650 points by kiddz 2 months ago
Amazing to me the knee jerk response from most people is to criticize this company. Yes they have issues (as does literally every brand/company), but on the whole aren't we glad people are leading the charge towards electric vehicles? They've sped up the advent of electric vehicles by at least 5 years, possibly more like 10.
Looking forward to seeing this company continue to thrive.
It's quite possible to support the goal and criticize the players, especially when those players repeatedly fail to execute and use the lofty goal as an excuse for their failings instead of learning from their mistakes and getting better.
And why should Tesla get the credit for making green cars a thing? True credit belongs to Toyota for introducing the Prius 2 decades ago when gas was king and getting consumers to see alternative engines as viable options, and to California for its green vehicles incentives for making possible the financial structure that has kept Tesla alive.
> It's quite possible to support the goal and criticize the players, especially when those players repeatedly fail to execute
Repeatedly fail to execute? They've successfully rolled out several wildly popular fully electric cars. They've succeeded in making electric cars cool.
> And why should Tesla get the credit for making green cars a thing? True credit belongs to Toyota for introducing the Prius 2 decades ago when gas was king and getting consumers to see alternative engines as viable options, and to California for its green vehicles incentives for making possible the financial structure that has kept Tesla alive.
Toyota succeeded on one side of the equation: Creating the first commercially successful eco-car. Tesla succeeded in making them cool, and appealing to people who like cars. You need both of these things if you want to actually replace gas-powered cars.
They had hundreds of cars stuck in port in Europe and China over paperwork errors. In the US, they had hundreds of cars stuck in holding lots because they failed to arrange for transportation to their final destinations, or because they failed to coordinate pickups with the buyers, or both. They have a billion-dollar-plus assembly line that sits unused because it doesn't work. There are hundreds of Teslas stuck in shop because Tesla can't manufacture the parts they need for those repairs (and there are no third-party parts suppliers to take the load). They've missed nearly every deadline they've set for themselves, not because the goals are unreachable but because they've overestimated their capabilities or underestimated the difficulty of the task or both. They've paid millions in fines to the SEC, and they're likely to pay millions more soon, all because they can't get their CEO to use Buffer or a similar app/process that would let them review his many inane tweets before review. Their are credible reports of on-the-job injuries swept under the table to avoid worker's comp claims.
Tesla in theory could, and should, be a wonderful company, but that's not the Tesla that actually exists today. And that theoretical Tesla probably won't exist as long as Musk remains in control.
Ya but in the end they always delivered. The 35k model 3, scaling up manufacturing to over 5k cars a week, not going bankrupt. They missed the deadlines but eventually they delivered as promised.
Why is missing their self-imposed deadlines such a big deal to you, but the fact that they delivered later on, something that you gloss over entirely? Those were huge goals that they delivered on, that most critics said was near-impossible to do.
It wasn't that long ago that critics were calling Elon a fraud for offering an electric car for 35k, that it can never be done because the cost to build one cannot be under 35k, and that Elon was a car salesman scamming people for pre-order money. And now it's done, the 35k model 3 is delivered, and people are focused on what, missed deadlines they self-imposed in the past? Is that really the most important issue here?
I eagerly await the rocket car we were promised.
It wasn't that long ago that critics were calling Elon a fraud for offering an electric car for 35k, that it can never be done because the cost to build one cannot be under 35k, and that Elon was a car salesman scamming people for pre-order money.
No one said that Tesla could "never" offer a Model 3 for $35k. There was a lot of chatter about them not being able to do so on anywhere close to the timeline Tesla claimed they would, and some of that came from Tesla itself. As recently as 2018 Elon Musk said that offering the Model 3 for $35k would bankrupt the company due to the non-existent profit margins due to the unit economics.
And while we're on that subject: Tesla also announced that in order to build the Model 3 for $35k they would need to fire the entire sales team and switch to online orders only, and eliminate referrals. So it seems that even Tesla still doesn't think that they can offer a $35k Model 3 profitably based on their existing unit economics.
And now it's done, the 35k model 3 is delivered, and people are focused on what, missed deadlines they self-imposed in the past? Is that really the most important issue here?
For investors, a company that perpetually misses deadlines is a serious, real-world problem indicative of poor planning, leadership, and management. It's one thing to miss the occasional deadline by a few days or weeks. It's another thing to miss every deadline announced, by months each time. At some point, the "self-imposed" publicly announced deadlines are just fraudulent statements intended to induce investors to buy shares of the company. CEOs have been criminally prosecuted for that in the past...another former SV darling is being prosecuted for that right now...
That makes no sense.
Even now you are saying above, that it's extremely hard to build and sell Model 3 for 35k. Even now you are listing many reasons why Tesla can't do it based on unit economics.
But when Tesla actually does it? What if they actually deliver? Then suddenly the 35k Model 3 is not important to you anymore.
Suddenly it's all-important to focus on "missed deadlines" of a few months.
It seems to me, critics only focus on the 35k Model 3, when it can be used as a talking point to attack Tesla. When Tesla actually delivers on the 35k Model 3, critics then focus on "missed deadlines". Critics never really cared about the 35k Model 3, they only care about attacking Tesla.
While we are on the subject, what proof do you have that a missed deadline is "intended to induce investors"? How do you know it's not just that technical difficulties?
While we are on the subject, which former SV darling are you talking about, that you are comparing Tesla to? I want to know why you think a company like Tesla, who delivered on successful projects many times and sold many cars, is somehow being compared to the company you mentioned.
> For investors, a company that perpetually misses deadlines is a serious, real-world problem indicative of poor planning, leadership, and management.
Huh, I guess it must not be worth tens of billions of dollars to investors then.
Criticisms like these make me think somebody is paid to smear Tesla's name.
Cars in holding lots mean this company will go under?
> Yes they have issues (as does literally every brand/company)...
Just wanna draw attention again to the above quote from the comment at the top of this chain. Tesla's very public and always in the news. Of course we know about all the things you mentioned in your comment. That doesn't mean Tesla is a failure or needs to be razed to the ground. Work in any company big enough or that's in the public spotlight too long and you'll find exactly these kinds of issues running rampant. I'm not excusing the issues (they definitely need to be looked at and either fixed or learned from), but I do think it's important to look at the big picture instead of getting caught up in the weeds of relatively minor but overly publicized failures.
The bulk of your argument is that Tesla mismanaged expectations and is unruly due to Elon Musk. Neither of those have stopped the company from rising to the top EV brand in a decade and helping spur the rest of the OEMs to change their automotive strategy to electric.
All big companies make big mistakes. Tesla is much more open, due to their CEO, so you get to see more of the mistakes. I bet you don't track delivery mishaps for other car companies.
And Toyota didn't make an electric vehicle. They made a more efficient gas car.
This reminds me of the story of the first rifles.
They had lots of problems - they were slow to load and reload so the rate of fire was limited. They would misfire or not fire if it was raining. They were noisy so they were easy to locate. They were very inaccurate.
In all respects the longbow was a much superior technology, quiet, fast and refined.
why would anyone invest in rifles over longbows?
Nope, they have a plug-in all electric Prius too.
The question I ask myself is:
Is it better to do the right thing imperfectly, or the wrong thing perfectly?
And yet, as of October, the Model 3 was the fifth best selling sedan in the U.S.
> And why should Tesla get the credit for making green cars a thing?
Well, you've awkwardly expanded the wording to make this criticism work. People give Tesla credit for making _electric_ cars a thing.
ya but neither of those 2 things (Toyota's Prius 2, and California's green car incentives) were successful in making car manufacturers wake up and go electric. It was only when Tesla started making money that every car manufacturer is being serious about competing in this space, and even then they are behind.
Curious to see why you think credit goes to Toyota, instead of Tesla?
Car companies started going electric because California and Federal fuel standards require increasing fuel efficiency on a fleet basis, and the only way to achieve those goals is now through zero-emissions vehicles like hydrogen, fuel cell, or EV. Hydrogen tech and fuel cells are still too inefficient and expensive for consumer vehicles (especially given the rare-earth materials required for high-efficiency fuel cells). Batteries happened to get much cheaper due to their increasing use in non-vehicle electronics like cell phones, which made EVs the best choice from a tech and cost perspective.
In other words, Tesla didn't actually make car manufacturers "wake up and go electric." They were going to go electric anyway because it was the obvious tech choice.
Tesla's accomplishment was to show that people were finally ready to buy green cars that looked like normal cars. (The first hybrids and EVs from Toyota and Nissan looked like normal cars, and sold horribly. Toyota and Nissan introduced the butt-ugly designs because green car buyers back in the day wanted distinctive cars to show off their greenliness.)
t neither of those 2 things (Toyota's Prius 2, and California's green car incentives) were successful in making car manufacturers wake up and go electric.
California's green car incentives and fuel efficiency requirements are what drove most car companies to invest in green car tech in the first place.
I suspect some "compliance cars" are ugly so they don't sell too many of them (since they lose money on each one).
And as to the leaf, I think it was actually modeled after the Prius, and it sold well since there are 400,000 of them out there.
I disagree. California's green car incentive drove most companies to invest in green car tech as a toy, but it was always a hobby. A side project for R&D.
Car manufacturers never took green cars seriously and never felt the need to transition large amounts of their cars from gas to green. It was only when Tesla started making a splash that car companies took electric cars seriously.
...were successful in making car manufacturers wake up and go electric.
Nissan Leaf owners find it cute that one would think that. And though a hybrid, I think Chevy can get a little credit on that one, too.
Agree Nissan Leaf is a good car. It's a shame Nissan didn't sell more varieties of electric cars after the success of the Leaf. Would have been nice if they expanded on the success of the Leaf
I wish I knew what was going on over there. First gen had some rough edges, but eight years later we're still glad we bought ours. Yet they went so long with the original design, I figured they just gave up on electric and kept the Leaf as a compliance car. Then they came out with the new one. Okay, so haven't given up. Then where's something other than a sedan? Like a Kia Sol or summat, because our next electric is going to be able to carry dogs.
So maybe Nissan got a head start, but of all the electric vehicle manufacturers Tesla is the only one moving things forward at the moment with saleable vehicles, that much I'll give them credit for.
Toyota has tried VERY hard to get hydrogen fuel cell cars to be "the thing" over electric vehicles. Tesla never said they wanted to make green cars a thing, they said they want to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy"
I don't think Tesla wants the credit. Open source patents and a simple desire to drive adoption of technology.
I think the eye brow around the criticism is people creating a straw man to knock down.
Tesla doesn't ask for credit and only seems to celebrate the successes which are big wins for all of us regardless of whether we buy their cars or not.
If the critique is that they miss production goals, then the defense is that hey are doing remarkably well for any company attempting to overcome these challenges.
If the critique is that _because_ they are missing production goals they don't deserve praise then well....they didn't ask for praise for it so folks can just keep it and move along.
I agree. It's refreshing to see a relatively new company bearing the risk of expanding the electric vehicle industry and not accepting the status quo.
Well, I would like to get a Model 3, yet I want Tesla to get glitches out of their production first. I am sure v2 will be much better (sw/hw issues, trim quality, gaps etc).
And then they need to start all over with Model Y. What quality expectations are there?
Trim quality, gaps? That's very old news and hasn't been true for almost a year.
(I know 2 dozen people with 3s purchased in the last 8 months and none of them have had any quality issues)
My Model 3 was purchased the last week in October and has severely uneven fittings and gaps that are getting worse with time. I think the whole gap thing is generally myopic and stupid but this is really remarkable.
I wouldn't call it myopic when a base Toyota Corolla has less squeaks, rattles and fitment issues than Tesla Model 3's and S/X's
As much as I am a Tesla fan, I have to call spade a spade. I know two people in the last couple of months who bought a Tesla, and I noticed misalignments on both of them.
> I know 2 dozen people with 3s purchased in the last 8 months
What's the population size of people who you know who purchased any car in the last 8 months?
Yep. Look at look at a side-by-side comparison a Model 3 from about a year ago (Premium Interior) vs. today (Partial Premium Interior). In the first few frames, there's a notable improvement in the body tolerances around the frunk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSIC6zvQy5Y
> I am sure v2 will be much better
FYI, Tesla doesn't really do "versions" like v2. They're always trying to improve "sw/hw issues, trim quality, gaps etc" over time. So those issues will get better over time without ever announcing a "v2".
And yes, I'm sure the first Model Ys will also have issues that should improve over time.
You don't need to answer every hater speech, your new product/project/success will do it much better.
It's kind of a Russian election situation. Anonymous accounts posting lots of BS to try and control the conversation.
You mean any election.
1. individual cars are a dumb way to "fix" the environment, they're hyper resource intensive and have so many problems
2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society, which is a political issue. tesla comes in a long tradition of sucking public funding into a private entity which cuts across that
3. additionally tesla propagandizes against the above
4. elon musk is a colossal dipshit
so that is mostly why I criticize them.
"2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society".
Study transportation needs of people and you will discover that mass transit only fulfill some parts of people's mobility needs.
And it's falling short of that even! The issue isn't what the optimal state is, it's the delta between here and there.
> 1. individual cars are a dumb way to "fix" the environment, they're hyper resource intensive and have so many problems
This may have been a poor way to say it, but it is the truth.
We will not buy or consume our way out of climate change or negative externalities that affect the environment.
> 2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society, which is a political issue. tesla comes in a long tradition of sucking public funding into a private entity which cuts across that
Again, a poor choice of words for an otherwise good point: if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to move away from the idea of ubiquitous transportation via personal vehicles.
> We will not buy or consume our way out of climate change or negative externalities that affect the environment.
That is silly. You have something that causes climate change (coal, oil). It can be replaced by something that doesn't (electric cars, solar panels, nuclear power). Unless your plan is to stop having transportation and electricity, that means the solution requires us to buy things like electric vehicles, solar panels, nuclear reactors, etc.
> if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to move away from the idea of ubiquitous transportation via personal vehicles.
Mass transit requires density. You can't reduce emissions by running huge empty buses through low density areas.
The transit problem is a real estate problem. You don't need more trains and buses, you need higher density near the existing trains and buses. That allows you to run one every 15 minutes instead of every hour and still have it full, which is what it takes to make it a viable replacement for a private car, and that is what makes it cost effective and affordable.
But even that, which would reduce the number of private cars significantly, would never eliminate the need for them entirely. There are things (large farms, industrial facilities) that must or should be away from higher density areas, and the people who work there need some way to get there and back. And mass transit still doesn't work in those kinds of low density areas.
>We will not buy or consume our way out of climate change or negative externalities that affect the environment.
I disagree. While our consumption habits merit a lot of discussion, we literally have to buy and consume our way out of climate change.
We're not going to _stop_ buying and consuming, and we're not going to manage to reduce it enough to stop climate change without massive economic recession (read: massive human suffering).
You can argue such suffering is overall less than what we will suffer due to catastrophic climate change, but that is not at all obvious.
> we literally have to buy and consume our way out of climate change.
This is like hoping that we can dig ourselves out of a hole that we already dug ourselves into.
> We're not going to _stop_ buying and consuming, and we're not going to manage to reduce it enough to stop climate change without massive economic recession
If we aren't going to forgo consumption, personal transportation as the only mode of transportation and a market that refuses to properly account for negative externalities, I feel that we should at least be honest about the situation instead of pretending that continuing the status quo will fix climate change and environmental destruction.
Let's just be honest and say that we don't intend to change things, and embrace the fact that climate change might usher in destruction and human suffering on a large scale. That way we can at least address problems as they arise instead of believing in a fantasy where a solution will fall into our laps if we just buy the right cars.
> This is like hoping that we can dig ourselves out of a hole that we already dug ourselves into.
Which is a good example, because that's literally how you get people out of a hole. You dig your self out -- you stop digging down, and start digging at a 45 degree angle upwards, so you and everyone behind you can safely walk out of that hole.
That's what we need people to be doing -- continue consuming, but sideways instead of downwards, so their consumption helps fix the problem.
> a market that refuses to properly account for negative externalities
Then you should be thrilled with what Tesla (and all EVs) are doing. They are eliminating some major externalities.
Other public transportation forms (like Buses and Trains) also have negative externalities that never accounted for. We don't shut them down, even though they have problems. We strive to improve them, just as we are doing for EVs.
For example, the buses in my hometown today get 5 miles per gallon on gasoline. I drive a Volt, it gets around 100 miles per gallon. (Since it's mostly powered by wind energy, not gasoline). Ignoring construction costs, there needs to be at least 20 people on any given bus, before that bus is more energy efficient than a modern PHEV / pure EV vehicle in terms of fuel spent.
In NYC, with the density they have, that's probably easily possible. In Michigan, we're nowhere near that density today, and none of us has the $200k-per-person cash necessary today to change that. But many people do have the $10k-per-person cash to replace gasoline cars with electric ones. That's a real impact people can actually make today.
> Which is a good example, because that's literally how you get people out of a hole. You dig your self out -- you stop digging down, and start digging at a 45 degree angle upwards, so you and everyone behind you can safely walk out of that hole.
If you do this in sand, you risk having the structure of the hole collapse around you, trapping you. Either way, we're both taking what is meant to be an idiom a bit too literally.
> That's what we need people to be doing -- continue consuming, but sideways instead of downwards, so their consumption helps fix the problem.
> Then you should be thrilled with what Tesla (and all EVs) are doing. They are eliminating some major externalities.
They're shifting externalities. Mining lithium and raw materials for cars are both environmentally devastating and happen in regions with little to no environmental regulation. Manufacturing is both energy intensive and puts out pollution. I'm sure you're familiar with the conclusion reached by several analyses in which a used vehicle with an ICE will result in less net CO2 output than buying a new electric vehicle.
Many places in the US and China, where Tesla's vehicles are popular, generate electricity from burning coal. We have not come up with a solution that solves the problem of supplying energy to meet the grid's baseline demand with renewable energy.
> In NYC, with the density they have, that's probably easily possible. In Michigan, we're nowhere near that density today, and none of us has the $200k-per-person cash necessary today to change that.
I agree, that is a problem. But again, consuming new electric vehicles instead of used ICE vehicles will dig us deeper into the proverbial CO2 hole.
I'm not sure specifically what dishonesty you're pointing to, nor who "we" are.
As far as I can tell, these problems don't have such simple answers.
You may think it pedantic, but I think talking about "forgoing consumption" is absurd. It's literally impossible, and it's a fundamental truth to our existence. Thus, we shouldn't be anything less than blunt about it.
If you stop consuming, you die. We want sustainable consumption, not the end of consumption.
I don’t think it’s productive to prosecute the electric cars vs mass transit issue like this. We need to get to carbon neutral within 12 years. If your plan requires radically changing society, including moving everyone who lives in vast swaths of the country into urban areas, then your plan will not meet that deadline, even with total commitment.
To avoid climate catastrophe we need to embrace a multitude of solutions. I understand the frustration at hearing Musk criticize public transit. It’s triggering. But we are going to need sustainable personal vehicles for a number of use cases, even if we move as many people as we can to mass transit in a decade.
this is such a silly line of reasoning. you're saying we can only make the incredible deadline by changing things in a very moderate fashion, rather than a radical one? just like we've been doing to get to this point lol?
Okay, "not silly" person who's good at reasoning. Tell us how we move 221 million people into mass transit serviceable urban areas in 12 years. I'll wait.
> "if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to move away from the idea of ubiquitous transportation via personal vehicles."
Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult in the United States... we've spent 70+ years building our entire country around the personal vehicle. Save Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and perhaps SF, ALL of our cities require owning a car. Strategically Musk might actually be going the right way... by starting to get people to think about transit in a different way.
> Strategically Musk might actually be going the right way... by starting to get people to think about transit in a different way
I disagree. Tesla's offering keeps ubiquitous personal transportation on life support at best, and neuters public transportation initiatives at worst.
Maybe the infrastructure that is in place to support cars could pivot to public transport?
We could replace some/all lanes on motorways/interstates with train tracks. Reduce roads in cities to one way and install trams in the other lanes.
Replacing interstates with rail doesn't work. For one thing, there is already rail running parallel to most of them, so there is no need for it.
Moreover, the usage is different. A person lives in the suburbs, they drive five miles through their suburb, then get on the interstate for 10 miles, then drive to an office park 5 miles off the interstate. If you get rid of the interstate, what are they supposed to do? Drive 5 miles to the train, take the train 10 miles and then walk 5 miles? Buy a second car to use for the other leg of the commute?
