
Test drive of a petrol car - caiobegotti
http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car
======
S_A_P
I get the point of this article and its tongue in cheek. Twenty years ago
people laughed at electric cars with their maybe 30-40 miles of range and
8-12hour charging times. Tesla has done a lot to iron out most of these
engineering problems and I applaud them for that. However, articles like this
also smack of elitism, especially considering the 6 figure prices most Tesla
vehicles sell for. I would love to own a Tesla, just as I would love to own a
2000 acre ranch estate with a huge mansion on it. When electric cars can
compete in the range of commodity cars, then we can have this conversation
about the merits of electric cars.

I just watched a video comparing the Dodge Charger Hellcat to a Tesla P-85d.
Both have similar power, and while you can debate the level of quality of FCA
vs Tesla you can still drive a Hellcat(which is an insane gas guzzler) for
less money for 5-7 years depending on your yearly mileage. At that point, most
people will likely purchase a new vehicle, and that is also assuming you only
use free superchargers. A Tesla is definitely a luxury item, I get that, and
there are other options. The problem is most current other options are more
like the electric cars 20 years ago than a tesla.

Progress is being made and I am excited about that. I would love to have an
electric commuter car as long as it could meet the following criteria.

1) seat 5 people comfortably 2) have 150+ miles of range(I drive about 120
miles per day) 3) cost between 30-50k 4) have reasonable performance(say
comparable to a german sedan in that price range) 5) recharge quickly and
easily, possibly have battery swap capability for the high use days 6)
emphasize being a good car and not a "green" car. Im all for taking care of
the environment, but will never buy a car with a 60" x 12" GREEN ECO ELECTRIC
POWER emblazoned across the side.(In the same way I would never get a car that
says "UBER HEMI BIG WANG POWER" either) 7) be reliable and comfortable to
drive, with low cost of ownership at least comparable to a reliable petrol
car.

I dont think any of that list is unreasonable, and I am glad that Tesla
exists, they have done a great service to the electric car.

~~~
LewisJEllis
"the 6 figure price most Tesla vehicles sell for" \- really? You're right that
they're a luxury item, but let's be accurate here. Only the top-of-the-line
performance model is $105k, and that's before tax credits which bring it back
down to five figures. The entry model is $75k, and the midrange is $85k.

~~~
S_A_P
I looked for a breakdown of Tesla sales, but could not find anything. I am
pretty sure that it is accurate to say the majority of Tesla Model S's on the
road are 6 figure vehicles. I know this is anecdotal, but here in the Houston
area, I would say the breakdown of Model S vehicles on the road are about 5%
P65, 65% P85, and the rest P85D/S/+. Now, Im sure there are people who bought
the stripped down P65 with no options. However, Most of these P85s are loaded,
and a quick glance at the Tesla motors site shows that a 70 will cost you
76,750 base and 91,250 loaded (+ 1200 dest&regulation fee.) A 85/D will cost
you 81,750 base and loaded is over 101,250. Cars like the ones most magazines
test are fully loaded top of the line models. The sticker on the P85D in the
video vs the charger hellcat was 129k. Sure you can get one in the 75-90k
range, but most on the road are not going to be equipped that way.

This is just the nature of the car business(even a disrupted one). People want
options, and base price is rarely what gets delivered, there is just too much
profit to be had from options.

I am not saying this to deride Tesla, but lets call the model S what it really
is, a 100k electric car with great performance.

~~~
mikeash
You might be a bit mixed up on the Tesla lineup. The P models are the high-end
performance versions (the P is for "performance"). There's no such thing as a
stripped-down P Tesla. There was never a 65 of any variety. There was a 60,
but there was never a P60. Right now the lineup is 70D, 85, 85D, P85D. (The D
being for "Dual motor" i.e. all wheel drive.) Previously there was a 60
instead of the 70D. Long ago there was a 40, but it got discontinued almost
instantaneously.

My own anecdotal experience is that virtually every Tesla on the road is an
85, with 85D starting to supplant it now, and the 70D probably going to start
taking that crown once it ships.

I bought my 85 with lots of reasonable/useful options (tech package, sunroof,
rear seats) but without the frilly stuff (high-end sound system, "premium
interior") and it was comfortably under $100,000 even without counting the
federal tax credit.

I wouldn't object too strenuously to rounding my price up to "100k" as part of
discussions like this, though.

