Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tesla Model 3 becomes best-selling car in Switzerland (electrek.co)
357 points by reddotX on April 10, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 319 comments

Anecdata from someone living in a small Swiss village (c. 1,500 residents outside the ski season):

- I see a handful of Teslas around the village. I would guesstimate 5 local residents own them.

- The local taxi firm has a couple even.

- Filling stations on the autoroutes have the charging points (at least in Romandy)

- The country is small so, hey, it seems ideal

I'd like to get one but it doesn't fit my use case (namely long road trips in the summer).

I have a Model 3 and have gone on multiple long-distance road trips (>1,000 mile) with it. It's an absolute pleasure to drive with AutoPilot. Plus, most people already stop every 3-4 hours for bathroom/food breaks anyway, so if you use the in-car nav system (Google Maps), it will make it so those stops are at superchargers. The supercharger stops are almost always in high-density places with plenty of restaurants and usually are ~30minutes which I've found is the perfect time to do all the bathroom/food purchases you would need for the next leg of the trip. Plus with Supercharger V3 rolling out in the next few months, those stops will shrink to just 15 minutes for 80% battery.

on longer trips it can be a bit annoying, having done a sixteen hundred mile round trip my advice is, travel when stuff is open. That was you will have something to do on the thirty to forty five minute charges. Fortunately for me my US route; mostly along I75 but crossed Ohio and back; meant the super chargers were located in shopping centers where some place to spend time was a simple walk across the lot

I know people love to say, we all stop for this, that, and the other thing, but the truth is on most longer trips most people just want to get to the end and adding stops of thirty minutes or more can impact a schedule. I cannot imagine it without access to the charging speed my TM3 can do let alone its range. Since a destination is not always guaranteed to have charging opportunities you are pretty much anchored to the closes SC.

with regards to AP. Love it, so nice to have a system always aware. my usage is to turn it on but act as if I were driving. it certainly has removed any panic issues where you take your eyes off the road and the situation changes badly.

Are there any problem on long trips if it is to some event that is drawing a lot of people?

A couple years ago, when I was planning a trip to the middle of some rural area to see a total solar eclipse, I checkout out of curiosity what the electric charger situation was to see what the trip would be like in an EV.

At the time the Tesla network was sparse enough in that area that you'd need to get pretty full charges to make it from charger to charger. After the eclipse you'd have everyone leaving at about the same time, and so arriving at chargers at about the same time, and so it seemed you might get some long lines.

30 minutes to charge isn't bad if you can plug the car in and go eat or use the bathroom while it charges. But if you have to wait for two or three cars ahead of you do their 30 minute charges, can you do something while you wait or do you have to stick with your car to move it up whenever the line moves?

In situations like this regular gas stations also can have lines, but usually you can drive a bit away from the main highway and find a less busy gas station.

> But if you have to wait for two or three cars ahead of you do their 30 minute charges, can you do something while you wait or do you have to stick with your car to move it up whenever the line moves?

This seems like an ideal use for self driving technology - park at the tail end of the queue and your car moves itself forward.

Once you move to the front of the queue, you need this to happen too:


You can always have an attendant plugging and unplugging the cars (at the busiest stations where queuing is necessary), until that technology is ready.

Some gas stations still have pump attendants, after all!

I can't speak about the solar eclipse specifically (though, my drive in an ICE vehicle during that went from what should have been a 4 hour drive to 12 total), some events do cause backups at chargers.

Recent examples would be the SpaceX launches (example, though this is not bad at all: https://steemit.com/tesla/@geeklad/spacex-launch-causes-cong...), which probably have an unusually large number of Teslas in attendance.

Hopefully Tesla can keep up with building out superchargers but they'll obviously never optimize for the largest possible burst.

Having done this drive after the eclipse (and beaten the wave of traffic back to Portland on US-26), using a Model S you might have been able to make it, definitely with the P85 battery pack and no AC (which was not necessary in Madras).

The main concern would be not getting trapped in traffic hell, like any other driver. Getting slightly north of Madclipse and other camps, then immediately getting on the road post-eclipse meant almost empty roads for us. Alternatively, waiting till that evening to leave worked for our friends.

> Getting slightly north of Madclipse and other camps, then immediately getting on the road post-eclipse meant almost empty roads for us

I was in that general area. I was in a farmer's field that had sold overnight parking spots for $50, and allowed sleeping in your car. Here's where it was [1].

I heard the first cars starting to leave the instant totality ended.

I waited until about 4 PM to leave, but still got seriously bogged down on 26 heading north only a mile or so away. It stayed bad through the reservation, then got pretty good until it turned to stop and go for large parts of the way through Mt. Hood National Forest. Cleared up well before Portland and was doing great up until Washington, at about 7 PM, where it was crappy most of the way to Tacoma. I'm on the west side of Puget Sound, so that's where I split off to 16, which was fine. It looked like 5 going from Tacoma to Seattle was still terrible...and this was something like midnight.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6911503,-121.1509909,1643m

Ah, we left the campsite in Madras an hour before the eclipse, stopped off in Warm Springs for food and got north of there before the eclipse. Stayed in Portland the rest of the day (people to see and such), avoiding any traffic on I-5.

If you stay overnight, any power outlet will be good enough to charge your EV.

Unfortunately, it's not true. On a standard (US) home outlet (120volts), you charge a Model 3 at about 5 miles of range per hour. So, if I get home from dinner after work at 8:00pm, and have to leave for the office at 7:00am the next morning, my car only adds about 55 miles worth of charge.

As an example, I went for a longer drive on Saturday, and it took 37 hours to charge at home (right through Monday morning.)

(I live in a place where I'm currently unable to install a high-capacity charging outlet.)

It’s something like 7-8 miles on European grid (for Model S), I.e. still not enough.

What is fine is if you stay in a hotel for one day or more.

My Model 3 adds 17km/h at 220V (EU). => 200 km range if you arrive at 6pm and leave at 8am. THis is not a full charge, but it is more than enough for my daily routine.

But I understand, there might be some use cases where this is not enough.

Are they really planning on rolling out the v3 superchargers over the next few months!?

Wow, I wished I lived in a developed country too.

Random road trips? AutoPilot? Random stops at high-density places to get ready for the next leg of the trip?

Seriously, what kind of heaven do you people live in? I can't even travel 2 kilometers without getting lost in unhabitable middle of nowheres or being asked for a visa and turned back.

Driving from Dallas, Texas, to San Diego, California, is a three-day drive if you stop overnight, or 19+ hours if you drive without unnecessary stops. And that's only halfway across the USA, essentially horizontally. A drive from Seattle to Miami or San Diego to Portland, Maine, would be much longer.

The US Interstate Higherway System means that even on long stretches of road where nobody seems to live, the roads are still maintained, with stops every so often.

And of course, no visas or even passports required. Just a driver license if you're driving, or no ID at all if you're a passenger.

Where do you live? The US is a big country, you can drive for days just to cross between states, no passport required.


Come on, this is just silly. Can you please leave these ones unposted?


It is recommended to take a 15 minute break every two hours of driving. This is especially important if one is driving long distance.

The Tesla Model 3 is very capable of long road trips, especially in the summer, with a range of 500km or more. The only exception would be if you’re driving in very remote areas with no charging infrastructure, but that almost doesn’t exist any more in Western Europe.

The Tesla Supercharger network, combined with its ability to charge on CCS charging networks like Ionity, make it uniquely suited to long distance travel.

And it will only get better over time as more, and faster, charging stations are deployed. (The Model 3 is capable of up to 250kW charging - twice the speed of what most of the current Superchargers can do).

You can drive a manual in stop and go traffic (and I don't mean that suburban sprawl "run through the gears between each stop light" type of stop and go you get in some places, I mean like going 10-30ft at a time between stops). That doesn't make it not obviously worse for the task than an automatic.

The extra cognitive load of having to worry about range and where you're going to charge is a pain in the butt that most people will opt out of, all else being close to equal.

> You can drive a manual in stop and go traffic. That doesn't make it not obviously worse for the task than an automatic.

It's weird, I've never actually thought of changing gear as a hassle or something that makes driving un-fun. Stop and go traffic is a game, where the goal is to not brake. Gears give me an additional way to achieve that goal. For me it's way more engaging and helps me pay more attention to the road...

Have you driven a motorcycle or a high horsepower car with a stiff clutch in stop and go traffic? I developed leg problems from my Cobra a decade ago. Sitting in traffic was absolutely miserable. Same with bikes, except there you're also covered in sweat the entire time so it's even less pleasant.

My DCT BMW was also annoying in stop and go traffic and I didn't even have to manipulate the gears.

I still find shifting to be fun, I mostly drove my BMW in manual DCT mode (dual clutch). But in traffic? I don't want to go near a manual.

