Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tesla Model Y (tesla.com)
650 points by kiddz 11 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 734 comments





Amazing to me the knee jerk response from most people is to criticize this company. Yes they have issues (as does literally every brand/company), but on the whole aren't we glad people are leading the charge towards electric vehicles? They've sped up the advent of electric vehicles by at least 5 years, possibly more like 10.

Looking forward to seeing this company continue to thrive.


It's quite possible to support the goal and criticize the players, especially when those players repeatedly fail to execute and use the lofty goal as an excuse for their failings instead of learning from their mistakes and getting better.

And why should Tesla get the credit for making green cars a thing? True credit belongs to Toyota for introducing the Prius 2 decades ago when gas was king and getting consumers to see alternative engines as viable options, and to California for its green vehicles incentives for making possible the financial structure that has kept Tesla alive.


> It's quite possible to support the goal and criticize the players, especially when those players repeatedly fail to execute

Repeatedly fail to execute? They've successfully rolled out several wildly popular fully electric cars. They've succeeded in making electric cars cool.

> And why should Tesla get the credit for making green cars a thing? True credit belongs to Toyota for introducing the Prius 2 decades ago when gas was king and getting consumers to see alternative engines as viable options, and to California for its green vehicles incentives for making possible the financial structure that has kept Tesla alive.

Toyota succeeded on one side of the equation: Creating the first commercially successful eco-car. Tesla succeeded in making them cool, and appealing to people who like cars. You need both of these things if you want to actually replace gas-powered cars.


Repeatedly fail to execute? They've successfully rolled out several wildly popular fully electric cars. They've succeeded in making electric cars cool.

They had hundreds of cars stuck in port in Europe and China over paperwork errors. In the US, they had hundreds of cars stuck in holding lots because they failed to arrange for transportation to their final destinations, or because they failed to coordinate pickups with the buyers, or both. They have a billion-dollar-plus assembly line that sits unused because it doesn't work. There are hundreds of Teslas stuck in shop because Tesla can't manufacture the parts they need for those repairs (and there are no third-party parts suppliers to take the load). They've missed nearly every deadline they've set for themselves, not because the goals are unreachable but because they've overestimated their capabilities or underestimated the difficulty of the task or both. They've paid millions in fines to the SEC, and they're likely to pay millions more soon, all because they can't get their CEO to use Buffer or a similar app/process that would let them review his many inane tweets before review. Their are credible reports of on-the-job injuries swept under the table to avoid worker's comp claims.

Tesla in theory could, and should, be a wonderful company, but that's not the Tesla that actually exists today. And that theoretical Tesla probably won't exist as long as Musk remains in control.


Ya but in the end they always delivered. The 35k model 3, scaling up manufacturing to over 5k cars a week, not going bankrupt. They missed the deadlines but eventually they delivered as promised.

Why is missing their self-imposed deadlines such a big deal to you, but the fact that they delivered later on, something that you gloss over entirely? Those were huge goals that they delivered on, that most critics said was near-impossible to do.

It wasn't that long ago that critics were calling Elon a fraud for offering an electric car for 35k, that it can never be done because the cost to build one cannot be under 35k, and that Elon was a car salesman scamming people for pre-order money. And now it's done, the 35k model 3 is delivered, and people are focused on what, missed deadlines they self-imposed in the past? Is that really the most important issue here?


I eagerly await the rocket car we were promised.

It wasn't that long ago that critics were calling Elon a fraud for offering an electric car for 35k, that it can never be done because the cost to build one cannot be under 35k, and that Elon was a car salesman scamming people for pre-order money.

No one said that Tesla could "never" offer a Model 3 for $35k. There was a lot of chatter about them not being able to do so on anywhere close to the timeline Tesla claimed they would, and some of that came from Tesla itself. As recently as 2018 Elon Musk said that offering the Model 3 for $35k would bankrupt the company due to the non-existent profit margins due to the unit economics.

And while we're on that subject: Tesla also announced that in order to build the Model 3 for $35k they would need to fire the entire sales team and switch to online orders only, and eliminate referrals. So it seems that even Tesla still doesn't think that they can offer a $35k Model 3 profitably based on their existing unit economics.

And now it's done, the 35k model 3 is delivered, and people are focused on what, missed deadlines they self-imposed in the past? Is that really the most important issue here?

For investors, a company that perpetually misses deadlines is a serious, real-world problem indicative of poor planning, leadership, and management. It's one thing to miss the occasional deadline by a few days or weeks. It's another thing to miss every deadline announced, by months each time. At some point, the "self-imposed" publicly announced deadlines are just fraudulent statements intended to induce investors to buy shares of the company. CEOs have been criminally prosecuted for that in the past...another former SV darling is being prosecuted for that right now...


That makes no sense.

Even now you are saying above, that it's extremely hard to build and sell Model 3 for 35k. Even now you are listing many reasons why Tesla can't do it based on unit economics.

But when Tesla actually does it? What if they actually deliver? Then suddenly the 35k Model 3 is not important to you anymore.

Suddenly it's all-important to focus on "missed deadlines" of a few months.

It seems to me, critics only focus on the 35k Model 3, when it can be used as a talking point to attack Tesla. When Tesla actually delivers on the 35k Model 3, critics then focus on "missed deadlines". Critics never really cared about the 35k Model 3, they only care about attacking Tesla.

While we are on the subject, what proof do you have that a missed deadline is "intended to induce investors"? How do you know it's not just that technical difficulties?

While we are on the subject, which former SV darling are you talking about, that you are comparing Tesla to? I want to know why you think a company like Tesla, who delivered on successful projects many times and sold many cars, is somehow being compared to the company you mentioned.


> For investors, a company that perpetually misses deadlines is a serious, real-world problem indicative of poor planning, leadership, and management.

Huh, I guess it must not be worth tens of billions of dollars to investors then.


Criticisms like these make me think somebody is paid to smear Tesla's name.

Cars in holding lots mean this company will go under?


> Yes they have issues (as does literally every brand/company)...

Just wanna draw attention again to the above quote from the comment at the top of this chain. Tesla's very public and always in the news. Of course we know about all the things you mentioned in your comment. That doesn't mean Tesla is a failure or needs to be razed to the ground. Work in any company big enough or that's in the public spotlight too long and you'll find exactly these kinds of issues running rampant. I'm not excusing the issues (they definitely need to be looked at and either fixed or learned from), but I do think it's important to look at the big picture instead of getting caught up in the weeds of relatively minor but overly publicized failures.


The bulk of your argument is that Tesla mismanaged expectations and is unruly due to Elon Musk. Neither of those have stopped the company from rising to the top EV brand in a decade and helping spur the rest of the OEMs to change their automotive strategy to electric.

All big companies make big mistakes. Tesla is much more open, due to their CEO, so you get to see more of the mistakes. I bet you don't track delivery mishaps for other car companies.

And Toyota didn't make an electric vehicle. They made a more efficient gas car.


This reminds me of the story of the first rifles.

They had lots of problems - they were slow to load and reload so the rate of fire was limited. They would misfire or not fire if it was raining. They were noisy so they were easy to locate. They were very inaccurate.

In all respects the longbow was a much superior technology, quiet, fast and refined.

why would anyone invest in rifles over longbows?


Nope, they have a plug-in all electric Prius too.

The question I ask myself is:

Is it better to do the right thing imperfectly, or the wrong thing perfectly?


And yet, as of October, the Model 3 was the fifth best selling sedan in the U.S.

> And why should Tesla get the credit for making green cars a thing?

Well, you've awkwardly expanded the wording to make this criticism work. People give Tesla credit for making _electric_ cars a thing.


ya but neither of those 2 things (Toyota's Prius 2, and California's green car incentives) were successful in making car manufacturers wake up and go electric. It was only when Tesla started making money that every car manufacturer is being serious about competing in this space, and even then they are behind.

Curious to see why you think credit goes to Toyota, instead of Tesla?


Car companies started going electric because California and Federal fuel standards require increasing fuel efficiency on a fleet basis, and the only way to achieve those goals is now through zero-emissions vehicles like hydrogen, fuel cell, or EV. Hydrogen tech and fuel cells are still too inefficient and expensive for consumer vehicles (especially given the rare-earth materials required for high-efficiency fuel cells). Batteries happened to get much cheaper due to their increasing use in non-vehicle electronics like cell phones, which made EVs the best choice from a tech and cost perspective.

In other words, Tesla didn't actually make car manufacturers "wake up and go electric." They were going to go electric anyway because it was the obvious tech choice.

Tesla's accomplishment was to show that people were finally ready to buy green cars that looked like normal cars. (The first hybrids and EVs from Toyota and Nissan looked like normal cars, and sold horribly. Toyota and Nissan introduced the butt-ugly designs because green car buyers back in the day wanted distinctive cars to show off their greenliness.)

t neither of those 2 things (Toyota's Prius 2, and California's green car incentives) were successful in making car manufacturers wake up and go electric.

California's green car incentives and fuel efficiency requirements are what drove most car companies to invest in green car tech in the first place.


I suspect some "compliance cars" are ugly so they don't sell too many of them (since they lose money on each one).

And as to the leaf, I think it was actually modeled after the Prius, and it sold well since there are 400,000 of them out there.


I disagree. California's green car incentive drove most companies to invest in green car tech as a toy, but it was always a hobby. A side project for R&D.

Car manufacturers never took green cars seriously and never felt the need to transition large amounts of their cars from gas to green. It was only when Tesla started making a splash that car companies took electric cars seriously.


...were successful in making car manufacturers wake up and go electric.

Nissan Leaf owners find it cute that one would think that. And though a hybrid, I think Chevy can get a little credit on that one, too.


Agree Nissan Leaf is a good car. It's a shame Nissan didn't sell more varieties of electric cars after the success of the Leaf. Would have been nice if they expanded on the success of the Leaf

I wish I knew what was going on over there. First gen had some rough edges, but eight years later we're still glad we bought ours. Yet they went so long with the original design, I figured they just gave up on electric and kept the Leaf as a compliance car. Then they came out with the new one. Okay, so haven't given up. Then where's something other than a sedan? Like a Kia Sol or summat, because our next electric is going to be able to carry dogs.

So maybe Nissan got a head start, but of all the electric vehicle manufacturers Tesla is the only one moving things forward at the moment with saleable vehicles, that much I'll give them credit for.


