Tesla (Renamed)(Tesla semi/Roadster)

[Northstar1989]

On 3/31/2016 at 0:04 PM, Streetwind said:

I'm still wondering whether or not to buy one in the coming years. On one hand, it's obviously going to be a very interesting car, especially with the autonomous driving features expected to be unlocked towards the end of the decade (I loathe commuting five days a week).

On the other hand, it's a very large car for me... I mean, I drive a hatchback and don't even utilize that fully. And it'll cost five times of what I paid for my current car. The difference in insurance alone will probably be higher than the amount I save on fuel... without factoring in the cost of electricity itself.

All in all, this is not a mass market car (regardless of what Tesla would like to call it), but rather an upper class sedan like a Mercedes S-class (with which it will in fact directly compete as far as pricing goes). And I definitely would never even begin to think that an S-class would be right for me. Gonna have to think really hard about this one.

An S-class has a sticker price of $96,500.  This is WAY below the price-range of an S-class.

The closest parallel would be something like an Acura ILX ($32,000 with the "Technology Package") or Ford Fusion Titanium ($31,000).  In the long-run, the savings on fuel costs and replacement parts (electric cars are far more reliable and have fewer moving parts- thus are much less likely to require repairs) are likely to more than make up for the slightly higher costs vs. those cars.

[Deddly]

Are those sales figures for the Accord and Altima worldwide or US only? Not to minimise the incredible result from Tesla here, but it does look like they are comparing apples to orangutans.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Deddly

[Streetwind]

1 hour ago, Northstar1989 said:

An S-class has a sticker price of $96,500.  This is WAY below the price-range of an S-class.

Yeah sorry, now that I read it again, I mistyped that completely. I was referring to the C-class, which over here starts at just a little below what I expect the Model 3 to be after taxes. Dunno how I got that mixed up... maybe with the Model S subconsciously pushing the "S" to the forefront of my train of thought

And I completely agree that the total cost of ownership is lower for an EV than it is for an equivalent gasoline or diesel car. However I'm not comparing equivalent cars. I'm driving a car that rolled out of the factory for €9,900, and which I bought used (6 months old and 7,000 km on the clock at that point, so practically new) for €8,000. It does 45 MPG, not the 20 to 25 that Tesla uses to advertise how much fuel you could theoretically save. I pay just €24 per year in taxes, and just €90 per month in gasoline (on average... right now it's actually less than that). Insurance is dirt cheap as well (though I don't have a comparison on what my insurance company would charge me for a €40,000 car compared to what I have now), and regular service is a few hundred every two years. So far, the only thing that broke in the past 5 years is the windshield due to object impacts while driving, as mentioned earlier in this thread, and once, the AC heat exchanger - ironically, also by object impact while driving. The motorway I use must be exceptionally dirty or something.

And there are no EV incentives to speak of in my country, unfortunately.

Even assuming that electricity is free (which it isn't), and insurance and taxes and service will be just as low (which they won't be), I'd have to drive a baseline Model 3 for about 25-30 years to make up the difference in purchase price alone!

So no - a Model 3 won't save me any money, much to the contrary. It will be a total luxury splurge that I technically don't need. Which doesn't mean that I don't want one - I really really do! I just need to convince myself that it's worth spending that much extra money on a simple "want".

 

(I hate being an adult so, so much! x__x)

[Bill Phil]

A good number of EVs can get up to and above 100 MPGe, and depending on area, can save you a lot of money over distances.

[Nibb31]

$35000 is going to end up over 40000€ in Europe, which is way above the price of the average car. An "average" car would be something like a VW Golf at €25000. The Tesla will be competing against the BMW I3 (43000€) and the Renault Zoe (20000€)

I always thought that the "range extender" architecture was the best, like the Chevy Volt/Open Ampera. You run on batteries for your daily commutes, which is 90% of the time, and use an petrol/gas engine to top up on longer journeys. Because the conventional engine is optimized to run at a unique rpm, it's much more efficient. It's a shame that car was such a flop.

Renault has a great business model for its Zoe too: You buy the car and you rent the batteries on a monthly basis. The cost of the car is similar to an equivalent Renault Clio, and battery rental (around 100€/month) + electrical charge is still way below the average monthly fuel bill (mine anyway). Because the batteries are rented, you get them replaced for free when they start losing their charge. The car has great performance too, it's a shame it's so damn ugly.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Nibb31

[Tex Mechs Robot]

8 hours ago, Streetwind said:

Even assuming that electricity is free (which it isn't), and insurance and taxes and service will be just as low (which they won't be), I'd have to drive a baseline Model 3 for about 25-30 years to make up the difference in purchase price alone!

So no - a Model 3 won't save me any money, much to the contrary. It will be a total luxury splurge that I technically don't need. Which doesn't mean that I don't want one - I really really do! I just need to convince myself that it's worth spending that much extra money on a simple "want".

I think that many times, the decision to buy and drive an EV is not and economical one in the short term. And by "short term" I mean that for the next 20-50 years, it may cost individuals more to own and operate these types of vehicles. However, as technologies increase and as consumers demand the products, the price points will decrease in a way that makes it a wise economical choice.

