Tesla Presses Its Case On Fuel Standards 291
An anonymous reader writes: Tesla is preparing their case to leave federal mileage and emissions regulations intact, or make them even more strict. In addition, the company is fighting other car makers from loosening more stringent regulations in California. The WSJ reports: "Tougher regulations could benefit Tesla, while challenging other auto makers that make bigger profits on higher-margin trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Tesla's vice president of development, Dairmuid O'Connell, plans to argue to auto executives and other industry experts attending a conference on the northern tip of Michigan that car companies can meet regulations as currently written. 'We are about to hear a lot of rhetoric that Americans don't want to buy electric vehicles,' Mr. O'Connell said in an interview ahead of a Tuesday presentation in Traverse City, Mich. 'From an empirical standpoint, the [regulations] are very weak, eminently achievable and the only thing missing is the will to put compelling products on the road.'"
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
And politicians enjoy the power to write regulation enabling law so as to extort campaign contributions from companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I googled the sentence the poster above you wrote
http://www.marketplace.org/top... [marketplace.org]
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/2... [cnn.com]
"In the first quarter, Tesla sold nearly $68 million of the zero-emission credits to other automakers. That represented 12% of its overall revenue. "
So really, Telsa is not helping the climate - they are just outsourcing (selling) their percentage of climate damage to the competition. If they really cared, they would not sell or use these credits and actually help save the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what was intended. The other auto makers are free to produce zero emission vehicles and sell credits too.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Their motive may be profit, but in this case, they are probably right. Fuel hasn't suddenly become more plentiful and pollution hasn't just vanished from the air, so why should the standards be relaxed?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Their motive may be profit, but in this case, they are probably right. Fuel hasn't suddenly become more plentiful and pollution hasn't just vanished from the air, so why should the standards be relaxed?
I am not arguing the correctness of their position just pointing out the impact of regulatory capture. I would guess, if CA ended amazons credit, they would argue as forcefully for them as the argued for keeping existing fuel standards since it's to their benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But it's also true that change per se puts more stress on less innovative or agile companies, especially companies that have massive investments sunk into older technologies. No matter what rules you set it'll benefit some companies over others; rules that are very favorable to GMC would be unfavorable to Tesla and vice versa. They'll both argue that rules that benefit them the most are best for the country.
I'll say this for Tesla's position, though: the notion that it's physically impossible to b
Re: (Score:2)
]
I'll say this for Tesla's position, though: the notion that it's physically impossible to build fuel efficient cars that people will want to buy is balderdash.
The problem is not want to buy but can afford to buy. Tesla is at the high end of what I would consider the car pricing range if you leave out the super premium and exotics. As a result, many people who might preferentially buy one simply can't afford one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I don't benefit. Thanks to the EPA, car makers can't engineer diesels to run with significant reliability. If I go buy a diesel car, there is a good chance that the DPF may get plugged (which is a $3200 item), or many other issues.
Even though the piss tank (DEF) is for the exhaust, there is always the chance of the EPA-mandated DRM on the ECM saying that it is empty and disabling the vehicle. Nothing like getting the "5 more starts allowed" warning when low on fuel in the middle of nowhere, esp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, has the US benefited from the EPA in the past 15 years?
Yes, far more so than it would from the pollution that would have otherwise probably not been addressed.
Too many regulations too fast.
Let's see some data.
The entire steel industry was shut down due to the EPA and now there are more resources consumed because the steel that was once made here in the US now has to travel by ship, which has made pollution worldwide worse.
Are you sure about this? Production of steel in the US was ~100 million tons in 2000, it's now ~85 million, but much of that drop can be attributed to the faltering economy, and the job losses? Technology, as productivity increased, while demand did not.
That, and China feeding its own domestic markets, in order to cut down on that ship travel you dislike, but then exceeding its own d
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
That's pure BS right there.
I've got an '06 VW Golf TDi that has been running on ULSD since '08 with over 160,000 miles on it. I haven't had a single drive train failure on it.
I've replaced the glow plugs (Wisconsin winters are brutal), the timing belt (at ~100k miles), and regular oil changes at 10k miles. And I still pull 44mpg highway.
No vehicles have required DEF since 2008. It was a short term solution to meet EPA bin requirements in 2007/2008 while still running on low sulfur diesel fuel. Ultra low sulfur diesel, ULSD, does not require DEF to meet EPA requirements.