Toyota has tried VERY hard to get hydrogen fuel cell cars to be "the thing" over electric vehicles. Tesla never said they wanted to make green cars a thing, they said they want to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy"[1]

[1] https://www.tesla.com/about


I don't think Tesla wants the credit. Open source patents and a simple desire to drive adoption of technology.

I think the eye brow around the criticism is people creating a straw man to knock down.

Tesla doesn't ask for credit and only seems to celebrate the successes which are big wins for all of us regardless of whether we buy their cars or not.

If the critique is that they miss production goals, then the defense is that hey are doing remarkably well for any company attempting to overcome these challenges.

If the critique is that _because_ they are missing production goals they don't deserve praise then well....they didn't ask for praise for it so folks can just keep it and move along.


I agree. It's refreshing to see a relatively new company bearing the risk of expanding the electric vehicle industry and not accepting the status quo.

Well, I would like to get a Model 3, yet I want Tesla to get glitches out of their production first. I am sure v2 will be much better (sw/hw issues, trim quality, gaps etc).

And then they need to start all over with Model Y. What quality expectations are there?


Trim quality, gaps? That's very old news and hasn't been true for almost a year.

(I know 2 dozen people with 3s purchased in the last 8 months and none of them have had any quality issues)


My Model 3 was purchased the last week in October and has severely uneven fittings and gaps that are getting worse with time. I think the whole gap thing is generally myopic and stupid but this is really remarkable.

I wouldn't call it myopic when a base Toyota Corolla has less squeaks, rattles and fitment issues than Tesla Model 3's and S/X's

As much as I am a Tesla fan, I have to call spade a spade. I know two people in the last couple of months who bought a Tesla, and I noticed misalignments on both of them.

> I know 2 dozen people with 3s purchased in the last 8 months

What's the population size of people who you know who purchased any car in the last 8 months?


Yep. Look at look at a side-by-side comparison a Model 3 from about a year ago (Premium Interior) vs. today (Partial Premium Interior). In the first few frames, there's a notable improvement in the body tolerances around the frunk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSIC6zvQy5Y

> I am sure v2 will be much better

FYI, Tesla doesn't really do "versions" like v2. They're always trying to improve "sw/hw issues, trim quality, gaps etc" over time. So those issues will get better over time without ever announcing a "v2".

And yes, I'm sure the first Model Ys will also have issues that should improve over time.


You don't need to answer every hater speech, your new product/project/success will do it much better.

It's kind of a Russian election situation. Anonymous accounts posting lots of BS to try and control the conversation.

You mean any election.

1. individual cars are a dumb way to "fix" the environment, they're hyper resource intensive and have so many problems

2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society, which is a political issue. tesla comes in a long tradition of sucking public funding into a private entity which cuts across that

3. additionally tesla propagandizes against the above

4. elon musk is a colossal dipshit

so that is mostly why I criticize them.


"2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society".

Study transportation needs of people and you will discover that mass transit only fulfill some parts of people's mobility needs.

Study: https://micromobility.io


And it's falling short of that even! The issue isn't what the optimal state is, it's the delta between here and there.

> 1. individual cars are a dumb way to "fix" the environment, they're hyper resource intensive and have so many problems

This may have been a poor way to say it, but it is the truth.

We will not buy or consume our way out of climate change or negative externalities that affect the environment.

> 2. the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society, which is a political issue. tesla comes in a long tradition of sucking public funding into a private entity which cuts across that

Again, a poor choice of words for an otherwise good point: if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to move away from the idea of ubiquitous transportation via personal vehicles.


> We will not buy or consume our way out of climate change or negative externalities that affect the environment.

That is silly. You have something that causes climate change (coal, oil). It can be replaced by something that doesn't (electric cars, solar panels, nuclear power). Unless your plan is to stop having transportation and electricity, that means the solution requires us to buy things like electric vehicles, solar panels, nuclear reactors, etc.

> if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to move away from the idea of ubiquitous transportation via personal vehicles.

Mass transit requires density. You can't reduce emissions by running huge empty buses through low density areas.

The transit problem is a real estate problem. You don't need more trains and buses, you need higher density near the existing trains and buses. That allows you to run one every 15 minutes instead of every hour and still have it full, which is what it takes to make it a viable replacement for a private car, and that is what makes it cost effective and affordable.

But even that, which would reduce the number of private cars significantly, would never eliminate the need for them entirely. There are things (large farms, industrial facilities) that must or should be away from higher density areas, and the people who work there need some way to get there and back. And mass transit still doesn't work in those kinds of low density areas.


>We will not buy or consume our way out of climate change or negative externalities that affect the environment.

I disagree. While our consumption habits merit a lot of discussion, we literally have to buy and consume our way out of climate change.

We're not going to _stop_ buying and consuming, and we're not going to manage to reduce it enough to stop climate change without massive economic recession (read: massive human suffering).

You can argue such suffering is overall less than what we will suffer due to catastrophic climate change, but that is not at all obvious.


> we literally have to buy and consume our way out of climate change.

This is like hoping that we can dig ourselves out of a hole that we already dug ourselves into.

> We're not going to _stop_ buying and consuming, and we're not going to manage to reduce it enough to stop climate change without massive economic recession

If we aren't going to forgo consumption, personal transportation as the only mode of transportation and a market that refuses to properly account for negative externalities, I feel that we should at least be honest about the situation instead of pretending that continuing the status quo will fix climate change and environmental destruction.

Let's just be honest and say that we don't intend to change things, and embrace the fact that climate change might usher in destruction and human suffering on a large scale. That way we can at least address problems as they arise instead of believing in a fantasy where a solution will fall into our laps if we just buy the right cars.


> This is like hoping that we can dig ourselves out of a hole that we already dug ourselves into.

Which is a good example, because that's literally how you get people out of a hole. You dig your self out -- you stop digging down, and start digging at a 45 degree angle upwards, so you and everyone behind you can safely walk out of that hole.

That's what we need people to be doing -- continue consuming, but sideways instead of downwards, so their consumption helps fix the problem.

> a market that refuses to properly account for negative externalities

Then you should be thrilled with what Tesla (and all EVs) are doing. They are eliminating some major externalities.

Other public transportation forms (like Buses and Trains) also have negative externalities that never accounted for. We don't shut them down, even though they have problems. We strive to improve them, just as we are doing for EVs.

For example, the buses in my hometown today get 5 miles per gallon on gasoline. I drive a Volt, it gets around 100 miles per gallon. (Since it's mostly powered by wind energy, not gasoline). Ignoring construction costs, there needs to be at least 20 people on any given bus, before that bus is more energy efficient than a modern PHEV / pure EV vehicle in terms of fuel spent.

In NYC, with the density they have, that's probably easily possible. In Michigan, we're nowhere near that density today, and none of us has the $200k-per-person cash necessary today to change that. But many people do have the $10k-per-person cash to replace gasoline cars with electric ones. That's a real impact people can actually make today.


> Which is a good example, because that's literally how you get people out of a hole. You dig your self out -- you stop digging down, and start digging at a 45 degree angle upwards, so you and everyone behind you can safely walk out of that hole.

If you do this in sand, you risk having the structure of the hole collapse around you, trapping you. Either way, we're both taking what is meant to be an idiom a bit too literally.

> That's what we need people to be doing -- continue consuming, but sideways instead of downwards, so their consumption helps fix the problem.

> Then you should be thrilled with what Tesla (and all EVs) are doing. They are eliminating some major externalities.

They're shifting externalities. Mining lithium and raw materials for cars are both environmentally devastating and happen in regions with little to no environmental regulation. Manufacturing is both energy intensive and puts out pollution. I'm sure you're familiar with the conclusion reached by several analyses in which a used vehicle with an ICE will result in less net CO2 output than buying a new electric vehicle.

Many places in the US and China, where Tesla's vehicles are popular, generate electricity from burning coal. We have not come up with a solution that solves the problem of supplying energy to meet the grid's baseline demand with renewable energy.

> In NYC, with the density they have, that's probably easily possible. In Michigan, we're nowhere near that density today, and none of us has the $200k-per-person cash necessary today to change that.

I agree, that is a problem. But again, consuming new electric vehicles instead of used ICE vehicles will dig us deeper into the proverbial CO2 hole.


I'm not sure specifically what dishonesty you're pointing to, nor who "we" are.

As far as I can tell, these problems don't have such simple answers.

You may think it pedantic, but I think talking about "forgoing consumption" is absurd. It's literally impossible, and it's a fundamental truth to our existence. Thus, we shouldn't be anything less than blunt about it.

If you stop consuming, you die. We want sustainable consumption, not the end of consumption.


I don’t think it’s productive to prosecute the electric cars vs mass transit issue like this. We need to get to carbon neutral within 12 years. If your plan requires radically changing society, including moving everyone who lives in vast swaths of the country into urban areas, then your plan will not meet that deadline, even with total commitment.

To avoid climate catastrophe we need to embrace a multitude of solutions. I understand the frustration at hearing Musk criticize public transit. It’s triggering. But we are going to need sustainable personal vehicles for a number of use cases, even if we move as many people as we can to mass transit in a decade.


this is such a silly line of reasoning. you're saying we can only make the incredible deadline by changing things in a very moderate fashion, rather than a radical one? just like we've been doing to get to this point lol?

Okay, "not silly" person who's good at reasoning. Tell us how we move 221 million[1] people into mass transit serviceable urban areas in 12 years. I'll wait.

[1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-ec...


> "if we want to see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to move away from the idea of ubiquitous transportation via personal vehicles."

Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult in the United States... we've spent 70+ years building our entire country around the personal vehicle. Save Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and perhaps SF, ALL of our cities require owning a car. Strategically Musk might actually be going the right way... by starting to get people to think about transit in a different way.


> Strategically Musk might actually be going the right way... by starting to get people to think about transit in a different way

I disagree. Tesla's offering keeps ubiquitous personal transportation on life support at best, and neuters public transportation initiatives at worst.


Maybe the infrastructure that is in place to support cars could pivot to public transport? We could replace some/all lanes on motorways/interstates with train tracks. Reduce roads in cities to one way and install trams in the other lanes.

Replacing interstates with rail doesn't work. For one thing, there is already rail running parallel to most of them, so there is no need for it.

Moreover, the usage is different. A person lives in the suburbs, they drive five miles through their suburb, then get on the interstate for 10 miles, then drive to an office park 5 miles off the interstate. If you get rid of the interstate, what are they supposed to do? Drive 5 miles to the train, take the train 10 miles and then walk 5 miles? Buy a second car to use for the other leg of the commute?