For now, the decision is more of "How much more am I willing to spend in order to preserve nature as we know it?" Without getting into a climate change argument, I believe that we are unable to destroy the planet. We may be able to destroy ourselves and much of life (nature) as we know it, but nature will prevail and a new normal will emerge from our ashes. Having said that, if the goal is to try to keep it the way it is now, EV's help do that. So, the decision isn't one of economy, it's one of ecology.

Getting the price closer to a normal standard brings the ball closer to those who aren't willing (or able) to pay a lot for their ecological beliefs.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Nibb31 said:

I always thought that the "range extender" architecture was the best, like the Chevy Volt/Open Ampera. You run on batteries for your daily commutes, which is 90% of the time, and use an petrol/gas engine to top up on longer journeys. Because the conventional engine is optimized to run at a unique rpm, it's much more efficient. It's a shame that car was such a flop.

  A world 100% full of Prius (Or really, any Hybrid) drivers is still a world 100% addicted to oil.

I have no idea who said this

 

Just sayin'

Although to be fair, Hybrids are a good first step, but we should try our hardest to make them obsolete asap.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Spaceception

[Northstar1989]

Range-extended electric vehicles aren't hybrids, exactly.  They're 100% electric for short drives, and can be plugged in to be recharged.  However running what's essentially a portable generator to recharge the batteries on long trips doesn't make sense when we already have a widespread electrical grid.  Tesla's "supercharging" stations or battery-swap stations (a la. "Project Better Place"- and Tesla developed their own versions of this, but then only built a single such station- and charges $60-100 for its use...) are a much better solution, and result in a cheaper car than putting a portable generator on every vehicle.  Better yet, you can bring the purchase-price of electric vehicles down further by leasing the batteries instead of including them with the car- as with the Renault Zoe... ($27,500 *before* opting for battery-leasing)

A side-note: it's no mystery where Renault got the idea for battery-leasing from.  They took it directly from the failed company Project Better Place, just like Tesla took the idea of battery-swap stations from them as well.  Unfortunately, Tesla only built a single battery-swap station and massively overcharges for it, so almost nobody uses it- you wouldn't expect anybody to if they OWN rather than LEASE their battery anyways...  Some whisper Tesla only built the battery-swap station to get a rather large tax-credit from the State of California valid until 2018...

[Nibb31]

9 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

Range-extended electric vehicles aren't hybrids, exactly.  They're 100% electric for short drives, and can be plugged in to be recharged.  However running what's essentially a portable generator to recharge the batteries on long trips doesn't make sense when we already have a widespread electrical grid.  

Not when you're in a hurry it doesn't. Sitting around for two hours waiting for your battery to charge isn't very practical.

As for fast charging, I'm pretty sure that it reduces the lifetime of the batteries by a serious amount, which is bad for the environment (batteries aren't exactly clean to make). For the same reason, I charge my phone all night on a old 0.5A charger rather than on the 2A "fast charger" that was supplied with it and is supposed to charge the battery in 1 hour. My battery is now 3 years old and it's still running strong.

 

[Spaceception]

[Tex Mechs Robot]

Big week for Elon Musk

[Spaceception]

Just now, Tex Mechs Robot said:

Big week for Elon Musk

You can say that again.

[max_creative]

Big week for Elon Musk

[Spaceception]

Just now, max_creative said:

Big week for Elon Musk

I didn't mean literally

[Northstar1989]

On 4/7/2016 at 2:16 AM, Nibb31 said:

Not when you're in a hurry it doesn't. Sitting around for two hours waiting for your battery to charge isn't very practical.

As for fast charging, I'm pretty sure that it reduces the lifetime of the batteries by a serious amount, which is bad for the environment (batteries aren't exactly clean to make). For the same reason, I charge my phone all night on a old 0.5A charger rather than on the 2A "fast charger" that was supplied with it and is supposed to charge the battery in 1 hour. My battery is now 3 years old and it's still running strong.

 

Fast-charging doesn't take two hours.  For a Tesla, it's about 20-30 minutes.  And when are you ever going to be in such a hurry to travel more than 200 miles in one trip you can't put up your legs and grab a snack every few hours of your trip?

The more logical solution for super-fast charging on the go isn't a mobile generator anyways- that's still an incredibly inefficient solution that's bad for the environment.  It's batter-exchange stations- where the batteries can charge slowly to maximize battery-life, yet a car can swap a new one in in 30 seconds...  Tesla bought the necessary Intellectual Property after Project Better Place went under, but they've only built literally a single commercial battery-swap station and they seem to have no will or desire to build more...

It's not surprising not many people would use the battery-swap stations when they buy the car under a purchasing model where they OWN the battery, and there's only one swap-point (so if they end up getting a failing battery from the swap, they're screwed).  Now Nissan Altima ZOE owners who make use of the battery-leasing option on the other hand- THEY might be enticed to use battery-swap points if enough of them were built...

