Electric Car Holy Grail: The Facts Show No One Can Top Tesla

[gnuarm]

You're assuming that such paths are involved in the trips that I tend to take. They don't, thus I haven't had the same issues you apparently have.

There's the mistake. I'm not talking about your trips at all other than perhaps as representative as an EV driver. I'm pointing out that many car owners will be looking for something that is more like the ICE experience. Someone said I was off topic by not discussing other EVs apparently. But other EVs are not the only competition. For many car owners every ICE "Tops Tesla".

No gas vehicle I've owned has provided route planning software, so it's odd to me that you expect Tesla to offer that with the vehicle.

Really??? Why do you think they have a trip planner? Because with an EV you have so fewer places to charge you need the software to make sure you can even complete a given trip in many areas. Do you not get that? That's the whole point. In an ICE you just drive until your tank gets low and then fill up. With an EV you need to know where the chargers are and what to expect from the car in terms of range to plan a trip. There are many routes with NO superchargers at all. I gave specifics for one I was fighting until the built a new charger. This simply is not a factor when driving an ICE anywhere other than perhaps the southwest US.

Speaking for myself, I generally use evttripplanner.com for (typing time + ~2 minutes) to double-check the chargers on my route and the relative distance. It really isn't much effort or mental load these days. Especially with a vehicle with EPA range at/over 300 mi.

This is not a range or charger thread, so I'll just say the expectations of trips I can take varies a great deal from what one might expect based on the EPA range.

 

[brianman]

Sorry, I looked back and I can't tell what message you are responding to. Perhaps you can quote it?

Oh, I see it. I was talking about the insurance cost perhaps? I used to get a discount because my mileage was so low when I drove only the truck. Now I am looking at perhaps 20,000 miles a year in the EV.

Electric Car Holy Grail: The Facts Show No One Can Top Tesla
Electric Car Holy Grail: The Facts Show No One Can Top Tesla
Electric Car Holy Grail: The Facts Show No One Can Top Tesla
Electric Car Holy Grail: The Facts Show No One Can Top Tesla

 

[brianman]

There's the mistake. I'm not talking about your trips at all other than perhaps as representative as an EV driver.

I'm pointing out that you asked for EV road-trippers to give some information, and when I responded to your question with my experiences you critiqued my experiences as off the rail and imply dishonesty. Kind of a negative feedback loop for future conversations; i.e. no point in me wasting my time.

 

[gnuarm]

I'm pointing out that you asked for EV road-trippers to give some information, and when I responded to your question with my experiences you critiqued my experiences as off the rail and imply dishonesty. Kind of a negative feedback loop for future conversations; i.e. no point in me wasting my time.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. I've already explained what I meant by my comment and it was NOT about your experiences. It was about your comments like "I never used a route that avoided all the gas stations just to challenge myself."

I'm trying to discuss the cars. Perhaps we should not respond to one another.

 

[StealthP3D]

I also have a backup vehicle. Not many people are in that position or even care much about having an EV. It will take time and I don't know for sure Tesla will be around then.

Now that's funny! Both my wife and I sold our gas cars for Model 3's. We figured we have a gas sucking 2010 Ford F-150 as a "back-up". Guess what? We haven't needed it as a back-up once. Because our Long Range Model 3's do everything we used our gas cars for. And no, we are not any different from the 90% of people who have similar needs. Now I have to talk my wife into driving the truck occasionally so the gas doesn't go bad because I really hate driving it. She drives it rreluctantly at my urging but she really doesn't like to. We would sell it but we actually need a truck about 5 times a year and it only has 44,000 miles on it. The Tesla pickup truck can't come soon enough for us!

We have found EV's to be superior to gas cars in just about every way. The prime argument against EV's in the 1970s was based on them being too wimpy, not fast enough, not powerful enough. People don't want to drive "golf carts" they would say. Now that a lowly Model 3 P3D can blow the doors off just about anything except for exotic sports cars costing many times its price (while gulping gas like a drunken sailor), the same people now say power is over-rated. The anti-EV crowd is looking more comical every year.

 

[brianman]

Both my wife and I sold our gas cars for Model 3's.

Similar story here. I dumped the Equinox soon after an AWD Tesla was in my garage.

 

[mrbulk]

Tesla. Love the car but ... hate that I love the car so much the rest just fades into the background.

 

[StealthP3D]

It's nothing personal. It's simply that fossil fuels have been the foundation of our civilization and technology for some two hundred years or more, and here comes this upstart out of nowhere who all of a sudden is threatening a critical leg of that dominance responsible for roughly 30% or more of our fossil fuel consumption.

In America, that's false. Fossil fuels did not surpass wood as an energy source until after railroads became prevalent. In fact, many of the early steam engines ran only on wood.