What you need is to relax the zoning/density restrictions in the city so that more people and businesses can afford to be there instead of in the suburbs. Then they can use the existing mass transit within the city, which unclogs the interstate for the people who can't, e.g. because one of their endpoints is outside the city for legitimate reasons or because they have to transport bulk material in addition to humans.


One possibility is to take a Lyft to the train station and then an Uber to your office. Which is slightly easier if you've automated the cars so that you don't have to load-balance the wetware part of it, but it's not entirely necessary.

Getting more people into the city is also helpful, but that's a lot of change. A lot of people have become adapted to the pace of suburb life, including me. Getting me into the city is less about cost than about the stress of having so many people around all the time. A lot of people want that, but a lot of people will want to live in the big empty green space, and would pay the costs -- including externalities, if we were to price them in. Improving city mass transit is good, but ultimately I think we'll also have to cope with a lot of people who just want to disperse at the end of the day.


> One possibility is to take a Lyft to the train station and then an Uber to your office. Which is slightly easier if you've automated the cars so that you don't have to load-balance the wetware part of it, but it's not entirely necessary.

Sure. But you can do that already. There are already trains/subways/buses in cities and there is already Uber and Lyft, without any need to close interstates that still have other uses, like transporting bulk material. (Notice also that most interstate highways go between cities.)

Moreover, the original claim was that we should have more trains which would make it so we wouldn't need electric cars. But now we're back to at least needing electric cars for Uber and Lyft.

> A lot of people want that, but a lot of people will want to live in the big empty green space, and would pay the costs -- including externalities, if we were to price them in.

Which is fine. Let the people who prefer the suburbs to live there. You don't need 100% of people to live in the city, what you need is to make it so that all the people who want to live in the city can afford to do so.

And fortunately electric cars powered by solar/nuclear get rid of most of the "externalities" of that -- the only one really left is traffic congestion. Which can be solved not by making it more expensive to live in the suburbs but by making it less expensive to live in the city. Then more people do, even if none of them is you, and there is less congestion on the road because all the people who do prefer to live in the city can use its existing mass transit system.


Well I agree people should work locally and communities should be organised to facilitate that.

> Moreover, the usage is different. What I am suggesting is in an effort to force/encourage different usage (que communist/fascist labels).

But in answer to your question. Take tram/bus, change to train, change to tram/bus. Pain in the arse. Yes. Maybe that is what is required to re organise around more sustainable communities?


The problem is that you can't have a tram/bus there because the population density for that part of the trip is too low to justify it. An empty bus is worse than a single occupant car.

Sure, so a combination of on demand and better scheduling. Lightweight electric transport (ebikes, scooters, golf carts? etc.) Obviously implementation depends a lot upon the local geography/density/weather etc. Definitely not proposing a one size fits all solution.

> Lightweight electric transport (ebikes, scooters, golf carts? etc.)

These already exist. But compared to an electric car they're less safe, slower, less comfortable, have less cargo capacity, etc. Their primary advantage is being less expensive. The reason they aren't already used more is some combination of not being able to meet the relevant safety standards and their cost advantage not overcoming their numerous disadvantages.

There is a reason hospital emergency rooms call motorcycles donor cycles. The fatality rate for that kind of transport is astoundingly high.


The reason they are less safe is because our infrastructure is setup for massive lumps of steel. I'm not suggesting driving lightweight vehicles on roads. I'm suggesting changing the roads so they are optimised for lightweight vehicles and big lumps of steel are second class citizens, either banned or only allowed to operate at certain times etc.

Get the big lumps of steel off the roads and you have far less issues at the ER.


> The reason they are less safe is because our infrastructure is setup for massive lumps of steel.

It isn't. If you want to go 60MPH on an ebike, it's not just hitting a car at 60MPH that will kill you, it's hitting anything at 60MPH with nothing to protect you from it, including the ground.

The only way for something with no airbags, crumple zones or even seatbelts to be as safe as a car is to limit the top speed to about 20MPH, at which point the collective response will be "no" because you're tripling the length of everyone's commute.


Railway fetishism is truly something I guess I'll never really understand.

Trams are LOUD and annoying.


> the good way is to build mass transit and radically change society, which is a political issue. tesla comes in a long tradition of sucking public funding into a private entity which cuts across that

I don't understand how people can simultaneously hold this belief and then act surprised when others criticize the "green movement" as just an excuse to control people.

Modern personal transportation is one of the ultimate expressions of individual freedom. We're making it cleaner, we're reducing externalities, and still environmentalists want to herd people onto busses and trains.

How about no?


> I don't understand how people can simultaneously hold this belief and then act surprised when others criticize the "green movement" as just an excuse to control people.

Massive subsidies to the entire car industry, from cheap roads to cheap gas, are a form of nudging society towards certain behaviors.

Building reliable mass transit, proper safe isolated bike lanes, and removing subsidies that are in place, are another form of societal nudging.

As an example, wide city streets are a form of subsidy, the city loses money on those streets, a 4 lane road in a downtown region of a major metro is a huge lost opportunity cost! But a combination of political and societal factors came together to cause cities sacrifice buildings for for car lanes.

> Modern personal transportation is one of the ultimate expressions of individual freedom.

I personally enjoy driving, but when visiting cities with real mass transit (Tokyo, London, etc), I feel a lot more free to travel within the city. No being stuck in traffic, transit times are a lot more reliable than driving, no worrying about finding parking and then walking to my destination, and no worries about not being able to find parking at all!

And in cities with "almost there" mass transit, such as Boston, so long as you are on the transit lines, everything is incredibly nice.

Honestly I think Bostonians complain about their transit system too much, whenever I visit Boston I am very pleased with MBTA's service!

> We're making it cleaner, we're reducing externalities, and still environmentalists want to herd people onto busses and trains.

Individual transit has huge external costs. From giant parking lots everywhere, to the fact that it just doesn't scale[1]. 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[2].

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![3]

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.

[1]https://i.imgur.com/sCvRIEd.gif

[2]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".

[3]Obviously only applicable once a city grows beyond a certain size and starts building medium and high density housing.


Agreed. Consumerism is part of the problem. People don't want to think about the fact that we might have to accept a different standard of living in order to fight climate change.

Yup. It is far easier to fight against meat eaters than give up your fancy car.

I don't want say anything bad about mass transit for large cities where it makes sense. But you have to reach a certain economy of scale before trains become more efficient than cars. A train with just a couple of people uses far more power than a car does.

We can do a lot to encourage people to live closer together by ending subsidies, removing zoning laws, etc. But in the end we still need farmers and other professions living spread out across the country. We can't achieve perfect urbanization. And given that electric cars are going to be a necessary part of getting to zero emissions.


I gotta give it to them, it's insane how fast they're moving.

In less than a decade they've gone from one highly niche electric supercar to a luxury sedan, a luxury SUV, a mid-range sedan, and a mid-range SUV.

And in sales they're crushing competition that have been building cars for literally a hundred years.

So excited for the zero-exhaust future.


I live near one of the busiest highways in the country and it's just sorta background noise for the neighborhood. I'm not sure people realize not only how much exhaust is spewing out of that road, but also the noise. The volume level of major cities is going to decrease dramatically.

At highway speeds, the sound of a modern cars (ICE or otherwise) is mostly tire noise. Electric cars are much quieter at slower speeds, when tire noise is minimal.

It's quite noticeable when going from "new" asphalt to old or vice versa at freeway speeds. Air resistance adds quite a bit of sound as well, the faster you go.

Can we get electric tires then? (Or figure out how to fix tire noise)

On highway 85 near Cupertino a few years ago they did something called “microgrooving” and it made a huge difference in tire noise, even inside your car. It’s dramatically quieter when you suddenly hit that section.

What also helps immensely both in noise and road wear is that no trucks are allowed on 85.

They also designed in sound-absorbing walls.


I couldn't find reference to this technique could you go into more detail please ?


Is not the tires 100%. The asphalt or the road composition and degradation plays a role.

We have a small highway section which was newly done (somewhere in Germany). They seemd to use a different composition and construction method, man, this road is soo silent, even at >200km/h.


Smaller tires are generally quieter, go for the 16" rims instead of the 18". You'll also see better mileage usually.

Tire thickness is another factor, get the lowest speed rating tires you can if you don't need to go faster than 112 mph/180 km/h, the recommended speed limit of the common rating 'S'.

Of course you should avoid studded tires if you're optimizing for noise, but also All-terrain tires are going to be loud.


1. Why would smaller tires be any quieter?

2. Smaller rims do not mean smaller tires. On a given car model, the outside diameter of the tire will be essentially fixed. If they have multiple wheel diameters, the tire sidewall height will change to accommodate the wheel diameter. Technically smaller-diameter rims actually mean larger tires.


You're right about the sizing. I didn't separate my wording of tire and rims enough.

I will defer to a blurb I just Googled: http://elevatingsound.com/your-guide-to-getting-quiet-tires-...


Where I am (Manhattan) its truck noise. Trucks are the absolute worst in terms of noise pollution and emissions. Most modern cars/taxis around here are some sort of hybrid which shuts the engine when stopped, yet trucks are still in the stone age. And to top it off, there's really no political willpower to reign in bad trucker behavior.

here in Paris the 150cc scooters are much worse. Very high RPM and incredible noise

Good news, electric scooters are a thing, and they're very quiet.

I wouldn't say they're a thing yet; there are some nice 'luxury' electric scooters, and there are cheap lead-acid scooters, but not too much in between yet.

I'd love an affordable, reasonably well-constructed LiIon scooter, but it's not there. Definitely coming, but not here yet.


Seems to be coming a few now. At least locally there's several li-ion options in the 2k-3k USD range, most with 30-40km range. Quite affordable here for most.

e.g. late night pizza delivery wakes up the neighbourhood

100%. A garbage truck and a tiny pothole are magnitudes louder than any consumer vehicle. Repaving the roads would have a much larger effect on noise than replacing every ICE vehicle with a tesla.

I'm not in public policy or anything, but it's kind of baffling that no one is targeting fleet vehicles as the obvious first target for cleaning up. Trying to convince consumers of the value of electric vehicles is hard. Trying to convince a guy who is paying maintenance and fuel costs for 4,000 vehicles should be a piece of cake. Especially if you just force them through legislation. Mayor De Blasio could mandate all livery vehicles be electric by 2030 and that's an instant captive market of over 100K vehicles.