~~~
S_A_P
My mistake, I knew P stood for performance so just a typo. Its been so long
since Ive seen the 60 that I couldnt remember the model designation. Either
way, I still think my argument stands as reasonable...

------
dabeeeenster
I wrote this a couple of years ago

[http://www.solidstategroup.com/page/6277/a-review-of-the-
new...](http://www.solidstategroup.com/page/6277/a-review-of-the-new-fangled-
petrol-powered-car)

I guess that's what you would call 'creative license'...

~~~
bjwbell
I like yours more. I couldn't read more than a couple paragraphs of the new
one without cringing from their 'creative license' with facts.

------
lucb1e
The charging confuses me. Of course you pay to get gas at the pump, don't you
pay to get electricity?

I've always wondered that, seeing cars charge on the street or in parking
lots, how does the system know whom to charge... or is it government-sponsored
to promote electric cars?

Edit: Relevant section

> The seller looked very puzzled at us and explained that it is not possible
> to refuel gasoline cars at home, and there are no free gas stations. We
> tried to explain our questions, in case he had misunderstood, but he
> insisted that you can not. Apparently you have to several times a month
> drive to the gas station to recharge your petrol car at extortionate prices
> – there are no alternatives!

Edit 2: I should clarify, I'm from the Netherlands (Europe).

~~~
jaxbot
I think the biggest difference, speaking from my experience as a Leaf owner,
is that electricity is much cheaper than petrol, more predictable in price/not
as volatile as petrol prices, and the car itself is much more efficient than a
gas car would be thanks to aerodynamics, regenerative braking and otherwise
high efficiency in electric motors when compared to internal combustion
engines.

~~~
raverbashing
I'm not really sure about absolute price/J of energy comparison between
electricity and gasoline

However an electrical car is more efficient than a gasoline one (gas engines
are inefficient, diesel not so much)

~~~
lorenzhs
1l of gasoline stores 9.5 kWh [1]

Typical fuel efficiency is 20% (with up to 37%) [2], so let's be optimistic
and say 31.5% because that will mean that we would get 3kWh of energy out of
every litre of gasoline in energy that is actually used to move the car.

The efficiency of an electric vehicle is much higher, 86% was measured for the
Tesla Roadster [3]. Assuming the same figure for a Model S, the effective
battery capacity is 73kWh.

Thus, the 85 kWh battery of a Tesla Model S corresponds to a 24.3 litre (6.4
US gallons) gas tank.

In Germany, at 25ct/kWh, that's 21.25€ for the electricity or 34€ for the
gasoline (at 1.40€/litre)

[1]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28gasoline+density+*+1...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28gasoline+density+*+1l%29+*+%28energy+density+of+gasoline%29+in+kWh)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Fuel_efficienc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Fuel_efficiency_of_vehicles)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Energy_efficien...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Energy_efficiency)

~~~
mikeash
Here's a quick version for my local rates.

An EV will use about 300Wh of electricity per mile. This varies a bit
depending on the car (a massive Model S will use more than a Leaf) and how you
drive it, but it's a decent approximation. I pay about 13 cents/kWh. That
makes my energy cost for driving an EV about 3.9 cents/mile. I believe that's
300Wh out of the battery, so you probably want to add another 10% or so for
charging inefficiency, but I'm not sure exactly what the numbers are there so
I'll leave them be.

My last car got 40MPG. At current local gas costs of $2.50/gallon, that's 6.25
cents/mile.

And of course, a lot of people think that current gas prices are anomalously
low and won't last.

~~~
ghaff
Interesting. That's obviously a good case number for an ICE vehicle (although
it's pretty close to my current car at today's gas prices) but I hadn't
realized that, from a "fuel" perspective, EVs aren't actually all that
cheaper. Yes, 50% is a lot, but it's not multiples. (And, yes, there are some
free charging options available but those aren't necessarily available to most
people on a regular basis.)

~~~
lorenzhs
I think most people would be quite pleased if gas prices were half of their
current level (especially in Europe, where they are significantly higher than
in the US). Plus you don't have to do oil changes ;)

------
bbarn
This was a fun read, but unfortunately, the electric car isn't practical yet
in the environment it should excel the most at - the city. It's only a
feasible option if you're a home owner with a garage. I could totally afford a
tesla, and I love them, but I don't want to own anything beyond a condo in the
city, and that means street parking. Even in the best neighborhoods where I
wouldn't worry about the car getting stolen/vandalized, there's still no where
to charge it! Residential city areas are never going to be lined with charger
plugs for people to parallel park outside their apartments and use.

So, the only people it's practical for, are suburban (or very well off urban)
people who don't drive often. I just don't see the infrastructure needed
happening in a city the size of Chicago within my lifetime, and since
populations are still centered there, I don't see gas cars going away in my
lifetime, as much as I'd love them to.