It's worth pointing out I think that Tesla should sell the Model 3 with a battery-leasing option (buy the car but only lease the battery, for a much smaller initial purchase-price, at the expense of higher monthly costs.  It would still be cheaper than any comparable gasoline car's monthly gas bill if priced correctly...) to help make the cars affordable to more customers.  Buying the battery fundamentally doesn't make sense with battery-electrics: batteries are more like a multi-year supply of oil than the car- in that they are extremely expensive and slowly consumed as the car is driven around... (yes, I'm aware that the batteries are not LITERALLY consumed, and are re-charged many times over the lifetime of the car- it's an economic analogy for the batteries wearing out...)

 

Regards,

Northstar

[Nibb31]

I agree, buying batteries with the car is also going to be a major risk when the second hand EV starts developing.

[Pixel of Life]

I don't really like how the Model 3's front looks. It's just... so weird looking when it doesn't have a large grille/air intake. It looks like there should be one but it has fallen off or someone has stolen it. I'd rather take a Model S. Would buy one in a heartbeat if I had an extra 200k € burning a hole in my pocket. Alas, I'm poor and can't even afford the crappiest of gasoline/diesel powered cars 

E: And the interior... No. Just no. Way too empty, and that huge horizontal screen is just ugly. If you removed the steering wheel it wouldn't even feel like you were in a car. The Model S's interior has a nice balance between old and new tech.

Edited April 10, 2016 by CaptainKorhonen

[Spaceception]

Just now, CaptainKorhonen said:

I don't really like how the Model 3's front looks. It's just... so weird looking when it doesn't have a large grille/air intake. It looks like there should be one but it has fallen off or someone has stolen it. I'd rather take a Model S. Would buy one in a heartbeat if I had an extra 200k € burning a hole in my pocket. Alas, I'm poor and can't even afford the crappiest of gasoline/diesel powered cars 

E: And the interior... No. Just no. Way too empty, and that huge horizontal screen is just ugly. If you removed the steering wheel it wouldn't even feel like you were in a car. The Model S's interior has a nice balance between old and new tech.

Well, none of the cars ever needed a front grille, since they're electric, it's just an ascetic we'll have to get used to not seeing.

I've heard that this isn't the finalized version, so there could be some buttons, either way, I don't care, that touchscreen looks awesome.

[Spaceception]

Not a model 3, but still Tesla related

 

[tater]

A guy I know had an S, and now has an X (and 3 Ferraris, among other cars). He likes the X a lot.

For normal people, a range-extending gasoline generator is the way to go, because we cannot afford to have a warehouse full of cars for different uses. And I don't think of this need as temporary, but for the long foreseeable future. The reason I didn't consider a Tesla was simply range. Most of the time it would be fine, but it cannot be used on any even slightly long trip, ever. If they had charging stations... I'm not stopping every 100-something miles and waiting 45 minutes.

If it had a tiny generator, so that I'd never have to worry about being stuck, I'd trade my Rover in on an X (need room for the dog, etc) in a heartbeat, I think. Unless the range can be such that the car can go a full, long day of driving with a guaranteed charge where I decide to stop driving, I think it's a car only useful for regular commutes.

The 3 claims a 215 mile range. Raw, without AC/warm temps, etc.

The range calculator on the S shows the real problem with the no-gas design. The top speed available is 70 mph. That's cute. Highway speed limit is 75, and traffic move at 80--85. Speed seems to drop range by at least 20 miles per 5 mph increment, so on a warm day (much of the year here in NM would hit fairly warm temps) with the AC on (not even remotely optional 100% of the time between May and September here), the S has a 215 mile range at 70 mph, AC on. on a highway int he real world then, not cloud-cookoo land, the range would drop from 215 to 195 if you drove like a 90 year old woman. At the bare speed of traffic, the range drops to 155-175. Charge stations give you half a charge in 45 minutes. That means stopping every hour for nearly an hour. That trip where we leave in the morning, and arrive at our friends' place in Colorado by lunch?  2+ hours to Wagon Mound, then stop for an hour. Then a little over an hour to Trinidad, then stop for 45 min.+ *(we'd likely have to stop in Raton and top off, because Trinidad is really too far). We'd nor nearly be in Colorado Springs in a real car, but we're barely in CO. Again, it's a stretch to use the last charge to get to Pueblo, but assume we can by being uncomfortable and turning off the AC. Thats another 2 hours travel/charge. Now we can get to Colorado Springs in another 45 minutes, and arrive. We've spent almost 8 hours on a 5.5 hour trip. If we tried to visit friends in Ft. Collins... it's a 2 day trip instead of 1.

With the model 3, the range is going to be far worse, it is only good for very local driving. It requires that the household have a second car that is actually useful.

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by tater

[problemecium]

I can't vote because you made both votes required and I don't want to make a ruling on the Bolt before I know what it is.

[Spaceception]

20 minutes ago, parameciumkid said:

I can't vote because you made both votes required and I don't want to make a ruling on the Bolt before I know what it is.

http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html

[tater]

You also cannot vote if you say that EVs are not on your radar due to range, since you are then required to pick an EV.

[Spaceception]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

You also cannot vote if you say that EVs are not on your radar due to range, since you are then required to pick an EV.

It was a "would you rather" question ,if you did want one, which would you prefer?

[tater]

Meh. The Tesla is vastly more attractive visually.