Don't forget the diesel soot. Leave your window open for the day and come back to suit covering everything.

Modern ICE cars are shut off at stops. No battery required.

Not to be pedantic, but modern ICE cars still have batteries...

They aren't hybrids with their attendant motive power battery.

I noticed certain builds of the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 offer an electric motor assist that also includes idle engine shutoff. We can only hope that is becomes a standard feature, electric motors in traffic jams would be wonderful.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l8b/


I dunno about the US but everyone I known in Europe that lives in a city or close to a highway is looking forward to the electric future. This has become a recurring topic in dinner conversations as more and more people have first hand experience with electric vehicles now.

Imagine how quiet a city like Paris, Rome or Berlin could be if all vehicles were electric?

I can't wait for this future to arrive and the fact that I will enjoy it a decade earlier -- at least -- I'll owe to Musk/Tesla. More power to them.


I'm sad to say that except for trucks the majority of noises from highways these days is from tires. I read a rather long article, in the Atlantic I believe. Apparently car weights have been on the rise for 70 years and on top of that the trend for the same weight car is for wider tires. The increasing noise has been a constant pain for highway planners because population density is increasing, traffic is increasing, and noise per car is increasing. Technology for noise abatement is improving, but expensive.

Given that Tesla cars and anything with similar range is likely to be another 1000 pounds heavier than cars in it's class, the prospect for quieter cars is poor.

Stand on a sidewalk sometime and listen. At constant speed or slowing down electric cars vs normal cars are pretty similar, but be careful to compare cars of similar vintage. This is part of the way I think legislation that add noise to electric cars for safety is misguided. Compare a 2018 BMW, Lexus, Acura, and MB vs a Tesla. Any of them could easily hit you before you easily hear them.


After living next to commuter rail and bus stops, I’m amazed that private car noise is even a complaint. A train horn is felt in your chest. Air brakes and audible announcements are much more noticeable because they’re intermittent where tire noise is a constant hum easily tuned out.

I moved right next to a Railroad crossing just about the time they started experimenting with a no horn crossing. Every now and then I still wake up to feel the whole room rocking from a fast train going by but it's still wonderfully quiet.

https://helenair.com/news/crime-and-courts/helena-s-railroad...


Highway noise is mostly tire and wind noise, aside from the occasional loud engine. EVs will certainly reduce city street noise, but I'd bet highways will still be pretty loud.

Unfortunately tire noise contributes about 50% of the volume.

Maybe on the highway, but I would imagine that's not the case in major cities where cars are generally moving < 30 MPH.

Tire noise has a much different "sonic signature" compared to exhaust noise and ICE noise, it is much closer to "white" noise and has not as much rumble. I'm not saying it's necessarily any better, but maybe it's going to be less annoying.

Can someone explain to me how EV's can scale in older urban residential areas (most european cities) where cars are typically parked on the street (i.e. no private parking spaces)?

I just can't see how the logistics of charging would work for more than a few EVs per city block...


A few possible answers and solutions:

1) People who live in urban residential areas in Europe don't typically drive very far on a daily basis. So charging doesn't have to be as common a thing as it is in the US.

2) Charging stations at work places. I don't know the numbers, but I would assume a decent percentage of Europeans who drive to work have a parking lot at their jobsite.

3) Highway rest stops. The "travel plaza" type of rest stop is common in europe and could accommodate intercity travelers.

4) Battery swapping technology may help down the road.


5) A charging service (a truck with a big ass battery) that your car or you calls for and uses the car's gps to find and charge it.

6) Your car auto drives itself to the charging station and drives back during off hours.

7) All this is moot, electric and self driving technology will so absolutely revolutionize transportation that these problems will not be applicable.


There are other places we could imagine setting up chargers too, like at grocery markets or other stores. Because Tesla batteries (and some but not all other EVs) are massively oversized for a typical single day's drive, you probably only need to charge every 1-2 weeks unless you are taking a trip, in which case you use superchargers or such.

Right now, it's not great. I say this having looked into an EV recently as an option. At the moment, my personal conclusion is that I'd need to rent a garage space, and then pay to have a charging point installed.

There are a small but growing number of street chargers available, albeit owned by different groups (presumably with rules and different payment routes) and with different changing and connection specifications. [1]

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.

[1] https://www.plugshare.com


I assume that sooner or later cities will just put charging columns on the street, like these: https://www.emcaustria.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/IMG_380...

They don't need to support fast charging, 10kW AC would be more than enough when people charge overnight, and low power chargers like that should be pretty cheap to install at scale.


I think the real future here is when automation develops enough so these cars can drive itself to and from a parking location nearby. This will free up the space on these streets taken up by existing cars, allow more space for traffic and for stops for passengers to get in and out of vehicles.

You don't have gas pumps by street parking. Why should EVs be any different? Don't let your charge get so low that you can't make it to the nearest charging station.

It takes a LOT more time to charge than it does to fill a gas (petrol) tank. Thus the requirement to charge overnight.

More time, yes. A lot more time?

Filling a gas tank takes what, 10 minutes? Charging at a supercharger takes 30 minutes. That's more, but not ridiculously so.

For comparison, getting the same charge at home from the recommended outlet takes 4 hours. Getting the same charge off of a home outlet is something like 36 hours.

So yes, it can take a long time. But it doesn't have to.


I'd be very surprised if it takes me more than 5 minutes with pay at the pump.

It's a difference in magnitude that's the problem. For 5 minutes, of which half is spent actively interacting with the hose and payment, I can comfortably stand around. Anything more than that and I have to find something else to do while my car is occupied.


And that's the beauty of electric charging -- you actually CAN go do something else for that half hour, whereas with gas you have to stay in attendance of the pump (safety reasons).

Which means that you can top off your charge while at the grocery store, or work, or whatever.


There arent that many things you can do within half an hour at a charging station.

As someone who has used one, I disagree.

Tesla has tried to establish charging stations near shopping areas. There is generally lots to do. For example the last one I visited had multiple fast food places, an outlet mall and a casino. (This was in Primm, Nevada.)


Using that interesting measure of charge speed Tesla used in their new V3 super charger announcement a few days ago, MPH (miles per hour of charging), the new super charger does 1000 MPH.

US gas pumps are limited by EPA rules to 10 gallons per minute. A gas pump that is going top speed, filling a 25 MPG car, "charges" at 15000 MPH.

A lot of pumps seem to go at half that or even only a third of that, which in practice can cut that down to 5000 MPH, which is still much much faster than the V3 super charger.

On the other hand, I think I'd be much more likely with an EV to overlap charging with getting a snack from the convenience store (assuming EV charging stations have them like gas stations usually do...), whereas I prefer to stay with my car while gas is pumping, and so can't overlap that with the snack acquisition.

So maybe it evens out somewhat.


Roughly an order of magnitude more time in the best case scenario, so yes, quite a bit.

The only way filling up my tank would take 10 minutes was if I had to queue for the pump for over 5. Also, you get much less added range from those 30 minutes with an EV, so I really doubt it's a reasonable suggestion (even if superchargers were as ubiquitous as petrol stations).


Supercharging V3 was just announced with one beta station, 1000 MPH of charging. Pretty incredible.

You have to think of fueling up in a different way with an EV -- you're parked at home for many hours overnight, and at work for many hours too, plug in there if you can instead of making dedicated "fuel stops" like we do in gas cars.

(I drive a plug-in hybrid)


Frequency is also a factor. An extra 5-10 minutes added to a commute each week in order to fill up is no big deal. 30 minutes every day in order to charge is unworkable

Most gasoline cars have a range of around 400 miles.

Teslas have a range of around 300 miles.

That really isn't a big frequency difference.

In practice charging a Tesla takes me less than a minute. "Remember to back my car into my driveway and plug it up."


The original scenario you're responding to is the problem of people who don't have a driveway or garage. They'll need to take their car somewhere that they can get a full charge while they do something else. Not an insurmountable problem, but it's definitely an impediment to universal adoption.

If you only need to get gas every week (assume a small SUV like the model Y, a Ford something or another) you're going to get 24mpg, and have a 16 gallon takn or so.

16*24 = 384 miles of range. A Tesla should be able to do what, 300 miles on a charge? You shouldn't have to charge every day.


In the medium term, there seems to be opportunity for increases in charging speed as well. Tesla just announced v3 supercharging, which hits 1000 miles/hour and 75 miles of range in 5 minutes, and at the very least larger batteries will stretch that number. It's not clear how far they and others can push high-speed charging, but batteries are only going to get better.

You are comparing the rare best case scenario for EVs against the normal every day scenario for ICE fill-up. Hardly realistic

I can’t remember which city or country but somewhere in Northern Europe too many people got EV too quickly for the existing charger infrastructure and they has to counter this by taking away or reducing planned city/state subsidy for new EV and artificially slow down growth

Can’t find the article atm


Extension cords duct taped down to the sidewalk so they don't pose a trip hazard?

I've seen EV charging stations at offices and supermarkets in some pretty "old" places. I could imagine seeing them in more places where you park for a while.

Norway has electric sockets next to parking spots. It predates EVs, something about 12V batteries and extreme cold around there.

public plugs

> a mid-range sedan, and a mid-range SUV

Is there a definition for mid-range vs luxury? I wouldn't consider a sedan that starts at $35K (with an average sale price of $60K), or an SUV that starts at $47K (over 50% higher than the median US worker's gross personal income[0]) mid-range. Both the Mercedes A-class and Audi A3 start at $32.5K even.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...


> And in sales they're crushing competition that have been building cars for literally a hundred years.

I don't think that's a realistic assessment of where Tesla is at as a car company. Tesla is still not very good at the actual making of cars. For example, in the last five years Tesla has had more health and safety violations in their factory than the top ten automakers in the US combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...

Tesla cars have among the worst reliability of any car brand:

https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20...

https://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability-by-brand

Consumer Reports no longer recommends the Model 3 due to its lack of reliability:

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisf...

In 2018, Toyota and Volkswagen each sold over 10 million cars:

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/01/11/vw-group-2018-total-sale...

Whereas Tesla has sold about 550,000 cars in 11 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Sales

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):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-electric-insig...

Volkswagen also wants to license its MEB electric car platform to other manufacturers. They already have one licensee:

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/05/volkswagen-wants-to-sha...

I think Tesla's main problems are that they are a small car company with an erratic CEO, inefficient and unreliable manufacturing, and they're about to face a lot of electric car competition from one of the biggest car companies in the world.