~~~
outworlder
This is such a US-centric view.

In some countries, you can't even own a vehicle if you don't provide proof
that you have some place to park it at (eg. Japan, lookup Shakoshomeishou). In
others, you would be crazy to leave a car parked outside overnight, luxury or
not - there is insurance, but the premium will easily double (eg many areas in
Brazil, particularly the North and Northest states).

~~~
ryanlol
And in some countries you can just park pretty much anywhere and you'll only
worry will be potential parking tickets.

------
wj
"I could never drive an electric car because <insert my unique situation and
criteria>."

Wait 20 years and then get back to us. In the meantime those for who an
electric car makes sense will drive them. For those it doesn't won't.

This isn't politics or sports but a lot of the reasoning on here reminds me of
those types of discussions.

~~~
humanrebar
It's pretty sad that you equate politics and sports and I can't really
disagree. Or maybe politics has always been about identity and people who like
ideas and ideals are outliers.

------
paganel
> The car’s gasoline engine coughed to life and started to operate. One could
> hear the engine’s sound and the car’s whole body vibrated as if something
> was broken, but the seller assured us that everything was as it should

I've only learned to drive and have owned my car for a year now (I'm in my
mid-30s), but I just love the engine of my petrol car starting. Often times I
choose to drive with my radio turned-off just to hear the engine's sound. Mind
you, is a regular 1.4l hatcchbak, nothing sporty or the like.

Later edit: I also love to change gears, honestly. Not sure exactly what it
is, but I don't see myself driving an automatic.

> You need a lot of training to learn to select the right gear at the right
> time

And about this, there's no "a lot of training" needed, you just get used to it
pretty fast. Actually, IMHO, is part of the whole process of you becoming one
with your car.

~~~
nsxwolf
I also love manual transmissions. It will be the hardest thing for me to give
up when I eventually make the switch to electric.

I suppose it is similar to the satisfaction the owner of a mechanical watch
gets -- but it's more visceral. You're really becoming part of the machine,
and you feel it. Coordinating gear shifting with clutch pedal actuation,
instinctively doing it all at the right moment based on what you hear and feel
from the engine. Your body and mind are involved, consciously and
subconsciously. Now all that is just ... gone.

~~~
rconti
Yup. Being in tune with the vehicle is the most fantastic part of driving. The
skill and coordination required, the tactile pleasure of the controls and the
gearchange. The automatic kills much of the enjoyment of it. And yes, I've
been driving for about 20 years, and yes, I've commuted in some of the worst
traffic in America.

Also, changing gears myself does not preclude me from listening to audiobooks,
as some commenter mentioned. I'm already sitting there operating the controls
on the car. Having one more lever and one more pedal does not exactly tax me
mentally, or preclude my other senses, not constitute any real effort aside
from perhaps an extra calorie or three burned.

~~~
nsxwolf
I also never understood the charge that driving a manual sucks for commuting.
I've done my fair share of the rather lousy downtown Chicago to Chicago
suburbs commute, and never quite figured out what the big deal with all the
starting/stopping was supposed to be.

------
yc1010
Uhm I would love a Tesla (if they ever start selling right hand drive versions
in my little backward western european country) but at an equivalent of €100K
price tag (that means I have to earn ~€210K before tax, to be left with that
amount around these parts) its a bit steep...

Neither am I sure that the inept electricity supply board would know how to
install a charger for one, and well electricity is expensive here in Ireland,
paid €1200 last year for just above 4000KW/hours for my home/office

Yes my petrol 4x4 is 10 years old, yes it does a terrible mileage in a country
where petrol is €1.40/liter now, yes it breaks alot and has to be serviced
(just this week) and pass yearly road-worthiness testing and costs me a
fortune in tax and insurance (€700 + 330 last year)

Maybe if we werent taxed as much I could afford after a few years of saving a
luxury of an electric car, until then me good old jeep will continue to drive
me over the potholed narrow roads we have (which apparently all that road tax
AND now local council tax was meant to improve)

sigh...

tl.dr: The article is funny but not all of us enjoy Nordic standards of living
or wages (After tax), or have governments that are not out to fleece the
taxpayers and hand their blood money over to failed banks and their developer
buddies who helped them get elected.