If you're on a motorcycle in stop-and-go traffic, just keep it in second gear and lane split.

Even if it's not legal. If you're in clogged traffic, They can't get you, and you'll see the fuzz before they see you since you'll be overtaking.

I'd just caution against doing this in some areas.

A member of a group I used to ride with decided to stop riding when someone opened their door to stop him from splitting in PA. He smacked into the door, was physically okay, but ended up getting charged with something like "illegal lane change", had his insurance prices skyrocket, and decided to stop riding as he had to drive for his job, and he was worried that another 3-point ticket would get him a 30 day suspension and he'd basically lose his job.

The driver who opened their door is very lucky nothing serious came of it. Many motorcycle riders would treat that as an attempt on their life and react accordingly, probably not working out well for the car driver.

As a bicyclist, I was surprised by the sheer number of drivers who seem intent on punishing bicyclists, often for actions that are not illegal. So, given this experience I am not surprised to hear the same is true for motorcyclists.

I've had people do very close "punishment passes" on me because they thought I was going far below the speed limit when in reality I was going roughly 17 mph in a 15 mph zone. This is not some sort of isolated incident. I've spoken to several of them and it's rare that I get an apology for it.

Add on top of that the people who pass me closely while yelling things like "get in the bike lane!" when I'm riding in the sharrow lane and there is no bike lane.

I’d say it probably wouldn’t work out well for anyone.

Where I live, ~50% of motorists are armed and no permits are required to do so. Road rage never ends well for anyone involved here.

The moral of the story is: be respectful of others. If you’re a motorcyclist in a state where it’s illegal to lane split, don’t do it. If you’re a driver in a state where it is legal, don’t be a dick to motorcyclists if they are lane splitting.

I’d also like to add that I think lane splitting is wildly dangerous and dread driving in California. Surely motorcyclists die from this every year?

Surely motorcyclists do indeed die of it every year. But it's statistically safer than not lane splitting if done properly.[0]

That's right folks: caring about what's statistically the safest thing to do after deciding to ride a motorbike.


>I’d also like to add that I think lane splitting is wildly dangerous and dread driving in California. Surely motorcyclists die from this every year?

So it's a bit contentious, but from what i've seen, it's safe as long as it's done safely, which is a dumb sentence, but let me explain:

There are really 2 things that people talk about with "lane splitting":

* Filtering - moving up between stopped cars at a light to the front of the pack, and then driving away when the light turns green. Generally you aren't passing other moving vehicles when filtering, or if they are moving it's a few mph at most.

* Lane Splitting - This is when you are driving between lanes passing other vehicles that are moving.

Filtering is considered to be safer than not filtering. It reduces rear-end accidents (people tend to "look through" bikers, and will pull up behind the car in front of them like they aren't there, there's also your "normal" rear-end accidents, but they are much worse for the biker...), it reduces traffic (bikes accelerate faster, so getting them out front is helpful to reduce the rubberbanding traffic), and it's obviously nicer for the biker as they get where they are going quicker.

Splitting on the other hand is contentious. On the one hand I believe there have been studies done that shows it reduces fatalities. But at the same time it does actually increase accidents, but those accidents tend to be much less dangerous. Since a splitter should only be going 5-10mph faster than the cars, any impacts should be kind of like 10mph impacts, and are much less dangerous (obviously still dangerous, but much less than being rear-ended, getting left-turned into, or rear-ending something, etc...). And it greatly reduces low-speed rear-endings while sitting in traffic (a fairly low-speed fender-bender can be a lot worse when a small bump can throw you backwards off the bike and onto the ground!)

But splitting does have other benefits other than safety. It's obviously much faster for the bikers, reduces traffic for everyone, and therefore reduces environmental impact in many cases (less cars AND bikes idling in traffic). And there are also second order benefits that it encourages more people to ride bikes, which just increases the above benefits even more.

Still, it's my opinion that both Splitting and Filtering should be fully legal everywhere. It doesn't really impact drivers or those who don't split to have it be legal beyond a possibly slight increase in small accidents (there's an argument that if it is much more dangerous then it could increase healthcare costs for everyone too), and those who are okay with the risks can do it.

And obviously at no point should anyone ever be flying between cars going 20mph+ faster than the cars around them. That's not safe splitting, and that's not what I want either.

I appreciate the in depth reply and hadn’t considered the different types of splitting.

> And obviously at no point should anyone ever be flying between cars going 20mph+ faster than the cars around them. That's not safe splitting, and that's not what I want either.

I think this is what I’m mostly referring to. We can definitely agree here! It seems to happen all too frequently when I’m driving in CA (mostly LA and SF, some SD).

I thought it was a pair of motorcycles side-by-side according to mutual prior agreement. That would be understandable.

Those other things are crazy. Unintentionally, I will kill you. I hope the law would agree that it is 100% your fault, because I would want to sue your estate for damages both physical and mental.

This is not how the law works in most countries and in California. You are also more likely to unintentionally kill me if I don't lane split.

Anecdote: a motorist lost control of his vehicle at highway speeds far ahead of me, causing everyone to brake suddenly. I split into the braked cars and slowed down.

The car I had been behind was rear-ended violently. If I had not lane split, I would have been rear-ended violently. I will take an unlimited number low-speed side scrapes over being hit from behind by a two-ton car going 30 mph faster.

I'm paying attention to the road ahead, so I wouldn't rear-end anybody. On the other hand, I have huge blind spots to the side and anyway my attention is mainly to the road ahead. I barely fit in the lane, and would easily crush you with my 3 to 5 tons. Recently I was driving with about 4 inches to the adjacent vehicles on each side. You don't fit in 4 inches; this is not a scrape. That came up unexpectedly, as the lanes narrowed and other large vehicles were beside me.

And lane splitters are paying attention to the road ahead, and are watching to make sure they have enough space, that they have an escape, that there is nothing in the way, and that nobody has a turn signal on or has room to suddenly change lanes. And if any of those isn't true, they stay in their lane and don't split. Lane splitting sounds terrifying if you've never done it, but it's actually very straightforward and boring.

You as a 4-wheeled vehicle driver have to do nothing differently to accommodate lane splitters, they will go around you when it is safe, and as long as you follow the other rules of the road (use your turn signals, and don't suddenly jerk around wildly within your lane), everyone can be happy.

And if you live in an area where lane splitting is legal, and you want to be nice while you are sitting in traffic, you can stay to one side of your lane matching the other drivers ahead of you, so that while you are mostly still, bikers can continue past.

If you had an escape, it wouldn't be lane splitting.

Picture four lanes with four vehicles. You decide to go right down the middle. The outermost vehicles change, being replaced by larger vehicles, but the innermost vehicles haven't seen you. The innermost vehicles move inward to have more distance from the outermost vehicles. The resulting space is physically too small for your body.

There is no escape. You go crunch.

I wouldn't mind if this only affected you, but it isn't harmless to me. Now I have to pull over and wait for the cops, ruining my schedule. I'll need to get my van repaired. I'll need to sue your estate for damages. If things go very badly, I may be wrongly blamed for your crash.

Stay in your lane. We mark lanes for a very good reason.

>Picture four lanes with four vehicles. You decide to go right down the middle. The outermost vehicles change, being replaced by larger vehicles, but the innermost vehicles haven't seen you.

This might be part of the disconnect here. You aren't "sitting" next to cars, you are passing them. If you aren't actively passing cars, you aren't splitting and should get in your own lane.

A rule of thumb is that you should be passing cars in about a second or so. So any "crunching" would have to happen within that second of time, or the motorcycle will be out in front by the time any contact would have been made.

But in reality that just doesn't happen. Mirrors stick out, and it is extremely rare for 2 cars to get close enough for their mirrors to touch, let alone have a mirror touch the other car.

But also cars just don't go from driving straight to instantly swerving toward another car in the next lane, they have "tells", they start drifting from the driver not paying attention, they act erratically, they have turn signals.

A safe lane splitting scenario that I do is like this.

* Cars are in both lanes, fairly close together so there is no room for people to try and shoot across to fill a gap in the other lane (if the cars are "staggered" like 2 sides of a zipper, that is a dangerous situation that I don't split in, because that is when people are likely to try and shoot into the next lane without any warning!)

* Cars are traveling about 15 to 30mph in both lanes, and there isn't a large speed differential between them (again, if one lane is going 15, and the other 30, people in the 15 lane are likely to try and shoot over to get in the "faster" lane, and sometimes people in the fast lane will try to shoot in to the slow lane so they can get off the next exit)

* I can see several car lengths ahead of me on my bike (bikes sit higher than cars, so you can often see much further ahead and can see over many cars. This also means that splitting is not okay on curves, hills, or when there are big trucks obscuring your view ahead, or if the drivers ahead are staggered in their lanes blocking a nice clean path)

In that situation, I go about 10-ish mph faster than the cars around me (a rule of thumb is you should be passing a car within a second, that equates to around a 10mph speed differential), and while doing this i'm looking at tail lights 3 or 4 cars ahead to see if anyone is stopping suddenly, turning, has a signal on, or is doing anything weird. if at any point things don't look good for splitting any more, I slowly drift back into my lane, slow down to match speed with that lane, and i'm no longer splitting.