You could not make a more dishonest selections:

>For example, in the last five years Tesla has had more health and safety violations in their factory than the top ten automakers in the US combined

Because Tesla manufactures all its car in California, which has far stricter rules than other states. If other manufacturers moved their production there, Tesla would rank better than the competition

>Tesla cars have among the worst reliability of any car brand

And yet, Tesla owners keep recommending their cars more than anyone else, because the car is that good. There are many things that might no be "highly reliable" (even important things, like cars) that are so great to use that you'd buy them again against the current alternatives (like a Tesla vs noisy, polluting, gas-guzzling vehicles).

>In 2018, Toyota and Volkswagen each sold over 10 million cars

So what? How many of them are EVs? One could wonder how Nokia's sales were going when the iPhone started becoming mainstream…

>Volkswagen is starting its push into EVs.

They've been starting since 2009.

>Porsche, Audi, VW, Skoda, and SEAT to start

And yet, we just learned (no later than last month) that they are changing all their EV plan because their future models cannot compete with the current Model 3 (source: https://www.manager-magazin.de/premium/audi-bram-schot-will-...)

Two quotes from this article:

>The Porsche and Audi engineers have to change [the Premium Platform Electric program] because Tesla’s Model 3 has gotten better than they thought.

>The e-tron as the first electric Audi is not only late. It does not reach some target values and has become far too expensive with more than two billion euros in development costs. The approximately 600,000 cars sold for the break-even are now regarded as an illusion.

>Volkswagen also wants to license its MEB electric car platform to other manufacturers. They already have one licensee

Oh, you mean the MEB platform that is being holding up until they can come up with something that is on par with Tesla tech and cost? Ah!


> Because Tesla manufactures all its car in California, which has far stricter rules than other states. If other manufacturers moved their production there, Tesla would rank better than the competition

That's just conjecture. Tesla has had a reputation of not being safe because of things like this: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/tesla-workers-getting...

> And yet, Tesla owners keep recommending their cars more than anyone else, because the car is that good.

How does that make the original statement false? If anything, it establishes a pattern where Tesla owners are far more likely to overlook these issues because of how much they like their car.

> So what? How many of them are EVs? One could wonder how Nokia's sales were going when the iPhone started becoming mainstream…

The OP was pointing out that some people are looking through a subjective lens when they claim that Tesla is crushing it. In a broader picture when you look into the sale of all cars, it's really not as significant. Ok, so these cars are not EVs. So what? It's not enough to say you're dominant in a niche, albeit a growing one. When you're not on equal footing as some of the bigger name car companies, you're much more susceptible to being crushed competitively if those companies make a play in the same space. I'm not at all saying that will happen, just that looking at this point requires a bigger, broader perspective.


> It's not enough to say you're dominant in a niche, albeit a growing one.

When you're facing technology transitions, looking at it as a niche is exactly the wrong perspective. Tesla is dominant in a field which is the future of automotive transportation. It is a small market not because it is a niche but because it is nascent. The difference is, strategically, very relevant.

ICE automakers are just realizing how far behind Tesla they are. I'd wager at least ten years. The model S was launched in 2012, VW et al won't be able to launch a similar offer before 2022.


> VW et al won't be able to launch a similar offer before 2022.

Volkswagen will launch multiple models across multiple brands before 2022. The Porsche Taycan is launching before 2022:

https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/09/porche-taycan-ev-20-000-...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a21239...

And the VW ID Neo: https://electrek.co/2019/03/13/vw-id-electric-hatchback-pre-...

And the VW ID Crozz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8zbuvzEA5A

And the Audi e-tron Q4: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/audi-q4-e-tron-concept-ge...

And the Audi e-tron GT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsXhl3ilU9I

And the Skoda Vision IV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O72uf9DNakk

And the SEAT el-Born: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umwlXFoSAD8


I'm all for more EVs, but anyone who's followed the EV space for the past decade knows that most of these models are DOA.

Take the Audi e-tron for instance: the director of the Paris showroom (the only place in Europe where the car was displayed in public) himself told me late last year that they don't intend to sell the car in volume, that it can't compete with the competition, and that EV sales are mostly PR for a company like Audi (at least until ICE don't make most of the company's profits).

NB: this is not a regular dealership, but a fully owned and controlled store by Audi. Good luck with that!


Meanwhile, Porsche is making its most popular model electric only:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/porsche-macan-electric-on...

You're not being realistic. Volkswagen will be the biggest producer of electric cars within 3 years.


>> Volkswagen will be the biggest producer of electric cars within 3 years.

Not least due to their outsized presence in the world's most important market for EV - China


> There will be many models launched before 2022.

And there have been many models launched before today. None are even close to model S levels of production volume, performance, range and battery durability.

If your reference is the Porsche Taycan, it is the equivalent to the Tesla Roadster: a low volume proof of concept. It is already more than ten years late (the Roadster launched in '08). If your reference is anything based on VW's MEB (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda), add two years to publicized launch dates, as the MEB went back to the drawing board, deemed under-specced for what the market expects from EVs. This means production plants have not yet started to get designed, much less built, and are waiting on platform redesign and approval.


You really should read and view the links. Both the Porsche Taycan and the Audi e-tron GT are in the Model S's category, and they're both much nicer cars.

The Porsche Taycan will charge faster than any Tesla and won't suffer the Model S's overheating issues:

http://www.thedrive.com/news/5207/this-video-reminds-us-that...


I think you mean: you speculate that the GT and Taycan will be in same category as the Model S and will be nicer than the roadster. Since literally nobody outside of VAG has sat in one.

You may also want to walk back the claims about overheating. In one of the press videos, a Porsche engineer explicitly says that the number of hard accelerations over a short time will be limited to 10, or so.


> Since literally nobody outside of VAG has sat in one.

Here's a person sitting in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvNw15W_EK8

Here's another person sitting in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMEdiq2xTbQ

And yet another person sitting in one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2i8uS_q6kE

And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZFcjJ-PCbs

Is that literal enough?


Take a look at this:

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/audis-electric-e-tron-is-real-...

That article is from 2009, a full decade ago. It's a prime example why people are very weary when it comes to VAG announcing concept EVs. It's not a contender until I can actually purchase one.

Any car manufacturer can create a concept EV with relative ease. That's the easy part. Taking it to production (especially at scale) is the hardest part.


That was then, this is now. The investments have been made and the direction has been set.

There's no point trying to concoct a narrative that this is all somehow vaporware. You can pre-order your VW ID Neo in 7 weeks:

https://electrek.co/2019/03/13/vw-id-electric-hatchback-pre-...


Amazing. They had a police motorcade surrounding them.

>The Porsche Taycan will charge faster than any Tesla

Where?


At every 350 kW charger:

https://insideevs.com/first-ionity-350-kw-chargers-denmark/

When will Tesla introduce 350 kW charging?


>Because Tesla manufactures all its car in California, which has far stricter rules than other states. If other manufacturers moved their production there, Tesla would rank better than the competition

I just want to point out that Tesla's California plant is Just the old GM/Toyota NUMMI plant. The article insinuates the safety violations are greater than any US based plant operated by other manufacturers over the past 10 years, a time period which includes the era in which GM/Toyota ran the very same plant.


NUMMI was sold to Tesla in 2010, and Toyota/GM had basically stopped operations by mid 2009. I’m not sure how one year of super low production is comparable to Tesla’s operation.

> You could not make a more dishonest selections

So I'm dishonest, Forbes is dishonest, Consumer Reports is dishonest, TrueDelta is dishonest, Autoblog is dishonest, Reuters is dishonest, Wikipedia is dishonest, and CleanTechnica is dishonest. We're all dishonest together.

> So what?

So they operate on a larger scale and they're better at making and selling cars than Tesla is. There's no point crying about it. These are simply the basic realities.


You know what a selection is?

>So they operate on a larger scale and they're better at making and selling cars than Tesla is

You don't get it. They're better at making and selling ICE cars. Not EVs. No one is discussing the fact that established manufacturers are established, the issue here is the disruption.

Remember that Tesla is eating up market shares fast and at an increasing pace, and they already produce more than 50% of the entire battery market (including smartphones, stationary storage, EV, etc).

If you're forward looking, you could say Tesla "operates on a larger scale and is better at making and selling EVs". This reality may not be easy to recognize.


> the issue here is the disruption.

What disruption? Tesla is already behind on technology and soon they're going to be behind on volume.

The CCS charging networks are deploying 350 kW chargers, Tesla is not. Volkswagen is introducing the first 800 volt cars, Tesla is not.


>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.

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."?


>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.

Do you have a source for this?


>Owners appear to like, even love, the Model 3. It received top marks in CR’s recent owner satisfaction survey and also earned a positive road-test score. It’s a weird duality — and one the even CR acknowledges — that other aspirational, lifestyle and luxury vehicles share. Owners love the vehicles, despite persistent issues with the components inside them.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/tesla-model-3-loses-consum...


Reliability goes up as the volume goes up and you can more readily apply statistical methods. A bit of a chicken/egg problem, really.

in what sense is this an SUV? It looks just like a sedan

It’s a CUV. A compact SUV.

CUV is crossover utility vehicle.

This is almost getting as silly as music genres.

Well the Kia Niro can apparently be an SUV, even if it is barely bigger than a Corolla. (Niro owner here)

Got a mini-review for us?

It has 3 rows of seats and seats 7 people.

So... a station wagon?

I get what you're saying, but 55,000€ is not midrange. It's more expensive than a BMW series 5.

how again are they crushing the competition? they sell in a year what toyota manufactures in a day. a long reservation list isn’t an indicator of success, it’s an indicator of demand. and the demand, in relative scale, is low.

The competition would be specific models, https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/04/tesla-model-3-sales-32-...

Rav4 Hybrid also uses some Tesla tech. While unclear if they will continue to dominate market segments they enter, Tesla has been more successful than I ha d imagined by this point.


> they sell in a year what toyota manufactures in a day

You're off by more than an order of magnitude.

Tesla sold 250k cars in 2018, and Toyota makes < 25k/day.

Not to mention the Tesla number is growing substantially, while the Toyota number is flat.


Toyota takes about 2 weeks to do what Tesla does in a year. (10million vs 400,000)

"So excited for the zero-exhaust future."

Is it zero exhaust? Where do you get your energy from? Is it from a caol plant? A nuclear plant? Its more you don't see the exhaust.


