[TT97]

The garage at our house is only large enough to comfortably hold one car so my wife and I take turns either parking in the garage or parking in the driveway. Typically, whoever has the new car parks in the garage and the other person parks in the driveway (driveway is gated so still secure).

With the upcoming arrival of the Ocean, should I take the garage or park in the driveway to take advantage of the SolarSky? We are in L.A. and there is zero shade on the driveway so conditions are ideal for maximum photovoltaics efficiency. I work from home most days so the car would be out during peak hours.

While it doesn't produce much, I figure about 500 kWh per year and with rates in L.A. north of $0.20/kWh, it comes out to about $100.

 

[Skyc161]

I am in Toronto, Canada and no where near the amount of sun that you get.. I also have 1 car garage, but I store my sporty car in there..

But here is my take.. FWIW... I plan to clear wrap the entire front end and do ceramic coating on the entire car AND park it outside... with the solar roof, its not much, but the fact that it gives you some juice... why not part it outside and utilize the sun?

 

[sirozha]

I solved this problem for myself. I will get a One without the solar roof. The solar roof itself probably has 50-65 years in ROI. Not worth it. It’s a gimmick. Use the money toward a solar roof on the house. Its ROI is between 25 and 35 years. Also not worth it, but makes a lot more sense.

 

[MTN Ranger]

For LA climate, parking outside makes sense. I live in a forest and anything parked outside the garage without a cover gets nasty fairly quickly.

 

[TT97]

I solved this problem for myself. I will get a One without the solar roof. The solar roof itself probably has 50-65 years in ROI. Not worth it. It’s a gimmick. Use the money toward a solar roof on the house. Its ROI is between 25 and 35 years. Also not worth it, but makes a lot more sense.

Is there an option for deleting the SolarSky? And will they reduce the price? Otherwise, the payback is zero years.

I already have solar on the house and the payback with California sun & California utility prices is much much faster (under 10 years and that is with a cost of having panels installed on top of a clay roof that significantly added cost to the project). The solar production was enough for our house & one EV, however, with the 2nd EV and a mother-in-law moving in, we are no longer 100% solar generated. I do suspect my MIL is mining bitcoins in her room as I have no idea how she uses so much electricity. I am considering adding more panels to the house, unfortunately, only the north facing roof is left for additional panels so would not be able to get the same efficiency.

 

[182]

For LA climate, parking outside makes sense. I live in a forest and anything parked outside the garage without a cover gets nasty fairly quickly.

Somewhat to the right of LA, we park under overhead covers or indoors whenever possible for much of the year due to the heat. Our garage has A/C. When the ambient is low to teens triple digits, you can cook on the seats or instrument panel top cover (thus my aversion to black). We have 54 solar panels on the house roof, but other than while driving or open air parking, a solar panel on any car I get would have low to no sun exposure.

 

[BayouCityBob]

Is there an option for deleting the SolarSky? And will they reduce the price? Otherwise, the payback is zero years.

I already have solar on the house and the payback with California sun & California utility prices is much much faster (under 10 years and that is with a cost of having panels installed on top of a clay roof that significantly added cost to the project). The solar production was enough for our house & one EV, however, with the 2nd EV and a mother-in-law moving in, we are no longer 100% solar generated. I do suspect my MIL is mining bitcoins in her room as I have no idea how she uses so much electricity. I am considering adding more panels to the house, unfortunately, only the north facing roof is left for additional panels so would not be able to get the same efficiency.

I wish the solar sky roof (which I regard as a gimmick) was optional on the Extreme. I would go without it. And I would bet it adds $5k to the vehicle cost.

 

[ocsteve39]

If I drive my Ocean to the beach (like the sound of that) And I spend three perfectly sunny hours and come back, I may have approaching 40 free miles applied to my battery.
Not really a gimmick in my book.
Now granted, I don't have huge books, but anyway.

 

[sirozha]

Is there an option for deleting the SolarSky? And will they reduce the price? Otherwise, the payback is zero years.

Sure, there is. Ocean Ultra.

 

[sirozha]

I am considering adding more panels to the house, unfortunately, only the north facing roof is left for additional panels so would not be able to get the same efficiency.

Build a car port for the second car and place solar panels on its roof.

 

[sirozha]

And I would bet it adds $5k to the vehicle cost.

Hence my "50 to 65 years of ROI" comment.