What you need is to relax the zoning/density restrictions in the city so that more people and businesses can afford to be there instead of in the suburbs. Then they can use the existing mass transit within the city, which unclogs the interstate for the people who can't, e.g. because one of their endpoints is outside the city for legitimate reasons or because they have to transport bulk material in addition to humans.
One possibility is to take a Lyft to the train station and then an Uber to your office. Which is slightly easier if you've automated the cars so that you don't have to load-balance the wetware part of it, but it's not entirely necessary.
Getting more people into the city is also helpful, but that's a lot of change. A lot of people have become adapted to the pace of suburb life, including me. Getting me into the city is less about cost than about the stress of having so many people around all the time. A lot of people want that, but a lot of people will want to live in the big empty green space, and would pay the costs -- including externalities, if we were to price them in. Improving city mass transit is good, but ultimately I think we'll also have to cope with a lot of people who just want to disperse at the end of the day.
> One possibility is to take a Lyft to the train station and then an Uber to your office. Which is slightly easier if you've automated the cars so that you don't have to load-balance the wetware part of it, but it's not entirely necessary.
Sure. But you can do that already. There are already trains/subways/buses in cities and there is already Uber and Lyft, without any need to close interstates that still have other uses, like transporting bulk material. (Notice also that most interstate highways go between cities.)
Moreover, the original claim was that we should have more trains which would make it so we wouldn't need electric cars. But now we're back to at least needing electric cars for Uber and Lyft.
> A lot of people want that, but a lot of people will want to live in the big empty green space, and would pay the costs -- including externalities, if we were to price them in.
Which is fine. Let the people who prefer the suburbs to live there. You don't need 100% of people to live in the city, what you need is to make it so that all the people who want to live in the city can afford to do so.
And fortunately electric cars powered by solar/nuclear get rid of most of the "externalities" of that -- the only one really left is traffic congestion. Which can be solved not by making it more expensive to live in the suburbs but by making it less expensive to live in the city. Then more people do, even if none of them is you, and there is less congestion on the road because all the people who do prefer to live in the city can use its existing mass transit system.
Well I agree people should work locally and communities should be organised to facilitate that.
> Moreover, the usage is different.
What I am suggesting is in an effort to force/encourage different usage (que communist/fascist labels).
But in answer to your question. Take tram/bus, change to train, change to tram/bus. Pain in the arse. Yes. Maybe that is what is required to re organise around more sustainable communities?
The problem is that you can't have a tram/bus there because the population density for that part of the trip is too low to justify it. An empty bus is worse than a single occupant car.
Sure, so a combination of on demand and better scheduling.
Lightweight electric transport (ebikes, scooters, golf carts? etc.)
Obviously implementation depends a lot upon the local geography/density/weather etc.
Definitely not proposing a one size fits all solution.
> Lightweight electric transport (ebikes, scooters, golf carts? etc.)
These already exist. But compared to an electric car they're less safe, slower, less comfortable, have less cargo capacity, etc. Their primary advantage is being less expensive. The reason they aren't already used more is some combination of not being able to meet the relevant safety standards and their cost advantage not overcoming their numerous disadvantages.
There is a reason hospital emergency rooms call motorcycles donor cycles. The fatality rate for that kind of transport is astoundingly high.
The reason they are less safe is because our infrastructure is setup for massive lumps of steel. I'm not suggesting driving lightweight vehicles on roads. I'm suggesting changing the roads so they are optimised for lightweight vehicles and big lumps of steel are second class citizens, either banned or only allowed to operate at certain times etc.
Get the big lumps of steel off the roads and you have far less issues at the ER.
> The reason they are less safe is because our infrastructure is setup for massive lumps of steel.
It isn't. If you want to go 60MPH on an ebike, it's not just hitting a car at 60MPH that will kill you, it's hitting anything at 60MPH with nothing to protect you from it, including the ground.
The only way for something with no airbags, crumple zones or even seatbelts to be as safe as a car is to limit the top speed to about 20MPH, at which point the collective response will be "no" because you're tripling the length of everyone's commute.
Railway fetishism is truly something I guess I'll never really understand.
Trams are LOUD and annoying.
> the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society, which is a political issue. tesla comes in a long tradition of sucking public funding into a private entity which cuts across that
I don't understand how people can simultaneously hold this belief and then act surprised when others criticize the "green movement" as just an excuse to control people.
Modern personal transportation is one of the ultimate expressions of individual freedom. We're making it cleaner, we're reducing externalities, and still environmentalists want to herd people onto busses and trains.
How about no?
> I don't understand how people can simultaneously hold this belief and then act surprised when others criticize the "green movement" as just an excuse to control people.
Massive subsidies to the entire car industry, from cheap roads to cheap gas, are a form of nudging society towards certain behaviors.
Building reliable mass transit, proper safe isolated bike lanes, and removing subsidies that are in place, are another form of societal nudging.
As an example, wide city streets are a form of subsidy, the city loses money on those streets, a 4 lane road in a downtown region of a major metro is a huge lost opportunity cost! But a combination of political and societal factors came together to cause cities sacrifice buildings for for car lanes.
> Modern personal transportation is one of the ultimate expressions of individual freedom.
I personally enjoy driving, but when visiting cities with real mass transit (Tokyo, London, etc), I feel a lot more free to travel within the city. No being stuck in traffic, transit times are a lot more reliable than driving, no worrying about finding parking and then walking to my destination, and no worries about not being able to find parking at all!
And in cities with "almost there" mass transit, such as Boston, so long as you are on the transit lines, everything is incredibly nice.
Honestly I think Bostonians complain about their transit system too much, whenever I visit Boston I am very pleased with MBTA's service!
> We're making it cleaner, we're reducing externalities, and still environmentalists want to herd people onto busses and trains.
Individual transit has huge external costs. From giant parking lots everywhere, to the fact that it just doesn't scale. Cities cannot grow beyond a certain size/density relying on individual transit. Self driving car's don't solve the density problem, while self driving taxis kind of solve the parking lot problem.
For that matter, an underground parking space in a condo in a metro area costs around $30k to build! Want two spaces for a family? That is $60k added to the purchase price. Housing that isn't incredibly expensive? Not going to happen if there is a $60k tax added to the price of every new housing unit in a city!
No one is arguing to build out mass transit in every single small town, but for the majority of the population that lives in metro areas, mass transit makes an enormous amount of sense.
Parking lots have lower tax rates, being unimproved land, than land with proper building on them. This reduction in revenue, for land in the most valuable part of the city, has obvious large $ costs. Of course cities can get around this by special taxes for parking lots to discourage them, but without proper mass transit in place, people still need to drive into a cities dense downtown core, and fees just get passed along to citizens. It becomes more efficient to just build mass transit, and put in proper building rather than concrete flatlands! Mass transit is a large up-front cost with rather low on-going maintenance costs compared to road ways (unless you are NYC and manage to defer maintenance for several decades...), but the property taxes from the additional land that is freed up is an ongoing revenue source that will last for centuries. Unfortunately few politicians care about "well the city will be super vibrant for the rest of time".
Obviously only applicable once a city grows beyond a certain size and starts building medium and high density housing.
Agreed. Consumerism is part of the problem. People don't want to think about the fact that we might have to accept a different standard of living in order to fight climate change.
Yup. It is far easier to fight against meat eaters than give up your fancy car.
I don't want say anything bad about mass transit for large cities where it makes sense. But you have to reach a certain economy of scale before trains become more efficient than cars. A train with just a couple of people uses far more power than a car does.
We can do a lot to encourage people to live closer together by ending subsidies, removing zoning laws, etc. But in the end we still need farmers and other professions living spread out across the country. We can't achieve perfect urbanization. And given that electric cars are going to be a necessary part of getting to zero emissions.
I gotta give it to them, it's insane how fast they're moving.
In less than a decade they've gone from one highly niche electric supercar to a luxury sedan, a luxury SUV, a mid-range sedan, and a mid-range SUV.
And in sales they're crushing competition that have been building cars for literally a hundred years.
So excited for the zero-exhaust future.
I live near one of the busiest highways in the country and it's just sorta background noise for the neighborhood. I'm not sure people realize not only how much exhaust is spewing out of that road, but also the noise. The volume level of major cities is going to decrease dramatically.
At highway speeds, the sound of a modern cars (ICE or otherwise) is mostly tire noise. Electric cars are much quieter at slower speeds, when tire noise is minimal.
It's quite noticeable when going from "new" asphalt to old or vice versa at freeway speeds. Air resistance adds quite a bit of sound as well, the faster you go.
Can we get electric tires then? (Or figure out how to fix tire noise)
On highway 85 near Cupertino a few years ago they did something called “microgrooving” and it made a huge difference in tire noise, even inside your car. It’s dramatically quieter when you suddenly hit that section.
What also helps immensely both in noise and road wear is that no trucks are allowed on 85.
They also designed in sound-absorbing walls.
I couldn't find reference to this technique could you go into more detail please ?
Here’s a little detail - https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/02/roadshow-groovy-highw...
Is not the tires 100%. The asphalt or the road composition and degradation plays a role.
We have a small highway section which was newly done (somewhere in Germany). They seemd to use a different composition and construction method, man, this road is soo silent, even at >200km/h.
Smaller tires are generally quieter, go for the 16" rims instead of the 18". You'll also see better mileage usually.
Tire thickness is another factor, get the lowest speed rating tires you can if you don't need to go faster than 112 mph/180 km/h, the recommended speed limit of the common rating 'S'.
Of course you should avoid studded tires if you're optimizing for noise, but also All-terrain tires are going to be loud.
1. Why would smaller tires be any quieter?
2. Smaller rims do not mean smaller tires. On a given car model, the outside diameter of the tire will be essentially fixed. If they have multiple wheel diameters, the tire sidewall height will change to accommodate the wheel diameter. Technically smaller-diameter rims actually mean larger tires.
You're right about the sizing. I didn't separate my wording of tire and rims enough.
I will defer to a blurb I just Googled:
Where I am (Manhattan) its truck noise. Trucks are the absolute worst in terms of noise pollution and emissions. Most modern cars/taxis around here are some sort of hybrid which shuts the engine when stopped, yet trucks are still in the stone age. And to top it off, there's really no political willpower to reign in bad trucker behavior.
here in Paris the 150cc scooters are much worse. Very high RPM and incredible noise
Good news, electric scooters are a thing, and they're very quiet.
I wouldn't say they're a thing yet; there are some nice 'luxury' electric scooters, and there are cheap lead-acid scooters, but not too much in between yet.
I'd love an affordable, reasonably well-constructed LiIon scooter, but it's not there. Definitely coming, but not here yet.
Seems to be coming a few now. At least locally there's several li-ion options in the 2k-3k USD range, most with 30-40km range. Quite affordable here for most.
e.g. late night pizza delivery wakes up the neighbourhood
100%. A garbage truck and a tiny pothole are magnitudes louder than any consumer vehicle. Repaving the roads would have a much larger effect on noise than replacing every ICE vehicle with a tesla.
I'm not in public policy or anything, but it's kind of baffling that no one is targeting fleet vehicles as the obvious first target for cleaning up. Trying to convince consumers of the value of electric vehicles is hard. Trying to convince a guy who is paying maintenance and fuel costs for 4,000 vehicles should be a piece of cake. Especially if you just force them through legislation. Mayor De Blasio could mandate all livery vehicles be electric by 2030 and that's an instant captive market of over 100K vehicles.
Don't forget the diesel soot. Leave your window open for the day and come back to suit covering everything.
Modern ICE cars are shut off at stops. No battery required.
Not to be pedantic, but modern ICE cars still have batteries...
They aren't hybrids with their attendant motive power battery.
I noticed certain builds of the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 offer an electric motor assist that also includes idle engine shutoff. We can only hope that is becomes a standard feature, electric motors in traffic jams would be wonderful.
I dunno about the US but everyone I known in Europe that lives in a city or close to a highway is looking forward to the electric future. This has become a recurring topic in dinner conversations as more and more people have first hand experience with electric vehicles now.
Imagine how quiet a city like Paris, Rome or Berlin could be if all vehicles were electric?
I can't wait for this future to arrive and the fact that I will enjoy it a decade earlier -- at least -- I'll owe to Musk/Tesla. More power to them.
Petrol costs in Europe are way higher than in US so the cost benefits of pure electric is a no brainer.
I'm sad to say that except for trucks the majority of noises from highways these days is from tires. I read a rather long article, in the Atlantic I believe. Apparently car weights have been on the rise for 70 years and on top of that the trend for the same weight car is for wider tires. The increasing noise has been a constant pain for highway planners because population density is increasing, traffic is increasing, and noise per car is increasing. Technology for noise abatement is improving, but expensive.
Given that Tesla cars and anything with similar range is likely to be another 1000 pounds heavier than cars in it's class, the prospect for quieter cars is poor.
Stand on a sidewalk sometime and listen. At constant speed or slowing down electric cars vs normal cars are pretty similar, but be careful to compare cars of similar vintage. This is part of the way I think legislation that add noise to electric cars for safety is misguided. Compare a 2018 BMW, Lexus, Acura, and MB vs a Tesla. Any of them could easily hit you before you easily hear them.
After living next to commuter rail and bus stops, I’m amazed that private car noise is even a complaint. A train horn is felt in your chest. Air brakes and audible announcements are much more noticeable because they’re intermittent where tire noise is a constant hum easily tuned out.
I moved right next to a Railroad crossing just about the time they started experimenting with a no horn crossing. Every now and then I still wake up to feel the whole room rocking from a fast train going by but it's still wonderfully quiet.
Highway noise is mostly tire and wind noise, aside from the occasional loud engine. EVs will certainly reduce city street noise, but I'd bet highways will still be pretty loud.
Unfortunately tire noise contributes about 50% of the volume.
Maybe on the highway, but I would imagine that's not the case in major cities where cars are generally moving < 30 MPH.
Tire noise has a much different "sonic signature" compared to exhaust noise and ICE noise, it is much closer to "white" noise and has not as much rumble. I'm not saying it's necessarily any better, but maybe it's going to be less annoying.
Can someone explain to me how EV's can scale in older urban residential areas (most european cities) where cars are typically parked on the street (i.e. no private parking spaces)?
I just can't see how the logistics of charging would work for more than a few EVs per city block...
A few possible answers and solutions:
1) People who live in urban residential areas in Europe don't typically drive very far on a daily basis. So charging doesn't have to be as common a thing as it is in the US.
2) Charging stations at work places. I don't know the numbers, but I would assume a decent percentage of Europeans who drive to work have a parking lot at their jobsite.
3) Highway rest stops. The "travel plaza" type of rest stop is common in europe and could accommodate intercity travelers.
4) Battery swapping technology may help down the road.
5) A charging service (a truck with a big ass battery) that your car or you calls for and uses the car's gps to find and charge it.
6) Your car auto drives itself to the charging station and drives back during off hours.
7) All this is moot, electric and self driving technology will so absolutely revolutionize transportation that these problems will not be applicable.
There are other places we could imagine setting up chargers too, like at grocery markets or other stores. Because Tesla batteries (and some but not all other EVs) are massively oversized for a typical single day's drive, you probably only need to charge every 1-2 weeks unless you are taking a trip, in which case you use superchargers or such.
Right now, it's not great. I say this having looked into an EV recently as an option. At the moment, my personal conclusion is that I'd need to rent a garage space, and then pay to have a charging point installed.
There are a small but growing number of street chargers available, albeit owned by different groups (presumably with rules and different payment routes) and with different changing and connection specifications. 
And of course, even if you're lucky enough to live fairly near a charging point, this doesn't make an EV comparable to an ICE car - as you then have the hassle/worry of finding a charging point, leaving your car where while it charges, and then presumably returning and moving it again, so as to free up the bay for someone else.
It's not insurmountable, but would take serious commitment from local government to change things significantly for street parking. I suspect it will come with time, critical mass of EVs, and some degree of homogenisation of the voltage and connector specs.
I assume that sooner or later cities will just put charging columns on the street, like these: https://www.emcaustria.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IMG_380...
They don't need to support fast charging, 10kW AC would be more than enough when people charge overnight, and low power chargers like that should be pretty cheap to install at scale.
I think the real future here is when automation develops enough so these cars can drive itself to and from a parking location nearby. This will free up the space on these streets taken up by existing cars, allow more space for traffic and for stops for passengers to get in and out of vehicles.
You don't have gas pumps by street parking. Why should EVs be any different? Don't let your charge get so low that you can't make it to the nearest charging station.
It takes a LOT more time to charge than it does to fill a gas (petrol) tank. Thus the requirement to charge overnight.
More time, yes. A lot more time?
Filling a gas tank takes what, 10 minutes? Charging at a supercharger takes 30 minutes. That's more, but not ridiculously so.
For comparison, getting the same charge at home from the recommended outlet takes 4 hours. Getting the same charge off of a home outlet is something like 36 hours.
So yes, it can take a long time. But it doesn't have to.
I'd be very surprised if it takes me more than 5 minutes with pay at the pump.
It's a difference in magnitude that's the problem. For 5 minutes, of which half is spent actively interacting with the hose and payment, I can comfortably stand around. Anything more than that and I have to find something else to do while my car is occupied.
And that's the beauty of electric charging -- you actually CAN go do something else for that half hour, whereas with gas you have to stay in attendance of the pump (safety reasons).
Which means that you can top off your charge while at the grocery store, or work, or whatever.
There arent that many things you can do within half an hour at a charging station.
As someone who has used one, I disagree.
Tesla has tried to establish charging stations near shopping areas. There is generally lots to do. For example the last one I visited had multiple fast food places, an outlet mall and a casino. (This was in Primm, Nevada.)
Using that interesting measure of charge speed Tesla used in their new V3 super charger announcement a few days ago, MPH (miles per hour of charging), the new super charger does 1000 MPH.
US gas pumps are limited by EPA rules to 10 gallons per minute. A gas pump that is going top speed, filling a 25 MPG car, "charges" at 15000 MPH.
A lot of pumps seem to go at half that or even only a third of that, which in practice can cut that down to 5000 MPH, which is still much much faster than the V3 super charger.
On the other hand, I think I'd be much more likely with an EV to overlap charging with getting a snack from the convenience store (assuming EV charging stations have them like gas stations usually do...), whereas I prefer to stay with my car while gas is pumping, and so can't overlap that with the snack acquisition.
So maybe it evens out somewhat.
Roughly an order of magnitude more time in the best case scenario, so yes, quite a bit.
The only way filling up my tank would take 10 minutes was if I had to queue for the pump for over 5. Also, you get much less added range from those 30 minutes with an EV, so I really doubt it's a reasonable suggestion (even if superchargers were as ubiquitous as petrol stations).
Supercharging V3 was just announced with one beta station, 1000 MPH of charging. Pretty incredible.
You have to think of fueling up in a different way with an EV -- you're parked at home for many hours overnight, and at work for many hours too, plug in there if you can instead of making dedicated "fuel stops" like we do in gas cars.
(I drive a plug-in hybrid)
Frequency is also a factor. An extra 5-10 minutes added to a commute each week in order to fill up is no big deal. 30 minutes every day in order to charge is unworkable
Most gasoline cars have a range of around 400 miles.
Teslas have a range of around 300 miles.
That really isn't a big frequency difference.
In practice charging a Tesla takes me less than a minute. "Remember to back my car into my driveway and plug it up."
The original scenario you're responding to is the problem of people who don't have a driveway or garage. They'll need to take their car somewhere that they can get a full charge while they do something else. Not an insurmountable problem, but it's definitely an impediment to universal adoption.
If you only need to get gas every week (assume a small SUV like the model Y, a Ford something or another) you're going to get 24mpg, and have a 16 gallon takn or so.
16*24 = 384 miles of range. A Tesla should be able to do what, 300 miles on a charge? You shouldn't have to charge every day.
In the medium term, there seems to be opportunity for increases in charging speed as well. Tesla just announced v3 supercharging, which hits 1000 miles/hour and 75 miles of range in 5 minutes, and at the very least larger batteries will stretch that number. It's not clear how far they and others can push high-speed charging, but batteries are only going to get better.
You are comparing the rare best case scenario for EVs against the normal every day scenario for ICE fill-up. Hardly realistic
I can’t remember which city or country but somewhere in Northern Europe too many people got EV too quickly for the existing charger infrastructure and they has to counter this by taking away or reducing planned city/state subsidy for new EV and artificially slow down growth
Can’t find the article atm
Extension cords duct taped down to the sidewalk so they don't pose a trip hazard?
I've seen EV charging stations at offices and supermarkets in some pretty "old" places. I could imagine seeing them in more places where you park for a while.
Norway has electric sockets next to parking spots. It predates EVs, something about 12V batteries and extreme cold around there.