Boring argument.

In the medium/long term, the trend is towards renewable energy power.

In the short-term, these cars, whether running on renewable or dirt-power, mean that we, and our children, don't have to suck up exhaust fumes.

"Thank you" are the words you're looking for.


Precisely. This is a perfect example of the concept that "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

> Boring argument.

No. Valid argument. For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another. While that might change in the future, for the moment the environmental impact only happens somewhere else. This should not be forgotten, therefore those uncritical claqueurs are misplaced.


> For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another.

No, we aren't. There are lots of renewable energy sources already on the market, and more coming online every day. You just have to be willing to use them.

In Michigan, as one example, for just one extra cent per kilowatt/hour you can have 100% renewable electricity in your home right now. No new wires, no extra setup.


>> In Michigan, as one example, for just one extra cent per kilowatt/hour you can have 100% renewable electricity in your home right now. No new wires, no extra setup.

Not really. The electrons all go through through the same wires regardless of where they come from. I think the extra cent does in some way incentivize renewable power, but you don't literally get 100% renewable energy.


> you don't literally get 100% renewable energy. The electrons all go through through the same wires regardless

Yes, you actually do. Consumers Energy literally generates that amount of renewable energy instead of the equivalent from Natural Gas.

You are technically correct that my home does not get the specific "renewable electrons" that the wind farm itself generated, since the grid is all interconnected. But that doesn't change the fact that the power company burned less Natural Gas that month, for every user who opted instead for renewable energy.


I'm in Michigan, interested to know what you are speaking of?

Fellow Michigander! I believe the poster was referring to this program: https://www.consumersenergy.com/residential/renewable-energy...

Awesome! Thank you.

But we're moving the emissions in a "more solvable" direction. By consolidating the emissions from millions of cars to hundreds (thousands?) of plants, we're making it a MUCH easier problem to address.

I am not sure about the US, but in Germany 40% of the electricity is already renewable. And most Tesla owners I know use a 100% renewable plan. It costs just a tiny little bit more, for example from here: https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/privatkunden/oekostrom.html (page in German)

It's still not a valid argument.

Burning gasoline in a car is far less efficient than burning coal in a huge power plant. The gasoline refining process is also power-hungry. As an added bonus, it's also possible to capture at least some of the pollution from a power plant in ways that aren't possible when you have to shrink things down to car size.

An average EV charged off a coal plant still pollutes less than an average gasoline powered car.

Check out the maps at https://www.quora.com/How-are-electric-cars-better-for-the-e...


> No. Valid argument.

Nope, still entirely invalid. Switching from combustion to electric in vehicles decouples emissions from energy consumption in transportation, which is step 1. From that point on, it's generally up to the larger players e.g. governing bodies, energy suppliers, etc. to make the switch -- but not entirely so. There's already enough funding/incentives on the table to encourage people to not just decouple emissions from transport, but to eliminate emissions entirely eg by powering via their own renewable energy setup. Prices have dropped by more than 60% in five years down to just over 3 dollars a watt, and if that trend maintains itself, we'll be under a buck fifty in the next five. The only way that trend keeps going is if everyone, large players and small, have access and incentive to keep buying and drive costs down.

But none of those trends sustain themselves if the necessary energy decoupling doesn't take place, and that's what electric cars are aiming to do in transportation.


> “Nope, still entirely invalid.”

hey, words have meanings. you didn’t invalidate the argument nor did you even argue against it. invalidating an argument would have been pointing out a structural deficiency in the logic. arguing against would be pointing out the falsity of one or more points with counterfactuals. you did neither.

it’s true that emissions are transferred from car to power plant, so that’s a valid argument (edit: because it’s logically sound, not just because it’s true). you accepted and built on that argument by saying it’s a good thing for a bunch of reasons. so your opening sentence was entirely unnecessary.


You are incorrect. The argument structure does not lead to the conclusion that the amount of emissions is necessarily higher. It's too ambiguous for that. It's possible to infer more than one argument structure from the writing. It was a series of questions and a statement, not a series of premises and a conclusion.

Different readers will infer different argument structures, but what I find interesting is that the assumed answers to the questions are conditioned on effort expended in becoming greener. So the questions are implicitly polarizing.

People with Tesla's who have taken steps to ensure zero emissions are more likely to respond no to each question. They are also more likely to do this, because they've invested significant resources toward producing an environment that doesn't have externalities. It isn't a random sampling. For someone who assumes no or for whom the assumption of no being possible is obvious, the implied argument is invalid. For others, it's easier to arrive at a yes to every question. Neither answer is correct though, because these questions are not able to be answered in a yes or no fashion. The actual answer is that this is conditioned on investment in green energy infrastructure. You'll notice many arguing in other comments to the effect that this is a boring argument, entirely on the basis of ongoing investment into green energy infrastructure. That doesn't happen randomly. They've thought through the implied argument structure and moved beyond it to the causally important factor on which the not quite an argument hinges.

And they call the argument boring; which it is, especially if you've ever bothered to consume any Tesla marketing since it tackles this question (spoiler alert: the efficiency gain is one of the reasons to buy a Tesla, not an argument against).


> "The argument structure does not lead to the conclusion that the amount of emissions is necessarily higher."

yeah, nobody tried to argue that, so i'm not sure who you're arguing with.


The argument implied as valid by your reply to the person who called it invalid was given several parents up. The chain was that comment, a person calling the argument boring, another person calling it valid, another person calling it invalid, a reassertion of invalidity, a negation of the claim of validity, and then your post re-asserting the arguments validity.

It was not a valid argument structure. The definition of valid is that an argument is valid if the argument structure is such that if the premises were true, the conclusion must be true. The stated conclusion of the post many parents is up is that the amount of emissions is higher. If you agree with me that this argument was not actually made, than you ought to agree with me that what was done must not be a valid argument: that conclusion is not reachable via the questions posed in the post, therefore, it is not a valid argument.

I'm a fan of syllogistic logic, so I shared your care for the definition of the word valid. Also, totally understandable to lose the context. This discussion is nested quite deeply. If I hadn't thought about the comment chain for an hour before giving my reply, I would have lost the context too.


This is a well-known argument called the Long Tailpipe Problem. It makes intuitive sense, but if we inspect the data from a comprehensive, well-to-wheel assessment, the answer is: "It depends."

The total systemic carbon footprint depends on the fuel and technology used for electricity generation in the particular country or region in question.

Electric cars’ carbon emissions can vary from similar to the average gasoline car (for countries with lots of dirty coal-fired plants) to less than half those of the best hybrids vehicles (in countries with lots of renewable power generation).

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions


> For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another.

Well not exactly, we're replacing a product that will by necessity produce polluting emissions (and not only CO2, btw) from fossil fuels, with one that is able to use whatever source might be available, from coal and nuclear to solar and wind power. In programming terms, decoupling the responsibility of energy production from that of transportation, with all the flexibility that this entails. You become free to optimize energy production as a completely isolated problem from that of the vehicles that drive you around.


No, invalid argument.

Thanks to regenerative braking, a Tesla gets the equivalent of 120 mpg, much better than any ICE car.

In fact the energy used in refining gasoline to drive an ICE car is a given distance approximately the same as the energy to drive an electric car the same. Which means that before you've accounted for turning the ICE car on, the electric car has already arrived at its destination.


Depends where you live and drive. Some states like Vermont get almost all of their energy from renewables.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-e...


It's worth noting those graphs are about what power is generated in-state, not what power is consumed in-state.

In VT's case, they shut down a nuclear plant with no in-state replacement for the power, and now they buy 60% of their power from out of state. A lot of which comes from Hydro-Quebec, so it's often still renewable in their case.


At least the means of production of the energy can be updated without needing to replace the car.

In an ICE, every car comes with its own power plant burning gasoline to produce energy.

With electric cars, power generation is distributed among a much, much smaller amount of power plants. Upgrading those is much more expensive, but by upgrading one, you've instantly upgraded all the electric cars powered by that power plant.


> zero exhaust

Sure, many countries are still on coal. But there are other considerations as well. Cities are hotspots for emissions, and need not be. Another important point is that nitrogen byproducts form simply from the high temperatures in internal combustion engines, not just from fuel.


In the future, hopefully from solar panels, wind and nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream

> nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream

Nuclear still has exhaust, it just takes the form of waste heat dumped into some environment to the plant and then spent fuel, which needs to be managed somehow.

(I do think nuclear needs to be a part of the solution, but I'd hardly call it 'zero exhaust', unless you are strictly speaking carbon emissions.)


In the context of vehicle exhaust, I think it’s pretty clear that humid waste heat is not comparable to coal or petrol fired exhaust, particularly in proximity to cities.

Yeah... I do understand the difference.

My main point, though, is that the idea these cars are 'zero emission' is only true in a localized sense. As always, there are tradeoffs that the elevator pitch tends to gloss over.


Thermal pollution is a problem for traditional power plants too though. That’s an under appreciated problem, but not one unique to nuclear.

In the US it depends on which state you live in. The Department of Energy has the Alternative Fuels Data Center[0] that will show you national average and state by state emissions for four different types of engine.

[0] https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

edit: grammer


“future” can be zero exhaust.

And how fast we get there essentially depends on our progress in energy storage + energy-on-demand technologies.

Renewable energy production is not in line with our peak demand times (noon, evening, morning to a lesser extend).

Somehow we need to be able to save the energy produces/harvested when it's not needed and provide it to handle the demand spikes to ensure grid stability.


It can be, but the grandparent comment seemed to imply that just switching to electric cars will do that, which is disingenuous. It can help, but the power grid needs to be overhauled as well.

If electric cars do take over, that will cause a substantial increase of needed power, something I don't know if it can today. Right now the USA hasn't built a nuclear reactor in decades. I would love to see a more distributed power network (I.e. every home has solar and wind power).


Nuclear is zero-exhaust. Its waste (more generic term) is a unique and complex, but not impossible, problem to solve.

I can only hope we spin up more nuclear.


Aside from the other comments, can there be benefit from concentrating that "exhaust" to fewer places?

Yes, because fewer people live next to a power plant. Almost everyone lives next to a road.

So even if power plants were as dirty as ICEs, it would be a win.


If we can get pollution away from the people that's already a huge win.

Regardless, coal plants are an order of magnitude more efficient than cars.

Model Y will have Full Self-Driving capability, enabling automatic driving on city streets and highways pending regulatory approval, as well as the ability to come find you anywhere in a parking lot.