 

[sirozha]

If I drive my Ocean to the beach (like the sound of that) And I spend three perfectly sunny hours and come back, I may have approaching 40 free miles applied to my battery.
Not really a gimmick in my book.
Now granted, I don't have huge books, but anyway.

The solar roof gives you about 30 miles of range per week - according to Fisker. So, it's about 10 kWh per week. Based on my current electricity rates, the solar roof would give me USD 0.90 per week. In California, you would get $2 per week from it - if you never park the Ocean in a garage.

 

[ocsteve39]

The solar roof gives you about 30 miles of range per week - according to Fisker. So, it's about 10 kWh per week. Based on my current electricity rates, the solar roof would give me USD 0.90 per week. In California, you would get $2 per week from it - if you never park the Ocean in a garage.

Of course, "math" 1.5 miles.
Still free LOL

 

[BayouCityBob]

The solar roof gives you about 30 miles of range per week - according to Fisker. So, it's about 10 kWh per week. Based on my current electricity rates, the solar roof would give me USD 0.90 per week. In California, you would get $2 per week from it - if you never park the Ocean in a garage.

^^^ This. And for your $100 a year of free electricity (less than $50 where I live) you have to eat all of that UV degradation of paint and fabrics, the wind and abrasion damage, etc. There is a reason why a "garage kept" vehicle commands a premium on the resale market. So for my money, the solar roof is an expensive marketing gimmick. Your preferences may vary.

 

[sirozha]

Of course, "math" 1.5 miles.
Still free LOL

It's only free if you absolutely can't wait for the Ultra trim. Otherwise, it's likely between $5,000 and $6,500 as an add-on. One / Extreme is $19,000 more than Ultra. In my case, even if I had to add everything to the Ultra besides the sunroof, it still makes sense to wait as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see any reason to pay for something that I will never use. Now, if I were stuck in the middle of nowhere with all the electric chargers broken, and I could advance my Fisker Ocean by 30 miles per week toward the civilization while hunting for food and drinking from a nearby brook for 4-6 weeks, I would consider the solar roof. But, chances of this happening are close to nil.

 

[oldcarrot]

I live in south SF Bay Area. Solar on home, sunny area. I think the solar sky roof is a clever idea, but a gimmick. In fact I wonder how green it is. What is the environmental cost of building these vs payback?

 

[ocsteve39]

It's only free if you absolutely can't wait for the Ultra trim. Otherwise, it's likely between $5,000 and $6,500 as an add-on. One / Extreme is $19,000 more than Ultra. In my case, even if I had to add everything to the Ultra besides the sunroof, it still makes sense to wait as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see any reason to pay for something that I will never use. Now, if I were stuck in the middle of nowhere with all the electric chargers broken, and I could advance my Fisker Ocean by 30 miles per week toward the civilization while hunting for food and drinking from a nearby brook for 4-6 weeks, I would consider the solar roof. But, chances of this happening are close to nil.

Exactly
If I were considering only economics, well then, I would be right there with you.
I have always considered this roof from a miles perspective and yes the extremely unlikely situation you describe, I think is neat I may survive LOL.
Actually there was a guy looking for the nudist camp in Death Valley, took a wrong turn and died slow.
Betcha he wished he had an Ocean.

 

[sirozha]

Moreover, if the Ocean One had a solar-roof-delete option, I may have opted for the One. I'm still within 4 days of being able to pre-order the One, but the solar roof is one reason I decided against the One and told Fisker I prefer Ultra.

 

[eknock007]

If the solar panel could generate about 5k miles per year then I would consider adding it. Realistically though, I doubt that kind of range will ever happen with current solar panel technology. You need a much larger panel array to achieve greater range and it will still be a very slow process. When I first heard about the solar panel I was excited, then when I found out what the range was I was completely flabbergasted. Makes you wonder why they even bothered to develop the solar roof if the space to capture sunlight is limited to the car's roof. I realize something like this is not found anywhere else and somebody had to break the mold, but maybe those development dollars should gone towards some other more compelling design and technology features (like longer range faster charging batteries) or perhaps some cost cutting processes that would have made the vehicle less costly. For many parts of North America and Northern Europe where for half the year daytimes are shorter and less sunny, the solar panels will not be very practical.

 

[MTN Ranger]

Do people who spend tens of thousands of dollars making their car quicker consider how long it takes to break even (BTW, never)?