~~~
kaolinite
They are planning to eventually release a more affordable Tesla, just as soon
as they can scale up enough that it's viable. The first car they made (the
Roadster) was a very expensive supercar, which they sold in low numbers. Then
they made the Model S, an expensive, luxury sedan, which they're selling a lot
more of. I'm not sure if pricing has been released yet for the Model X but I
suspect it'll be cheaper than the Model S and will sell in even greater
numbers.

Elon doesn't really seem to be in this for the money or the luxury status - he
seems to just care about building great cars that are good for the
environment. As soon as he can make really good, affordable electric cars -
I'm sure he will.

~~~
stcredzero
The Model X is a luxury SUV. ("Estate," in the british isles.) The next model
is supposed to be the "Model 3." They can't use Model E, because Ford still
has that trademarked or something along those lines. Otherwise, they could
have models S, E, and X.

~~~
scott_karana
Mild correction: "estates" are "station wagons", not SUVs.

~~~
stcredzero
Thanks. I think I was confused by Top Gear reviewing so many nebulously
classed Porsche SUV-ish-whatever things.

------
axx
As much as i like this article, Tesla would never had the success they now
have, without the "petrol car"-Industry.

The automotive industry brought a lot of innovations and lowered prices for
tooling etc. by a lot. I think this article is very funny (and sad), but you
have to give those "old" companies a lot of credit for their work.

That's still no excuse for other companies, not to hop on the electric train.

~~~
jaxbot
To be fair, though, we theoretically don't need the car industry at all. Tesla
is building an electric industry to solve the emissions problem created by a
transportation industry that does not need to exist.

Take NYC for example. MTA enables transportation to just about anywhere in the
city, all through an electric, mass-transit trolley system.

If we look at the history of municipal transportation, it looks pretty clear
that trolleys were winning over the majority of the car industry up until GM
took over trolleys[1] and shut them down to essentially require people to own
cars to do any transportation outside of biking and walking.

I think what Tesla is doing is wonderful, but I feel like the problem they are
having to solve didn't need to exist in the first place, and the petrol car
industry got us in a bad situation.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

~~~
axx
You do realise that not everyone is living in big vivid cities with perfect
transportation?

For people in rural/urban areas cars are essential.

And don't get me wrong, i agree with everything you say, but that problem
won't be solved so easily.

~~~
jaxbot
Absolutely, but the car industry didn't need to innovate there much because
demand already existed. The point I was getting at is that we ripped out
municipal transit systems, then built spread out cities where implementing
mass transit would not be cost effective (i.e. Orlando, FL) but work well with
cars. I'm no expert, though. It's just a thought I frequent on whenever
looking at the state of transit and where we're going.

------
korethr
Yes, Electric cars are great and have many advantages and improvements over
cars with internal combustion engines. I won't deny this.

But until such time an electric cars is available as a compact hatchback that
has >800 mile range on a single charge, and go from from depleted batteries to
full charge in < 5 minutes, I'll be keeping my VW Golf TDI. The latter fits my
use and needs from a personal vehicle better.

~~~
MrRadar
Why do you _need_ an 800 mile range? Do you drive from New York to Chicago on
a daily basis?

~~~
korethr
If a 15 year old internal combustion engine design can do an 800 mile range, I
don't think its unreasonable for electric cars to get there, especially with
as fast as Tesla is coming up with improvements to electric cars.

But let us consider advantages to an 800 mile range. Even within the urban
core, where a 100 mile range is enough for a few days of commuting along with
an emergency reserve, an 800 mile range is going to mean far less-frequent
charges, just as it means far less frequent fill-ups for a combustion-powered
car. That's less strain on the owner's wallet, and less strain on the
electrical grid. These advantages are felt even more acutely by those who _don
't_ live and commute in the urban core, be it in the suburbs, outer edge of a
metro area, or rural area proper. Not everyone can or wants to live in a
densely-packed urban area, and for those who don't, a vehicle with a long
range is very practical.