Pending regulatory approval, and also they need figure out how to make it work first.

Off the top of my head I remember similar claims being made about the summoning feature of the model S. Has it lived up to the marketing promises?


I call BS on this. EVERY autonomous driving expert agrees that Tesla is years away from Waymo or GM, and years away from their own claims.

For what it's worth Musk says he's confident:

>I think we will be feature complete full self-driving this year meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot pick you up take you all the way to your destination without an intervention. This year. I would say that I am certain of that, that is not a question mark.

>However people sometimes will extrapolate that to mean now it works with one hundred percent certainty we're requiring no observation perfectly. This is not the case. Once it is feature complete then you're sort of kind of the march of nines like how many nines of reliability do you want to be and then when do regulators agree that it is that that is that reliable so this feature complete post full self-driving this year with certainty.

>This is something that we control and I managed autopilot engineering directly every week in detail so I'm certain to this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dEYm8hzLo 10 mins in or so)

And that you can probably sleep while it drives around end 2020


The common theory is that additional 9s for self driving are not inremental, they require more like exponential effort. Possibly and probably needing new sensors or additional compute power to handle those corner cases. So you cannot linearly extrapolate progress.

Waymo maybe but not GM. Also not EVERY autonomous driving expert. Also they're different approaches.


The review put Super Cruise higher than Tesla Autopilot because of better driver monitoring and geofencing. It doesn't speak much to how far ahead each company is on self-driving technology. Both Super Cruise and Autopilot are bad representations of where GM/Cruise and Tesla's cutting edge is at.

The context is different between the two. Super Cruise got high marks because of its focus on driver engagement/awareness, it's very clearly an "assist" feature. Autopilot is intended to become autonomous, so driver monitoring is so much lower on the list.

Yes, but they're so much less willing to put people's safety at risk, so really, they're way behind.

Nope, Tesla is still blatantly lying.

But Musk never lies. I mean, I've never seen him say things that were utterly untrue to drive stoc- sees SEC crackdowns on twitter posts .....Ohhhhh, right

That we don't know. And we know that you don't know either. So who's a liar?

Coast-to-coast AP demo was promised before Eo2017. Still waiting. Meanwhile, the AP cannot handle traffic lights, city traffic, conditions of bad weather, sections of road with poor or temporary lanes, it crashes to high-vis large stationary objects directly in line of sight and travel, yada yada. They don't seem to have anything solid to back up the promises with, so claiming that "enabling automatic driving on city streets and highways pending regulatory approval" is very deceptive and insincere with potential customers.

So you admit it was not a lie.

The coast-to-coast demo for EoY 2017 was not a promise either, but a goal.

Elon Musk, 2017:

>Our goal is — I feel pretty good about this goal — is that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy, all the way from L.A. to New York — so, basically, from a home in L.A. to, let’s say, dropping you off in Times Square, in New York, then having the car go and park itself by the end of next year — without the need for a single touch, including the charging.

Elon Musk, 2018:

>I’ve been meaning to address this, because obviously I missed the mark on that front. I mean, focus was very much on Model 3 production so everything else kind of took a second place to that. We could have done the coast-to-coast drive but it would have required too much specialized code to effectively game it, or make it somewhat brittle in that it would work for one particular route but not be a general solution.

Who's hyping things up here?

>They don't seem to have anything solid to back up the promises (...)

So now you say "they don't seem to", because you don't know? Okay.


It's a funny concept. People who haven't even purchased the product feel that the company has promised them things and feel aggravated if those "promises" go unfulfilled.

In reality, Tesla is a company with such ambitious goals that they often fail only to later succeed. The fact that so many people want to tear them down for that is very sad.


“Lying” is strong, but it’s over-promising and under-delivering. It’s reasonable to take their current goals with a large pinch of salt.

They're not promising. They're sharing their ambitious goals.

If you only have goals that you already know you can meet or if you always attain your goals, you're aiming too low.


From earlier in this thread: ”Our goal is — I feel pretty good about this goal — is that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy, all the way from L.A. to New York”

I guess it depends whether you interpret that “I feel good about this goal” means “I think we have a good chance of achieving this” or just “having this goal makes me feel good.”

I think we’re at least partly agreeing. Tesla just has a very different approach here than, say, Apple. That’s not inherently bad but I personally don’t like it. I see it as excessive hype.


I guess my question would be... There's thousands or tens of thousands of businesses not meeting their stated goals. Why do you care so much about tearing down this particular one?

Perhaps you follow $tslaq on Twitter or perhaps not. Take a look. They're so toxic and focused on negativity around Tesla. It's senseless. If I don't believe in a business, I just ignore it. With Tesla there seems to be people who are religious or obsessed with hoping that they fail. That's pretty weird considering that pretty much all of humankind benefits from a better world should they succeed.


Being in AI myself, I care about the bullshit Musk spews.

He's horribly wrong about everything he says on the topic, and spreading misinformation every time he opens his mouth.

His activity in the field may hinder future development and lead us towards another AI winter. Having any-and-all people working on a particular task isn't necessarily a good thing.


Yeah, I know, and I was wary of wading into this thread for that reason!

I don’t care deeply about this, I just thought it was worth trying to explain how and why my reaction differs.


> “I think we have a good chance of achieving this”

That's still not promising anything though. It's setting expectations, but failing to meet expectations is not the same as failing to meet promises.

If I buy a movie ticket I can get disappointed about the film being bad (failing to meet expectation of enjoyment), but I'd get upset if they cancelled the screening after I bought a ticket (failing to meet promise of viewing).


Goals that they are willing to charge customers for, make statements to the SEC about, and we want to hold them to those things? Shame on us.

Why focus on Tesla? So many other companies do the same.

Who's hyping things up here? Musk.

No-one made him promise (sorry, offer a "goal") of coast-to-coast driving but himself and his ego.

He even admits that _he_ missed the mark he offered, but still you blame _us_ for having unrealistic expectations.


More like for being an ass about it.

Volkswagen is promising (to use your terms) to produce millions of cheap EVs in 2019... err, 2020... er, by 2025. They’re doing that for years, without producing barely anything. Meanwhile Tesla is overly optimistic, sets high goals, fails on some of them, is late, but still actually delivers a shitload of great stuff.

Yes, I’m still waiting on some things them dreamt about when I bought the car. OTOH, I’m happy with the purchase and the car got dramatically improved software-wise since I bought it, well beyond any other manufacturer’s abilities.


> So who's a liar?

"Liar" is a stronger word than I would use, but given the claims (including dates) that Tesla made when I purchased an S100D in early 2017 -- seems like the answer is Tesla.

If not "liar", at least incredibly dramatically wrong about what they actually delivered for EAP and FSD. I'd say the burden of proof is now firmly on Tesla as they've made and missed a number of claims about the performance of their automation features.


They are implying that AP is complete and it works, and they are just waiting on approval. This is not true.

They are implying that it WILL be complete. The Model Y doesn't ship until end of 2020.

He said not two weeks ago that you will be able to self drive coast to coast, "this year", apropos of any shipping date for the Y.

Someone can say they've home-built a rocket and flown to the moon, and I don't have to be an aerospace expert to call BS.

Agreed. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Elon Musk who has an unparalleled track record of honesty...

What if i get that regulatory approval? There is plenty of privately owned land where i could tesla all day, some with traffic lights and everything. Or perhaps this feature is "pending" far more than regulatory approval.

Tesla is using the "we're just waiting for regulatory approval"-line for years on their Autopilot page. It's there to hide how far (behind?) development on this tech is.

Seeing how many videos exist of incidents where AP misbehaves (or even actively steers the car into barriers), it seems reasonable to assume that "regulatory approval" isn't the blocking issue for releasing full self-driving. (Could they release this feature with the traditional AP requirements of human oversight?)


I assume they mean they have equipped it with the sensor and computational capacity, and motor control, required (in their analysis) to implement self-driving when the software and regulators are ready.

They should then really say "technology readiness and regulatory approval pending".

I was a bit shocked at the price being as low. They're putting in a Supercharger two miles away. Before today I appreciated what Musk was doing but never considered getting a Tesla. As of tonight I am reconsidering. My only unknown right now is going to be service.

Service with Tesla has been pretty good. For small things (like problems with those notorious doors) they will drive to you and fix it, even if the car is in a parking lot at work. You can schedule over text message and in the app. It's a refreshing improvement over your average luxury car dealer, who treats service as a profit center.

The issue is with parts - delays for some body parts mean your car may be sitting in the shop for MONTHS waiting for key pieces.


OK so the nearest branch is in Cleveland which is like five hours away. What do I drive while it's in the shop for MONTHS waiting on parts?

> it's in the shop for MONTHS waiting on parts

tbh, if I got a, say, BMW, knowing the nearest branch is 5 hours away, I would factor the possibility that it can be in the show for WEEKS, if not MONTHS, waiting on parts. (my 3-series has spent 2 weeks at the dealership at least twice)


> (my 3-series has spent 2 weeks at the dealership at least twice)

I guess some things don't change.

I had a Z3 around 2000-01 and I distinctly remember driving down Austin's Mopac in my year old car with something like five warning lights' worth of problems glaring at me. Then at some point the dealership broke the clock during a service visit, and then there was the winter where the engine thermostat stuck wide open, so the car never warmed up and the heater didn't work.

Dealer service was terrible too. On one of my many trips in to the service department, I pulled in to a co-worker who had just relocated to the area with his 540i. They wouldn't provide a loaner car because he hadn't bought at the dealership. (Because he didn't live in the same state when he bought his car.)

My last service visit, I took the car in with a spare tire on and had to get the normal tire fixed elsewhere in the meantime. Of course, when I went to pick the car up, they refused to put the normal tire back on until I drove the car out front of the sales department and started jacking the car up to replace it myself.


> until I drove the car out front of the sales department and started jacking the car up to replace it myself.

Nice.


How often do you expect it to happen?

Realistically you should factor in not having a car for any car purchase simply because your car could get totalled at any trip. But I find it surprising that parts and service could take so long. Being a BMW service center surely replacing parts is core to their job. I can get parts faster on my own.


> How often do you expect it to happen?

I'm not disparaging Tesla quality but have you ever heard of Murphy's Law? What can go wrong will go wrong.

Right now I am without a working heater, waiting for two weeks on a blenderator motor for a Ford Explorer. Stuff happens...