> a mid-range sedan, and a mid-range SUV
Is there a definition for mid-range vs luxury? I wouldn't consider a sedan that starts at $35K (with an average sale price of $60K), or an SUV that starts at $47K (over 50% higher than the median US worker's gross personal income) mid-range. Both the Mercedes A-class and Audi A3 start at $32.5K even.
> And in sales they're crushing competition that have been building cars for literally a hundred years.
I don't think that's a realistic assessment of where Tesla is at as a car company. Tesla is still not very good at the actual making of cars. For example, in the last five years Tesla has had more health and safety violations in their factory than the top ten automakers in the US combined:
Tesla cars have among the worst reliability of any car brand:
Consumer Reports no longer recommends the Model 3 due to its lack of reliability:
In 2018, Toyota and Volkswagen each sold over 10 million cars:
Whereas Tesla has sold about 550,000 cars in 11 years:
Volkswagen is starting its push into EVs. They'll be releasing multiple electric models across multiple brands every year from now on. Porsche, Audi, VW, Skoda, and SEAT to start. I'm sure there'll be electric Lamborghinis, Bentleys, and Bugattis eventually (if you're in the market for those):
Volkswagen also wants to license its MEB electric car platform to other manufacturers. They already have one licensee:
I think Tesla's main problems are that they are a small car company with an erratic CEO, inefficient and unreliable manufacturing, and they're about to face a lot of electric car competition from one of the biggest car companies in the world.
You could not make a more dishonest selections:
>For example, in the last five years Tesla has had more health and safety violations in their factory than the top ten automakers in the US combined
Because Tesla manufactures all its car in California, which has far stricter rules than other states. If other manufacturers moved their production there, Tesla would rank better than the competition
>Tesla cars have among the worst reliability of any car brand
And yet, Tesla owners keep recommending their cars more than anyone else, because the car is that good. There are many things that might no be "highly reliable" (even important things, like cars) that are so great to use that you'd buy them again against the current alternatives (like a Tesla vs noisy, polluting, gas-guzzling vehicles).
>In 2018, Toyota and Volkswagen each sold over 10 million cars
So what? How many of them are EVs? One could wonder how Nokia's sales were going when the iPhone started becoming mainstream…
>Volkswagen is starting its push into EVs.
They've been starting since 2009.
>Porsche, Audi, VW, Skoda, and SEAT to start
And yet, we just learned (no later than last month) that they are changing all their EV plan because their future models cannot compete with the current Model 3 (source: https://www.manager-magazin.de/premium/audi-bram-schot-will-...)
Two quotes from this article:
>The Porsche and Audi engineers have to change [the Premium Platform Electric program] because Tesla’s Model 3 has gotten better than they thought.
>The e-tron as the first electric Audi is not only late. It does not reach some target values and has become far too expensive with more than two billion euros in development costs. The approximately 600,000 cars sold for the break-even are now regarded as an illusion.
>Volkswagen also wants to license its MEB electric car platform to other manufacturers. They already have one licensee
Oh, you mean the MEB platform that is being holding up until they can come up with something that is on par with Tesla tech and cost? Ah!
> Because Tesla manufactures all its car in California, which has far stricter rules than other states. If other manufacturers moved their production there, Tesla would rank better than the competition
That's just conjecture. Tesla has had a reputation of not being safe because of things like this: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/tesla-workers-getting...
> And yet, Tesla owners keep recommending their cars more than anyone else, because the car is that good.
How does that make the original statement false? If anything, it establishes a pattern where Tesla owners are far more likely to overlook these issues because of how much they like their car.
> So what? How many of them are EVs? One could wonder how Nokia's sales were going when the iPhone started becoming mainstream…
The OP was pointing out that some people are looking through a subjective lens when they claim that Tesla is crushing it. In a broader picture when you look into the sale of all cars, it's really not as significant. Ok, so these cars are not EVs. So what? It's not enough to say you're dominant in a niche, albeit a growing one. When you're not on equal footing as some of the bigger name car companies, you're much more susceptible to being crushed competitively if those companies make a play in the same space. I'm not at all saying that will happen, just that looking at this point requires a bigger, broader perspective.
> It's not enough to say you're dominant in a niche, albeit a growing one.
When you're facing technology transitions, looking at it as a niche is exactly the wrong perspective. Tesla is dominant in a field which is the future of automotive transportation. It is a small market not because it is a niche but because it is nascent. The difference is, strategically, very relevant.
ICE automakers are just realizing how far behind Tesla they are. I'd wager at least ten years. The model S was launched in 2012, VW et al won't be able to launch a similar offer before 2022.
> VW et al won't be able to launch a similar offer before 2022.
Volkswagen will launch multiple models across multiple brands before 2022. The Porsche Taycan is launching before 2022:
And the VW ID Neo: https://electrek.co/2019/03/13/vw-id-electric-hatchback-pre-...
And the VW ID Crozz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8zbuvzEA5A
And the Audi e-tron Q4: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/audi-q4-e-tron-concept-ge...
And the Audi e-tron GT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsXhl3ilU9I
And the Skoda Vision IV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72uf9DNakk
And the SEAT el-Born: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umwlXFoSAD8
I'm all for more EVs, but anyone who's followed the EV space for the past decade knows that most of these models are DOA.
Take the Audi e-tron for instance: the director of the Paris showroom (the only place in Europe where the car was displayed in public) himself told me late last year that they don't intend to sell the car in volume, that it can't compete with the competition, and that EV sales are mostly PR for a company like Audi (at least until ICE don't make most of the company's profits).
NB: this is not a regular dealership, but a fully owned and controlled store by Audi. Good luck with that!
Meanwhile, Porsche is making its most popular model electric only:
You're not being realistic. Volkswagen will be the biggest producer of electric cars within 3 years.
>> Volkswagen will be the biggest producer of electric cars within 3 years.
Not least due to their outsized presence in the world's most important market for EV - China
> There will be many models launched before 2022.
And there have been many models launched before today. None are even close to model S levels of production volume, performance, range and battery durability.
If your reference is the Porsche Taycan, it is the equivalent to the Tesla Roadster: a low volume proof of concept. It is already more than ten years late (the Roadster launched in '08). If your reference is anything based on VW's MEB (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda), add two years to publicized launch dates, as the MEB went back to the drawing board, deemed under-specced for what the market expects from EVs. This means production plants have not yet started to get designed, much less built, and are waiting on platform redesign and approval.
You really should read and view the links. Both the Porsche Taycan and the Audi e-tron GT are in the Model S's category, and they're both much nicer cars.
The Porsche Taycan will charge faster than any Tesla and won't suffer the Model S's overheating issues:
I think you mean: you speculate that the GT and Taycan will be in same category as the Model S and will be nicer than the roadster. Since literally nobody outside of VAG has sat in one.
You may also want to walk back the claims about overheating. In one of the press videos, a Porsche engineer explicitly says that the number of hard accelerations over a short time will be limited to 10, or so.
> Since literally nobody outside of VAG has sat in one.
Here's a person sitting in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvNw15W_EK8
Here's another person sitting in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMEdiq2xTbQ
And yet another person sitting in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2i8uS_q6kE
And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZFcjJ-PCbs
Is that literal enough?
Take a look at this:
That article is from 2009, a full decade ago. It's a prime example why people are very weary when it comes to VAG announcing concept EVs. It's not a contender until I can actually purchase one.
Any car manufacturer can create a concept EV with relative ease. That's the easy part. Taking it to production (especially at scale) is the hardest part.
That was then, this is now. The investments have been made and the direction has been set.
There's no point trying to concoct a narrative that this is all somehow vaporware. You can pre-order your VW ID Neo in 7 weeks:
Amazing. They had a police motorcade surrounding them.
>The Porsche Taycan will charge faster than any Tesla
At every 350 kW charger:
When will Tesla introduce 350 kW charging?
>Because Tesla manufactures all its car in California, which has far stricter rules than other states. If other manufacturers moved their production there, Tesla would rank better than the competition
I just want to point out that Tesla's California plant is Just the old GM/Toyota NUMMI plant. The article insinuates the safety violations are greater than any US based plant operated by other manufacturers over the past 10 years, a time period which includes the era in which GM/Toyota ran the very same plant.
NUMMI was sold to Tesla in 2010, and Toyota/GM had basically stopped operations by mid 2009. I’m not sure how one year of super low production is comparable to Tesla’s operation.
> You could not make a more dishonest selections
So I'm dishonest, Forbes is dishonest, Consumer Reports is dishonest, TrueDelta is dishonest, Autoblog is dishonest, Reuters is dishonest, Wikipedia is dishonest, and CleanTechnica is dishonest. We're all dishonest together.
> So what?
So they operate on a larger scale and they're better at making and selling cars than Tesla is. There's no point crying about it. These are simply the basic realities.
You know what a selection is?
>So they operate on a larger scale and they're better at making and selling cars than Tesla is
You don't get it. They're better at making and selling ICE cars. Not EVs. No one is discussing the fact that established manufacturers are established, the issue here is the disruption.
Remember that Tesla is eating up market shares fast and at an increasing pace, and they already produce more than 50% of the entire battery market (including smartphones, stationary storage, EV, etc).
If you're forward looking, you could say Tesla "operates on a larger scale and is better at making and selling EVs". This reality may not be easy to recognize.
> the issue here is the disruption.
What disruption? Tesla is already behind on technology and soon they're going to be behind on volume.
The CCS charging networks are deploying 350 kW chargers, Tesla is not. Volkswagen is introducing the first 800 volt cars, Tesla is not.
And yet, Tesla owners keep recommending their cars more than anyone else, because the car is that good.
You know what that exchange reminds me of? Harley-Davidson motorcycles, back in the AMF days. Those bikes were known for being unreliable pieces of crap that would shake their own bolts loose. Wear comfortable boots if you own one. And yet their owners wouldn't be caught dead riding anything else.
I argue that when you spend nearly $100 on a car (or big bucks on a bike), what else are you going to say? "I'm an idiot and shouldn't be trusted with large sums of money."?
Do you have a source for this?
>Owners appear to like, even love, the Model 3. It received top marks in CR’s recent owner satisfaction survey and also earned a positive road-test score. It’s a weird duality — and one the even CR acknowledges — that other aspirational, lifestyle and luxury vehicles share. Owners love the vehicles, despite persistent issues with the components inside them.
Reliability goes up as the volume goes up and you can more readily apply statistical methods. A bit of a chicken/egg problem, really.
in what sense is this an SUV? It looks just like a sedan
It’s a CUV. A compact SUV.
CUV is crossover utility vehicle.
This is almost getting as silly as music genres.
Well the Kia Niro can apparently be an SUV, even if it is barely bigger than a Corolla. (Niro owner here)
Got a mini-review for us?
It has 3 rows of seats and seats 7 people.
So... a station wagon?
I get what you're saying, but 55,000€ is not midrange. It's more expensive than a BMW series 5.
how again are they crushing the competition? they sell in a year what toyota manufactures in a day. a long reservation list isn’t an indicator of success, it’s an indicator of demand. and the demand, in relative scale, is low.
The competition would be specific models, https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/04/tesla-model-3-sales-32-...
Rav4 Hybrid also uses some Tesla tech. While unclear if they will continue to dominate market segments they enter, Tesla has been more successful than I ha
d imagined by this point.
> they sell in a year what toyota manufactures in a day
You're off by more than an order of magnitude.
Tesla sold 250k cars in 2018, and Toyota makes < 25k/day.
Not to mention the Tesla number is growing substantially, while the Toyota number is flat.
Toyota takes about 2 weeks to do what Tesla does in a year. (10million vs 400,000)
"So excited for the zero-exhaust future."
Is it zero exhaust? Where do you get your energy from? Is it from a caol plant? A nuclear plant? Its more you don't see the exhaust.
In the medium/long term, the trend is towards renewable energy power.
In the short-term, these cars, whether running on renewable or dirt-power, mean that we, and our children, don't have to suck up exhaust fumes.
"Thank you" are the words you're looking for.
Precisely. This is a perfect example of the concept that "the perfect is the enemy of the good".
> Boring argument.
No. Valid argument. For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another. While that might change in the future, for the moment the environmental impact only happens somewhere else. This should not be forgotten, therefore those uncritical claqueurs are misplaced.
> For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another.
No, we aren't. There are lots of renewable energy sources already on the market, and more coming online every day. You just have to be willing to use them.
In Michigan, as one example, for just one extra cent per kilowatt/hour you can have 100% renewable electricity in your home right now. No new wires, no extra setup.
>> In Michigan, as one example, for just one extra cent per kilowatt/hour you can have 100% renewable electricity in your home right now. No new wires, no extra setup.
Not really. The electrons all go through through the same wires regardless of where they come from. I think the extra cent does in some way incentivize renewable power, but you don't literally get 100% renewable energy.
> you don't literally get 100% renewable energy. The electrons all go through through the same wires regardless
Yes, you actually do. Consumers Energy literally generates that amount of renewable energy instead of the equivalent from Natural Gas.
You are technically correct that my home does not get the specific "renewable electrons" that the wind farm itself generated, since the grid is all interconnected. But that doesn't change the fact that the power company burned less Natural Gas that month, for every user who opted instead for renewable energy.
I'm in Michigan, interested to know what you are speaking of?
Fellow Michigander! I believe the poster was referring to this program: https://www.consumersenergy.com/residential/renewable-energy...
Awesome! Thank you.
But we're moving the emissions in a "more solvable" direction. By consolidating the emissions from millions of cars to hundreds (thousands?) of plants, we're making it a MUCH easier problem to address.
I am not sure about the US, but in Germany 40% of the electricity is already renewable. And most Tesla owners I know use a 100% renewable plan. It costs just a tiny little bit more, for example from here: https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/privatkunden/oekostrom.html (page in German)
It's still not a valid argument.
Burning gasoline in a car is far less efficient than burning coal in a huge power plant. The gasoline refining process is also power-hungry. As an added bonus, it's also possible to capture at least some of the pollution from a power plant in ways that aren't possible when you have to shrink things down to car size.
An average EV charged off a coal plant still pollutes less than an average gasoline powered car.
Check out the maps at https://www.quora.com/How-are-electric-cars-better-for-the-e...
> No. Valid argument.
Nope, still entirely invalid. Switching from combustion to electric in vehicles decouples emissions from energy consumption in transportation, which is step 1. From that point on, it's generally up to the larger players e.g. governing bodies, energy suppliers, etc. to make the switch -- but not entirely so. There's already enough funding/incentives on the table to encourage people to not just decouple emissions from transport, but to eliminate emissions entirely eg by powering via their own renewable energy setup. Prices have dropped by more than 60% in five years down to just over 3 dollars a watt, and if that trend maintains itself, we'll be under a buck fifty in the next five. The only way that trend keeps going is if everyone, large players and small, have access and incentive to keep buying and drive costs down.
But none of those trends sustain themselves if the necessary energy decoupling doesn't take place, and that's what electric cars are aiming to do in transportation.
> “Nope, still entirely invalid.”
hey, words have meanings. you didn’t invalidate the argument nor did you even argue against it. invalidating an argument would have been pointing out a structural deficiency in the logic. arguing against would be pointing out the falsity of one or more points with counterfactuals. you did neither.
it’s true that emissions are transferred from car to power plant, so that’s a valid argument (edit: because it’s logically sound, not just because it’s true). you accepted and built on that argument by saying it’s a good thing for a bunch of reasons. so your opening sentence was entirely unnecessary.
You are incorrect. The argument structure does not lead to the conclusion that the amount of emissions is necessarily higher. It's too ambiguous for that. It's possible to infer more than one argument structure from the writing. It was a series of questions and a statement, not a series of premises and a conclusion.
Different readers will infer different argument structures, but what I find interesting is that the assumed answers to the questions are conditioned on effort expended in becoming greener. So the questions are implicitly polarizing.
People with Tesla's who have taken steps to ensure zero emissions are more likely to respond no to each question. They are also more likely to do this, because they've invested significant resources toward producing an environment that doesn't have externalities. It isn't a random sampling. For someone who assumes no or for whom the assumption of no being possible is obvious, the implied argument is invalid. For others, it's easier to arrive at a yes to every question. Neither answer is correct though, because these questions are not able to be answered in a yes or no fashion. The actual answer is that this is conditioned on investment in green energy infrastructure. You'll notice many arguing in other comments to the effect that this is a boring argument, entirely on the basis of ongoing investment into green energy infrastructure. That doesn't happen randomly. They've thought through the implied argument structure and moved beyond it to the causally important factor on which the not quite an argument hinges.
And they call the argument boring; which it is, especially if you've ever bothered to consume any Tesla marketing since it tackles this question (spoiler alert: the efficiency gain is one of the reasons to buy a Tesla, not an argument against).
> "The argument structure does not lead to the conclusion that the amount of emissions is necessarily higher."
yeah, nobody tried to argue that, so i'm not sure who you're arguing with.
The argument implied as valid by your reply to the person who called it invalid was given several parents up. The chain was that comment, a person calling the argument boring, another person calling it valid, another person calling it invalid, a reassertion of invalidity, a negation of the claim of validity, and then your post re-asserting the arguments validity.
It was not a valid argument structure. The definition of valid is that an argument is valid if the argument structure is such that if the premises were true, the conclusion must be true. The stated conclusion of the post many parents is up is that the amount of emissions is higher. If you agree with me that this argument was not actually made, than you ought to agree with me that what was done must not be a valid argument: that conclusion is not reachable via the questions posed in the post, therefore, it is not a valid argument.
I'm a fan of syllogistic logic, so I shared your care for the definition of the word valid. Also, totally understandable to lose the context. This discussion is nested quite deeply. If I hadn't thought about the comment chain for an hour before giving my reply, I would have lost the context too.
This is a well-known argument called the Long Tailpipe Problem. It makes intuitive sense, but if we inspect the data from a comprehensive, well-to-wheel assessment, the answer is: "It depends."
The total systemic carbon footprint depends on the fuel and technology used for electricity generation in the particular country or region in question.
Electric cars’ carbon emissions can vary from similar to the average gasoline car (for countries with lots of dirty coal-fired plants) to less than half those of the best hybrids vehicles (in countries with lots of renewable power generation).
Well not exactly, we're replacing a product that will by necessity produce polluting emissions (and not only CO2, btw) from fossil fuels, with one that is able to use whatever source might be available, from coal and nuclear to solar and wind power. In programming terms, decoupling the responsibility of energy production from that of transportation, with all the flexibility that this entails. You become free to optimize energy production as a completely isolated problem from that of the vehicles that drive you around.
No, invalid argument.
Thanks to regenerative braking, a Tesla gets the equivalent of 120 mpg, much better than any ICE car.
In fact the energy used in refining gasoline to drive an ICE car is a given distance approximately the same as the energy to drive an electric car the same. Which means that before you've accounted for turning the ICE car on, the electric car has already arrived at its destination.
Depends where you live and drive. Some states like Vermont get almost all of their energy from renewables.
It's worth noting those graphs are about what power is generated in-state, not what power is consumed in-state.
In VT's case, they shut down a nuclear plant with no in-state replacement for the power, and now they buy 60% of their power from out of state. A lot of which comes from Hydro-Quebec, so it's often still renewable in their case.
At least the means of production of the energy can be updated without needing to replace the car.
In an ICE, every car comes with its own power plant burning gasoline to produce energy.
With electric cars, power generation is distributed among a much, much smaller amount of power plants. Upgrading those is much more expensive, but by upgrading one, you've instantly upgraded all the electric cars powered by that power plant.
> zero exhaust
Sure, many countries are still on coal. But there are other considerations as well. Cities are hotspots for emissions, and need not be. Another important point is that nitrogen byproducts form simply from the high temperatures in internal combustion engines, not just from fuel.
In the future, hopefully from solar panels, wind and nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream
> nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream
Nuclear still has exhaust, it just takes the form of waste heat dumped into some environment to the plant and then spent fuel, which needs to be managed somehow.
(I do think nuclear needs to be a part of the solution, but I'd hardly call it 'zero exhaust', unless you are strictly speaking carbon emissions.)
In the context of vehicle exhaust, I think it’s pretty clear that humid waste heat is not comparable to coal or petrol fired exhaust, particularly in proximity to cities.
Yeah... I do understand the difference.
My main point, though, is that the idea these cars are 'zero emission' is only true in a localized sense. As always, there are tradeoffs that the elevator pitch tends to gloss over.
Thermal pollution is a problem for traditional power plants too though. That’s an under appreciated problem, but not one unique to nuclear.