An extended driving range also makes longer road trips less expensive and more
practical. A full day's drive with fuel/charge to spare? Yes, please. And even
if you think that such is a silly thing which no person should rightly desire
from their personal transport when air travel (and airprort security theater)
is available, consider another application: Trucks.

Large, long-haul cargo trucks (semis) are one of the main means of
transporting goods quickly across the US, and are one of the main consumers of
petroleum-based fuels. They get that range by having large fuel tanks -- 100
US gallons or more. Now, imagine if electric car tech can make a compact
hatchback go 800 miles/charge, what that could do when scaled up to large
trucks. If you want do something about the consumption of petroleum fuels and
consequent emissions in the US, getting trucks with the same or superior range
on electric power is a good place to focus.

~~~
MrRadar
I don't disagree that a long range has advantages, I just don't see why it is
needed for normal daily driving for the majority of people in North America or
Europe.

> If a 15 year old internal combustion engine design can do an 800 mile range,
> I don't think its unreasonable for electric cars to get there, especially
> with as fast as Tesla is coming up with improvements to electric cars.

The range of a vehicle boils down to the volume you can use to store energy,
the energy density of the storage medium, and the efficiency of the engine or
motor in turning that energy into motion. For this reason I'm skeptical that
any amount of engineering would allow for an 800 mile EV within the next
several decades, especially since electric motors are already extremely
efficient.

According to Wikipedia[0] the efficiency of diesel engines can be up to 50%.
Using that number and similar reasoning to this[1] other comment a current
Model S P85 stores energy equivalent to 14.7 L (or 3.9 US gallons) of diesel.
Your 2000 VW TDI has a fuel capacity of 54.9 liters or 14.5 gallons. This
means to go an equivalent distance the capacity of the Tesla Model S battery
pack would have to increase by 3.75 times (to 273 kWh), either by increasing
the energy density or by making the pack bigger. Even though I am a big
proponent of EVs I just don't see that happening.

> Even within the urban core, where a 100 mile range is enough for a few days
> of commuting along with an emergency reserve, an 800 mile range is going to
> mean far less-frequent charges, just as it means far less frequent fill-ups
> for a combustion-powered car. That's less strain on the owner's wallet, and
> less strain on the electrical grid.

How does it matter how often you fill up? Wouldn't trying to fill a 800 mile
battery all at once rather than trickle charging while the car is parked
(which will likely be 20+ hours per day) be a much bigger strain on the grid?
Won't you be storing the same amount of energy (and therefore paying the same
total amount of money for that energy) whether you do it daily or biweekly?

Additionally, in your initial comment you wanted both an 800 mile range and a
full recharge from empty in under 5 minutes. Using the above estimate for
required battery capacity that means you would have to charge it at a rate of
3.3 MW (yes, _megawatts_ ) or nearly 8800 amps at the 375 volt level the Model
S battery pack operates at. Short of superconductors I don't think it's even
physically possible to transmit electricity at that amperage through wires
without causing them to melt almost instantly.

> Not everyone can or wants to live in a densely-packed urban area, and for
> those who don't, a vehicle with a long range is very practical.

> An extended driving range also makes longer road trips less expensive and
> more practical. A full day's drive with fuel/charge to spare? Yes, please.
> And even if you think that such is a silly thing which no person should
> rightly desire from their personal transport when air travel (and airprort
> security theater) is available, consider another application: Trucks. [...]

Yes, for long trips, people who live in rural areas (where long-distance
travel is more frequent) and for long-haul commercial transportation EVs as
they are (and likely as they will be) won't cut it. There will always be gas
and diesel vehicles for those applications. However, for the average American
who lives in an urban or suburban area and drives less than 100 miles a day
EVs (with ranges well short of 800 miles) will probably largely replace ICE
vehicles. For them, an 800 mile range is not a requirement.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Diesel_engin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Diesel_engines)
[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486785](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9486785)

------
ajtaylor
I just leased a 2015 VW e-Golf last week so this is particularly relevant to
me. It will be a commuter car and from the few days of driving it so far, this
will be perfect for me. The amazing thing is getting into the car and having
it be perfectly silent. The next thing that astonished me was just how fast it
could be from a standstill. Plus it's a Golf and my love of Golfs can be found
by looking through my comment history here.

I'll admit that I'm still dealing with a bit of range anxiety, but I haven't
come close to being truly scared of running out of juice. I generally run it
in Eco mode w/ the regenerative braking in mode 1 or 2 so I often make back
10-20 miles of range during hilly drives.

------
serve_yay
I noticed that a car I drove by yesterday was a Tesla. But I didn't notice
immediately, because it looked like a Buick or something.

I don't understand why, if they're trying to do something radically different,
their cars look pretty much like everyone else's. Perhaps they are trying not
to scare off potential buyers, but it seems like people are already interested
in trying something different when they buy a Tesla. I personally would never
drop whatever crazy prices their cars cost for something so mundane looking,
though.