Wood is a renewable resource and when harvested at the proper time, is carbon neutral.

 

[dfwatt]

In America, that's false. Fossil fuels did not surpass wood as an energy source until after railroads became prevalent. In fact, many of the early steam engines ran only on wood.

Wood is a renewable resource and when harvested at the proper time, is carbon neutral.

That's a big if. And we've actually never managed forests responsibly, so in practice, wood is not carbon neutral. This is a good example of a distinction between a theoretical and an operational truth. We're losing between 18 and 19 million Acres of forest every year. Now most of that is not due to cutting down trees to burn the wood but that's irrelevant. The point is that your post assumes for every tree that's cut down another one grows back to maturity or old age. I think you're smart enough to know that isn't remotely happening. Theoretically wood is carbon neutral. But that's about it in this case

 

[StealthP3D]

That's a big if. And we've actually never managed forests responsibly, so in practice, wood is not carbon neutral. This is a good example of a distinction between a theoretical and an operational truth. We're losing between 18 and 19 million Acres of forest every year. Now most of that is not due to cutting down trees to burn the wood but that's irrelevant. The point is that your post assumes for every tree that's cut down another one grows back to maturity or old age. I think you're smart enough to know that isn't remotely happening. Theoretically wood is carbon neutral. But that's about it in this case

I'm just saying, wood energy is far more carbon neutral than fossil fuels. The wood I burn is carbon neutral except for the gas in the chainsaw and the F-150 that hauls it the two miles to my cabin because it is all windfall that would otherwise rot.

I will also point out that harvesting an old growth forest is actually beneficial from a carbon balance standpoint because the faster growing trees of a younger forest absorb more CO2. Mature trees are already starting to rot inside (adding to the carbon problem) and the growth is very slow.

But saying it could be carbon neutral was a side point to the fact that fossil fuels have not been the foundation of the American economy for over 200 years. It's considerably more recent than that. And it's long past time to make the transition to greener energy.

 

[dfwatt]

I'm just saying, wood energy is far more carbon neutral than fossil fuels. The wood I burn is carbon neutral except for the gas in the chainsaw and the F-150 that hauls it the two miles to my cabin because it is all windfall that would otherwise rot. But saying it could be carbon neutral was a side point to the fact that fossil fuels have not been the foundation of the American economy for over 200 years. It's considerably more recent than that. And it's long past time to switch to solar and wind with storage.

Well again I think you're missing the distinction between your use of wood and the general use of wood. Your use may be maybe close to carbon neutral. That's not the same as describing the entire pattern of how were using forests. In any case, these details are not worth arguing about because the big picture is: "it's long past time to switch to solar and wind with storage".

 

[StealthP3D]

That's not the same as describing the entire pattern of how were using forests. In any case, these details are not worth arguing about because the big picture is: "it's long past time to switch to solar and wind with storage".

Yes it is. And the fact that much of the forestry practiced in America was quite damaging on many levels, that doesn't make wood a fossil fuel. Coal, oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, wood is not.

 

[dfwatt]

Perhaps I didn't explain clearly, I agree with Sandy Monroe that the drive train is better than anything other EV makers have. But it isn't exactly the batteries themselves. I've read about the battery chemistry and it is well optimized for EV use, but that is not exclusive to Tesla. What Tesla has done is to optimize the charging and discharging to maximize the battery life.

I've read that the Nissan Leaf has had some issues with battery life which can be a significant problem for mass sales. It will only be a couple of years before we start seeing more coverage of EVs in the same way they cover a new Honda model without all the hype and focus on much less important wiz-bang stuff like 3 second 0-60 times. So things like battery life will get widely reported and be life and death for any EV maker. I have no doubt the other EV makers will be doing a good job with the batteries. It is just a matter of time.

Otherwise Sandy Monroe talked about profit margins by building in China... I'll wait to see how Tesla does with their factory before I give an opinion on that. If they really do have high volume production in Shanghai by the end of this year, that will be a big win for Tesla. The Chinese market is huge with lots of potential. We will see if the Shanghai factory is the first Tesla project to be done on time.

And if they're late you will safely conclude that your pessimistic if not dismissive analysis is correct? Come on! If someone had said that 6 years after starting up out of nowhere and with virtually nothing Tesla would have the best selling premium sedan in the world and Far and Away the best charging Network, they would have been assumed to be drunk or intoxicated on some other substance.

Your comments about charging and its variable envelope of inconvenience in some cases and untenability in others are all part of the transition to sustainable electric vehicles, and I think the push back that you're getting isn't because people are fanboys or can't see Tesla making any mistakes, or don't want to be realists, it's that you don't really have a very balanced big picture view.