In the US it depends on which state you live in. The Department of Energy has the Alternative Fuels Data Center that will show you national average and state by state emissions for four different types of engine.
“future” can be zero exhaust.
And how fast we get there essentially depends on our progress in energy storage + energy-on-demand technologies.
Renewable energy production is not in line with our peak demand times (noon, evening, morning to a lesser extend).
Somehow we need to be able to save the energy produces/harvested when it's not needed and provide it to handle the demand spikes to ensure grid stability.
It can be, but the grandparent comment seemed to imply that just switching to electric cars will do that, which is disingenuous. It can help, but the power grid needs to be overhauled as well.
If electric cars do take over, that will cause a substantial increase of needed power, something I don't know if it can today. Right now the USA hasn't built a nuclear reactor in decades. I would love to see a more distributed power network (I.e. every home has solar and wind power).
Nuclear is zero-exhaust. Its waste (more generic term) is a unique and complex, but not impossible, problem to solve.
I can only hope we spin up more nuclear.
Aside from the other comments, can there be benefit from concentrating that "exhaust" to fewer places?
Yes, because fewer people live next to a power plant. Almost everyone lives next to a road.
So even if power plants were as dirty as ICEs, it would be a win.
If we can get pollution away from the people that's already a huge win.
Regardless, coal plants are an order of magnitude more efficient than cars.
Model Y will have Full Self-Driving capability, enabling automatic driving on city streets and highways pending regulatory approval, as well as the ability to come find you anywhere in a parking lot.
Pending regulatory approval, and also they need figure out how to make it work first.
Off the top of my head I remember similar claims being made about the summoning feature of the model S. Has it lived up to the marketing promises?
I call BS on this. EVERY autonomous driving expert agrees that Tesla is years away from Waymo or GM, and years away from their own claims.
For what it's worth Musk says he's confident:
>I think we will be feature complete full self-driving this year meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot pick you up take you all the way to your destination
without an intervention. This year. I would say that I am certain of that, that is not a question mark.
>However people sometimes will extrapolate that to mean now it works with one hundred percent certainty we're requiring no observation perfectly. This is not the case. Once it is feature complete then you're sort of kind of the march of nines like how many nines of reliability do you want to be and then when do regulators agree that it is that that is that reliable so this feature complete post full self-driving this year with certainty.
>This is something that we control and I managed autopilot engineering directly every week in detail so I'm certain to this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dEYm8hzLo 10 mins in or so)
And that you can probably sleep while it drives around end 2020
The common theory is that additional 9s for self driving are not inremental, they require more like exponential effort. Possibly and probably needing new sensors or additional compute power to handle those corner cases. So you cannot linearly extrapolate progress.
Waymo maybe but not GM. Also not EVERY autonomous driving expert. Also they're different approaches.
GM is way ahead of Tesla in this field.
The review put Super Cruise higher than Tesla Autopilot because of better driver monitoring and geofencing. It doesn't speak much to how far ahead each company is on self-driving technology. Both Super Cruise and Autopilot are bad representations of where GM/Cruise and Tesla's cutting edge is at.
The context is different between the two. Super Cruise got high marks because of its focus on driver engagement/awareness, it's very clearly an "assist" feature. Autopilot is intended to become autonomous, so driver monitoring is so much lower on the list.
Yes, but they're so much less willing to put people's safety at risk, so really, they're way behind.
Nope, Tesla is still blatantly lying.
But Musk never lies. I mean, I've never seen him say things that were utterly untrue to drive stoc- sees SEC crackdowns on twitter posts .....Ohhhhh, right
That we don't know. And we know that you don't know either. So who's a liar?
Coast-to-coast AP demo was promised before Eo2017. Still waiting. Meanwhile, the AP cannot handle traffic lights, city traffic, conditions of bad weather, sections of road with poor or temporary lanes, it crashes to high-vis large stationary objects directly in line of sight and travel, yada yada. They don't seem to have anything solid to back up the promises with, so claiming that "enabling automatic driving on city streets and highways pending regulatory approval" is very deceptive and insincere with potential customers.
So you admit it was not a lie.
The coast-to-coast demo for EoY 2017 was not a promise either, but a goal.
Elon Musk, 2017:
>Our goal is — I feel pretty good about this goal — is that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy, all the way from L.A. to New York — so, basically, from a home in L.A. to, let’s say, dropping you off in Times Square, in New York, then having the car go and park itself by the end of next year — without the need for a single touch, including the charging.
Elon Musk, 2018:
>I’ve been meaning to address this, because obviously I missed the mark on that front. I mean, focus was very much on Model 3 production so everything else kind of took a second place to that. We could have done the coast-to-coast drive but it would have required too much specialized code to effectively game it, or make it somewhat brittle in that it would work for one particular route but not be a general solution.
Who's hyping things up here?
>They don't seem to have anything solid to back up the promises (...)
So now you say "they don't seem to", because you don't know? Okay.
It's a funny concept. People who haven't even purchased the product feel that the company has promised them things and feel aggravated if those "promises" go unfulfilled.
In reality, Tesla is a company with such ambitious goals that they often fail only to later succeed. The fact that so many people want to tear them down for that is very sad.
“Lying” is strong, but it’s over-promising and under-delivering. It’s reasonable to take their current goals with a large pinch of salt.
They're not promising. They're sharing their ambitious goals.
If you only have goals that you already know you can meet or if you always attain your goals, you're aiming too low.
From earlier in this thread: ”Our goal is — I feel pretty good about this goal — is that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy, all the way from L.A. to New York”
I guess it depends whether you interpret that “I feel good about this goal” means “I think we have a good chance of achieving this” or just “having this goal makes me feel good.”
I think we’re at least partly agreeing. Tesla just has a very different approach here than, say, Apple. That’s not inherently bad but I personally don’t like it. I see it as excessive hype.
I guess my question would be... There's thousands or tens of thousands of businesses not meeting their stated goals. Why do you care so much about tearing down this particular one?
Perhaps you follow $tslaq on Twitter or perhaps not. Take a look. They're so toxic and focused on negativity around Tesla. It's senseless. If I don't believe in a business, I just ignore it. With Tesla there seems to be people who are religious or obsessed with hoping that they fail. That's pretty weird considering that pretty much all of humankind benefits from a better world should they succeed.
Being in AI myself, I care about the bullshit Musk spews.
He's horribly wrong about everything he says on the topic, and spreading misinformation every time he opens his mouth.
His activity in the field may hinder future development and lead us towards another AI winter. Having any-and-all people working on a particular task isn't necessarily a good thing.
Yeah, I know, and I was wary of wading into this thread for that reason!
I don’t care deeply about this, I just thought it was worth trying to explain how and why my reaction differs.
> “I think we have a good chance of achieving this”
That's still not promising anything though. It's setting expectations, but failing to meet expectations is not the same as failing to meet promises.
If I buy a movie ticket I can get disappointed about the film being bad (failing to meet expectation of enjoyment), but I'd get upset if they cancelled the screening after I bought a ticket (failing to meet promise of viewing).
Goals that they are willing to charge customers for, make statements to the SEC about, and we want to hold them to those things? Shame on us.
Why focus on Tesla? So many other companies do the same.
Who's hyping things up here? Musk.
No-one made him promise (sorry, offer a "goal") of coast-to-coast driving but himself and his ego.
He even admits that _he_ missed the mark he offered, but still you blame _us_ for having unrealistic expectations.
More like for being an ass about it.
Volkswagen is promising (to use your terms) to produce millions of cheap EVs in 2019... err, 2020... er, by 2025. They’re doing that for years, without producing barely anything. Meanwhile Tesla is overly optimistic, sets high goals, fails on some of them, is late, but still actually delivers a shitload of great stuff.
Yes, I’m still waiting on some things them dreamt about when I bought the car. OTOH, I’m happy with the purchase and the car got dramatically improved software-wise since I bought it, well beyond any other manufacturer’s abilities.
Ridiculous amounts of pedantry here. Apparently companies can't lie because they have goals, according to a two year old account, 1/3 of whose comments are about Tesla.
> So who's a liar?
"Liar" is a stronger word than I would use, but given the claims (including dates) that Tesla made when I purchased an S100D in early 2017 -- seems like the answer is Tesla.
If not "liar", at least incredibly dramatically wrong about what they actually delivered for EAP and FSD. I'd say the burden of proof is now firmly on Tesla as they've made and missed a number of claims about the performance of their automation features.
They are implying that AP is complete and it works, and they are just waiting on approval. This is not true.
They are implying that it WILL be complete. The Model Y doesn't ship until end of 2020.
He said not two weeks ago that you will be able to self drive coast to coast, "this year", apropos of any shipping date for the Y.
Someone can say they've home-built a rocket and flown to the moon, and I don't have to be an aerospace expert to call BS.
Agreed. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Elon Musk who has an unparalleled track record of honesty...
What if i get that regulatory approval? There is plenty of privately owned land where i could tesla all day, some with traffic lights and everything. Or perhaps this feature is "pending" far more than regulatory approval.
Tesla is using the "we're just waiting for regulatory approval"-line for years on their Autopilot page. It's there to hide how far (behind?) development on this tech is.
Seeing how many videos exist of incidents where AP misbehaves (or even actively steers the car into barriers), it seems reasonable to assume that "regulatory approval" isn't the blocking issue for releasing full self-driving. (Could they release this feature with the traditional AP requirements of human oversight?)
I assume they mean they have equipped it with the sensor and computational capacity, and motor control, required (in their analysis) to implement self-driving when the software and regulators are ready.
They should then really say "technology readiness and regulatory approval pending".
I was a bit shocked at the price being as low. They're putting in a Supercharger two miles away. Before today I appreciated what Musk was doing but never considered getting a Tesla. As of tonight I am reconsidering. My only unknown right now is going to be service.
Service with Tesla has been pretty good. For small things (like problems with those notorious doors) they will drive to you and fix it, even if the car is in a parking lot at work. You can schedule over text message and in the app. It's a refreshing improvement over your average luxury car dealer, who treats service as a profit center.
The issue is with parts - delays for some body parts mean your car may be sitting in the shop for MONTHS waiting for key pieces.
OK so the nearest branch is in Cleveland which is like five hours away. What do I drive while it's in the shop for MONTHS waiting on parts?
> it's in the shop for MONTHS waiting on parts
tbh, if I got a, say, BMW, knowing the nearest branch is 5 hours away, I would factor the possibility that it can be in the show for WEEKS, if not MONTHS, waiting on parts. (my 3-series has spent 2 weeks at the dealership at least twice)
> (my 3-series has spent 2 weeks at the dealership at least twice)
I guess some things don't change.
I had a Z3 around 2000-01 and I distinctly remember driving down Austin's Mopac in my year old car with something like five warning lights' worth of problems glaring at me. Then at some point the dealership broke the clock during a service visit, and then there was the winter where the engine thermostat stuck wide open, so the car never warmed up and the heater didn't work.
Dealer service was terrible too. On one of my many trips in to the service department, I pulled in to a co-worker who had just relocated to the area with his 540i. They wouldn't provide a loaner car because he hadn't bought at the dealership. (Because he didn't live in the same state when he bought his car.)
My last service visit, I took the car in with a spare tire on and had to get the normal tire fixed elsewhere in the meantime. Of course, when I went to pick the car up, they refused to put the normal tire back on until I drove the car out front of the sales department and started jacking the car up to replace it myself.
> until I drove the car out front of the sales department and started jacking the car up to replace it myself.
How often do you expect it to happen?
Realistically you should factor in not having a car for any car purchase simply because your car could get totalled at any trip. But I find it surprising that parts and service could take so long. Being a BMW service center surely replacing parts is core to their job. I can get parts faster on my own.
> How often do you expect it to happen?
I'm not disparaging Tesla quality but have you ever heard of Murphy's Law? What can go wrong will go wrong.
Right now I am without a working heater, waiting for two weeks on a blenderator motor for a Ford Explorer. Stuff happens...
My guess is that if some distribution region is without new produce to sell because some other part of the company has fucked up the logistics, QUESTIONS ARE ASKED IN UPPER CASE VERY QUICKLY, whereas if it runs out of some sort of spare parts, questions get asked in lower case.
It just seemed like the original commenter had planned ahead for many multi-month part shipments. Pragmatic perhaps but I would have to question my vendor!
I drive late model grey imports so my parts wait is just the time it takes to pull it off a wreck and ship it. I suspect the wait comes from the dealer/manufacturer relationship.
If my car gets totaled, my insurance will pay for a rental. If my car is at the dealer for 2 weeks, the dealer will give me a loaner. Does Tesla have loaners?
Yes, they do.
Imagine being given a Chrysler Town and Country as a loaner for your $120,000 Model S...
This puts me off buying a new car.
I’d like to see vehicle manufacturers, for the purpose of regular retail owners, extend the warranty of a vehicle if it spends more time in the workshop than the allotted time set out in the repair manual.
If remove and replace engine is, for example, 10hrs, then the car should be in the shop for no more than, say, two to three days. If it sits there for days > weeks > months waiting for parts the new car warranty should be extended by the same amount of time.
My guess is that’d go a long way to fixing the spare parts waiting times.
What are the possible reasons for such long waiting times on spares? It can’t be freight delays; it can’t be that the part isn’t available.
It’s just as bad at Citroen here in the UK. I had to replace a wheel on mine after I dinked it. Citroen had a two week wait time for this. I managed to get a wheel off eBay next day for £60 and took it to the local hooky tyre outfit who put two new front tyres on and this wheel in 30 minutes while I waited without an appointment.
eBay is great for items like wheels. I got a like new one for $70, the dealership wanted $390 for ONE, it woudl have been cheaper to buy 4 aftermarket wheels at the tire shop.
What are the possible reasons for such long waiting times on spares?
The manufacturer makes money putting those parts in new cars, it makes no money sending it out to repair yours...
Yep, that was going to be my first guess.
If they can delay delivering your part till next financial year, or the end of the production run for that model, the books look that much better.
And that should be criminal.
”What are the possible reasons for such long waiting times on spares?”
I get the impression that Tesla doesn’t like to keep a lot of parts in inventory. When a spare is ordered, it’s ordered from the manufacturer of that part.
Elon actually discussed this on the most recent conference call. He said that they’re trying to improve things by having parts shipped directly to service centres and body shops rather than via a Tesla distribution/logistics centre.
Do you think that's reasonable?
What do you do to your cars?
I've never had a car in overnight. And I couldn't point to anyone I know being without their car for even a week.
And I don't drive premium cars either, naively I would expect premium cars to be more reliable, and have better service.
Premium cars tend to be less reliable, but it really depends on the car. Certain models are reliable, certain brands are more reliable, and if we're speaking in broad strokes certain countries make more dependable vehicles. If you want something that will just work, buy Japanese.
I had an old Toyota that I just drove and drove and would not die. Multiple cross country trips and I never ever serviced it, except changing the oil every ~50k miles. The thing just kept on going.
I just bought a brand new BMW and I had to take it back to the dealer to fix something that broke after 5k miles.
My car history includes Fords, Mazdas and Skodas (VW group), so nothing Japanese.
(Edit: Apart from the Mazda.... Obviously.....)
I don't know if the parent was talking about major crashes, or reliability issues, 2 weeks in the shop would be my limit of acceptability for any car, a month, I'd be asking for my money back assuming it were a reliability issue. And multiple 2 week waits or a month wait, I wouldn't be buying from that manufacturer or dealer again, whatever the reason.
Is that my European point of view? have I been amazingly lucky?
Not counting the Mazda as Japanese then?
Maybe you had one from the Ford-era?
I kind of mentally pigeonhole it with Kia, Hyundai and Daewoo, as they all arrived/got popular at a similar time. In the UK at least.
Plus, subjectively, it just doesn't sound like a Japanese name (to me).
> […] it just doesn’t sound like a Japanese name (to me).
"Mazda" is a German spelling of the Japanese name typically romanized as "Matsuda" (松田).
Mazda was started by the Matsuda family, the same way Toyota was started by the Toyoda family
3 weeks is not months. And is likely the exception.
My Jaguar had some issues, the dealership would overnight parts from around the US, and "if we need to go to the UK for them it'll be a couple of days".
I have a 2018 Model S and I assume it could take well over a year to get repaired in the event of damage :( it’s not for everyone.
I’m waiting on a fender, a door, and a bottom trim, and I’m at about a month total in middle-of-nowhere Midwest. Luckily, I can drive the (heavily dented) car until parts come in, but if the car can’t be driven then you’re stuck with the rental your insurance provides.
Driving the insurance's rental is perfectly acceptable. When you're really screwed is if the thing breaks down on you, and you have to pay the rental fees out of pocket, along with the repairs.
> When you're really screwed is if the thing breaks down on you, and you have to pay the rental fees out of pocket,
Rental coverage is quickly exhausted waiting for Tesla to provide replacement parts.
Don't know about the US or whereever you live, but in Germany rental cars are only provided by the insurance for about two to four weeks. After that you'll have to pay them by yourself.
Can confirm, this is how it works in the US too, even with a top-notch provider (Commerce) with comprehensive coverage.
I’m in CA but for two weeks they gave me an X while my S was in their shop waiting on parts. This was before the model 3 though.
Im guessing you live near Flint MI. Tesla provides you with a loaner and they come to you.
”What do I drive while it's in the shop for MONTHS waiting on parts?”
Your insurance would normally provide a rental car while you wait for body shop work.
If it’s warranty work, Tesla will provide a loaner.
> If it’s warranty work, Tesla will provide a loaner.
Which is usually not a Tesla. One of my friends complained that the BMW 5 series he got as a loaner couldn't drive itself, so it totally ruined his commute for the week his Tesla was in the shop.
Definition of "first world problems" right there.
Yeah that's what I told him.
This reminds me of the time my '18 Lambo was in the shop for a week for service so I was forced to drive my '17 Ferrari. Worst week of my life.
It's like the old Jaguar joke. Why did you buy a second Jaguar? Your first was so unreliabble?
"Well, I needed one to drive while the other is in the shop"
Hope for his family that he has good life insurance.
Get a Toyota in the first place ;-)
Closest Lexus dealer is an hour away and they will bring a loaner when they come get your car for warranty sevice
Lexus is decent for those who don't mind polluting the atmosphere. For those who care about the environment, EVs are the future and Lexus is way behind.
It's much more nuanced. Compare hybrid Lexus and Tesla model S. Factor in electricity that is produced from coal plant, a lot of energy and pollution that come from extracting Cobalt and other substances. Creating the battery consumes a lot of energy as well and does produce waste. Then you have to recycle it.
EVs are great and on average they are way better, BUT if you drive very little and you get electricity from fossil fuels your Tesla maybe worse for the environment.
There are lot of reports of service being completely unresponsive, not answering calls. And people who work there are saying stuff like "you wouldn't believe how large our backlog is" or "I used to do an equivalent of 2 jobs, now I'll have to do 3" (not exact quotes, from my memory). The reason for this is obvious, Tesla has a cash problem.
I'm in So Cal. My S got backed into - repair of quarter and door panels took about 6 weeks.
For annual service and repairs, it's been pleasant for me. Granted, it takes a while to get the appointment now, but they've always given me a loaner that's often nicer/newer than mine (or $700 Lyft credit one time), so I haven't minded delays. Mobile service has also been great, responsive and very convenient.
Contrast that to the Mercedes dealership. Every time we take in our warrantied SUV, I feel like they're trying to take us for every penny they can - very unpleasant.
Supercharging does measurable damage to batteries. If you're on a long distance road trip and need to use it, okay, but if you regularly supercharge your car WILL have poorer battery condition by the time it reaches 80,000 to 100,000 miles.
This is not a problem for most owners who charge overnight at home.
The battery chemistry and heating / high amperage damage issues are unavoidable with current lithium ion chemistry.
I don't think you will find this information anywhere on Tesla's website. It's kind of bullshit in my opinion that they don't have at least a medium sized disclaimer saying "hey, don't supercharge all the time... or this will happen". I'm sure it's buried deep in the sales contract terms and conditions.
Yes and no.
Anytime a li-ion battery is charging, discharging, or even just sitting there the chemistry is breaking down slowly. Charging at higher speeds, charging at higher temperatures, etc. all speed up that break down.
> Supercharging does measurable damage to batteries.
However, I'm calling bullshit on this statement, unless by "measurable" you mean you will maybe lose 1% more battery capacity (which would be maybe 3 miles of range) than someone who coddled their battery. Measurable? Barely. Meaningful? Not really.