~~~
BorgHunter
There's more volume in conventional-looking cars. Look at the responses to the
Nissan Leaf and BMW i3, two electric cars that are legitimately funky-looking;
something that looks weird will turn more people off than will be turned on.

------
atjoslin
Web cached version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lVzsGlt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lVzsGlteXR4J:teslaclubsweden.se/test-
drive-of-a-petrol-car/+&cd=1&hl=no&ct=clnk)

------
microcolonel
Inaccurate, internal combustion engines combust fuel, they don't explode it.
Explosions are something you don't want in a motor.

~~~
grecy
Isn't "combustion" just a type of "explosion".

i.e. A (somewhat) controlled explosion?

Combustion: _Rapid chemical combination of a substance with oxygen, involving
the production of heat and light_

Explosion: _A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a
shock wave._

~~~
dragonwriter
Combustion and explosion are orthogonal concepts. You can have combustion
without explosion, combustion with explosion, and explosion without combustion
(e.g., the failure of a pressurized container without any chemical reaction.)

------
mindslight
> _Monthly cost for a petrol car can -just for the gasoline alone- easily
> exceed one hundred Euros_

Although I appreciate comparisons from inverse perspectives, a few specific
points fell flat. Assuming a rough 10 year lifespan, depreciation on a $20k
Civic is $166/mo, while depreciation on a $70k Tesla is $583/mo. Also, if
you're worried about carcinogenic effects from a few whiffs of gasoline, then
you most likely don't need a car since you've already confined yourself to a
hermetic bubble.

~~~
danielweber
Yes. It's foolish to compare the cost of consumable gas vs consumable
electricity.

Much better is consumable gasoline versus battery depreciation. Electricity
costs nearly disappear.

This was an old adage among the homebrew EV crowd: buying a battery pack is
pre-paying for your fuel for the next N years.

The Powerwall[1] is about 35 cents per KWh, assuming it can handle 1000 full
cycles. ($3500 for 10KWh capacity.) A decent EV can get 5 miles out of that,
so the battery depreciation is 7 cents a mile. That's a multiple of the
electricity cost, which is about 2 cents a mile if you don't try for any time-
of-day billing.

[1] This is just my best comparison of the actual cost of a Tesla battery.

~~~
33W
30mpg at $2.25/gal is 7.5c per mile. Versus 9c for an EV (7c battery, 2c
elec), this is a $1500 over 100k miles. If we consider the other maintenance
costs, I think they are nearly equivalent.

~~~
mindslight
This thread is rapidly entering territory where only a comprehensive
comparison of TCO will suffice (not that those won't be biased either way),
but the price of the battery is only one part of the price of the car. 70k$
amortized over 300k miles is still 23¢/mile.

I understand Tesla's luxury-first strategy and hope the future part will pan
out, but at the present time it is very weird to be making a cost based
argument.

------
lamby
> It may sound like a bad omen to buy the car from a car repair shop that you
> want to visit as seldom as possible.

That's....quite a good point.

~~~
ghaff
Cute line. Though the reality is that the service needs of modern autos during
the first 5 years or so are likely to be pretty modest. Maybe a tire issue
(which an EV could have also). Probably brake work which an EV may not require
at that point. Various fluids--though oil changes are about 10K miles with
synthetics.

One of my vehicles is about 17 years old with 170K miles. I wouldn't expect to
get that out of an EV. Don't get me wrong. I'd be interested in an EV someday.
But maintenance isn't a big deal within the window where I'd expect to have to
replace an EV's battery pack at this point.

------
btbuildem
Now, let's take this a big step further, and try to see how ridiculously
outmoded, destructive and dangerous the entire setup of using cars for routine
personal transportation really is..

------
MattHeard
> The petrol tank apparently often leaks after an accident so the flammable
> liquid pours out and becomes ignited!