If at any point things go really bad, say someone starts getting over toward me, or there is an accident ahead of me or next to me, I grab the brake and very quickly the bad stuff will pass me. And if it doesn't in time, then I'll get munched! That means yes you'll have to go through the insurance stuff for the scrapes and dents in the side of your car, and I'll probably have a broken ankle or a small neck injury, but i'll be alive. Contrast that with the alternative of not splitting where that same accident happens (because if you are drifting into another lane with another car in that lane and you don't see the biker in time, chances are you aren't going to see the car in time either and will smack into it), and when you slam on the breaks because of that, I run into the back of your car at 30mph and am in a LOT worse shape than i would have been in the splitting scenario.

But just like how we have lane markings for a reason, in many areas we also have laws that allow splitting for a reason, and you can't selectively pick and choose which laws you want to follow!

Your "safe lane splitting scenario" is compatible with my scenario, the one where you get squished flat. It's also not OK to snap off my mirror or gouge a groove in my paint.

I'm not "drifting into another lane". I'm using the space that is rightfully mine. No, I'm not going to signal. I'm not leaving my lane. The whole lane is mine; it is my safety margin.

If a truck on my right gets closer, then I will move left, and suddenly the space to the left of me becomes zero. If the vehicle on my left (not counting you) does likewise, then he isn't leaving you any room either. The gap closes to zero. You die.

You also aren't leaving room for actual emergencies, in which case I may swerve over the line. If you are in the proper position, there will be 4 to 6 feet of safety margin, or double that if you also swerve.

You claim that your behavior is safe, but there is a good reason that 98% of the states in the USA do not support it. You can lane split in Bangalore... and the insane road fatality rate tells the story of how well that works. There are more than 10 times as many deaths per vehicle in India as there are in the USA. Besides the hazard to yourself, you are causing distraction and stress to the other drivers. You may cause a crash and not even know it.

You responded to a very educational comment with this. You should apply your comments to the other user’s decision-making process. Either one or both of the cars in your example will be giving hints that the gap will close, let alone the trucks. If the motorcyclist is behind you, he will see that something’s wrong. If he’s starting to pass, he will brake. If he’s in the middle of the pass, he will clear before the gap closes. In very unusual circumstances, you will be forced into the other car by some sudden circumstances and the motorcyclist might get caught, but you should know from driving much of your life how likely this is, and some aggregated data is also available.

Your other example about arbitrarily using the edge of the lane would be even easier to detect using his framework.

I wouldn't call it educational. It was motivated denial.

It was also unfairly presuming that motorcyclists are more alert/careful/skilled than other drivers. This is clearly not the case.

Just a couple months ago, I suddenly had a 4-inch gap on either side. (confirmed by my son in the other front seat) Perhaps the road was badly designed or built, but that happens.

It's 20 feet from one end of my vehicle to the other. Escaping that isn't so easy.

What a disappointing thread. You two should try harder to understand what the other is saying, rather than just digging your heels in and pretending your words are the only ones in the conversation that matter.

The opportunity for a great discussion was there, because both of you have relevant experience and have thought carefully about the situation. Oh well. Instead you just spent paragraph after paragraph trying to set the boundaries of the discussion in a way that excludes the other.

I think the difference is cultural. I cannot accept lane splitting at high speeds (35mph+) as long as humans still have license to drive. Once we rescind all humans the license to drive, I'm OK with lane splitting.

Think of it this easy. In the four car scenario: how would a bike pass cars that are at the speed limit? By going over the speed limit. Lane splitting by humans (not talking about filtering) ought to be against the law.

Yes, in a scenario where I'm next to 2 cars on a highway and during that one second that i'm passing them they both immediately turn toward the inner edge of the lane with no warning and within a second are as close to that inner lane as they can each get, I will get hit.

But that scenario is insanely contrived, extremely unlikely, and damn near impossible to happen and also not result in any contact without the motorcycle (if you and another driver both move toward the "inner" edge of your lane at the same time as far as you both can without "leaving" your lane, you will collide).

>You also aren't leaving room for actual emergencies, in which case I may swerve over the line. If you are in the proper position, there will be 4 to 6 feet of safety margin

This brings up another cool point that is really counterintuitive at first! Motorcycles who aren't lane splitting shouldn't be in the center of the lane, it's one of the most dangerous areas for them to be! Generally they want to be on a side closest to other traffic, the rule of thumb is to "act like your bike is the left or right side of a car in that same lane".

When a bike is in the middle of a lane, people often try to merge into it and don't see them until it's too late. By riding the inside edge of the lane, you make yourself visible to drivers that would otherwise not be able to see you. The center of a lane also has the most gravel, oil, and other stuff on it. So no, you wouldn't have 4 to 6 feet of safety margin. Hell according to your logic that entire lane should be mine, so you have zero feet of safety margin.

>You claim that your behavior is safe, but there is a good reason that 98% of the states in the USA do not support it.

And 98% of the rest of the world does. Take Norway for example. Lane splitting is legal, and there are 3 deaths per 100k vehicles there (compared to 13 in the US, and 130 in India). And that's not just one country. All of Europe is safer to drive in (average of 19 deaths per 100k vehicles) than the US, and just about all of Europe allows lane splitting. Even the NHTSA says that lane splitting "slightly reduces" accidents.

This is 100% hoss. If it isn't straight out of some "how to lane split safely" guide, it should be. This is literally everything that's going on in my head when I'm riding through traffic.

Opening the door to harm other person is already on the criminal level. Even if the rider is not respecting traffic regulations.

That isn't about the fuzz. People who live in States/Cities (everywhere but CA, right?) where lane splitting is illegal aren't used to lane splitting. They aren't sitting in their cars watching out for bikers and they'll make abrupt lane changes without even looking for you. That's incredibly dangerous. I moved from FL (lane splitting is illegal but people seem used to it) to TX (no splitting) and doing that is a death wish here.

Obviously you know your areas driving culture better than me but there's definitely places I wouldn't do that. Hell you'll probably just piss off people in TX and they'll run you over out of spite. Territorial drivers.

I've approached the practice with caution every time I've moved. I'm currently in California, and drivers here are more accepting of the practice due to legality, but for every three drivers who move over to give me more room, there's one who's texting and swerving.

Anyone riding a motorcycle who is simply blindly counting on other drivers to see them, follow all the rules of the road carefully, and never do anything unexpected, is not going to last long. Everything motorcyclists do has to be done in such a way that it will still be safe even if the other cars around them are all but actively malicious. Fortunately, motorcycles are extremely agile, quick, and small, so it's easy for the attentive, cautious rider to anticipate and avoid most hazards. The trick is just managing to always be sufficiently attentive and cautious.

"That doesn't make it not obviously worse for the task than an automatic"

what in the lawerly language are you trying to say?

Driving stick in traffic really sucks by comparison to an automatic.

Thank you. I suppose for me the 'cognitive load' of parsing whole parenthetical phrases and double negatives is more taxing than shifting from 2nd gear back into neutral.

If cognitive load is what you care about, you should try autopilot’s cruise control with distance keeping. Stress erased from driving and cognitive load lifted almost completely.

The win from this overcomes any cognitive load from thinking about charging by a factor of 100 or more in my experience. Most people are blown away by this when they get it. Of course it’s not unique to Tesla but it’s a big benefit.

You mean the cruise control that's already killed people? The cognitive load of not trusting cars around you is now increased by having to worry about not trusting your own car. That's crazy to me.

I'm pretty convinced most stress caused by driving is just people driving way too aggressively.

> I'm pretty convinced most stress caused by driving is just people driving way too aggressively.

In my experience, the exact opposite seems to be the case. Aggressive drivers tend to move with a purpose, pay attention and react logically (even if recklessly) to events on the road. By contrast, the bored people zoning out while driving, the people stuck on their phones or just clogging up the fast lane while driving under the speed limit are unpredictable (and when they do wake up, they tend to panic) and cause problems all around themselves as everyone else is forced to adjust. People who can't be bothered to care about driving while doing it are much worse than people who care too much.

Sorry I realized my comment could be read two ways.

I meant to say that I think most stress is caused by the person who is stressed driving too aggressively. They care way too much about saving 2 seconds by passing/riding up on people constantly.

I agree with you.

The conversation was about using AP in very heavy traffic, which has killed nobody.

> I'm pretty convinced most stress caused by driving is just people driving way too aggressively.

In my experience it is much more stressful to be on the lookout for drivers that just aren't paying attention. They exhibit no bad behavior until the poorly timed lane change, missed light, etc.

Assuming you’re talking about Florida car-under-semi and California car-into-divider (the only Tesla fatalities that come to mind) I think you have an incorrect understanding of those incidents. Those were not cruise control and both were driver error.

Having just done a 1000 mile (1600km) road trip through Oregon, it wasn't really that big of a hassle. I told my car where I wanted to go, the tesla routing software put down pins on where to charge and told me how long to charge. That was it.

If anything, planning for gas stops is much more of a burden, because usually as you are driving, once you get to ~1/4 full you are thinking to yourself "Ok, where can I stop to get gas? Is there a place close enough? Which stations have the best price?"

With this, all of that cognitive load was gone and handled for me by a smart routing computer.

I had this exact problem in my gas-powered rental car recently, driving between Vegas and LA. The gas stations along the 15 were hectic, and I was planning to turn off onto a more scenic route which, I imagined, would have low-key, low-traffic gas stations. Surprise--there wasn't a gas station for over 100 miles! Double surprise--there was no cell reception either!

If you are on a highway with 1/4 tank you are likely to have a number of options before you get close to running out an you can be taking just about any route you want. With a supercharger dependency you are highly limited.

See your sibling comment.

What does that have to do with chargers? There are less chargers than gas stations.

Charging is really not much of a “cognitive load” in my experience. The navigation system can plan it for you, suggesting exactly where you should charge and how long it’ll take.

As for extra time spent charging? I guess there are those out there who really do drive more than 4-5 hours at once without stopping for a meal, stretch, toilet break, etc. But surely they’re a tiny minority.

Do you really always stop for your meal break somewhere there's a supercharger? A meal and a charger are not located in the same place for most people most of the time.

Right now you might be planning stops according to where there’s a supercharger. But charging networks are expanding all the time.

This is especially in Europe, where in a Model 3, you also have the choice of using competing CCS charging networks like Ionity.

I object to that! Whenever I get stuck in traffic going uphill, my left leg gets a good workout.

In the tesla's, if you input your route into the car's gps, it'll automatically route you to charging stations as needed

For a Model 3 even with readily available charging that still means ~1 hour waiting on a supercharger per charge, and you've gotta do that 2-3x to get from, say, Amsterdam to Kitzbuhel for a skiing road trip. Figure 15 Euro minimum to use the charger during that time? (I'm using range numbers and charging costs available on the web to run this calculation)

I know it's _possible_ to get somewhere without range anxiety but 20% added time plus 30-45 Euro for the privilege to do that is a serious downside.

If you only do this a couple times a year and the rest of your driving is local then this makes sense, but I don't know that for regular long-range drivers this argument works.

I drove from San Diego to SF in one of my many long trips and most of my charging stops were 10 minutes. I also had two 20 minute stops, one 30 minute, and one 15 minute. The 30 minute stop was near the end where I wanted to arrive home near half full.

Food, checking out local shops, and coffee + bathroom break for those three longer stops. For the short stops, it was just get a bit of charge, maybe a quick stretch or bathroom visit, and on my way.

People have the most bizarre misconceptions about Tesla charging, I think because they assume you have to charge from 0 to full at every stop, which truly would be slow. It simply doesn’t work that way if you do it properly.

I mean seriously... most of my stops were 10 minutes. Quite a contrast from what people think. Plugging in numbers from a map and going by total charge-to-full time overlooks the way charging is so much faster at the bottom of the range.

On the other hand taking a trip to New Mexico and back from California, many stops were 40 minutes to an hour because the chargers are spaced further apart in some of the desert states. YMMV. It depends on your route but the chargers are getting dramatically faster very soon, AND the charger network is getting more and more densely built out.

Correct me if I misunderstood (or read things too literally), but you're saying you stopped more than 8 times in a 500 mile trip? That seems like a lot, especially if they were for recharging. But I don't know the charging rate so maybe it was a case of many short sessions vs. 1 or 2 long ones?

Note: I got >8 because you said most stops were 10-min and then listed 4 stops longer than 10-min.

Short sessions are optimal. The battery charges faster when below 50% capacity.

That’s true, but you also spend extra time driving off the main road, pulling up to the charger, and plugging in.

So while 2 stops is going to be much faster than 1 on a 500 mile journey, there’s likely to be diminishing returns after that.

Chargers are usually right near an exit.

Yes it was 9 or 10. But I was having fun checking out the different charging locations since it was only my second time on that route. There still are plenty more stations on that route that I haven’t been to yet, btw.

I was going off of a brand new Model 3 performance review on TopGear.com from the Fremont factory to LA design center, which indicated it was closer to an hour with a single stop. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gsS-Q3j_Pk)

I saw that review too. It’s a bit deceptive because it’s not optimal to charge all the way up to ~100% on a supercharger. He could have saved a lot of time by stopping twice (2x 15-20 minute stops instead of one 50-60 minute one)

Most people who drive from SF to LA take more than one break, and if it is only one it will be long with a meal and bathroom breaks, plus some walking around to overcome having sat for so long.

> that still means ~1 hour waiting on a supercharger per charge

In a normal car, you fill the tank to full, burn the gas until you're low, then fill it to full again.

EVs aren't the same way, and Teslas on road trips definitely aren't. You don't charge to 100% -- you charge only long enough to reach your next supercharger. Because of the charge curve, you charge at the fastest rate when your battery is low. If you try to charge to 100% every time like you'd do in a gas car, you're gonna have a bad time.

This was the hardest thing for me to get used to in daily driving -- you have to be opportunistic about charging. Whenever you can plug in, plug in. At 70% and there's an empty charger? Plug in. You'd never go to the gas station with a 70% full gas tank, but it's just a different beast altogether.

I think the idea is that you use the superchargers as part of a meal stop that you would make with an ordinary car anyway. If you stop every X km with a regular car for breaks, and Tesla's network ensures you can always find a supercharger in these steps, you can stop, eat / refresh yourself and by the time you're done your car will be ready to make the next leg.

When was the last time you saw a supercharger in a fast food or restaurant parking lot? I live in a part of the Northeast where Teslas are very popular but I haven't seen one.

On a drive from Chicago to Minneapolis:

* Rockford IL is in the parking lot of a shopping mall with restaurants at the perimeter.

* Madison WI (1) is in the parking lot of a shopping mall with restaurants at the perimeter.

* Madison WI (2) is in the parking lot of a grocery store.

* Mauston WI is in the back of a Culver's adjacent to a McDonald's.

* Eau Claire WI is in the back of a commercial strip with a Panera Bread and… a noodle place?, with more restaurants across the street.

* Oakdale MN is in the parking lot of a grocery store.

Literally every stop I could make sells food.

From memory -

SLO, CA: Madonna Inn

Atascadero, CA: Denny's parking lot, across the street from a sandwich shop, 5 minute walk from more

Gilroy, CA: spitting distance of in-n-out, more in the same lot

San Jose, CA: big shopping center with BJ's, Chili's, panda express, etc

Someplace on the 5 between Kettleman city and LA: Subway parking lot

This is literally just from memory of the ones where I've been. Perhaps it's worse in other parts of the country?

I’ve only recently seen a Supercharger that wasn’t (it had a passable gas station next to it, but that’s one level worse than a fast food).

It may not be for you. It’s fine for me. (FWIW, I also politically strongly disagree with EU’s draconian emission standards that are attempting to push EVs on people who don’t won’t EVs.)

The route you mention is full of Superchargers. You absolutely don’t need to wait an hour for a charge, and that’s a bad way to charge (lower rate of charge on fully empty and mostly full batteries). And you depart your hope fully charged and then charge in your Kitzbuhel hotel. On the way, there’s plenty of opportunities to stop for a 15-20 minutes charge and a coffee+bathroom break.

I can’t drive more than 3, 4 max, hours without taking a small break. Most of the time, the damn car is notifying me it’s all charged and ready to continue before I am done with my coffee. It’s fine for me.

My brother, who routine goes Prague-Amsterdam overnight in a single go, would probably hate the wasted time. It’s not for everyone.

"added time plus 30-45 Euro for the privilege to do that is a serious downside"

So would you rather pay €30-45 for charging, or ~€150 for petrol/diesel?

And of course it's only added time if you weren't planning to make stops anyway. Most drivers take breaks, and arguably it's unsafe to not do so over such long journeys.

Such a serious downside anyway, for these once a year long distance trips.

> Amsterdam to Kitzbuhel for a skiing road trip

That's a 10 hour drive! You're genuinely choosing a personal vehicle on its ability to drive literally all day?