My Model S is 5 years old and at 80,000 miles, and I supercharge regularly. My battery has gone from 265 miles to 260, which is inline with what is expected.
I supercharged an S a few times and noticed that you could throttle the charging if you want. Seems reasonable to balance changing rate with how much time you have. For similar reasons I recommend avoiding the natural inclination to get the more powerful charger possible at home.
Most powerful home charger is going to charge at 19kW, not much compared to the rate of a supercharger (250kW). your car will be fine.
I was going to reply "unless your home has 3 phase 480V service you don't know about, you're not going to be able to charge anywhere near supercharge amp flow rates..."
I don't think there's real-world data showing that supercharging within the limits Tesla has programmed leads to very significant degradation.
Yes, it will happen, but then there are several factors that can affect battery degradation. If you don't care, it's not so bad that you're going to ruin your car. If you do care, it's like 5min Googling to find tips on how to care for your battery.
There’s mostly anecdotal, like this: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-400k-km-250k-mi-7-pe...
400k km, supercharging a lot, 7% degradation, that’s better than anybody expected.
I don't get it, this is more expensive than model 3, so the price can't be the thing that made you change your mind.
Was it the size ?
Since when is $48k considered a "low" new car price? That's a lot of money for a car. Only a small fraction of the population is willing to spend that much.
It's comparable to a highlander / pilot, which appears to be the main competition here.
Highlander/Pilot are significantly larger than Model Y.
What's the price? Can't see it outside of the US.
Cheapest available is the 48k~ but they will sell the base model at 39k.
That's a pretty penny. And I imagine the export price will be $50k or more :(
It is hard to describe exactly the niches they are trying to fill with the designs. I don't see the Y suddenly appealing to someone who didn't already want an X or Y or 3. The differences between models borders on what other companies would consider trim levels.
They are only cannibalizing the same market, as opposed to producing a pickup or a hatchback or a van on the same chassis. Are they limited by tech or capital? Or are they really attached to an idea of what a perfect car is and have trouble extending the vision?
Tesla is just being sensible here, given the dynamics of the car market.
Point 1 - the car market is shifting heavily to sell more SUVs. (For some reason) buyers are preferring them to traditional saloons. 
Point 2 - as a result, many car manufacturers have a range of SUVs, which absolutely cross over with --and cannibalise-- their saloon options. For example:
* Audi has the Q3, Q5, Q7, and Q8
* BMW has the X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, and X7
* Mercedes has the GLA, GLC, GLE, GLE coupe, and GLS
All of these are SUVs, and all of them cross over with other (saloon) models from the manufacturer.
If Tesla wants to sell more Model 3-sized cars to consumers, it needs a small SUV alongside the Model 3. This is just good basic sense, on their part.
TIL a "saloon" isn't just an old time bar but also a synonym for "sedan"
Does this extend outside the US car market?
VW in Spain has like 4 or 5 different SUVs
VW Group has a vast number of SUVs models - must be nearly 20? (Skoda, Seat, VW, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini and Bentley all have SUV models).
The SUV market segment showed the strongest growth in sales. 
All three of those companies are German and sell even more models in their domestic market than in the US.
I'm not challenging the existence of the cars, I'm asking if the global car market reflects the US market as in the citation. I'm especially interested if it applies in China.
Looks a touch more complex in China:
To the surprise of many in the industry, sedan sales in May leaped up by 12.1 percent on the same period last year to 940,000 units, while the SUV segment seemed to lose momentum, growing 6.5 percent year-on-year to 761,000.
The SUV segment had retained a much faster growth rate though when the first five months this year were combined. Its sales grew 11.7 percent from January to May to 4.22 million while sedans rose 4.8 percent to 4.73 million in the same period.
"It is understandable that SUV sales growth has slowed a little bit after years of surging ahead," said Xu Haidong, an assistant to the association's secretary-general.
You forgot about the Audi Q2.
I have a 2004 Forester XT which is fast (beat all 3 $40k sports cars reviewed in the same magazine in 0-60 times), handles great (for a SUV), and has enough cargo space to be quite functional. The AWD system is great in the snow, and it has enough clearance to handle even pretty serious storms... (assuming plows are going anyway).
Sadly Subaru has abandoned the fast, but practical market. No WRX hatch, no turbo Forester, and the Crosstrek is very slow. The CVT is horrid as well.
Model 3 is small, low, and fast. Great as a second car, but not something I'd want as the primary car for a family + dog. I would not want to cross the Sierras in a snow storm with under 6" of clearance.
So the model Y fixes all my issues with the 3. A bit larger (smaller than an X though), a bit more clearance (by the looks anyways), and has generous cargo room. All while being as easy to park/drive as the smaller cars like the model 3.
I would like to see one of the YouTube car review channels take the Model Y on a very milkd 'off-road' course.
Not a real off-road park, but one of those loops the manufacturers put together, for cars like the Honda Pilot or the non-Wrangler Jeeps.
Tons of capability in a modern car is determined by the traction control system and whether they tune it to stupid proof the handling for snowy roadways or tune it to try its best to make the car put power to the ground no matter what.
Without knowing the temperament of the electronic nannies it is very hard to bench race the off road capability of modern all wheel drive vehicles.
I'd like to see someone actually off road the thing and see what it can't do so you know what its limits are rather than zip around a rally course and sing praise which is what most YouTube reviews do.
This is a really good video of 3 Tesla models on an Alaskan testing ground, and compares nannies off vs. nannies on, along with "normal" vs model 3's "track mode"
I have the 2008 Forester XT. What a great car! But the Model Y looks like the next car for me too since I need to be able to tow my small boat.
The new Ascent will pull 5000 pounds, and it's only 37K pretty much loaded. You'll get 400 miles to a tank and you can pick it up tomorrow. Unfortunately the price point just isn't quite there yet for these things to make it worth the extra cash just yet. Electric is still a luxury good, but I'm hopeful for the future.
Looks like it will pull very close to 2000lbs max. Those CVT's really suck when it comes to towing.
The units on that page are in kg. The Ascent Touring pulls 2270 kg, or ~5000 lbs.
Yup - base trim pulls less, but the 37K touring ups the towing considerably.
FWIW, I've found CVTs are pretty straightforward for towing things at the right weight while on the road, but admittedly might tow less then a more conventional transmission would get you. I love the gas mileage improvement though. 30+ on the Outback, reliably (highway)
Also a Subaru fan here eying the Y very strongly.
Price points! I’ve wanted an X for years but it’s 120k if I buy it here. This is half the price. It’s the first affordable family car from Tesla.
I'd like something roughly the size and price of a Model 3, but with a bit more storage space. I'm never going to buy a Model X unless I find myself suddenly wealthy or a used one comes up for sale remarkably cheap. I think this makes a lot of sense.
X is too fat for Europe and China. Y is perfect.
Still looks a bit too big to be practical in European cities.
It's about the size of a new BMW 3-series, which is definitely practical in European cities.
> Or are they really attached to an idea of what a perfect car is and have trouble extending the vision?
A problem is batteries.
You can make an ICE van or light pickup on a car frame, with different gearing and a bigger gas tank, trading acceleration and top speed (which no one ever reaches in most cars in practical use) for utility, and it's not a big deal because of the energy density of gasoline, and because neither the body nor the gas tank is all that expensive.
With a Tesla, what you have to scale up to keep useful range is the batteries.
Another problem is brand image necessary for the viable price point; a hatchback would probably be doable, but hatchback and luxury aren't things that necessarily fit well together (they aren't I possible for brands that have the association with luxury firmly established, but with Tesla already getting plenty of fit+finish flack, why do something that reinforces a pedestrian rather than luxury image?
Aerodynamics are also probably a significant issue: the design of Tesla vehicles, including the SUVs, look like they are staying very close to aerodynamic ideal, which makes sense because their is a notable effect on efficiency and hence range; this has been common with EVs back to the EV1 era. This gets back to the battery issue.
I don't understand what you have against hatchbacks.
I don't have anything against hatchbacks, in fact, every car I my wife and I have had except two more than a decade ago have been hatchbacks.
Perceiving the US market to view hatchbacks as conflicting with luxury of not having a thing against hatchbacks.
Seems to be a standard opinion in the US for some reason. Hatchbacks are more practical for urban or close suburban settings but for some reason don't fit the American image. VW is releasing its ID small hatchback anyway, which is going into production at the end of 2019, start of 2020. That's in fact more than a year ahead of even the Model Y production schedule. The ID looks like it will have a good range and pricepoint, more than 200 miles for $25k-30k. If Tesla wanted that market it looks like it's already passing them by.
Not disagreeing with your larger points, but the Model S is a hatchback, though it doesn't have that image.
The Y definitely fills a niche: a $40k SUV. The S, 3, and X are all either not SUVs or not anywhere near $40k.
I'm sure that's why they're trying to dig a more visible trench between the two levels by removing the jump seats and lower cost versions of the model S. They seem to want a sedan and an SUV, with a premium luxury version they can push new semi-experimental technology into that hasn't yet been proven in the industry as sustainable at scale, and then the more accessible models that leverage economies of scale from the successful bits of the higher end vehicles.
I guarantee that once the big rig version is making money, they're going to start making the smaller inner-city delivery vehicles using similar tech.
> Are they limited by tech or capital?
Tesla is limited by capital at the very least.
I highly recommend the Tesla episode of the "acquired" podcast: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/2018/7/16/season-3-episode-...
The same people who are saying Tesla are cannibalising the same market, are often the same people who are saying that there is significant competition from other car makers incoming ...
As someone who will be buying an EV in the next two years, the Y has certainly kept me interested in Tesla. It looks much better than the 3.
IDK if this is the logic, but it might be:
From day 1 (elon's "underpants plan"), Tesla's what-to-build-next strategy has focused around a few pieces: (1) The current and near future cost of a long range battery (2) Market size at various price points. (3) Using unit volume to drive battery cost reduction and open up new categories.
Mostly, they've selected the highest volume categories where their electrics compare favourably on price performance (and performance-performance) with high-ish-end ICE cars.
For the first car, this meant expensive sports car. Then, luxury sedan...
ATM, the $40k-$50k price range is the highest volume price segment where you can afford a good battery without performance or range compromises. At that price range, SUVs of various sizes are very popular. So, even small-ish differences in price and/or product opens up a bigger potential customer base.
A lot of people “want” a model 3, but “need” an SUV / seating for seven. The Model X is also beyond the reach of 95% of the market.
Also, it’s not canabilizing if the margins on the Y are substantially higher.
I thought it was entirely about price. Making similar cars that cost a bit less each time. They’ve always been clear about that strategy.
Seems to me that the model X is a saloon car, while the Y is a fastback. Don't most car manufacturers make cars of both types?
> Seems to me that the model X is a saloon car, while the Y is a fastback.
The Model X, Model 3, and Model Y all have continuously sloping roofline to the rear edge; all are fastbacks.
The X was trying to be some sort of exotic with its price tag and ridiculous doors.
The Y is more aimed at middle-class soccer moms IMHO.
The same people who are saying they cannibalising the same market, are often the same people who are saying that there is significant competition from other car makers incoming ...
As someone who will be buying an EV in the next two years, the Y has certainly kept me interested in Tesla.
Base model prices including destination charges without gas savings discounted.
Tesla Model 3 - $31450 right now after CA + Fed rebate
Tesla Model Y - $48200 likely no rebate available at release
Tesla Model Y premium over 3 = $16,750
Keep in mind the Model Y also includes the premium interior features which cost an additional $3500 to get by upgrading to the Model 3 mid range, bringing the premium over the 3 to $13,250. The Model Y also gets 80 miles of additional range over the base Model 3.
The base Model Y (RWD long range) is comparable in features and performance to the RWD long range Model 3. When you compare those two, it's only a 4K price differential (47K vs 43K). It's a bit misleading to say the Model Y has a 13K premium over the 3; that's only true if you compare two cars with drastically different feature packages.
You're forgetting the tax credits on the Model 3, which probably won't exist when the Model Y is released. This is also an important factor for the future because the price of the Model 3 will likely be lowered as the credits expire.
It is misleading because it is a very specific case in California/US. For people in other countries these things don't apply. We have 10k euro discount to Electric cars for instance. It would apply to both cars equally.
The pricing page says, "pricing includes gas savings." It's likely more than $48200.
No I didn't use the price with the estimated gas savings bs. Click "details" to view the actual purchase price.
It also doesn’t include any of the autopilot features. Add $3,000 for the basics, $8,000 for full. And $4,000 for AWD. Oh, and $1,500 if you want anything but black. (All the same prices for the 3, but still something to consider.)
Base Model is actually going to be 39k, they're just not selling it yet.
True. I should have specified the base model available today.
Glad to know Tesla is going to focus on Solar Roof and Powerwall this year. Quite honest of him to say that Model 3 caused delays there.
No doubt the Model 3 also prevented the coast to coast self driving demo promised for 2017.
I think self driving is just proving to be a harder problem to solve than they and the rest of the industry thought.
It's ignorant to compare Tesla to the rest of the industry. Tesla only pretends to be in autonomous driving. You can't in fairness compare Tesla to actual companies like Cruise/MobilEye/Waymo that have real autonomous driving tech.
I wasn't comparing anyone. However, every one of the companies you mentioned have fallen short of their claims early on. I couldn't say whether Tesla has real self driving tech in the works or not, ignoring what they have released, but it is clear that self driving in the real world is yet to be solved.
> However, every one of the companies you mentioned have fallen short of their claims early on
What's your source for this claim?
> but it is clear that self driving in the real world is yet to be solved.
Self driving will always be constrained. Sure we don't have the tech to go anywhere in the U.S without any human intervention, but that's not the end all be all goal. Being able to reliably operate a fleet of autonomous vehicles in a traffic dense metropolis is a fantastic goal, one very close to realization.
Waymo can now operate totally driverless cars in some areas of California:
> Sacramento – Pursuant to state law and regulation, the Department of Motor Vehicles today issued a permit to Waymo authorizing the company to test driverless vehicles on public roads, including freeways, highways and streets within the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and Sunnyvale, in Santa Clara County. While Waymo has held a permit to test autonomous vehicles with a driver since 2014, the new permit allows the company to test a fleet of about three dozen test vehicles without drivers behind the wheel.
What do you know?
What an argument.
The rest of the industry at least had the compunction not to sell the product before it was finished.
Can't argue there. Their marketing was definitely ahead their developmemt.
He doesn't mean sell as in sales pitch, they are actually taking money for vapor.
Solar roofs in Johannesburg, South Africa would be huge.
Power supply is a big problem as the state owned utility Eskom is very unreliable. We have "load shedding" at least every week at the moment.
Yesterday the power was down from about 08h00 to 12h30.
Solar panels already exist and have existed for a long time.
I am not saying Tesla is the company that should provide this, but at least Tesla generates headlines. We would need a modular approach, whether on a household level or on a regional level. The utility is not going to provide it and existing companies in SA don't offer household kits that includes a battery system like the powerwall.
Solar Roof is form over function. It doesn't seem to deliver as much electricity as a regular solar panel, it costs tens of thousands of dollars more, and generates less electricity.
IMO, Tesla should just quit the Solar Roof project. Just keep it to regular solar panels.
It could be form over function. But my issue is that we have terrible power supply and no-one can fix the problem for themselves using solar. People here just get noisy generators that only provide partial power anyway.
A solar roof would also positively impact the sale price of your house. I don't have the answers here and maybe solar won't solve my country's issues. I am just throwing a rock into the bush.
Wouldn't you say that the original iPhone was also form over function? Blackberries had e-mail, a browser and a built in camera, didn't they? People do care about looks, and personally, if people buy a solar roof because they think it looks cool, I'm glad to see more people buying solar. The fact that Tesla can also sell them battery technology is great as well. I don't think that all solar vendors can sell you a compelling energy storage solution.
iPhone didn't go from 30%+ US American solar panel marketshare (SolarCity circa 2015) to 9% marketshare. Tesla is being a very, very poor steward of SolarCity's business.
Sunrun is now the #1 solar company in America, because its offering better tech these days. Also, SolarCity lost its deal with HomeDepot, and the Gigafactory2 (Solar Panel Gigafactory) is idling / wasting money.
All in all, Tesla is running SolarCity very poorly, by any measurement. You can only buy SolarCity products from Tesla stores, and those few Tesla stores are closing down (or maybe not, depending on the mood of the company...)
> People do care about looks, and personally, if people buy a solar roof because they think it looks cool, I'm glad to see more people buying solar.
Virtually no one is buying Solar Roof. Last time I checked, the number of installations was under 1000, maybe under 100. There's no market for $100,000+ Solar Panels that fail to generate electricity.
EDIT: Looking into it more: the Solar Roof does generate electricity decently. But to make it fit and look more like a normal roof, almost 60% of the tiles do NOT generate electricity. Any tile that needs to be cut to size is a pure-glass tile without any solar panels inside of them. This means that you get far less solar at far higher costs than a typical installation.
10s of 10s of thousands... I just got a solar roof vs regular Tesla panels for our house quoted and it was $140K vs $40K!
>Power supply is a big problem as the state owned utility Eskom is very unreliable.
So a country too poor to have a reliable electrical grid is going to be a huge consumer of premium-priced solar panels? That's a stretch.
“Full self-driving capabilities”
One of the items listed is your car finding you in a parking lot. I gotta day... I really don’t want to get hit by a self-driving Tesla in a parking lot.
Having experienced some of the auto-pilot issues first hand... I have serious doubts about this one.
"pending regulatory approval"
They won't get that for a long time. Autopilot is a driver assist feature. The step to "the driver doesn't have to pay attention/be present" is gigantic, and I'm not holding my breath until Tesla will get that right.
Aren't many parking lots private land and therefore not regulated?
That's a good point, and I guess highly dependent on location. I honestly don't know how this works in the US, though in Germany pretty much every private parking lot has signs that the road traffic regulations apply, which would then result in the same limitations as on the road. I think (read: hope) that there is some regulation for traffic on privately owned parking lots in the US, and at least a superficial skim of what information the internet has to offer, there are some rules of the road that may also apply to private property (e.g. reckless driving, impaired driving, vehicular homicide, ...). This might limit what Tesla can (or is willing to) do even on privately owned parking lots.
But I'm not a lawyer (obviously), so this is just an idiots' take. I guess this question goes on the list of "problems modern technology presents that regulations need to prepare for".
You can't just run someone over b/c private. The company or driver could be held liable.
It's not like humans are perfect in parkings lots though.
Humans aren't perfect but the rate of incident for human drivers is surprisingly low, it is well below 1% of all miles driven. Tesla wouldn't even remotely come close to achieving human level safety.
I bet parking lot incidents are underreported. A minor bump of someone else's car is far less likely to get reported if they aren't around to see who did it.
>For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident or crash-like event for every 1.92 million miles driven. By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) most recent data shows that in the United States, there is an automobile crash every 492,000 miles.
Read this carefully: http://www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=983
Any naive statistical argument comparing human performance to autonomous cars will fall flat on its face due to the small sample size of autonomous driven miles in relation to human driven miles.
Hopefully far, far below 1%. If I was hitting someone once every hundred miles, the front of my car would be pretty messed up.
What do you base that on?
How in the world does that article say this:
Tesla wouldn't even remotely come close to achieving human level safety
A million Teslas on the road generate 10 billion miles a year.
Did you even bother reading the article? Because the point is, as of right now, the number of human driven miles completely and utterly dwarfs the number of autonomous miles. That's why in order to compare the relative safeties, you'd need several orders of magnitudes of more sample data from the autonomous driving side.
Please try to understand the underlying statistics, it's really not hard.
That isn’t what the article says. It concludes with this:
> In summary, this article shows that the idea that self-driving cars need to drive hundreds of millions of miles before we can be convinced that they are safe is full of flaws. It is misleading to just focus on fatality rates where many other correlated measures for reliability are available that are easier to measure. It is wrong to focus primarily on accidents; the focus should rather be placed on the avoidance of safety-critical situations.
Read the first half of the page, it is what it says. It is countering claims like this one:
> For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident or crash-like event for every 1.92 million miles driven. By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) most recent data shows that in the United States, there is an automobile crash every 492,000 miles.
I posted the article to show how Tesla's way of measuring safety/accuracy is flawed. The article does a very good job demonstrating that. I agree with the article that we should come up with a procedure/policy driven approach to validating the safety of autonomous vehicles, because there would be no easy way to validate the safety of autonomous vehicles given the volume of human miles driven.
MobilEye's RSS is aiming to do that.
Is it just me or does that thing not really look like an SUV? Looks a little small, when I heard it was being called an SUV I was a little surprised.
It's usually been called a CUV though
BEVs have more interior space compared to exterior size. The Model 3 is already comparable to ICE CUVs in cargo volume (not shape of the volume of course)
I was thinking the same thing. Unless the angle is off in all the videos, it's not much taller than some sedans/hatchbacks like the Avalon and most Subarus.
Even calling it a crossover seems like a stretch, since it appears to have a foot less headspace (or more!) than crossovers like the RAV4 or CRV.
Panoramic roof probably mitigates the headspace issue. May not feel so cramped.
For the driver and driver-side passenger, sure.
But the slope looks horrible for people in the middle row, and there's a reason the 2 people in the back row during the demo were extremely short Asian women...it doesn't look like there's any headspace there at all.
Have you been in a Tesla before? They are surprisingly roomy on the inside. If you've been in ICE cars with much less efficient use of volume, you will be impressed when you spend time in an EV without all the huge engine, transmission, and various extra parts that aren't a flat battery and watermelon-sized electric motor.
Well it's not that weird. Kia calls my car, the Soul a "compact SUV" in their latest commercials which I find hilarious. It's a tiny, tiny car.
Yes, it looks much more like an MPV/minivan to me, crossed with one of those SUV Coupes (think BMW X4).
The specs say it seats seven adults, so even if that's a good squeeze, it must be larger than it looks.
I also wonder how you would fit a roof box on that thing, sort of a requirement for calling a car a SUV IMO
It's probably the same size as a Nissan Qashqai, maybe Skoda Karoq since it can seat 7.
Closer in size to the Rogue/X-Trail, I think, and probably a little larger.
I can't find dimensions for the Model Y, but it's based on the Model 3 which has 113.2" wheelbase and 184.8" length. The Qashqai has 104.2" wheelbase and 172" length, while the X-Trail has 106.5" wheelbase and 182.7" length, much closer to the Tesla.
Probably a better comparison would be to another premium SUV coupe: the BMW X4, which has 112.8" wheelbase and 185.4" length.
Karoq is 5 seats I think, Kodiaq is the 7-seater.
Excited, a Tesla Model 3-like SUV at a 10% premium sounds like my perfect car. As nice as the Model X is, it's prohibitively expensive and I'm not a fan of the falcon wing doors so I'm hoping the Model Y hits all the sweet spots.
The website is up: https://www.tesla.com/modely
300 mile range, seats 7, looks a lot like a model 3 (so I guess kind of like a Mercedes GLC?)
$51,000 for the all-wheel-drive version, although Tesla is notorious for playing games with their pricing...
That third row looks like it will have 0 headroom
Third row in any vehicle not a giant SUV is a nightmare for any average sized adult.
And from the image in the video, it looks like the back row seats didn't even have headrests.
If it fits 4ft humans that would be plenty so long as there is somewhere else to fit a 6ft human
'This is an announcement from Genetic Control: "It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height."'
(not arguing, just reminded ...)
It has no headrests. Is that even legal?
I had to do - 'Empty cache and hard reload' to get the updated page.
Model Y looks like a child of Model 3 and Model X.
I too had to nuke both tesla.com cookies and also "force.com" ones (a CRM by salesforce). Seems like it has aggressive caching. Incognito also resolves it.
Off topic: I wish pages would stop hijacking my scroll. It makes for a jerky/buggy experience that I hate.
or just add some gubbins onto the url https://www.tesla.com/modely?a=1 works
Is that mcguffins? Like in the Pulp Fiction briefcase? :)
Snow-land wants to know: Front-wheel drive, ever?
I'm not driving rear-only, ever. Did that once, not again.
I'm not paying another $11,000 to get the dual-motor version when all I care about is the front. That's a whole 'nother car worth of money.
Keep on building California cars, Elon. I'll buy one as soon as it fits both my budget and my climate. Some models fit one or the other, but nothing does both.
FWD has a reputation for being good in the snow, I grew up with a FWD Saab that was pretty awesome in the snow. Mostly because it had tall narrow tires, FWD, and well over 60% of the car's weight over the front wheels.
However RWD is actually better... assuming the car has a good front/rear balance near 50%... like the Telsa. Any FWD gets LESS traction when climbing than driving on the flats. A RWD gets MORE traction when climbing than driving on the flats. Of course when driving down hills you can always throttle off and just use the brakes.
Additionally your limited traction budget in a RWD allows the front wheels to be dedicated to steering only. On a FWD you have to spend part of your traction budget on acceleration.
So get the RWD, it's cheaper than AWD, and better in the snow than FWD.
The problem is the tendency to fishtail on long, light corners, nothing to do with going up or downhill.
Oversteer (RWD without enough traction) and understeer (FWD without enough traction) are two sides of the same coin.
Personally I'd rather have oversteer, which is easily compensated for (a bit of steering and let off the throttle), but doesn't impact your path around the corner. It's also quite fun.
Understeer on the other hand does impact your path around the corner, the car plows straight ahead as you ask too much of it. Additionally the threshold for understeer is lower since it's the front tires trying to handle acceleration and steering. So a RWD has more traction at a given speed than FWD.
Keep in mind that the that RWD in terrible in the snow comes from things like empty pick up trucks (no weight on the rear wheels) or old American sedans and sports cars that had large engines in the front and not much weight out back. Generally even with a perfect 50/50 weight distribution that the RWD is going to have the advantage.
I've always seen it as a thing of habit.
If you're used to understeer (FWD loss of traction), then for safety reasons, you should stick to understeer. If you're used to oversteer, then stick with oversteer.
Its not like it snows every day. Your opportunities to practice loss of traction are few and far in between.
Dunno, it's not rocket science. Sure if it snows a few times a year, ignore it.
But if it snows often there's a simple choice. Do you want to lose the ability to accelerate (oversteer), or do you want to lose the ability to accelerate and steer (understeer)?
Even a single hour in an abandoned parking lot should get you familiar with either, and it's quite instructive to spend significant time over the threshold of sliding to help prepare you for the occasional surprise on real roads.
>However RWD is actually better... assuming the car has a good front/rear balance near 50%... like the Telsa. Any FWD gets LESS traction when climbing than driving on the flats. A RWD gets MORE traction when climbing than driving on the flats.
You don't even need "good" weight distribution for RWD to hill climb better. I live on a hill. My RWD pickup goes up it better than the FWD wagon which has near 50-50 weight distribution.
The AWD wagon (same model and generation running the same exact tire) and the pickup in 4wd will run circles around anything with two driven wheels though. All three vehicles are old so no limited slip diffs or traction control so it's a fairly scientific comparison.
>Additionally your limited traction budget in a RWD allows the front wheels to be dedicated to steering only. On a FWD you have to spend part of your traction budget on acceleration.
Basically anything that makes a car handle well in the dry makes it handle well in the snow. Everything behaves the same but your coefficient of friction is less.
Wider tires and grippier tires both help in the dry, but are worse in snow.
Another important point to note is that with old time RWD the slipping tire got all the power while with electrics the rear tires work in a positraction mode where power is directed to the tire with traction, which is much much better in the snow.
Are the roads all completely straight where you live?
It's not about oomph going up or downhill, it's about control :)
Not an issue in this day and age, IMO. While FWD is more controllable, and safer in the snow, modern stability control systems have done a _lot_ to bridge the gap.
My 2006 era RWD car has the manufacturer's optional stability control, and I'm constantly impressed by how effectively it keeps the car in-line in snow. Even on long, sweeping turns, where it's hard to know when you're beginning to slide. This is without any kind of steering control, with only engine power limiting and individual-wheel braking.
Much more important, is to have proper tires for the season. Even if you don't experience snow, you need tires with the appropriate temperature ratings. Summer tires will turn rock-hard in freezing temperatures, and lose a lot of grip. Even on bare pavement.
Hm, on the website it says that there is an all-wheel drive version just 10-15% more expensive ($4-$5k).
I was going to correct you on what 10-15% of the sales price was, but then I noticed that yes, it is 50% more expensive here from Sweden.
The US price is not that bad!
You can just put sand bags in the trunk in winter :)
My parents used to do that so they could drive our Toyota Hiace in winter. As a bonus, there's fresh sand for the sandbox every spring!
You also use the sand when your tires are stuck in the snow.
RWD EV is probably better than FWD ICE. They'll generally have better weight distribution and the fine-grained control over the torque is better.
Anyway, if grip is important, you might as well go for AWD. The difference from RWD to FWD is tiny, if any (I also live in snowy-lands and have driven both). But going to AWD, especially with the dual motor AWD you get with EVs, is a world of difference and probably worth the upgrade.
Having driven both, fwd ice is way better in the snow.
I prefer to have an optional locking differential on the drive wheels for snow.
In my experience, the most common problem with snow is getting enough traction to move out of parking spot or up a steep incline. Like most AWD vehicles, the AWD Tesla has an open differential which does not help much in these scenarios. When traction gets dicey it behaves like a 2WD with torque spread between one front and one rear wheel.
Indeed, most cars are single wheel drive (FWD or RWD with an open differential).
Some more expensive sporty cars have limited slip differentials, mostly to avoid inside drive wheels spinning in sharp corners. It helps in the snow as well of course.
My Subaru WRX had a limited split in the center and rear, so it had three wheel drive when slippery. The higher end STI had an option for a front limited slip differential. Apparently when rallying on tight courses they would pick three wheel drive because it allows rotating around the inner front wheel for very sharp turns. It's great fun, plant a wheel (literally motionless), the car spins around it, until you let go of the wheel and the car launches in that direction. On more open courses the rally drivers would select the four wheel drive to get the most of the traction when going mostly straight.
The Tesla AWD is actually 4wd, but under software control. I wouldn't say as nice as a locking differential, but pretty close and able to get some power to all four wheels.
The Subaru differential system is really a beautiful thing all on it’s own. It’s funny, just after posting my comment I thought “should have mentioned the limited slip for the subie fans”.
And to my chagrin, I’m deep in a worm hole learning a whole lot about the Tesla AWD system tonight.
LSDs are no longer the domain of expensive sports cars though, nowadays they made it all the way to the cheaper cars, like the hyundai i30n and the mk8 fiesta st. It's pretty cool.
But those are still the "sport" versions of pedestrian cars. No one is fitting a limited slip diff to a base model of the i30 or the fiesta. The i30n will be 1% of all i30 sales if even that.
It has a diff-like behavior by actively braking the wheels from software. See Youtube video https://youtu.be/xbaNQQaFrnE
I'd like to see high speed video of this working.
Friction is non-linear so you're going to need very fast feedback loops on the brakes to simulate a locked differential. One can't just apply a fixed amount of braking to every wheel and have stuff magically work out.
Yes. On normal cars this is achieves by sensors and brakes that I believe work at 100 times a second and up. Tesla have the advantage that they have similar control over acceleration. This technology has been common for years, and early on it had lots of downsides, but it's most recent versions is quite good. It's becoming more and more popular, even on enthusiast cars.
The main issue is while limited slip differentials do work, they are expensive, add weight, and they add friction. So the software solution gets you better MPG, better HP, and more control. There's many different names for it, traction control, torque vectoring, traction assist, etc.
Even Subaru who bet the heaviest on AWD (selling only AWD until they sold the BRZ), and had one of the best respected AWD systems is moving to open differential with the brake assist, on at least some of their cars. Not sure about the STI and WRX though.
It also works just fine for Toyota's full size pickup, the Tundra. No 'real' locking differential but it can climb trhough hills/rocks just fine
Thanks! My side hobby is restoring & retrofitting 80s vehicles, so I had not considered new tech like this. I just assumed it worked like every other open diff.
That's how every other open-diff car already works. Everyone does that. EVs just have the extra advantage that they're much more precise at applying power so the traction control can be much better.
I was referring to the brake based traction control system, not the differential
That's also what I mean of course. All modern AWD systems and even just FWD/RWD cars use the ABS to do traction control with open-diffs. The base AWD system in a Subaru is three open-diffs and then ABS braking is used on any wheel that's slipping to make sure the torque still reaches the other wheels.
Right, as I mentioned, I'm an 80's VW van enthusiast. I've transplanted subaru engines into VW vans, but I always clip the unused sensors (like traction control) from the wiring harness. I haven't touched anything newer than 2005 yet.
So, despite "everyone doing it" by your words, I was just unaware of how it worked because it's not relevant to me. My VW syncro van has both forward and rear locking differentials anyway.
This is great unless you drive you car hard. Then the system overheats your brakes before you even try to slow down. No thanks.
Interesting point. This should actually be an advantage for Tesla as the engineering and manufacturing costs would be much lower to produce front, rear and all wheel drive options than a traditional ICE car. I'm guessing they're hoping people buy the dual motor option for this scenario though.
Well there's a few problems with that. First of all FWD saves money, complexity, and weight on an ICE car because you avoid a long drive shaft, and you can mount the engine transversely which is more compact. You also get more interior room in the car since there's no hump for the drive shaft.
With an electric car you don't save anything with RWD vs FWD, you end up with poorer steering, poorer acceleration, and worse hill climbing, especially if it's snowy or icy. Nor is it cheaper to produce.
As a result even electric cars intended for city use like the BMW i3 and Renault have RWD.
On the model 3 the rear motor is larger and a permanent magnet motor (which is more efficient) and the front motor is an induction motor. So a FWD would have less power than the RWD, and it would also have less range than the RWD. Not sure Tesla would want to try to sell a car slower (because FWD), slower (because of less HP), and with less range (because of efficiency) without it being cheaper to produce.... just to have a FWD.
Why would the costs be lower? Honest question.
On an ICE vehicle the only difference between rear and all wheel drive is a differential and a drive shaft. Maybe I don’t know enough about electric vehicles, but “dual motor” sounds a lot more expensive.
> On an ICE vehicle the only difference between rear and all wheel drive is a differential and a drive shaft.
You need three differentials for AWD as you first need to split the power front/back and then right/left in each axle. That's two more differentials than in just RWD or FWD. You also need to package all that together with a gearbox. That's why many manufacturers don't even offer an AWD option, and having both FWD and RWD versions of a car is very rare if it happens at all.
Meanwhile Tesla already builds all their cars to have two independent motors front/back each with their differential. They could very easily build a FWD car right now just by omitting the rear assembly. The cars are apparently even already designed to work with just the front motor for reliability so even the software update would be simple.
And building AWD cars by having two electric motors is almost surely not more expensive than the ICE way. Electric motors are much simpler than combustion ones and you eliminate all the mechanical parts needed to split the power between the axles. Control also becomes much better as the software gets to adjust power independently to both axles.
>And building AWD cars by having two electric motors is almost surely not more expensive than the ICE way.
You need a differential for each driven axle. The expense of the extra motor and motor controller vs the expense of the transfer case (or FWD based equivalent), and drive shaft (not really all that expensive) is probably close to a wash or slightly in favor of the ICE vehicle. I don't think you understand how cheap and commoditized drive-train parts are. Like really, these assemblies are cheap and almost go together like legos (from an OEM perspective). It's not like you burn tons of engineering hours making a FWD or RWD vehicle into AWD so long as whatever floor pan you're working with was designed to be AWD compatible.
Thinking about it some more, maybe in a mass produced ICE AWD can indeed be a cheaper add-on. Something like a Subaru that does AWD for all cars. I was thinking more of the direct Tesla competitors that tend to charge quite a bit for AWD as an extra. But it's hard to compare from the outside as adding AWD to a car is often associated with different trim levels too.
Someone like Sandy Munro that does detailed costing would be able to answer this definitively for a few models. But it will most likely depend on the actual implementation to see what ends up cheaper. According to Munro Tesla has a big advantage in the cost, weight and performance of the motors right now compared to other EVs so that might be enough to tip the scale. I'd love actual data though.
Big electric motors are actually pretty cheap. They've existed in industry for over a century, and their manufacture is entirely automated. The raw materials cost of two motors each with half the power matches that of one motor.
The motor controllers are probably the more expensive part, although most of the cost there is engineering design cost (much of industry doesn't use fancy motor controllers needed for a car, and cars use high power MOSFETs which are rapidly evolving tech). Tesla designing them in house will eliminate much of the cost over enough volume.
Silicon Valley transport tech needs to visit the north some time. There is going to be a very rude awakening when everyone realizes their machine learning models only handle light rain in the southwest.
Literally every time self driving cars are brought snow and rain are mentioned as a necessary step for wide deployment.
They were aware of this problem even in the 1990s.
software engineers are aware of <DST, weird person names, malicious users, 4-byte UTF characters etc> yet they still write software that doesn't handle them well.
The fact that people abstractly know a situation exists does not mean they will handle it correctly.
Also, remember the issues with "racist" face recognition systems that were trained on non-diverse data sets?
It's not like google engineers forgot black people exist, but I think it's not trivial to pay the proper attention to some problems if they are outside of your daily experience.
Don't they sell a ton of Teslas in Norway?
they do, due to subsidies and high income.
I bet RWD drive cars have fewer fatalities in the snow than AWD drive cars do.
While their ability to go forward is much better, their ability to stop is very similar.
I see lots of SUVs driving stupid fast on snow.
I'm from and in Florida and have never driven in ice or snow. Why not just call an uber on snow days? :)
You realize the Tesla does not have a heavy engine in the front? The term FWD is meaningless here.
It means the power is applied to the front wheels, not the back. Youre thinking of front/mid/rear engine.
EV's are also significantly much better at traction control because they can make corrections by the millisecond compared to the lag of a traditional ice car. That is a very important distinction.
> they can make corrections by the millisecond compared to the lag of a traditional ice car
Do you have a source on this? I'm curious to read more as I thought modern AWD systems were pretty advanced.
I mean... Traditional cars have to burn the gas and convert it to kinetic energy before it even get to the wheels.
The electric motor just takes the electrons to power without the need for a transmission. In addition, the speed can also be controlled instantly by varying the frequency of the AC power.
But since you asked for a source:
"advantages of powertrain solutions with electric motors are faster response time (order of milliseconds) and possibility of dual direct control either by speed or torque, increasing the flexibility of the control of pitch-plane vehicle dynamics ."
You must be a drunk engineer.
It's about pulling or pushing the car.
When it snows all BMWs get stuck here.
The difference is that a traditional RWD car has a heavy engine in the front, but is being pushed from the back where none of the weight is. So lack of traction and fish tailing is the obvious result.
However, I think a RWD electric car would have less problems with traction (and thus, fish tailing), since the weight is distributed over the length of the car more evenly.
I think push vs pull is legit, but I don't think it would be as much of a problem when all the weight isn't in the front. I'd be interested to hear from some Tesla owners who drive RWD in the snow.
Not really...check weight distributions for any modern vehicle, you will find the majority of the competent manufacturers get it right around 50/50 front/back. Meaning your FWD Honda has no advantage over a RWD BMW except for the tendency for the Honda to understeer and the BMW to oversteer. This is the main problem in less than ideal traction conditions...
Define "competent manufacturer".
I'd be willing to wager that most front wheel drive sedans sold in the US are closer to 60/40, not 50/50. Pickup trucks (very popular in the US) also have a weight distribution much more skewed to the front.
50/50 distribution is more common for sports cars sure but that is not the majority of cars sold.
This is true, at least for premium cars. However even if the FWD honda and RWD BMW are similar in the flats. The hardest thing to deal with when it's slippery is the climbs, and then the RWD has the advantage.
Even on the flats, when cornering the FWD has the front wheels steering and accelerating, while the RWD uses different wheels for that. Granted not a big difference, especially since when it's slippery you aren't using many HP.
When the force vector is coming from the back it has the tendency to go into any direction. When there is enough grip in the front you can steer. A heavy engine in the front means even more grip.
But that's all useless on ice. Even if the car was 100% balanced.
FWIW, a traditional RWD car is usually pretty close to 50/50 weight distribution, while a FWD car is usually closer to 70/30.
However a RWD racing car is typically also biased with more weight on the driven axle, e.g. the Porsche 911 is around 40/60. So it's pretty pretty clear that more weight on driven axel == good. It's just not possible to get 40/60 in a BMW 5-series type car while keeping the practicality.
Anecdote: growing up in the UK in the 70s / 80s, snow was rare and most drivers didn't know how to cope. RWD was common in Cortinas, Sierras etc but it was the little rear-engined, RWD Skoda Estelle that I remember doing the best in the snow. I particularly remember an orange one weaving past abandoned cars.
With "normal" cars, there are two differences between front and rear wheel drive: one is the tendency to under vs oversteer, which does not affect your ability to get going. The other is the fact that front-wheel drive cars have the weight of that heavy IC engine over the driven wheels, giving more traction. Grandparent was pointing out that's not the case with a Tesla.
