because it helps us to identify them and not get confused.
I have nothing against the Mach-E at all. I think getting more and better electric vehicles available for sale is a great thing and by all accounts it sounds like this is a really good vehicle that Ford's going to make a lot of. But when you're already making something called a Mustang and then you make something that is pretty much nothing like it, it's just confusing. And nonsensical.
Mustangs should have 84 horsepower, right? Is this issue that this car is too powerful to be a Mustang? 
In reply to wae :
Given the vitriol, I doubt anyone will be confused. In this case, the name is to portray an attitude, not a specific car. The Mach E is more of a Mustang than the Mustang II will ever be in terms of performance. I remember as a kid telling a friend how much I wanted a Cobra- he thought I was crazy since the Cobra was a low powered POS. I was talking Shelby Cobra, he was thinking Mustang II Cobra. So it's not as if good names never appear on questionable products.
Again, seeing the demand, it's only confusing to people who think it should be.
It's pretty amusing that you are upset with the "vodka martini"- as if the martini name only means gin. The whole reason you say "vodka martini" is to get a martini with vodka instead of gin. It adds clarification.
Maybe I don't understand... What relationship does the Mustang II have to the Mach-E other than it's another car that isn't a Mustang that Ford tried to call a Mustang?
The main takeaway from this thread seems to be that names mean nothing. Ask for a martini and the bartender whips one up with mezcal and midori? Still a martini and you're wrong if you complain.
Some people (myself included, -ish) don't really like that it gets the Mustang label. Then some other people decided that those opinions were wronger than wrong. I get the point that Ford is copying GM in that they want to expand the Mustang 'brand', fine, but it was bound to cause confusion like if GM released a new Corvette van. Why are we gate-keeping?
You'll need to log in to post.