I read recently in the New Yorker that accidents causing a fire are rare:
approximately 1 in 100. [1]

[1] [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-
engineers-l...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-
lament)

------
rhinoceraptor
It reminds me of this Windows review, from the point of view of a Linux-first
user:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/miduh/tomt_an_articl...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/miduh/tomt_an_article_reviewing_ms_windows_from_the/c3171os)

------
wayanon
Bravo!

------
vacri
_Releasing the accelerator pedal resulted in no significant braking, we had to
use the brake pedal very much to slow down the car._

Why should releasing something called an 'accelerator' cause braking? A
vehicle should coast in that situation, not try to stop.

~~~
EliRivers
In many vehicles, releasing the "go forwards please" control does cause
braking. In this day and age, it's pure convention.

~~~
vacri
If it was called that, I would have less of a problem. Braking is, however,
merely acceleration in a different direction. :)

------
ekianjo
> You need a lot of training to learn to select the right gear at the right
> time – though there are also models with automatic transmissions that can do
> this themselves. In the manual transmission car, we needed to constantly
> guard the engine from damaging it. Very stressful.

Mmm. That's probably supposed to be funny, except that it is not, since
automatic cars are so boring to drive in the first place. Manual cars are the
real deal if you want to feel your car and the road when you drive instead of
relying on a computer to make your choices. There's certainly a use for
automatic transmission (on motorways or on heavy traffic roads for example)
but in most other situations I'd rather have manual over it.

> The seller looked very puzzled at us and explained that it is not possible
> to refuel gasoline cars at home,

Because you don't need to, when you have an autonomy of hundred of kilometers
with a single tank. An electric car is like a smartphone, it may be nice to
operate (if you like them) but you need to charge them everyday. And you can
forget about long distance driving without having to stop for a long while to
recharge your car. Oh, and you can store petrol in your car (in your trunk) if
you want to go very, very far, but good luck doing that with an electric car
if you go in remote places without plugs anywhere to be seen. Electric cars
are obviously only for urban zones (or places not too far in between them).

> especially given that all gasoline must be imported from abroad.

Is that article from like 20 years ago ? Because where Tesla is the most
popular (i.e. in the US), now a large part of the petrol is actually extracted
locally.

> Do not confuse petrol cars’ exhaust pipes with fuel cell cars’ – while
> hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles emit only water vapor gasoline cars spew
> out noxious gasses, and even fossil carbon dioxide that contribute to
> Earth’s future-catastrophic warming!

Yeah, and your electricity that powers your car is still made mostly from
fossil fuels in most parts of the world, or nuclear energy which is not too
hot with the general public nowadays. It's nice to be blind.

~~~
watty
The goal of driving (for most) is to get from A to B, not entertainment. I
agree, I loved my manual car but the masses prefer the convenience of
automatic which is why manual cars continue to disappear.

Electric cars will eventually replace petrol cars, it's a fact.

~~~
ekianjo
> Electric cars will eventually replace petrol cars, it's a fact.

No, it's one of the potential future scenarii, but certainly not the only one.
It will be a fact when it has actually happened.

It's just like people predicting the death of the PC and its total replacement
by tablets - but hey, after several years of tremendous tablet growth, looks
like 2014 was not so hot.

Let's not be too hasty in making predictions.

------
hnnewguy
Is this what passes for clever? It's hardly a "tech" article, that's for sure.

> _The engine was also extremely hot, we burned ourselves when we touched it._

Electric motors run cold, I guess?

> _We started calculating price versus consumption and came to the shocking
> conclusion that a petrol car costs unimaginable €12 per 100km! Sure,
> electric cars could also theoretically come up to these amounts if they
> quick charged at one of the most expensive charging stations in the country
> – but for petrol cars there are no cheaper alternatives!_