My guess is that if some distribution region is without new produce to sell because some other part of the company has fucked up the logistics, QUESTIONS ARE ASKED IN UPPER CASE VERY QUICKLY, whereas if it runs out of some sort of spare parts, questions get asked in lower case.

It just seemed like the original commenter had planned ahead for many multi-month part shipments. Pragmatic perhaps but I would have to question my vendor!

I drive late model grey imports so my parts wait is just the time it takes to pull it off a wreck and ship it. I suspect the wait comes from the dealer/manufacturer relationship.


If my car gets totaled, my insurance will pay for a rental. If my car is at the dealer for 2 weeks, the dealer will give me a loaner. Does Tesla have loaners?

Yes, they do.

Imagine being given a Chrysler Town and Country as a loaner for your $120,000 Model S...

This puts me off buying a new car.

I’d like to see vehicle manufacturers, for the purpose of regular retail owners, extend the warranty of a vehicle if it spends more time in the workshop than the allotted time set out in the repair manual.

If remove and replace engine is, for example, 10hrs, then the car should be in the shop for no more than, say, two to three days. If it sits there for days > weeks > months waiting for parts the new car warranty should be extended by the same amount of time.

My guess is that’d go a long way to fixing the spare parts waiting times.

What are the possible reasons for such long waiting times on spares? It can’t be freight delays; it can’t be that the part isn’t available.


It’s just as bad at Citroen here in the UK. I had to replace a wheel on mine after I dinked it. Citroen had a two week wait time for this. I managed to get a wheel off eBay next day for £60 and took it to the local hooky tyre outfit who put two new front tyres on and this wheel in 30 minutes while I waited without an appointment.

eBay is great for items like wheels. I got a like new one for $70, the dealership wanted $390 for ONE, it woudl have been cheaper to buy 4 aftermarket wheels at the tire shop.

What are the possible reasons for such long waiting times on spares?

The manufacturer makes money putting those parts in new cars, it makes no money sending it out to repair yours...


Yep, that was going to be my first guess.

If they can delay delivering your part till next financial year, or the end of the production run for that model, the books look that much better.


And that should be criminal.

No

”What are the possible reasons for such long waiting times on spares?”

I get the impression that Tesla doesn’t like to keep a lot of parts in inventory. When a spare is ordered, it’s ordered from the manufacturer of that part.

Elon actually discussed this on the most recent conference call. He said that they’re trying to improve things by having parts shipped directly to service centres and body shops rather than via a Tesla distribution/logistics centre.


Do you think that's reasonable?

What do you do to your cars?

I've never had a car in overnight. And I couldn't point to anyone I know being without their car for even a week.

And I don't drive premium cars either, naively I would expect premium cars to be more reliable, and have better service.


Premium cars tend to be less reliable, but it really depends on the car. Certain models are reliable, certain brands are more reliable, and if we're speaking in broad strokes certain countries make more dependable vehicles. If you want something that will just work, buy Japanese.

I had an old Toyota that I just drove and drove and would not die. Multiple cross country trips and I never ever serviced it, except changing the oil every ~50k miles. The thing just kept on going.

I just bought a brand new BMW and I had to take it back to the dealer to fix something that broke after 5k miles.


My car history includes Fords, Mazdas and Skodas (VW group), so nothing Japanese. (Edit: Apart from the Mazda.... Obviously.....)

I don't know if the parent was talking about major crashes, or reliability issues, 2 weeks in the shop would be my limit of acceptability for any car, a month, I'd be asking for my money back assuming it were a reliability issue. And multiple 2 week waits or a month wait, I wouldn't be buying from that manufacturer or dealer again, whatever the reason.

Is that my European point of view? have I been amazingly lucky?


Not counting the Mazda as Japanese then? Maybe you had one from the Ford-era?

Doh ?!

I kind of mentally pigeonhole it with Kia, Hyundai and Daewoo, as they all arrived/got popular at a similar time. In the UK at least.

Plus, subjectively, it just doesn't sound like a Japanese name (to me).


> […] it just doesn’t sound like a Japanese name (to me).

"Mazda" is a German spelling of the Japanese name typically romanized as "Matsuda" (松田).


Mazda was started by the Matsuda family, the same way Toyota was started by the Toyoda family

3 weeks is not months. And is likely the exception.

My Jaguar had some issues, the dealership would overnight parts from around the US, and "if we need to go to the UK for them it'll be a couple of days".


I have a 2018 Model S and I assume it could take well over a year to get repaired in the event of damage :( it’s not for everyone.

I’m waiting on a fender, a door, and a bottom trim, and I’m at about a month total in middle-of-nowhere Midwest. Luckily, I can drive the (heavily dented) car until parts come in, but if the car can’t be driven then you’re stuck with the rental your insurance provides.

Driving the insurance's rental is perfectly acceptable. When you're really screwed is if the thing breaks down on you, and you have to pay the rental fees out of pocket, along with the repairs.

> When you're really screwed is if the thing breaks down on you, and you have to pay the rental fees out of pocket,

Rental coverage is quickly exhausted waiting for Tesla to provide replacement parts.


Don't know about the US or whereever you live, but in Germany rental cars are only provided by the insurance for about two to four weeks. After that you'll have to pay them by yourself.

Can confirm, this is how it works in the US too, even with a top-notch provider (Commerce) with comprehensive coverage.

I’m in CA but for two weeks they gave me an X while my S was in their shop waiting on parts. This was before the model 3 though.

Im guessing you live near Flint MI. Tesla provides you with a loaner and they come to you.

”What do I drive while it's in the shop for MONTHS waiting on parts?”

Your insurance would normally provide a rental car while you wait for body shop work.

If it’s warranty work, Tesla will provide a loaner.


> If it’s warranty work, Tesla will provide a loaner.

Which is usually not a Tesla. One of my friends complained that the BMW 5 series he got as a loaner couldn't drive itself, so it totally ruined his commute for the week his Tesla was in the shop.


Definition of "first world problems" right there.

Yeah that's what I told him.

This reminds me of the time my '18 Lambo was in the shop for a week for service so I was forced to drive my '17 Ferrari. Worst week of my life.

It's like the old Jaguar joke. Why did you buy a second Jaguar? Your first was so unreliabble?

"Well, I needed one to drive while the other is in the shop"


Hope for his family that he has good life insurance.

Get a Toyota in the first place ;-)

Closest Lexus dealer is an hour away and they will bring a loaner when they come get your car for warranty sevice

Lexus is decent for those who don't mind polluting the atmosphere. For those who care about the environment, EVs are the future and Lexus is way behind.

It's much more nuanced. Compare hybrid Lexus and Tesla model S. Factor in electricity that is produced from coal plant, a lot of energy and pollution that come from extracting Cobalt and other substances. Creating the battery consumes a lot of energy as well and does produce waste. Then you have to recycle it.

EVs are great and on average they are way better, BUT if you drive very little and you get electricity from fossil fuels your Tesla maybe worse for the environment.


There are lot of reports of service being completely unresponsive, not answering calls. And people who work there are saying stuff like "you wouldn't believe how large our backlog is" or "I used to do an equivalent of 2 jobs, now I'll have to do 3" (not exact quotes, from my memory). The reason for this is obvious, Tesla has a cash problem.

I'm in So Cal. My S got backed into - repair of quarter and door panels took about 6 weeks.

For annual service and repairs, it's been pleasant for me. Granted, it takes a while to get the appointment now, but they've always given me a loaner that's often nicer/newer than mine (or $700 Lyft credit one time), so I haven't minded delays. Mobile service has also been great, responsive and very convenient.

Contrast that to the Mercedes dealership. Every time we take in our warrantied SUV, I feel like they're trying to take us for every penny they can - very unpleasant.


Supercharging does measurable damage to batteries. If you're on a long distance road trip and need to use it, okay, but if you regularly supercharge your car WILL have poorer battery condition by the time it reaches 80,000 to 100,000 miles.

This is not a problem for most owners who charge overnight at home.

The battery chemistry and heating / high amperage damage issues are unavoidable with current lithium ion chemistry.

https://electrek.co/2017/05/07/tesla-limits-supercharging-sp...

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/09/tesla-limiting-supercha...

I don't think you will find this information anywhere on Tesla's website. It's kind of bullshit in my opinion that they don't have at least a medium sized disclaimer saying "hey, don't supercharge all the time... or this will happen". I'm sure it's buried deep in the sales contract terms and conditions.


Yes and no.

Anytime a li-ion battery is charging, discharging, or even just sitting there the chemistry is breaking down slowly. Charging at higher speeds, charging at higher temperatures, etc. all speed up that break down.

> Supercharging does measurable damage to batteries.

However, I'm calling bullshit on this statement, unless by "measurable" you mean you will maybe lose 1% more battery capacity (which would be maybe 3 miles of range) than someone who coddled their battery. Measurable? Barely. Meaningful? Not really.

My Model S is 5 years old and at 80,000 miles, and I supercharge regularly. My battery has gone from 265 miles to 260, which is inline with what is expected.


I supercharged an S a few times and noticed that you could throttle the charging if you want. Seems reasonable to balance changing rate with how much time you have. For similar reasons I recommend avoiding the natural inclination to get the more powerful charger possible at home.

Most powerful home charger is going to charge at 19kW, not much compared to the rate of a supercharger (250kW). your car will be fine.

I was going to reply "unless your home has 3 phase 480V service you don't know about, you're not going to be able to charge anywhere near supercharge amp flow rates..."

I don't think there's real-world data showing that supercharging within the limits Tesla has programmed leads to very significant degradation.

Yes, it will happen, but then there are several factors that can affect battery degradation. If you don't care, it's not so bad that you're going to ruin your car. If you do care, it's like 5min Googling to find tips on how to care for your battery.


There’s mostly anecdotal, like this: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s-400k-km-250k-mi-7-pe...

400k km, supercharging a lot, 7% degradation, that’s better than anybody expected.


I don't get it, this is more expensive than model 3, so the price can't be the thing that made you change your mind. Was it the size ?

Since when is $48k considered a "low" new car price? That's a lot of money for a car. Only a small fraction of the population is willing to spend that much.

It's comparable to a highlander / pilot, which appears to be the main competition here.

Highlander/Pilot are significantly larger than Model Y.

What's the price? Can't see it outside of the US.

Cheapest available is the 48k~ but they will sell the base model at 39k.

$48200

That's a pretty penny. And I imagine the export price will be $50k or more :(

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: