Looking forward to seeing this company continue to thrive.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
Huh, I guess it must not be worth tens of billions of dollars to investors then.
Cars in holding lots mean this company will go under?
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.
And Toyota didn't make an electric vehicle. They made a more efficient gas car.
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?
Is it better to do the right thing imperfectly, or the wrong thing perfectly?
Well, you've awkwardly expanded the wording to make this criticism work. People give Tesla credit for making _electric_ cars a thing.
Curious to see why you think credit goes to Toyota, instead of Tesla?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And then they need to start all over with Model Y. What quality expectations are there?
(I know 2 dozen people with 3s purchased in the last 8 months and none of them have had any quality issues)
What's the population size of people who you know who purchased any car in the last 8 months?
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.
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.
Study transportation needs of people and you will discover that mass transit only fulfill some parts of people's mobility needs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree. Tesla's offering keeps ubiquitous personal transportation on life support at best, and neuters public transportation initiatives at worst.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
Get the big lumps of steel off the roads and you have far less issues at the ER.
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.
Trams are LOUD and annoying.
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?
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.
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.
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.
They also designed in sound-absorbing walls.
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.
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.
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.
I will defer to a blurb I just Googled:
I'd love an affordable, reasonably well-constructed LiIon scooter, but it's not there. Definitely coming, but not here yet.
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.
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.
I just can't see how the logistics of charging would work for more than a few EVs per city block...
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Which means that you can top off your charge while at the grocery store, or work, or whatever.
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.)
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.
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).
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)
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."
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.
Can’t find the article atm
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.
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.
>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!
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.
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.
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
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!
You're not being realistic. 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
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.
The Porsche Taycan will charge faster than any Tesla and won't suffer the Model S's overheating issues:
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.
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?
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.
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:
When will Tesla introduce 350 kW charging?
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
yeah, nobody tried to argue that, so i'm not sure who you're arguing with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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).
I can only hope we spin up more nuclear.
So even if power plants were as dirty as ICEs, it would be a win.
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 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 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.
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.
If you only have goals that you already know you can meet or if you always attain your goals, you're aiming too low.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t care deeply about this, I just thought it was worth trying to explain how and why my reaction differs.
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).
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.
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.
"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.
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?)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
The manufacturer makes money putting those parts in new cars, it makes no money sending it out to repair yours...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
"Mazda" is a German spelling of the Japanese name typically romanized as "Matsuda" (松田).
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".
Rental coverage is quickly exhausted waiting for Tesla to provide replacement 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.
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.
"Well, I needed one to drive while the other is in the shop"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
400k km, supercharging a lot, 7% degradation, that’s better than anybody expected.