I mean, sure. Everyone has their own preferences. But this is a wildly beyond median data point. Most people will take a trip like this once every few years at most. The vast majority are going to look at that trip and fly/train and rent a car in Austria.

Buy the car you want. But arguing on the internet that "I can't use an EV because it doesn't do this one incredibly rare weird thing I want" seems like poor form.

My family's done this drive a couple times for vacations. Much easier / cheaper than flying and renting with all your gear, etc.

In the United States I routinely am in the car for 8-10 hours each way to visit family, but most of my daily driving is short distances. I don't want to own two cars.

I agree with you completely - buy the car you want. What I am hearing from a lot of folks here though is "I bought the car I wanted (for most of my driving) but I'm also saying it's the same or better on long road trips"

It is not incredibly rare. Many people from the Netherlands drive to Austria and Italy for vacation.

Yes yes, lot of people do everything. The question is whether or not something you do once every two years (my educated guess based on that kind of trip frequency per net passenger car -- and I live in the western US!) is a critical requirement for a passenger vehicle to be driven every day.

There are all sorts of things your car can't do that "many" other people do. All I'm saying is stop the nonsense that pretends this is specific to EV's.

This is the logic that demands everyone have a pickup truck, or 4WD, or passenger van, or, hell, private aircraft. Use what you need. But (1) don't pretend that what you need is what I do and (2) be realistic about what you "need". Like, seriously, you really can't take a train to the Alps? Seriously?

I don't know when you last tried to engage in winter sports and public transport, but to carry all that equipment to and from public transport is a lot of work. Even with Ubers at either end of the train, it's still a lot of work shifting all the bags.

Right - the thing I am rebutting is this from the original parent quote:

> "The Tesla Supercharger network, combined with its ability to charge on CCS charging networks like Ionity, make it uniquely suited to long distance travel."

I just checked a couple of the routes I have planned for this year, and there are supercharger points sufficiently close on them. They would add minor detours or alternative routes - for example heading to northern England would require taking the M1 rather than the A1, but it seems do-able. Maybe in a couple of years if I trade in my current car...

> I'd like to get one but it doesn't fit my use case (namely long road trips in the summer).

I own a P3D, facing the same issues of long road trips 1-2x a year I concluded that I'll just spend the few hundred dollars and rent a car for the deep edge cases of my driving and the other 99% of my time I'll enjoy driving my Tesla.

99% of my normal day to day driving I just charge at home at night, I've used the supercharger network on a long road trip and it was surprisingly little-hassle.

I am bit conflicted about the opinion on long road trips is because now I cant think of any other car other than Tesla for Long Road Trips because 1. Auto Pilot takes so much stress away. For starters consider it as ADAS 2. Never had problem with charging where i live. 10 to 20 minute stop for another 4 hrs drive in average.

I did a long road trip from San Diego to Breckenridge more than 2000 miles (round trip) and never had range anxiety and trip was more enjoyable than any other car

I think it really just depends on charger availability. Probably could not perform that same trip if you lived in the midwest.

I just did a trip from Boise Idaho to to Lincoln city Oregon and back again in my Model 3. There aren't many less densely populated areas in the US.

There are very few places in the continental US where superchargers aren't available within a 150 mile radius.

rent a car if that's the issue. As a daily driver it makes so much more sense and all the "but the roadtrips" people vastly overestimate how often that actually happens. I know because I used to be one.

> Auto Pilot takes so much stress away.

Except for the spontaneous brake checking. That's like waiting for someone to hit the "zap them" button. Got me most recently coming across a bridge. Sigh.

I might have faced this once in last year. And lot of feedback on 2019.8.5 seems fixed this issue if you are facing it

Why buy a car you'll own and pay for the whole year based on the usage for a few weeks? Wouldn't it make more sense to rent a road trip car when you need it?

Yes! This is something that I have wondered for a long time. Why do people buy a car that covers all possible usecases for all year around instead of buying one that is ideal for daily use and then rent a bigger car for the week or two when you need it? It would be better for the wallet and for the environment.

Because there are many great cars that fit all those requirements and that are usually cheaper than a current Tesla, better equiped than a Tesla (autopilot being the single exception, even though BMW, Porsche, VW and many others already have lane assist which is basically a little worse (but still comparable) version of Tesla's autopilot). Why bother with renting when you can just take your own car?

"basically a little worse (but still comparable)". No, not even close. I had an M5 with BMW's latest lane keeping assist. Tesla's Autopilot is exponentially better. Especially in the last two weeks with unattended highway lane changes. It is night and day different.

What does it mean practically? What do you mean by "exponentially"? VW, BMW, have lane assist. It means the vehicle will stay in the lane. Autopilot will also stay in the lane. Let's say on a 30 minute drive, autopilot will disengage 2 times, VW will disengage 6 times. Is this about right? I don't see an "exponential" difference here, care to explain? I have tried several vehicles that have this, but for short periods of time.

The point is, none of the vehicles are truly automatic yet. I've seen videos of recent automatic lane changes too, there seems to be problems with proper speed and accurate changes, unless perfect road conditions...

I mean exponentially as in the experience is radically different. VW, BMW, etc will disengage multiple times during a trip by itself. Autopilot does not. 99% of my trips, I do not have to take over from autopilot. It just works. Sharp curves, stop and go traffic. The intelligence of the system - Tesla will look at cars in adjacent lanes, detect a blinker and slow the car to allow a merge. Tesla will look at cars approaching from an on-ramp merge and slow down to properly zipper merge. Tesla will detect a car in a blind spot during a lane change and automatically steer to avoid a collision. And yes the automatic lane changes are even further. They don't require perfect road conditions and there are no issues with proper speed or accurate changes. For me in SoCal traffic, the car will drive onramp to offramp, changing highways and avoiding slow traffic without me doing anything. This is what I mean by exponentially different. It is night and day.

I don’t talk about Tesla. I am talking about a small car, electric or not, that cost a fraction to buy, drive, insure and will be easier to park. And then renting for that fishing trip or long road trip when your small car won’t do.

I looked at this for a fun car to use at the weekends twice a month but it wasn't cost effective.

To rent for a weekend:

    - Rental: £300 (dependent on the car, but £300 was the cheapest)
    - Fuel: £100
To do it twice a month, between April and October would cost £5,600. Instead I picked up a fantastic car for just under £10,000 with less than 50,000 miles on it.

Man Maths has me at (over 12 months):

   - Depreciation: £500
   - Maintenance: £1500 (includ. tires)
   - Insurance and tax: £750
   - Fuel: £1000
which is £3,750 v.s. £5,600.

One small tip for renting cars is to look around at a few rental places, ideally in lower-traffic or lower-population areas. £300 for a weekend seems pretty high (but comparable to e.g. renting from the local airport here), whereas I could take an Uber to an Enterprise just outside of town for ~$30 and get a "premium" car for $140 for the weekend (48 hours at $70/day).

This is for renting sports cars (fun cars) for weekend use. Enterprise and the like don't have such cars available in the U.K, it's more of a specialist market.

If you actually use the cat like that twice a month for a big part of the year it of course makes sense to buy one. But most people use the car for that fun drive maybe twice a year (even though they of course dream about doing it all the time when they buy their expensive car).

I have a car payment, pay to maintain my car, and fees to drive it. Why would I buy a car knowing I would have to rent a car several times a year to go on vacation?

One reason I do is to avoid the mileage I put on a vacation car. I could travel 1,500 miles across several states while on a vacation trip. That’s 1-2 months of normal driving that I instead put on rental car for about $150.

1,5000 miles * 0.50 = $750 even subtracting gasoline (25mpg @ $3.00/gal) $180 you're still coming out like $500 ahead vs wear and tear on your car

Plenty of rental car companies offer unlimited mileage (especially in the US, Avis in particular).

I spent nearly a decade as a consultant traveling extensively throughout the US and Europe--and unlimited mileage rentals could be had for a reasonable and often surprisingly cheap price. I never understood why people opted to pay by the mile.

Good point. Plenty of people choose to not own a car at all, and only rent when they need one.

Most people do not take several vacations a year that require long drives.

I don't know about Switzerland, but renting a car is pretty expensive in some countries. So buying something like a Tesla, or another car, with high resale value may be the better deal, even if you only need it for a month or two a year.

In the USA you can get a Ford Fusion from $40-$50 a day with unlimited miles. And that's not including special prices or discounts

I believe that in Denmark it's closer to $120 per day, 100km included for a small car (European small, not US small).

It's financially viable to go to Germany and rent a car and drive from there, if you need to drive around in Europe.

I know I'm a tiny minority on this usage, but I own cars because I like cars; as in tinkering with them. My two cars are pre-2000, and I only drive them rarely. But when I do, I usually cover several hundred, if not thousands some times, kilometres before I put them away again. But I take the train or bike to work.

While I am not on long trips with them, I instead tinker with them. However, buying a used car can often be a lot cheaper than buying cheap modern car + renting one for road trips, that will cover usages (daily and road trips) decently.

I do use the car outside the long trips. Looking at my mileage graph over the past 5 years[1] my usage is short trips in the winter/spring then much longer road trips in the summer/autumn. The spikes you see on it (2,000km plus) are generally single road trips.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/35POl8r

I drove from the UK to Ålesund, Norway and back in a Model X, which was about 1,300 miles in each direction. Did it on the way home with two kids in the back.

Long trips in a Tesla are totally doable.

Whats is the all in final cost for a Tesla 3 that you guys are paying in Switzerland?

Im guessing its at least a double of a promised $35K USA price?

The USA prices are always without taxes while European prices usually contain VAT, which can be as high as 20%. On top of that there are import duties at least into EU countries. Most importantly, the deliveries in Europe started with the AWD configurations which start at $50k in the US too.

It's not really practical to include taxes in US prices. Some of us don't pay any additional tax on car purchases.

Some of us don’t pay VAT on business purchases either.

It’s customary in US, and evil genius in EU, where consumer prices must be shown with VAT. It hides the tax (surprisingly many people, even those you would expect to be financially literate, aren’t aware of the sheer amount of it - see any online bitching about Apple’s EU prices).

And that’s how you end up with 19-25% taxation of everything you buy in EU. US sales tax is acutely visible every time you buy something, it’s much harder to increase it, politically.

I like how you manage to turn this around so skillfully.

The US sucks because you never see the actual price of something you buy: you just notice it at the counter. When you ask why they don't just label the product with the final price, they say: we can't, it's too complicated. I doubt that.

The real reason is probably that the retailer wants to show the lowest price. Especially for people who might choose to cross-shop different stores.

The legitimate reason is that sales tax in the US can vary by city, or county, or state. Personally I think they should include both prices on the tag. I suppose if you live somewhere that has sales tax you get used to doing the math on the fly. I live in a state with no sales tax so it always surprises me when I shop out of state.

> VAT, which can be as high as 20%

25% in Sweden

8% in Switzerland.

> Im guessing its at least a double of a promised $35K USA price?

60k CHF give or take, so close to double.

i am very surprised to see that their insurance rates are NOT around $5000/year. Very reasonable $2000ish/ year.

> Im guessing its at least a double of a promised $35K USA price?

The low-end 35K model 3 (Standard Range RWD) isn't available in Europe yet. For 60k CHF including taxes you get the version that costs $48500 excluding taxes in the US (AWD long-range).

Is it really 35k in USA? Prices in Europe include taxes.

It seems like it. If I go to tesla.com/model3 and start the process for a base (standard range = 220 miles) RWD sedan, it's $35k before $3750 federal credit and $1750 state (PA) rebate.

You can get it any color, as long as it's black. Any other color costs $1500, and getting rims different from the total black stock ones are also $1500.

The interior is black cloth with manual seat adjustments and "basic audio." At least on this version, there are no options to change that. Ahh the next step up trim level is "Partial Premium Interior" for $2500.

Some states have sales tax on cars and others do not. My state Georgia has a 6.5% sales tax (might be more in 2019). We used to pay a yearly tax on the average value for you make/model/year but now you just play a flat rate at sale time.

Your county or city could also impose a tax on top of the states rate. It’s complicated and I’m sure it’s why car companies don’t list taxes in the US on their websites.

The entry level model is 35K before tax breaks (which is $3750 now IIRC). Some places in the US have sales tax, some not.

Road trips are a joy with autopilot.

Really? Autopilot seems like it would make for a pretty boring road trip. You need to pay attention to the road but you’re not driving.

The pleasure of driving for me does not come from making thousands of micro-adjustments constantly, in fact that's what makes a road trip exhausting.

Autopilot reduces the stress and decision fatigue.

For my last roadtrip I got a rental car with Subaru's EyeSight adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping. After a day of driving with that I was noticeably less fatigued, and could afford to actually look out at the scenery every now and then.

Definitely worth it, I imagine Tesla's system is even better.

I found fatigue mostly depends on the other traffic. In my 2003 Volvo S60 I can do 800km [500mi] of Autobahn with virtually zero fatigue (basic cruise control and better seats than in my living room) -- with little traffic and mostly cruising at 110km/h [70mph] (or faster if traffic demands it). Though there is not much difference to 140km/h [87mph] besides 20% better fuel economy.

Now, same car, same weather, but 50km (read: fifty) of heavy stop&go on a three lane Autobahn -> Kill me, please.

I'm looking forward to my next car with adaptive CC, that should eat a lot of the stop&go stress (also on my daily commute). But - to get to the point - I don't think that Autopilot will make things much better than that, since I still need to be aware of traffic and anticipate potential stupidities committed by other drivers -- and that's what's causing most of the fatigue for me.

I'm sure traffic makes a huge difference. I drive very rarely (once every 2-3 months?) so every time it's pretty exhausting.

Actually not. Subaru's EyeSight is currently the best system available. Especially in local traffic on detecting bicycles, kids and all those things even at night time.

Nobody else comes close.

Actually yes. Try going hands free with Eyesight for a few minutes, it is significantly less smooth and stable than Autopilot.

Actually don't, you might die.

Depends on your definition of Best. Consumer Reports called GM's SuperCruise "best".

I don't get this. Isn't it nightmarish since no one has any idea when it will veer into some random object?

Users of autopilot probably have faith in it, although in some cases (like the guy running into the concrete divider) this caused their deaths.

I guess your mindset is different to the grandparent poster's mindset. He thinks autopilot is as reliable as a human chauffeur, to you (and probably to me too) it'd be like having a driver which you can't communicate with and might suffer epilepsy and fatally yank the wheel at any point, so you have to keep paying attention to his driving.

Interestingly this mindset difference also exists in Tesla, the marketing department promotes 1 version, and the legal department says the other...

I hear a lot of this from people who've never tried Autopilot, and yet everyone who has tried Autopilot loves it.

My best guess here is that "babysitting an epileptic chauffeur" may sound scary, but in practice it's a lot less stressful than actually driving. Not needing to focus on lane-keeping and maintaining safe following distance is probably a lot nicer than you might expect – you still have to pay attention to lane-keeping, but that might even be easier when you're not forced to focus on the mechanical part of it.

> everyone who has tried Autopilot loves it.

I would like to bet the guy who hit the concrete barrier would disagree... sadly he's dead.

I'm not closing my eyes and going to sleep. I'm paying attention I just don't have to gas/break/adjust steering wheel every single second.

MIT just did a study and found the warnings and driver vigilance in Autopilot was sufficient enough to maintain safe driving.


It doesn’t do that.

And your still driving - you just don’t micromanage trivia (which turns out is pretty exhausting). That increases your cognitive capacity to observe the road ahead at a higher level. You now see things you could have missed when focusing on low-level steering, especially when tired. You notice a weirdly behaving card ahead of time and take over. You see the road is getting a bit more complicated, or congested, ahead and take over. Traffic too heavy for Tesla’s cautions lane changes or overtaking, you take over.


It'd only be nightmarish if the driver (and passengers) have no faith in autopilot.

.. in which case, I doubt the road-trip would be driven entirely on autopilot.

Not at all. The only place they ever "veer" is when the lane markings are lacking, which isn't very common. It is especially uncommon on the long, boring stretches of interstate that seem to drag on forever when driving.

It's extremely common to have worn out lane markings in the snow belt. New paint only lasts one winter before the plows scrape off most of the reflective beads. Rain driving in the dark then becomes a guessing game no machine can handle.

That makes sense, haven't thought of it that way.

It also makes things more comfortable - you can stretch and change position on long drives. In three hours of motorway driving on Sunday, I was only driving for about three minutes - the rest was Autopilot.

Many other manufacturers have the same functionality that tesla calls autopilot. It is called "lane assist". The car steers itself and keeps inside a lane. Tesla's might be 10%-20% "better" in terms of which roads it will stay on, but since a human needs to keep attention on it anyways, it is basically same functionality.

Did you actually drive with it or are you just armchair experting?

I don’t need SSD, my hard drive is fast enough. Qi charging is pointless, I just plug it in. 4K HDR is waste of bits. It’s just another lane assist.

It’s upgrading, and then going back, that makes it apparent.

>I'd like to get one but it doesn't fit my use case (namely long road trips in the summer).

Yeah most electric cars aren’t ideal for long road trips, but I wouldn’t generalize that to a Tesla. Definitely the long range config is a good one to get though. The extra money you spend will be made up on maintenance savings and fewer surprise breakdowns from bad gas, watered-down gas, or other issues on those long trips.

A Chevy Volt would be perfect for your use case.

Disclosure: happy Volt owner that my wife drives 95% around town with the occasional 120-300 mi road trip.

A colleague of mine bought 2x 2018 Chevy Volts recently - after all rebates came out to $18000 cash each for a brand new Volt.

Thats a no brainer to me - at 2000$ gas / year - the car pays for itself in 10 years.

Unfortunately for most people out there the economics does not work the same way - they cant get to this pricing. But if they could USA would have a much larger share of electric cars.

I'm curious, how do you get a $33k MSRP Volt down to $18k? Was it second hand? (if it was then you don't get any federal/state credits, those are claimed by the original owner)

yes brand new cars - combination of federal and state rebates on electric cars. if this was available to everyone - we'd have a much larger share of electric cars in USA TODAY. pretty much buy one get one free in this case - two great electric cars for the price of one. INSANE.

Unfortunately GM has decided to discontinue the Volt. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chevy-volt-discontinued-chevrol...

It's not sold in Europe. You can buy Prius plugin hybrid, new Corolla hybrid, BMW 330e etc.

It was, as the Opel Ampera. You can find them used.

Opel Ampera.

It's not sold any more since PSA bought them.

It's perfectly ok to buy a second hand vehicle.

Absolutely, but the raport was about new cars. In this cause I'd be cautious. The access to spare parts could be limited in the future.

I hate how Tesla advertises Model 3 as a 35k$ car. In Germany, the cheapest, bare bone version of it is around 60 000 (53k euro). At this price point, it doesn't make much sense, it's just better to get a car like Merc E Class.

Tesla’s price is $35k but your country adds hefty taxes. I was in Germany last year talking about a 5 series rental my coworker upgraded to. I was pretty shocked when they said it was over €100k. I pulled up the same car for about $60k at my local dealer in the states and that price is before bargaining. Pick it up in Munich and you can save 5%.

Companies in the US don’t post prices including taxes in almost all cases.

> Tesla’s price is $35k but your country adds hefty taxes.

No, they sell different models in Germany. The cheapest model available in Germany currently is the LR AWD, which costs $48K in the US.

I was only going by what price the OP commented. They announced the 35k price in the US but only recently started production I believe the base model is 6 months away for Europe.

> I was pretty shocked when they said it was over €100k. I pulled up the same car for about $60k at my local dealer in the states and that price is before bargaining.

I don’t believe you. The only stock 5 series over €100k is the M5 Limousine (€119k). All other models are well below €100k, unless they come with options / BMW Individual. 550d Touring xDrive is €82k base price (with taxes).

I’m looking at a 2019 530d M package with full option and that thing would cost me €82k, after discounts comes as low as €60k (trade in).

What you say with $60k is probably something like 520i base option before taxes (knowing US).

So, I don’t believe that story.

Just for your reference, it appears the 520i is not offered in the US. The base model would be the 530i. It doesn't seem like a 530d or a 550d are offered in the US...but for some kind of comparison:

with little effort I was able to find a 2019 540i xDrive with the M sport package for $53k on cargurus. Factor in taxes and its $57k. Factor in that I haven't even bothered to check autotrader or shop around emailing/calling dealers as I would do if I was interested in purchasing one.

Yes you can't get that deal everywhere and it might not be typical. But it's there

For $60k you can certainly get a lot more BMW than a 520i in the US

Thank you for these numbers. I just went to the German configurator to have a look at the exact prices. This is what I get: 540i base model with M package is €66250 base price after taxes, straight from the BMW dealer.

But in Europe, we have VAT, depending on the country, 19 to 21%.

Before the taxes, the price is: €55672. Considering the exchange rate of 1.12 USD to EUR, still significantly more expensive than in the US but far, far off of the €100k.

Diesel is by default more expensive because of better economy.

Ah, I see, you are talking about a second hand car. All the numbers I included in my replies refer to a brand new car delivered to order. For a reference, I just visited a US configurator. A brand new 540i M package is exactly $62550 and the configurator says: "MSRP excludes destination & handling fee of $995, tax, title, license, and registration."

Sorry, but a brand new car will be much more expensive then in the US than in Germany.

I think you are again confused. It’s a brand new car. The MSRP is over 60k, but MSRP != selling price.

Perhaps it’s common to pay MSRP in Germany, but if you’re paying MSRP in the US for a non special vehicle you’re doing it wrong.

> Sorry, but a brand new car will be much more expensive then in the US than in Germany.

You’ve provided no evidence to suggest this is the case.

German cars are _significantly_ more expensive in Germany than the exact same model in the US. I was astonished at the price difference (factoring in currency conversion, VAT, etc). The same applies for electronics. I sold a used iPad to a German colleague for substantially _more_ than what I had paid for it, and it was still a bargain for him.

German cars in Germany are also more likely to be made in Germany, whereas a lot of the US models are made in Tennessee or South Carolina.

Wikipedia claims that Spartanburg hosts the only US factory and only the X models (SUVs) are manufactured there.

No idea how much cars cost in Germany let alone Europe only what the Germans told me.

I don’t think they sell the 520i in the US, at least I can’t find them. Here’s a 540i for $62k and I guarantee I could negotiate it to less than $60 with a 6.5% tax.[1] M5s here are over 100k. 550i are about 90k.

No chance of a 550d touring coming stateside, I can’t compare prices. Diesel wagon with 4 turbos wow!!


That's true, but the numbers still don't add up without VAT and other taxes. Without VAT and including the incentive (2k euro) it's around 43k euro which is 48k USD.

Yes, so it's virtually the same price as the equivalent model in the US. As others mentioned, the other problem is that the base model now available in the US is still months away for European markets.

That being said, it doesn't seem very appropriate to complain that a car advertised as $35k USD in the US isn't available for the same price in Germany.

Goods are never advertised without taxes in Germany, so if it's 53k after taxes, that makes it a 53k car.

Even in the US, the $35k Model 3 is still somewhat of a mystical creature. I don't believe anyone who has "bought" the car actually received it yet.

Maybe in the next few weeks, the $35k will actually exist and we'll start seeing youtube reviews of the cloth interior (and other cutbacks they've done to get the price lower). But as far as I know, no such review exists yet. It was... what? 4 weeks ago when Tesla started selling the $35k on their website?

And its still not actually around...

Not having a model in stock one month after announcing it is not a huge deal though. Time to delivery of a Chevrolet Bolt in Canada was over 6 months after launch :/

The $35k Model 3 was "announced" in 2016, over two years ago, with $1000 pre-order deposits taken at that time. https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/31/tesla-unveils-its-35-000... There were promises about how this car would arrive in 2017 back then.

> The $35,000 (before federal tax credits) Model 3 sedan made its world debut at an event in Los Angeles. On stage, Elon Musk announced that the car will have at least 215 miles of range, 0-60 in under six seconds, and every single one will have Supercharging as a standard feature.

The $35k Model 3 hit Tesla's webpage with "2-to-4-weeks of delivery" in late Febuary. Its April, and no one has this car yet.


> Tesla says that deliveries are starting within the next 2 to 4 weeks depending on the configuration in the US.


If you trick a bunch of people to come and try to buy a product that DOES NOT EXIST YET, and then convince them to buy something else when they enter the store... that's called a "Bait and Switch". Its literally an illegal sales tactic. Tesla isn't doing it to the point where it is illegal, but it is still clearly scummy behavior and toes the line.

People are coming to the Tesla stores looking for the $35k model, and are immediately being upsold to buy $40k or $45k vehicles instead. The 35k model is the bait, the $40k to $45k models are the switch.

Upselling is standard practice for car sales. I don't think barely anybody ever buys the base model of a car.

There's a difference between upselling and bait and switch, though. Upselling, imo, is trying to convince you to get a higher priced model, or falling back to the base while it's in stock. Here Tesla is advertising a vehicle they do not have in stock. It's like getting you in and then saying they misquoted the price and it's actually $10k more (to me).

The difference is that the base model EXISTS in the other stores.

The $35k model 3 doesn't exist yet. But Mr. Musk has been touting that number for the past 3 years anyway. Its not common practice to tout a number for a mythical, non-existent car.

Having higher shipping times (or other inconveniences) on cheaper/base models is also pretty common in car sales tactics to help with the upsell.

the point is that a $35k model 3 has never been built. It is literal vaporware. They have to design and build a new line of cheapo cloth seats for it, which they haven't. 0 have been sold.

Funnily enough, you could argue the same about the Mercedes E class. For the price of a Mercedes, you could get a Tesla. :-)

But Merc E is multiple classes above the Tesla in terms of space, interior quality and luxury/comfort.

Not performance. And your Merc E won't get better with time.

I'm not a car person, however, the interior of a Tesla feels horribly cheap in comparison to a quality made german car.