You can buy a $12,000 gas car, but for electric cars there are no cheaper
alternatives. Work that into the cost vs a $100,000 Tesla. The 99% of the
world are not complete idiots; electric cars aren't mainstream yet.

~~~
ebbv
> for electric cars there are no cheaper alternatives

Not true at all. I traded in a Subaru WRX and pay less for my Leaf every month
than I did for the Subaru. Not to mention the savings on the costs of driving
it around.

> The 99% of the world are not complete idiots; electric cars aren't
> mainstream yet.

These two phrases don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

It's true, there are good reasons why EVs aren't mainstream. One is that if
you're in an apartment or condominium EV ownership is pretty much out the
window unless you can get your property managers to install charging stations.

Another is that you can't get one with 200 mile range for under $60k right
now, and that's a big hurdle for most people to get over mentally. Even though
most people don't drive more than 80 miles in a day, and a Leaf WOULD do just
fine for them, they can't bring themselves to act rationally about it. Being
that close to their limit is a mental block. That's why it's important that
Tesla delivers on the promise to offer a $30k 200 mile range car in 2017.

Now, all of that has nothing to do with the original article. The point of
which is really that EVs are way, way nicer than petrol cars, for a variety of
reasons. Which is something that most people just don't get yet.

~~~
mikeash
"Which is something that most people just don't get yet."

Yes, yes, and more yes.

People still don't really understand electric cars yet. They see an EV as a
sacrifice. They think that you buy an EV either to save money on gas or out of
some vague sense of environmental responsibility. They don't understand that
they are just plain _better_.

Right now, gas cars offer three advantages over EVs: there's more variety in
the market, they're cheaper, and they go farther. These are not insignificant
advantages, of course, but people don't realize that EVs are equal or better
in all other respects.

It's coming around now that EVs are getting more exposure, and especially
since Tesla keeps getting so much attention for producing a car that's good on
its own merits, and not merely good "for an EV."

The other side of this is that people are blind to the problems of gas cars,
because they've grown up with them. One of the biggest problems people see
with EVs is charging. But if you hadn't grown up with gas vehicles, the idea
of seeking out a specialized filling station once every week or two and then
dispensing dangerous, toxic liquid fuel from an apparatus that doesn't even
seal it off from the outside would seem completely mad. You have to do a
complete change of the engine lubricant _how_ often? The windshield wiper
fluid cap is in the same compartment as components that get hot enough to
cause serious burns? Every time you slow down you just throw away all your
kinetic energy, and grind down your brake pads while you're doing it? This is
_clearly_ not a viable technology.

~~~
Dirlewanger
>These are not insignificant advantages, of course, but people don't realize
that EVs are equal or better in all other respects.

With regards to going farther...um, no? Not only can I hop on the highway with
a full tank of gas and head out to a rural area a couple hundred miles away
for camping/whatever, I have no need to worry about whether or not I'll run
out of gas because of the gas station's ubiquity. It's going to be a _long_
time before the same can be said for EVs. Being tethered to a Tesla-approved
route isn't an viable excuse either.

~~~
mikeash
Why do you reply with "um, no?" and then go off talking about the EV's range
troubles when my post clearly stated that range is an aspect of EVs that's
still inferior...?

------
Shivetya
Contrived to the point of stupid so the point is lost.

Really, this could have just as well been written in the early 1900s with a
moron buying a car when a perfectly good horse was available.

Two problems still exist with electric only cars they haven't shown are
solvable. Truly fast charging and handling of that "damnit, the son forgot to
plug the car in when he got home and I need to go to work/doctor/etc NOW" and
lack of available charging for large number of potential drivers. Want to be
silly like the article, don't get snowed in without power for days on end that
still happens in North America.

As for repair shops at dealers, well being able to have your car repaired and
serviced anywhere is a good thing. Just happens that Tesla does its best to
hide the service issues by keeping it mostly internal.

So yeah electrics are cool, leaning towards a ER EV myself simply because I
have to travel on my schedule and not my cars

~~~
krschultz
It's not contrived. All the points you mentioned about the downsides of EV are
true. That's why they're a single digit percentage of the market _right now_
at best.

The point of this article is to point out the compromises that we are
currently making. They're invisible to us because they are the compromises we
have been making for generations. I can imagine a 538 article that illustrates
how much land we allocate to gas stations using several graphs. For some
people that article will be interesting. Other people's eyes will glaze over.
This kind of article uses humor to make the same point.

I don't own an electric vehicle. I'm very aware of the advantages of electric
vehicles for society at large, but reading about how funny it is to not be
able to store things in the front of the car made me realize how much of a
feature that really would be. Reading about his concern that an gasoline
powered car is less safe because you have a giant engine in front of you made
sense to me in a way I previously hadn't thought about.

He didn't even make a bunch of other points that I often think about - like
the level of soot in cities. Our children will probably look back at us the
way we look back at London in 1850 shrouded in coal dust.