Your impatience with how this appears to take at least one decade if not decades is duly noted, but that's just how it works unfortunately with disruptive Technologies. The critical Infrastructure to support those Technologies is expensive, resource consuming, and not sexy, but essential. I'd like to see you find another company that started from nowhere and stands where Tesla stands now with an established disruptive technology in a matter of a few years, taking on all the ICE manufacturers (with their undeniable deep reservoirs of technological talent), established manufacturers who expressed and indeed bet their futures on all of the same skepticism, if not frank cynicism, about Tesla, their technical abilities, and the impossibility of establishing electric vehicles anytime soon in the USA if not globally. All those skeptical prognosticators inside the traditional and admittedly deeply funded and deeply talented ICE manufacturers are now eating their hats. And scrambling to get a competitive product out. You think that will be easy for them, we don't think so. This isn't fanboyism or defensiveness in the face of legitimate criticisms, your dismissive constructions. It's simply people challenging whether or not you actually see the big picture. Frankly I'm skeptical that you do.

 

[dfwatt]

Yes it is. And the fact that much of the forestry practiced in America was quite damaging on many levels, that doesn't make wood a fossil fuel. Coal, oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, wood is not.

Yes unfortunately people managing forests don't have your responsible attitude. If they did wood could be a renewable resource fuel, although the folks who have done the technical analysis on this say that we could not meet energy needs even with a highly responsible management of our forests. But in any case it's a shame that we've F'ed this one up.

It's discouraging to me that everywhere you look you see essentially kind of a recurring fractal pattern. The wealthy and powerful special interests that control natural resources have a fundamentally exploitive attitude towards Nature. Not that we are dependent on Nature and must be good Shepherds but rather that nature is there for us to use and if we want abuse without any long-term consequences. It's a shame that we don't have a much lower tolerance for sociopathy in our leaders and corporations.

 

[gnuarm]

Yes it is. And the fact that much of the forestry practiced in America was quite damaging on many levels, that doesn't make wood a fossil fuel. Coal, oil and natural gas are fossil fuels, wood is not.

Aren't you guys arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How is any of this important to the discussion of no one being able to top Tesla?

 

[gnuarm]

And if they're late you will safely conclude that your pessimistic if not dismissive analysis is correct? Come on! If someone had said that 6 years after starting up out of nowhere and with virtually nothing Tesla would have the best selling premium sedan in the world and Far and Away the best charging Network, they would have been assumed to be drunk or intoxicated on some other substance.

A lot of posters here seem to jump on this idea that Tesla has come so far that they must be great. Yeah, they've done remarkable things to date. None of that means diddly when it comes to how good the cars (or the various parts of the car) are or how well the company is likely to do as the market place for EVs matures.

Your comments about charging and its variable envelope of inconvenience in some cases and untenability in others are all part of the transition to sustainable electric vehicles, and I think the push back that you're getting isn't because people are fanboys or can't see Tesla making any mistakes, or don't want to be realists, it's that you don't really have a very balanced big picture view.

Yes, exactly that charging is a transitional issue. I believe I have said that many times. Charging issues will get much better as the charging networks are expanded and the speed is improved. But that will take time and until then there just won't be a mass migration from the familiar, very well accepted ICE autos.

If my "big picture" is unbalance, please explain to me the "true" picture.

Your impatience with how this appears to take at least one decade if not decades is duly noted, but that's just how it works unfortunately with disruptive Technologies.

You've lost me here. Why am I impatient? I already bought an EV.

The critical Infrastructure to support those Technologies is expensive, resource consuming, and not sexy, but essential. I'd like to see you find another company that started from nowhere and stands where Tesla stands now with an established disruptive technology in a matter of a few years, taking on all the ICE manufacturers (with their undeniable deep reservoirs of technological talent), established manufacturers who expressed and indeed bet their futures on all of the same skepticism, if not frank cynicism, about Tesla, their technical abilities, and the impossibility of establishing electric vehicles anytime soon in the USA if not globally. All those skeptical prognosticators inside the traditional and admittedly deeply funded and deeply talented ICE manufacturers are now eating their hats. And scrambling to get a competitive product out. You think that will be easy for them, we don't think so. This isn't fanboyism or defensiveness in the face of legitimate criticisms, your dismissive constructions. It's simply people challenging whether or not you actually see the big picture. Frankly I'm skeptical that you do.

Ok, you've lost me on this. You seem to have thought I wrote something I never said. I'm not even sure what that might be. I'm just discussing facts. I am literally not sure what you are discussing.

The facts are that the big iron automakers are not good at changing direction. But they are now turning the wheels of their ships and in a few very short years will have a large number of EV models in production. GM in particular seems to be taking this very seriously and will have some dozens of models out, starting in just two years I believe. By then they will have a useful charging network so trips won't be the hugely difficult thing they are now in non-Tesla cars.