When I grew up in Sweden everyone had RWD cars and got around fine. But it was common to put some sand bags or lead shot in the trunk to get more weight on the rear wheels. The other thing you need are real snow tires.
In my country where there is usually snow on the roads, or at least ice, for most of winter, BMW saloons (RWD) are pretty common here too. I think people buy them on purpose so they can slide around tight corners.
RWD is no issue in the snow, if there is enough weight on the rear wheels, as in cars like the 911 and the VW beetle. RWD is only an issue, if the engine is in the front of the car. Most electric cars have the battery in the middle of the car, putting enough weight on the rear wheels. Additionally, traction of electric cars can be controlled much better than with combustion engines.
In the hope to get standard unit, I pretended to be german. https://www.tesla.com/de_DE/modely?redirect=no
Tells me 65 cuft cargo, 540 km range.
I asked wolfram alpha what 65 cuft meant. I now know that it is 1/10 the volume of a gray whale. Or 1841 L.
Compared to the american version (66cuft, 300mi), the german has a marginally smaller cargo volume but a far greater range (480 km vs 540 km)
The EPA testing is well known to return lower numbers than the EU version. Generally it seems like the EPA numbers are pretty good for electric cars. Without trying, consumers are pretty close. If you are careful you can beat them. The EU numbers on the other hand tend to be overly optimistic.
>(480 km vs 540 km)
Probably because of different standards for calculating range in USA and Europe (EPA vs NEDC)
And the cargo difference would be something like mandatory warning triangle.
Why can't the specs be in the metric system? It's only one large country left on the planet that still hasn't adpoted it.
Because that one large country happens to be where the company is located? It is normal for US-based companies to use the measurement system the US uses. I don't know what you were expecting.
While I think it's fair to present the data in the US units on the US page, I was a little surprised to see English descriptions & "cu ft" as a unit of cargo space on the german version (https://www.tesla.com/de_DE/modely). Note: All other models are well translated, including these stats:
Y: "540 km range"
3: "530 km Reichweite"
Note how the links are arranged on the website:
He's been waiting 10 years to make the joke about his s3xy lineup of cars.
I prefered the BFR working name (with a nod to Doom).
It would have been "sexy" but there was legal issues with Model E (Ford owned it).
Sounded a bit like a spoiler given how many times they failed to use it and the trademark lapsed.
Tesla might still have had a problem of it being too close to the E-Type (Jaguar) if Ford hadn't challenged them.
It was a moderately funny lame joke 8 years ago. Today it might be the most drawn-out lame joke in corporate history.
But he actually went through with it, which is unique.
It's great he made it happen, but he doesn't have to pretend like it's still funny.
I find it to still be funny...
Doesn’t have to pretend when it’s actually hilarious :D
I think somebody to commits to a bad joke is pretty funny
I still think it’s funny
It's drawn out because he had to literally build a car company from scratch and launch 4 successful models to finish it. I'd say he is excused.
Fun fact: it really was meant to be Model E, so as to spell out S E X Y properly but Ford, the trademark owner, was having none of it.
elon also tweeted that meme yesterday
I guess I'm not much a car person but I can't see much difference between all the model.
They certainly have a common theme but they are fairly easy to distinguish in person. The 3 and S are really close until you compare their size or interior.
Yea I can distinguished them but as a non car enthusiast I would consider the S3X model as one category.
Without being a car enthusiast these are clearly not in the same category to me. I have hard time believing anyone being close to an X would not feel it: it is much higher. You feel much higher on the road seating in it.
It is less clear cut between S and 3, but driving them is making you feel how much larger/bulky the S is (having to fit luggages in the 3 is also making you realize how smaller it is). And S wouldn't fit in my garage while my 3 is fitting just fine :)
I mean unless you're not a car person to the point of "it has four wheels, it is a car"...
I usually check the door handles, but now the model Y door handles look like the model 3.
It probably won't at launch
I think the exteriors are driven by aerodynamic requirements to maximize their range. So they all basically take the most aerodynamic shape possible which makes them look the same.
This is the electric car I’ve been waiting for. We’re a family of 6 and for the longest time the Model X or some huge hybrids were our only options. This is half the price of an X. I can afford it. Bring on the 7 seat version... in Europe... (starts waiting).
I'm also looking for a 7 seat model. But does it look like the 3rd row has a lot of space?
A quick search didn't show me any details on this. Not even a single picture of the rear part inside.
Not much information available yet. I found one photo showing the rear seats don’t have headrests, but we’ll see. I think it still ticks all the boxes for me. Seriously considering putting a deposit down.
I'm in the same situation as you. This is perfect. 2021 feels so far away though!
How can you actually call that an SUV? (I guess they got away with it for the X)
They say it has 66 ft³ of cargo space. An Audi Q5 has 53 ft³ of cargo space and Q7 has 69.6 ft³ (with seats folded), so...
If it comfortably seats 7 adults and can actually haul that much cargo, without being a lumbering hulk of an actual vehicle, I'd say that's a feature.
Admittedly some people want to drive a lumbering hulk of a vehicle down to their local elementary school or shopping mall, but perhaps they have to stick with ICE for now.
It's obvious that the large cargo space in the standard version and the optional 7 seats are mutually exclusive.
At least with the X, they fold down.
But they still take up volume in the back
The Model S has 60 cubic feet of cargo space. Is it an SUV?
I'm reminded of Meet the Parents ("I have nipples Greg. Can you milk me?")
I'm sure my parents' Caprice station wagon had more volume. That's also not an SUV.
But car categories are definitely blurring these days. A lot of so-called SUVs just look like cars with the roof bulged up a few inches and a juice to the ride height. It's weird. The BMW X6 is an ugly abomination in my book ("let's take a car, and just... inflate it a bit, yeah?")
I think all of SUV "coupes" are horrible. Each one is uglier than the next. They scream "I have inferiority complex and fantasize a coupe but milady wants a truck". A incredible display of vulgarity.
they cleverly don't mention that there's cargo space in the front, where the engine is on normal SUVs :)
the back may not be as spacious in as one would expect.
It's not that big. Sure most groups of 7 adults if you short by size the 2 smallest might fit in the rear. But looking at it, seems like the 3rd row is only going to be practical for kids.
Is it supposed to be? It looks a whole lot like the Model 3. Maybe a hatchback version of that. It looks like most places are calling it a "small crossover", which is basically just a sedan with a couple of inches of extra space in the back.
A lot of sedans are actually longer than SUVs (when I was looking to buy a car I had a spreadsheet with all the dimensions). Eliminating the trunk and lifting it a few inches seems sufficient to call it a crossover or SUV.
Elon himself on stage called it a "midsize SUV".
It apparently seats 7 people. I don’t know any sedans that can do that.
The Toyota Prius can seat 7. This looks a lot more like that than any sort of SUV.
That's the kind of overlay I would want to see.
At the risk of being that person, the Tesla Model S can.
I dunno how many crossover/midsize SUVs you've sat in, but few of them have third row seats and the ones which do are rarely suitable for adults.
Do the rear facing child seats count? Also you can’t install those after market.
Who said you could install them after market? Are there any cars on the road that let you install additional seats after market?
Crossovers are — and I intentionally oversimplify — half way between a station wagon/minibus and SUV (4x4 wagon). The main features are higher ride, more head space (the roof of the Y is significantly higher than in the 3), more seats, hatchback instead of a trunk, and flexible seating.
The X and Y are well into crossover territory, they aren’t minibuses or SUVs.
He said the X stands for "Crossover SUV".
Take a look at the Jaguar I-Pace. I think it is a particularly odd classification of SUV.
Yeah I was expecting an SUV and thought I got my wires crossed, it just looks like a car.
Isn't the whole "a truck isn't a car so an SUV must not be a car" is an americanism based on some weird US regulation history? Outside the US SUVs are cars. And the largest SUVs such as the X5/Q7/XC90 are built on the same platforms as their non-suv siblings. The truck-based-original-SUV isn't a thing except in the US I believe.
Looks pretty similar to a Subaru Crosstrek in terms of size and shape, which is generally called an SUV or SUV Crossover
Indeed. I have an love my 2004 Forester XT. The new forester is MUCH larger and drives like a boat, no Turbo, and they added a CVT. The new crosstrek is near identical in size to my forester XT, but is MUCH slower.
So I put off buying another Subaru and am looking closely at the model Y.
Overlay of the Model 3 vs Model Y:
aka Tesla short seller posts a tweet that makes the 3 and Y and look the same size, that is now being retweeted by tons of people spreading misinformation.
You are the one spreading misinformation. You can superimpose the images yourself if you don't trust the "short seller".
He just announced the prices (took a screengrab)
Standard Range (230miles) -> $39K (Spring 2021)
Long Range (300miles) -> $47K (Fall 2020)
Dual ($51k) Performance ($60k) (Fall 2020)
The first question in my mind is "are these retail prices, or are they gas-savings-spitball prices?"
They are retail prices. https://www.tesla.com/modely
Every price listed on that site has an asterisk pointing to "Prices include gas savings." So no, these are the gas spitball prices GP was asking about.
No, they are the actual price. The price with incentive plus "gas savings" is about 5k cheaper. As for the website, look down and to the left for the full retail.
They are retail prices. It's been known for a few weeks now that it would be ~10% more expensive than the model 3, where the standard range model is $35k pre-"savings"
no, the comment above was correct.
Configuring a model y with no/all options I see:
lowest: $42,700 After savings $47,000 Before savings
highest: $70,200 After savings $74,500 Before savings
Touch screens should be banned on security [edit: safety] grounds. You need to take your eyes off the road to perform simple operations such as adjusting heating. Relying on muscle memory with physical knobs is much safer. And it's not just Tesla, it's a worrying trend for many car manufacturers.
I've got a Model X, and the touchscreen is only dangerous when using the on-screen keyboard. If I need to type something whilst driving, I engage Autopilot. There is voice recognition for the phone connectivity and Spotify, but I rarely use it.
Turning on windscreen heater, heating, and all that stuff is pretty straightforward, the on-screen buttons are always in the same place and are next to the bezel so you can anchor your hand. Plus cabin heating can be controlled via clickwheels on the steering wheel.
I think maybe the seat heaters are a little distracting. You can only tell their state by looking at the screen, and they cycle through settings. That's something I'd like a button for, or at least to be able to control via the clickwheels.
Studied HCI and Usability Engineering at university, did my dissertation in usability of web systems, and generally share your concerns. Not aiming to dismiss them, more say that in my experience it's not as bad as one might expect.
Huh, that's cool. I'd actually like a car where the controls are all big old levers. And yes, I prefer driving cars with manual transmissions.
This is probably because you learned this way. Old habits die hard.
I thought when autopilot drives people into walls, we are told drivers should be giving the road full attention?
It's definitely a distraction from the road, but you can see the road whilst typing away with one hand.
Please stop endangering others.
It's no more a distraction than opening a drink, taking a swig of said drink, or having to look around to see why the kids are crying in the back of the car.
Let's not suggest that Autopilot is safe completely unsupervised, and let's also not suggest that all drivers always look at the road 100% of every drive they take. There is a realistic middle ground, and I'm very grateful to have Autopilot to be an extra set of eyes.
Fully agree with this statement. As a person who study UX for living a lot of people actually doesn't understand for what User Experience stands for. It is not just nice interface and simple clear minimalistic design although those are also important factors.
When you put a large touchscreen on the right side of the driver seat the moment you need to get feedback from the vehicle or do something you are distracted and your eyes are not on the road.
Now before all Tesla owners say, yea but my autopilot is on, and yea it is not as bad as I though it will be, you are still distracted and the primary task that you have in the vehicle (driving) is now with not optimal user experience which might lead to the worse case scenarios.
The physical knobs are far better way to perform tasks in your vehicle while driving, mainly because of the muscle memory your body and brain will generate, you will not only perform the task faster but you will not put constrain on your brain to read, watch or whatever you need to do to perform a task.
You also forget that you are not alone in your Tesla at the road. You have thousands of other drivers who might be as equality distracted or even worse. So imagine what happens when you play with your screen on autopilot and you are not watching your back mirror, while maybe a drunk driver is approaching very fast.
Now I am not against Tesla or autonomous driving, quite the opposite I can't wait the day the autonomous driving will be so advanced that people won't need to drive, mainly because majority of the people don't take driving seriously and the end results is the worst one possible, people loosing their life over car accidents.
There were statistics in my country alone that more people die every year from car accidents than people in active war times.
I believe that Tesla can do a much better job to build futuristic vehicles rather than just placing a tablet in the middle of the car.
>rather than just placing a tablet in the middle of the car.
They didn’t “just” place a tablet. They did a lot more than that. More than I could ever mention in one comment.
But to take just one thing, just because there is a tablet, that does not mean there are no buttons and other physical hardware controls. There are plenty of those. So I really don’t understand the motivation of your rant.
Well let me explain it to you then. The motivation of my rant is safety.
When you put a x amount of inches screen in the front of the vehicle right next to the driver, and making that screen to take input from the driver and display output for the driver, you are distracting him. When you are distracting a driver of a vehicle that leads to car accidents, car accidents kill other people and ruin lives.
If you are on a hype train and you don't take driving seriously if you want put in your car a 4k 65 inch Samsung TV to watch your favorite show, but I don't see a reason then why you should be on the road endangering other people lives.
I like Tesla as a company and I like Elon Musk I would love to have an electric vehicle one day, but that doesn't mean I should I agree with some engineer design decision to place a tablet in the middle of the car.
I don't believe that either the software nor the hardware is so advanced today that car manufactures can safely build big screens without distracting the driver attention, which should be on the road.
I also think that Tesla is leading that game for now which means that other car manufactures will follow...
The last thing we need is 20+ inches screens in vehicles while people are successfully being involved in car accident with their phones...
Nobody is taking away the accomplishments of Tesla, but then again I don't see why we shouldn't comment or criticize something when it is not right or could be better, simply because I want to see that future with amazing electric vehicles and I am just hoping for Tesla to consider other design options because they can solve the driving problem, rather that you ranting of my motivation to comment.
Everyone wants safety. I’d urge you to drive a Tesla for a while and understand it before making erroneous assumptions about any problems you might imagine the screen might have. I suspect that small screens are a much bigger problem than well designed larger lagom-sized (just-right sized) screens.
>a lot of people actually doesn't understand for what User Experience stands for.
Have you ever driven a Tesla for some time? Studying is great, but it is no substitute for actual experience.
> As a person who study UX for living
So a student?
Anecdotally I have a "normal" car with hardware buttons and still look down to adjust the AC/heat etc. because there are many, many controls. My car also has a touch screen that controls the stereo and navigation - many other cars have this same setup. I don't see this as an issue worthy of concern, over say cell phone use while driving.
Dumb question maybe (excuse me for not searching this out) but does Tesla have voice control? Seems like an obvious way to tackle this problem.
"Tesla turn my heat up"
"Tesla tune to SiriusXM channel 100"
Hah, Kickstarter idea: a control panel with knobs and buttons that interfaces with the on-board computer, so you have shortcut physical buttons for those controls...
It's the future, see!
See this 2014 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbuk3jizGM & associated website: http://matthaeuskrenn.com/new-car-ui/
Kickstarter idea: reins and a buggywhip for retrofitting onto an electric car. So much more viscerally satisfying than a steering wheel and pedals.
Har har, but the car does have plenty of knobs and buttons. Just not needless ones.
Whilst I agree with you and I honestly don’t know whether I would ever buy a car that was basically touch-screen only (although there are controls on the wheel), Telsas have a bunch of features that allow them to safely self-pilot, at least for the small amounts of time that you would take your eyes off the road to make adjustments like this.
I’ve only driven cars with radar cruise control (with always-on auto-breaking) and lane & blind-spot detection and I now find these features invaluable to feeling safe whilst driving and avoiding the pitfalls distractions can cause.
This is such a red herring. The critical factor isn’t whether an operation is simple (adjusting heating) but rather whether it is time sensitive (force a wiper swipe, hit the brakes, etc.) and the also how frequent the operation is. With something like heating, there is much more leeway for giving attention to the road as needed, because it’s not as time sensitive. Nor is it a very frequent operation especially if the car has excellent climate control which makes the example verge on moot.
If people are going to adjust the volume more often than adjusting the heat, then you get a hardware button in the Model 3 for example, but not for heat adjustment.
There’s a lot of misinformation out there. I’ve seen HN posters flat out state (wrongly) that you have to use the screen for things where you don’t have to. Examples: volume control, pause/play, wipers, windshield wash. Take these skeptics with a grain of salt when they assert opinions about stuff they have no experience with.
disclaimer, own a TM3.
At first I was worried about the center console but quickly came to realize it was a non issue. Even the speed being displayed there did not matter as normal eye movement when driving would pick it up if not out of the "corner" of my eye. I was totally comfortable with it before I made it home from picking up the car. My eighty year plus old father had zero issues with it. He is of the type where you don't play with buttons/etc unless stopped. to each his own
As for buttons, many cars have automatic climate control and I rarely if ever have changed mine. If I need the front or rear defroster its merely a glance and tap; muscle memory almost as much as with a button. Heat seater, my seat is right there on the bottom of the display. temp is a simple tap left or right. all again "muscle memory" because I am used to the car. Same as if I had to drive a friends car - you learn and you learn quite quickly.
I give my friends a simple test with their cars. Put yellow dots on each you use during a drive to and from work. You can do this before or during. You would be surprised how much you don't use center console buttons. There is a reason why some controls are replicated to the steering wheel.
Plus if you want to get down to it, if I really want to change something in traffic that is involved; though honestly I don't know what that would be; I let the car drive for awhile. It can do that.
As for the presentation, I had to laugh. My TM3 is blue and for a bit when watching the TMY driving videos I was hard pressed to see the physical difference
I own a Prius. The center-mounted instruments were weird for about 5 minutes, then a total non-issue. I concur.
I've done the button dot thing. Or rather, I did it with velcro and stickyback sandpaper, because the dash lights in my old Pontiac went out and it was more fun to make it tactile than fix the lights. I realized I could quickly distinguish hook velcro, loop velcro, and 3 grits of sandpaper, so that gave me 5 "colors" to work with. I coded the HVAC controls, the radio presets, and the rear defroster controls. That's about all I used on a regular basis.
It was great. Previously I could find these controls without looking, but knowing I was on the right one meant groping to the end of the button row and counting back. My eyes never left the road, but my attention definitely faltered. Once they were tactile-coded, I had instant confirmation, and it took a lot less attention to interact.
Modern cars tend to be the complete opposite of this pure-tactile experience. The Lincoln Touch console, with its capacitive controls that activate before you even register that you've touched them, are the absolute worst. You can't grope over to a control without looking, or you'll change a dozen other things on the way. Touchscreens are only slightly better, in that they tend to have borders you can follow with your fingers, and buttons are often placed along the edges. But not always.
On the Prius touchscreen, I can get in the ballpark without looking, glance down to fine-adjust my finger placement, and get my eyes back up to the road even as my finger makes the selection. But that only works on the radio presets which are along the edge of the screen. Input source selection goes to a shit-tastic "pretty 3d" screen where the sources' display order can change, so you absolutely have to read the display to make a selection. (The steering-wheel copy of the "mode" button can also cycle between some, but not all, sources. It's worse than useless.)
I've spent some time in a Model S and I can't love the touchscreen implementation. It's not the worst I've seen (that trophy goes to Lincoln, hands-down), but it's way more distracting than it needs to be. I feel like it was designed as a showpiece first, an interaction method second, and a reliable cockpit control not at all.
Model S owner here and as many others in this thread noted - it is not any more dangerous than knobs.
I also heard opinion that UX is much worse than with physical controls. Indeed if you design the UI poorly, but this is not the Tesla's case. And I would yet have to see any physical UI that can be improved during the car's lifetime.
So you can reach out, without taking your eyes off the road, unerring find the control and adjust it? Because that is what I can do with a conventional switch or knob.
I have Carplay in my car - which I like a lot - however I'm under no illusion that using it while driving, is much much worse in terms of the amount of time it takes my attention from the road, than a similar physical control.
Lets take the temperature control for example. I am not able to adjust it with the touch controls without looking (or it is too difficult), however I am not able to adjust it with knobs as well, because sometimes the feedback is either missing or there is a bug in controller or whatever and my temperature is changed one step more than I wanted. Am I being more confident with knobs? Yes. Do I still have to check the result? Definitely. Do I spend less time checking the knob related 8-segment/LCD panel vs Tesla UI? Not sure, probably not.