Totally get where he's coming from. My Audi, which costs about a third of a Tesla model S, has a nicer interior than a Model S. That makes no sense to me.

accelerating really fast in a straight line is probably the most pointless aspect of "performance" for a car that gets driven on public roads. modern hot hatches that cost $25k are already too powerful to fully appreciate without getting your license taken away. a 230i or m240i is going to be much more fun to drive 10-15 mph over the speed limit than any Tesla. get one with a manual transmission while you still can.

I drive a sports car on public roads. Straight, level, boring public roads with low speed limits. Straight line is basically the only thing that matters 90% of the time. For the other 10% of the time, the difference between a Tesla and the ICE equivalent still doesn't matter or possibly even favors the instant response of the electric drivetrain.

It sounds like you're just not driving on the right public roads.

In the US, to name just a couple, there are:

    - Hells Canyon, Idaho
    - Saddle Road, Hawaii
    - Mulholland Highway, California
    - Route 9W to Storm King Highway, New York
    - Route 348, Helen, Georgia 
    - M119, Harbor Springs, Michigan
    - Highway 1, Big Sur, California
In the UK:

    - Horncastle to Louth
    - Cat and Fiddle
    - Evo Triangle
    - Forres to Alford
    - Black Mountain Pass
    - St Ives To St Just

I mean, its not that I disagree with you, but the closest one is almost 300 miles from here. I used to drive some pretty good ones in western NC as well, tbh. There's a reason there are so many Miatas up there. :)

But here it is all straight and flat.

Those probably are not the 90% case

Of course, but an enthusiast doesn't purchase a sports car for the 90% case, it's purchased for the 10% case - road trips to some of the best driving roads in the world.

If you just want a flash car to get to work and back well that's different. And if you just want to go fast between the lights then a Tesla is genuinely the best car for you.

oh man, 9w is beautiful. used to go to school up there.

You accelerate really fast in a straight line every time you pull out from a stop sign or red light. In fact if you are adhering to speed limits, accelerating really fast is the only way to save travel time.

I mean technically you are correct, but usually when people talk about performance, they are considering the recreational qualities of the car. most people don't buy fast cars to shave fractions of a second off accelerating to 35mph.

Save travel time by accelerating fast? So you get to 40mph a half a second faster? Are you being sarcastic?

Or arrive faster at the next red light.

I used to think this until I got an EV. The ability to a) accelerate quickly and b) stop more quickly makes them almost like motorcycles.

You catch lights easier, merge effortlessly and slowdowns are zen.

I gain about a couple of min trip time to drop off my kids which is about 10m and 6-7 signal lights away.

Also on highways I utilize the HOV lane which for me trims about 5m off my longish commute.

And it’s all comfortable and silent.

Ignoring the existence of traffic, sure.

Choosing Tesla is easy if all you care about is 0-100 km/h performance. However, not everyone do that.

It’s not just 0-100. Driving an EV is just more fun. (IMO of course).

Agreed. Model 3 is the only car that ever gave me a feeling similar to riding a supersport motorcycle in terms of acceleration.

P.S. Model 3 happens to be the only EV I tried, but as much as I know about EVs, most of them share a similar kind of "fun" acceleration.

More fun compared to what? A 911 GT3? Challenger Hellcat? Toyota Corolla?

Better to get in with the youth market, then go upmarket with them as they age.

If you want performance, buy a sports car not a Tesla. Straight line acceleration has almost nothing to do with lap time compared to the suspension and brakes. You can buy a formula car with downforce for about £15k, admittedly more if you want to take it to tracks and run it healthily.

Also, if you look for "performance" in your road car it just sounds like a recipe for wrapping it around a tree (Or ruining your back: I'm a huge motorsports fanatic, and I'd still probably take a comfortable car with reasonable performance over a "fast" one without fancy suspension to make it comfortable)

> And your Merc E won't get better with time.

Have you priced a classic Mercedes E-class lately? Allow me to help. https://www.classicdriver.com/en/cars/mercedes-benz/ponton-1...

What exactly is your point here? The E-class didn't get better. Its worth increased, and there is no guarantee that would continue for today's new models seeing as their depreciation (as with most luxury brand models) is pathetic.

> The E-class didn't get better. Its worth increased [...]

This statement doesn't compute for me.

The actual car is the same. Tesla cars get upgrades and new features after purchase.

They could also brick it remotely, or introduce a bug in the autopilot and plow you into a barrier: You might not want the upgrades

Ok, but if the E Class worth went up, you can't really say that's a bad deal...

They're classic cars from the 1950s kept shining and running. Not only did keeping them that way probably cost quite a bit, as I'd bet an E Class sold today won't have the same appeal sixty years from now as these do today.

The base model 3 is only 0.5s faster to 60 than the base E class, and that gap doesn't widen by all that much as you go up both product lines.

How long does the battery in a Tesla last? What’s the cost to replace it?

Battery degredation seems to bottom out between 85-90% capacity on most cars after a lot of miles. Likely will never need a replacement.

If I recall correctly, most of the lowest performers are older S and X. The 3 is expected to degrade even slower with their improved battery cells and thermal management.


So far all we have is anecdotal evidence


Is it better or worse as far as total costs compared to a Mercedes-Benz with 645,000 km on it?

Why would a Tesla?

Regular software updates that add significant new features. Dashcam, dog mode, sentry mode, summon, etc.

Better range, doubled charging speeds, improved braking distance...

It is a real case of downloading more RAM.

I was on vacation and got a notification that there was a firmware update for my Model 3 which was parked in my garage a thousand miles away. I remotely installed it and my car literally got 5% quicker.

Pretty crazy!

No, it’s like buying an 1 GHz oscilloscope and buying the license to enable the 2 GHz version. The hardware has always been there.

The test equipment industry is notorious for this. I can buy a $15k Keysight Fieldfox spectrum analyzer and turn it into a $50k instrument with license that enable hardware that is already there.

Cool, so it gets better the same way your 15 year old laptop gets better?

Yes... great isn't it! Not sure why cars haven't done this before.

A Mercedes E class won't get totaled if you get into a fender bender.

But how much will be broken or worn out after three years of service? Germans don't engineer for reliability.

I mean, if we're going to debase the level of argument down to national origin, since when does American manufacturing have a reputation for quality and reliability?

It still stinks like any other petroleum car. Once you go EV it’s hard to go back.

Do you mean particularly model 3?

It's $35k USD without tax in the United States.

Apple also advertises iPhone as a $1000 phone, but the cheapest is like $2500 in Brazil. Not Apple's fault.

European prices are VAT and other taxes included. US reports prices without tax.

Tesla doesn’t advertise. What are you referring to?

I'd like a tesla but not comfortable with their data policy. If tesla provides a way to opt out I may consider a base model 3 in the future.

I own a BMW i3 and the Tesla Model 3. Both have cellular connections and are constantly pinging their motherships. At least on the Tesla I have the option of opting out. No such ability is available on the BMW.

> No such ability is available on the BMW.

Does the CEO of BMW tweet that it's your fault after you wreck your car?

No. But the CEO of Tesla doesn't do that either.

(They can't tell the reason for the crash remotely, they extract the data directly, in person, with physical access to the car.)

Interesting. Can't you wrap the antenna in a Faraday cage, or simply disconnect it?

You most certainly can prevent it from paging home to BMW. Either thru the settings menu or hacking it via ODB2 port and coding it off with software like E-Sys.

Yeah, like any normal customer would do. /s

I mean, it's the same software the a BMW dealership uses when they code your car. I was easily able to learn how to code my own BMW using it within a day. It's not hard.

There is a way to opt out. It's a setting within the vehicle.

Is it an actual opt-out or is it a Google-esque not-actually-off opt-out?

I've met [Phil Sadow](https://www.fastcompany.com/90209541/meet-the-renegade-whos-...) the other day in Berkeley, he's pretty fully p0wned the S,3,X systems and replaced the tesla endpoints up with his own server. If you're really worried about this enough then there may be a way.

Agreed. There's a lot to like about the cars, but they're very invasive.

Luckily you can get a service manual in Massachusetts (or at least electronic access)

If I were to buy one my first move would be to remove the modem and WiFi.

Even then I don't like the amount of data it records internally.

I don't think you understand the car if you want to turn off the ability for the car to improve the software.

Fair enough - I think understand their model, but I don't really agree with it :)

I don't think my car needs internet access, or anyone needs the ability to check in on it.

Unless there's a safety recall, I'd personally prefer my car to keep the OS and configuration throughout it's lifecycle.

But I love their batteries in particular, and I think they're very nice cars in many ways.

What exactly is their data policy that makes you uncomfortable? How does it compare with the mandatory "eCall" system that all new cars in Europe must have (SIM card and microphone that the car user(s) have no control over)?

Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

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