I don't know what it is I said that seems to have rankled you so much. Tesla may do great in the face of real competition. I'm just saying that they need to do a lot of things better than they are doing them now.

All the EV makers will need to make the charging issues pretty transparent. I think in two or three years as many more EVs are on the road and many are getting a lot of miles on them without significant repair costs, people will realize they are practical in that sense. They then just need to educate and convince people that they are practical to own and keep charged. That won't happen until trips are easier than they are now. That's pretty easy to understand, right?

 

[Evoforce]

This thread has completely derailed. Let's talk about why or why not Tesla is the current EV market leader or why or why not they have a big jump on EV manufacturing... This was never a thread to introduce ICE versus BEV. As an example idea, will Tesla simply lose its perceived lead to a company that can produce a vehicle with longer range and only 5 minutes to charge from near depleted to full?

 

[StealthP3D]

As an example idea, will Tesla simply lose its perceived lead to a company that can produce a vehicle with longer range and only 5 minutes to charge from near depleted to full?

While anything can happen that could dislodge Tesla from their top dog spot in the EV market, I don't see any signs of that happening anytime soon. Prognosticators who assume a bigger car maker can catch up simply because they have more resources to throw at various problems ignores the fact that Tesla achieved its current state of technology very rapidly at the same time its competitors went nowhere. Sure, the other manufacturers make announcements of future models but many of these EV's, when finally released, have lower specs than promised. I think the nay-sayers have an overly simplified view of what it takes to engineer a superior EV in terms of leading-edge electric motors, batteries, software and power controllers. You don't just buy these items off the shelf if you want a competitive end product, you design them yourselves and put them into production. These technologies are growing rapidly and only one company appears to be leading the way in terms of efficiency which leads to higher range at lower costs. And that is the most basic element that leads to success. You can't win in the EV space if you can't offer the highest range at the lowest cost. Tesla appears to get this.

 

[dfwatt]

While anything can happen that could dislodge Tesla from their top dog spot in the EV market, I don't see any signs of that happening anytime soon. Prognosticators who assume a bigger car maker can catch up simply because they have more resources to throw at various problems ignores the fact that Tesla achieved its current state of technology very rapidly at the same time its competitors went nowhere. Sure, the other manufacturers make announcements of future models but many of these EV's, when finally released, have lower specs than promised. I think the nay-sayers have an overly simplified view of what it takes to engineer a superior EV in terms of leading-edge electric motors, batteries, software and power controllers. You don't just buy these items off the shelf if you want a competitive end product, you design them yourselves and put them into production. These technologies are growing rapidly and only one company appears to be leading the way in terms of efficiency which leads to higher range at lower costs. And that is the most basic element that leads to success. You can't win in the EV space if you can't offer the highest range at the lowest cost. Tesla appears to get this.

Yes, it's interesting to see the posters and skeptics (two on this thread in particular) who assume that because charging is still potentially inconvenient that the big ICE manufacturers will just blow by Tesla, once they decide to 'really try' and "get serious" about EVs.

LOL!! As if creating something competitive with the Model3/Y is going to be a two or maybe three year project, TOPS! The ignorance in that assumption (about how easy it is to equal let alone surpass, without patent infringement, a cutting edge design from someone with a six year head start) is nothing less than stunning. Look at both the iPace, and the ETron - both from ICE manufacturers with really good resumes in the sports sedan field. Both are hugely heavy, handle poorly compared to even a base Model 3, let alone the DMP, and lack comparable range . . . and any version of a competitive infrastructure. Is it possible that someone with VW Group resources (tons of cash for sure compared to Tesla) could catch and even pass Tesla in that regard? Yup, they sure could, but it would take many years, and billions off their bottom line to build that - not likely to thrill their stockholders. So we'll see just how deep their commitment really is. And that still wouldn't get you to a car that truly equals the Model 3's performance, safety, styling, etc. etc. So all the skeptics who think Tesla's lead is illusory look to be smoking something. Could Tesla blow it? Yup. Corporate arrogance has killed dozens of dominant market leaders who looked invincible at one time. Just talk to GM. Let's hope those examples are loud and clear to Elon, and the rest of the big shots at Tesla. You must steadily improve . . .everything. All the time. Otherwise, someone (who is doing just that) will catch you, pass you, and then eat your lunch sooner or later. Plus, in mature technologies, the pack eventually reels in the leaders. But we're a long way from that.

 

[brianman]

You must steadily improve . . .everything. All the time. Otherwise, someone (who is doing just that) will catch you, pass you, and then eat your lunch sooner or later. Plus, in mature technologies, the pack eventually reels in the leaders. But we're a long way from that.

Stocks come to mind. A stock that is "high" relative to its competitors can enjoy the glow for a bit, but eventually gets overtaken if it stops rising and peers regularly increase by N% (even if N is "small").