Btw I have to take my eyes off the road when I check the speed and the mirrors and that is something I do quite often and considering the behavior on the roads more drivers should.
There are buttons for most common operations so yes.
There are also voice commands so yes.
In the case of climate control you can use muscle memory if you really want to, to hit a button always ready in the same place on the edge of the screen, and then use the hardware buttons from there, so yes. Personally I would glance at the bottom edge of the screen (center) while approaching the button with my finger, but you don’t have to do this, and you can easily do it with a flick of they eye while traffic is in a calm pattern, at a moment of your choosing. It’s not like your eyes need to wildly search the screen for the button... it’s right there in a known fixed place.
People have such far out misconceptions about Tesla cars. It’s bizarre.
I haven't driven a car with only touch controls, but I bet you would say the same thing about phones. And I have used phones with touchscreens, so I know they are worse than physical controls.
This is why I use a BlackBerry. So I can safely text while driving. I'm actually writing this on the freeway and
That got a good laugh out of me, your ok though ?
You mean safety?
Yes thank you :) It looks like everyone understood, though!
I was hoping the Y would add just one dial for whatever is the most popular thing the touch screen is used for. Surely one nice dial wouldn't cost much or ruin the rather spartan aesthetic.
The 3 & Y have 4 way control knobs on both sides of the steering wheel that can be user assigned to various controls.
Yes, I meant one EXTRA dial. Things like temperature, volume, radio station, wiper speed, cruise control follow distance, etc. Whichever one isn't on the two 4 way control knobs would end up on the dial.
It would also be in reach of the passenger and you'd end up with less fingerprints on the screen.
Okay now THAT's cool. I drove a Model S for a while and didn't love the touchscreen, but I'm super intrigued by this idea. I'll have to get my butt in a 3 sometime.
Is this a response to a problem or just the imagining of a problem? Regulations for the sake of regulations? It's not as though Tesla have just switched to touch screens.
How do you explain Teslas higher safety record if that was true?
Its absolutely no problem using a Touch screen, have been for 4 years and 100.000km in my Model S.
Sigh... "This car has a higher safety record, it has a touch screen, that must mean touch screens are safer!".
I think the argument they try to make is that the car is safe despite of the touchscreen.
But that could be because of all the safety features. How do you know it would not be even safer without the touchscreen?
Yes need three square feet of dizzying knob porn crawling and festooning every part of the dashboard. And a little bitty screen you have to lean and squint to read. Makes sense. /s
You have it backwards. The claim is that touch screens are less safe. The claim is being presented with evidence that contradicts the claim. That’s not the same as making a new claim that touch screens are safer.
I can guarantee you that every time I take my sight off the road, even down to speed/rev/consumption/etc screen behind the steering wheel, I can't properly register whats happening in front of me. Have enough driving experience in various cars to see this is consistent. I can clearly register car in front of me slamming the brakes or similar bright event, but for example a deer running across the road, nope. Or car changing lane, especially without any lights on during day (btw why the heck is this not mandatory everywhere, all the time? it can literally save lives every single effin' day).
Central panel is much worse in this - there can be an atomic blast on the horizon and I wouldn't notice it, its just too far on periphery of the vision. It is bad, it is lame, and what is/was perceived as 'premium' feature is actually cheaping out on customers.
I have 15-year old beamer which doesn't even support mp3, and on board computer means it shows me outside temperature and consumption. Everything is manual, with dedicated knobs of various shapes. I love it and wouldn't want anything else (which is worrying since this stupid trend took over whole car industry and eventually I will have to switch my car).
>I can guarantee you that every time I take my sight off the road, even down to speed/rev/consumption/etc screen behind the steering wheel, I can't properly register whats happening in front of me.
Maybe your controls are too dark and hard to read. I haven’t had this problem with the large Tesla screen, although I almost never have to look at it. When I do it’s very clear and the important things are in known fixed places and easy to read.
If I do need to look at the screen I can turn on auto pilot or cruise control, a subset of autopilot functionality. Cruise control can be turned on at 0 mph or higher, and it follows the speed limit, dynamically updating as it changes, with user-adjustable leeway above or below. The cruise control maintains distance to the car in front of me and slows or stops for deer running across
the road. Yes other cars have this but the point is it takes care of that point about cars stopping suddenly. So no worries while glancing at the screen. I’m not sure what it does for your hyperbolic atomic bomb scenario.
All in all, it’s not as bad as you think, although for some it does require a taste adjustment I guess.
> especially without any lights on during day (btw why the heck is this not mandatory everywhere, all the time? it can literally save lives every single effin' day).
Nope. This kills cyclists and motorbike riders. Our eyes/mind get used to headlights and don't see any speciality in them anymore which leads to overlooking those as they are just part of the normal scenery.
In former times, when only motorbikes were driving with headlights in bright daylight, you were much more aware of the fact that there was a "special vehicle" approaching you.
Higher safety record? You mean this: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-model-s-achieves-best-safet...? Isn't that just a bunch of crash tests?
No im talking about accidents pr. mile which is way lower for Teslas, than the average.
Same, irrelevant. The average includes much cheaper cars, much older cars, cars with way worse security features, etc.
How's Tesla doing compared to the upper-mid range or luxury cars?
Perhaps, so, but they're boring. I want big clicky buttons, large clacky nobs, and ostentatious levers.
So, what car do you think is best in these respects?
Huh, makes sense. I see you’re not op (that’s fine of course) but I’ll have to check out their electric models.
Bmws have a touchpad, all new Bmws have a toucscreen. The only electric Bmw, the i3 has a touchscreen..
I believe Elon is part of a tragically large group of people that continue to stubbornly define their expectations of the future based entirely on stuff they saw in Star Trek TNG. "Just because you can put a touch screen somewhere doesn't mean you should" is a thought that will never enter their minds regardless of how many people die as a result.
Going by that theory, the cars with gross knob porn all over the dashboard are the ones following Star Trek, although maybe not TNG. Probably the original series.
Is there a higher accident rate in Tesla's as a result of this?
"Production is expected to begin late next year."
I'll give long odds against.
Their new Shanghai factory (Gigafactory 3) seems to be partially built with the Model Y in mind so I wouldn't count against this actually being true.
Model Y vs Model 3 Schematics https://imgur.com/a/eVzAhEs
Really surprised me they would make a big announcement so far in advance.
Surely they'll just be canabalising sales of the Model 3 while people wait for the Y.
Making a big announcement 1 or 2 months before availability seems far more sensible.
I agree. I think they need the cash from orders now, and to show it in their q1 financials.
They've done with basically every car.
They might simply prefer to unveil the specs themselves rather than let leakers do.
Will be interested to see what the standard range pricing ends up being, they would really be on to something if they could make a version of this that is closer to Model 3 pricing. It seemed weird to me that when other car makers are abandoning the sedan style entirely that Tesla would pick it for it's stab at a more affordable model. As a city dweller that still needs to tote around kids / pets / supplies a hatchback / crossover is a great combo of utility and not being ungodly large.
I'd like to think this is going to be a smash hit for Tesla, propelling us into an electric car future.
But I really have fears it's a last-ditch effort to raise operating capital, at $2.5k a pop.
Time will tell.
I want my Tesla truck
Check out Rivian: https://products.rivian.com/
I think Scaringe is super undervalued at the moment. The company is brilliant! Scaringe seems to like rockets too so I wouldnt be surprised if he starts his own space company at some point.
Rivian is a great contemporary design truck. I can't wait to see the "futuristic" Tesla truck Elon is so excited about!
I am a fan of electric cars but why no one seems to care about SW and HW inside, especially for always-on, always-connected HW? I've heard they had to SSH into customers machines to fix something. And that one day they kept Kubernetes cluster insecure and let someone run mining on it. I won't trust the software - I need a device where I can at least set up the firewall. But an open firmware would be even better. But it won't happen because of how these industries work. That is a pity because it's up to you how you secure your home pc. But it's up to manufacturer to secure your connected devices and they are not always doing maximum. Over time, there will be many connected cars and IoT devices with outdated, broken, wrongly-configured firmware (look at routers nowadays). And don't tell me you can remotely control driving servos in such cars. Because if you can, a hacker can become a serial killer or a hitman soon...
How is that an suv?
What is an SUV?
Amazing amount of nativity of mist comments. Completely ignore environmental impact of batteries:
So they thought before being able to produce the other models in a reliable way, why not release yet another model?! Great idea publicity wise, I doubt that this can be sustainable in the long term though. Why not focusing on getting one thing right?
"Fire and motion", probably, as in https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/
'In infantry battles, he told us, there is only one strategy: Fire and Motion. You move towards the enemy while firing your weapon. The firing forces him to keep his head down so he can’t fire at you. (That’s what the soldiers mean when they shout “cover me.” It means, “fire at our enemy so he has to duck and can’t fire at me while I run across this street, here.” It works.) The motion allows you to conquer territory and get closer to your enemy, where your shots are much more likely to hit their target. If you’re not moving, the enemy gets to decide what happens, which is not a good thing. If you’re not firing, the enemy will fire at you, pinning you down.'
I don't get why Teslas have bonnets! The Y even has a flat panel where the radiator traditionally is! They are trying to look like a conventional car from the distance!
I remember when the first Renault Espaces turned up. Suddenly a car without a bonnet! (Okay, technically, perhaps it wasn't the first. But it was the first different-looking car to suddenly be everywhere that I remember!) That was revolutionary and different.
Its a pity that Tesla feel the public need them to disguise their cars. I want an electric car which can seat 6 but on a normal 4-person footprint. I want a people-carrier!
You need headlights, room for the front motor, suspension, turn signals, federally mandated bumpers, ultra sonic sensors, radar, fog lights, etc. Sure there's a small frunk storage area, and the frunk seems pretty popular among owners.
Additionally you need a crush zone to make the far safe. The model 3/y are known as a "cab forward" design that has pretty much minimizes the front area as much as possible.
Which I find more amusing is the electric cars with a large grill... despite not needing a large radiator.
> Its a pity that Tesla feel the public need them to disguise their cars.
Tesla's success is due to the fact that their vehicles look like normal cars. The products further up their roadmap are likely to challenge the status quo of vehicle design (like the "Blade-Runner" Tesla pickup truck).
The bonnet is additional storage and also the motors protrude into that area so it's not like they could eliminate that space completely for at least all wheel drive vehicles.
The mclaren f1 put the driver in the middle, forward. There's lots of innovative ways to better use the space. Putting the 'additional storage' in a low bit with nothing using the space above it is just squandering footprint.
What are you going to put in the space above it? You don't want to put the driver or passengers there, they need the protection of the crumple zone. And anything else impedes the view of the driver.
I don't get it. If Tesla announced an estate or a people-carrier everyone would go "wow!"
But Tesla announce a small coupe with big wheels and its 'wow! there must be a good reason it has a big flat bit at the front where a traditional radiator goes!' ;)
The market is full of cars that manage to not have noticeable bonnets and yet all my replies seem to suggest that cars are unsafe without the bonnet.
Aerodynamics? EVs need to be super efficient due to limited energy density of the batteries. Same reason for the continuous sloping back.
I guess what you want is a stretched VW I.D Neo. Maybe in 2022...
You’re forgetting about the need for a crumble zone in the event of an accident
first Espaces were minivans. When people sit higher wheel wells are less of a problem.
All things being equal more impact protection is always better.
Did the announcement say whether the first Y's would be built in Fremont or Nevada? In January Elon said "most likely" Nevada, did that get updated?
That Nov 2020 date is a lot firmer if Fremont than Nevada, which is the main reason I'm asking.
I would have expected the first line to be set up in Fremont -- that's where they have the experienced assemblers. And while that would slow production of the 3, it would also allow them to adjust the ASP up towards the more profitable models.
Fremont has no more room. I think it's 6 assembly lines for the S, X, and model 3 (except for batteries and motors which come from Nevada). So they are at capacity and not changing anytime soon.
The model Y will use the battery and motors from the model 3 and Tesla is building a new assembly line in Nevada based on their experience building 3 assembly lines in Fremont. Given that the y shares 75% or so of the parts of the model 3, it shouldn't be nearly as hard as the first model 3 assembly line. I don't believe the model 3 shared any parts with the S and X, and obviously are targeting a much simpler and efficient production line to hit the much lower price points.
So given they are producing 5k a week model 3s and have learned quite a bit in the process it doesn't seem nearly as risky to start a new line for the Ys in Fremont. Time will tell of course.
"Fremont has no more room"
Yes, they'd have to switch a line.
I'd love it if they did, seems like a retrofit for the 25% different parts would be MUCH faster than building a new line from scratch. I suspect the USA market no longer needs 5k m3s a week, but so far the Europe and China market demand seem to be healthy.
"Production is expected to begin early 2021". So first major deliveries in 2022, I wonder how much excitment will be left at that point.
Where does is say that?
Spec out a car. Go through the options and in the summary page it says:
"Your Model Y
Production is expected to begin late next year"
When I did it (in Sweden) it said production expected to begin early 2022, so it also depends where you are.
Just me who thinks the front is very porsche cayenne?
Is it supposed to be a midway point between Model 3 and Model X? Or is it supposed to be the cheaper version of Model X? I can't tell exactly where it fits into the lineup since "midsize SUV" can mean a lot of different things and is pretty vague (especially since the model X is considered a "compact crossover SUV" per wikipedia).
Y is to X as 3 is to S
Garth, that was a haiku.
ugh the dash. in canada we wear gloves :(
I am not a fan of Tesla nor electric cars. The future of transportation is not electric, (please get yourself out of Elon’s reality distortion field) it’s Hydrogen- one of the most abundant elements in the universe. Once the challenges are solved, we will use saltwater as a fuel. (Water aka H2O has 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule, the salt can be used as a catalyzer in hydrogen extraction.
The cheapest 5-seat Model Y is $51k, 7-seat is $54k. I bought a 2018 Acura MDX (7 seats) with 3k miles for $42.3k. At $3 per a gallon of premium gasoline and $60 for each oil change, I think I'll spend $11.7k in about 3-4 years. So, the 7-seat Model Y sounds better, doesn't it?
The base model will start at 39k, it is just not yet available.
After models X and Y, can't wait for models Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon
I am surprised that the cost is as low as it is!
I am debating whether to go the used EV route and get a 3 year old Nissan Leaf at $13,000 or a new Tesla at $30,000, but with over double the range...
Is there anyplace on the site that gives an overview of each model and how they're different? After seeing the page in the link I'm still left wondering what's new.
Awful glitchy site, hopefully not a reflection of the product.
Are there any photos of the Model Y with seven adults inside?
This reminds me of my Mazda 5, which is a "micro-van" in the US. They don't sell them in the US anymore, but a small vehicle with a 3rd row.
I have been saying I was holding out for the Model Y for years, but I just can't get past the cost of the software upgrades on these..
I’m not sure if anyone else noticed this and maybe it’s too juvenile for Hacker News, but Tesla now sells the models S, 3, X, and Y, S3XY.
Their design team is literally a one trick pony.
Possibly, but I wonder if it has more to do with prioritizing drag over everything else including unique design.
Don't all jet's pretty much have the same external design?
How many different ways can you design a car if you goal is to lessen drag as much as possible? I'm asking honestly. I have no idea.
that goal doesn't influence the shape of headlights, tail lights....
Too bad, one can't FFWD a live event...
youtube live has a back buffer so come in late
The flex circuit technology is the most interesting aspect of the Model Y, if the plans haven't changed.
because of range, design and autopilot, I can’t imagine my next car to be anything other than Tesla
Jaguar are going to be worried about their I-Pace now.
This price will also undercut Audi and Mercedes too.
Do I understand it correctly? People buying this now, hope to receive the car in 2022?
Towing capacity? Anybody know?
Probably more than you would expect. Electric motors have frankly insane torque compared to their ICE equivalents.
If I recall correctly the Model X can pull 5000 lbs. It would be nice if this Model Y can do the same.
The program is complete: S3XY
I wonder what will come after the Model Z (if they do make one.)
So far they have been S3XY. i'm pretty sure the next model has to be a space character so they can move on to the next word.
They made one of Elon's Roadsters into the space model.
If they do a light truck it could be the Tesla U (for ute), then R for the Roadster, giving RU S3XY ?
I presume the next model is the 2: 2S3XY
Well with the new Roadster coming, it'll be S3XYR
Cue right-said fred.
it better be a track-only model
Pretty neat, except it says production begins late next year.
I don't know how I feel about those random cheerings .
Is it possible to buy a version without self-driving capabilities? Personally just having a nice EV would be great, especially if that reduces the cost by 5-10k.
Autopilot USD $3k option, FSD $5K option.
Stream is down.
So I skimmed the page, am I right that TL;DR is:
1. This is to the model 3 what the x is to the model s.
2. Expect to pay around model 3 price point + 25%.
3. Range for high end models is further than high end model 3's.
Missing anything important?
I was looking at the Model Y AWD, is 5.1% more expensive than the model 3 AWD.
The Model Y range is 280 miles vs 310 for the model 3 AWD.
There's no model Y that matches or beats the model 3 LR which has 325 mile range.
but will it have a trailer hitch ?
Here is the direct, unlisted YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ydPFR6xb3I
All the Youtube links in this thread are now pointing to unavailable videos, so we switched to the tesla.com URL above.
Thank you. This should be the main link.
Is there any way to just receive the audio for these sorts of things? Live video is too hard on my bandwidth.
Not a useful answer but you could force 144p video. Youtube's audio quality associated with these ultra low quality video rates used to be abysmal but it's pretty good now.
youtube-dl --extract-audio --audio-format mp3 <video URL>
 - https://askubuntu.com/questions/178481/how-to-download-an-mp...
How is this a helpful comment on a tech forum? What speed is your internet connection that video is such a problem?
Broaden your world view. HN is a worldwide community and internet is not universally good. Some people live in rural places as well, or on sail boats, or only have satellite internet, but they all love tech just the same.
I live in a first world country (Australia) with notoriously slow internet.
Thanks. Lmao at all the fangirls in the audience who hang on every little thing Musk says.
Here's the unveil (over an hour into the video): https://youtu.be/3ydPFR6xb3I?t=4775
They're lined up by model S, 3, X, Y. Mature. Oh he says it multiple times at the end. Dork
the design of his cars has always been about sex. he's a smart guy but also vulgar and boring.
Elon Musk is many things, but a charismatic public speaker is not one of them.
Just my own opinion but that's exactly what I like. I am completely tired of and done with Silicon Valley Startup CEO types.
Idk, I appreciate a sincere, non-corporate spokesperson in our current climate.
I’m not even going to touch “sincere” given his now documented history of lying outright, but non-corporate? Huh? How many corporations do you need to run before you’re corporate?
Just like you can have a solo “entrepreneur” who doesn’t actually have any revenue but acts “corporate” in a suit talking about his synergistic strategic partnerships, you can have the opposite.
I’m just saying I appreciate the cowboy/straight forward talk at this level of market cap, vs the robotic, corporate, expected talking style.
It's more of a unorganized ADHD filled stutter delivered to Tesla fans. I am not discounting how smart he is to make the $ he made, but his skill level in public speaking is very low.
It gets the job done. Perhaps it would be nice if his delivery was as slick as Steve Jobs, but I think it's disputable whether him being a better speaker would have any practical benefit to the company. Would it have any effect on Telsa product sales?
My problem with his delivery wasn't the stuttering—I doubt most of us could speak any better than him in public—it was him interacting with randoms shouting in the crowd. It's cute once or twice but you couldn't hear what was being yelled so Elon's responses were often devoid of context.
I would imagine it matches the demographic of the people sitting on a computer avidly watching a livestream of a car still one year out.
You can be a good speaker and “non-corporate”.
He also has the humor of a 6th grader. He is able to accomplish a lot of impressive things, but his humor almost makes it painful to watch one of these presentation or follow him on Twitter.
I've always felt that Elon talks like his tongue is numb
Is he reading off an auto prompter?
He seems to be better just chatting and speaking what ever's on his mind but stumbles when he's trying to be on message.
He's also not the founder of Tesla :P
I refuse to sign up for spam just to watch their announcement.
Is he drunk? High?
He's Elon... He's always been a terrible public speaker
I hope they enjoy sending email to [email protected]
This video is unavailable.
We changed the URL from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ydPFR6xb3I, since that video seems to have been taken down.
I find him extremely annoying and flippant. And what’s up with the hooting fanboys?
Cult of Personality.
Aren't most tech announcements like this, though?
Get off your high horse.
model Y looks like a real let down.