The EPA hasn't cost any jobs. It increases costs insignificantly, but the quantity of jobs is entirely dependent on demand. The few bucks that EPA regs add to the price of a car do not meaningfully impact demand.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You will enjoy not dying early from pollution related illness even though you won't attribute that to the EPA regulations that actually extended your life and your health.
Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey I like Tesla as much as the next guy, but wake me up when a corporation lobbies government in a way that goes against their own self-interest.
The theory here is that if more stringent fuel mileage standards are maintained, it will force traditional automakers to either make more tiny, anemic 4 cylinder gas engines (early 1980s anyone?) or push further into hybrid and electric car territory in order to deliver meaningful power without as much (or any) gasoline. In either situation, Tesla stands to gain as either they compete with comparatively fast, powerful vehicles (Model S, X, 3) or they are competing apples to apples in electrics/plug-in hybrids for which they'll have significant control over lithium ion battery production with the Gigafactory, and a 5-10 year head start at building ground up purpose-built all-electrics.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey I like Tesla as much as the next guy, but wake me up when a corporation lobbies government in a way that goes against their own self-interest.
Wake me up when they prove that they're actually performing battery swaps, which is required at this phase to get all the credits they're getting. There's no evidence that they can do it, let alone that they are doing it. (If anyone feels differently, let's see some photographic evidence of a swap actually taking place; I am not interested in seeing the pictures of the car sitting in the swap station with nothing happening.)
Re:Smart (Score:5, Interesting)
They *are* doing them, but there are several manual steps currently. Go to Teslamotorsclub.com if you don't believe it.
For what it's worth, battery swaps are a dead end. Few people need them with Supercharging becoming more ubiquitous by the day . Tesla won't be doing widespread swaps for privately owned cars any time soon, if ever. Maybe for commercial vehicles 5-10 years down the road...
Re:Smart (Score:4, Informative)
They *are* doing them, but there are several manual steps currently. Go to Teslamotorsclub.com if you don't believe it.
I've been there, and what I saw was a bunch of people who don't own Teslas slapping each other on the back while looking at photos which don't provide any proof that swaps are occurring.
For what it's worth, battery swaps are a dead end.
Sure, I agree. But credit systems are bullshit, too, and Tesla is gaming the credit system on top of that.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Informative)
It works, almost as on the video - except you have to carefully position your car and attendant manually blocks your car's wheels from rolling.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, though. The price ($85) is not worth it, it's just easier to wait 30 minutes for a supercharge.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Tesla Model S. And I've participated in the battery-swap beta.
Did you see the swap occur, or was it all smoke and blue curtains?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you accept as evidence that the user, within 5 minutes time, was driving off with a fully charged battery?
Re:Smart Battery Swaps (Score:2)
Is there a possible benefit to getting a battery with fewer charge cycles in a swap ? I sort of saw this concept as a way to get a refurbished battery when yours is reaching end of life, or has a few dead cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a possible benefit to getting a battery with fewer charge cycles in a swap ? I sort of saw this concept as a way to get a refurbished battery when yours is reaching end of life, or has a few dead cells.
That's a completely different issue. Even without quick-recharge swaps, it's certainly possible to replace an old battery. But you're going to have to pay for that new battery (less a rebate for the value of the old one, I'm sure).
That word does not mean what you think it does (Score:3)
With just shy of 500 stations across the entire US, and many major cities lacking a Supercharger station entirely or having one at best... the word "ubiquitous" does not mean what you think it does.
McDonald's is ubiquitous - Supercharger stations are rare and unusual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You need Superchargers only on highways, otherwise you charge at home or at work. You do not need them particularly in cities.
Unless, of course, you are visiting a city and need a recharge to get back home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, why all the hate over the credits? Tesla collects government incentives, Oil and gas companies collect government incentives, other automobile manufacturers collect government incentives. Yet plenty of folks constantly point out how the first successful auto manufacturing upstart in 80 years in America, apparently reaps some mythical unfair advantage over everyone else.
Re:Smart (Score:4, Interesting)
So, your argument is that multiple wrongs make it right? Incentives are driven by special interests with inequitable influence. Let the people decide in a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. My argument is that no one bothers framing the problem properly. All they do is complain about Tesla and ignore everything else.
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny that emission credits are seen as a liberal construct, when they were originally developed as a market based solution by conservatives. In 1990, George H. W. Bush established a "cap and trade" system to combat acid rain. This was a market alternative to a "command and control" style solution. Yet today, you're a bleeding liberal to suggest such a thing.
The crux of the problem is that free markets don't address external costs. A simple example is over-fishing. In a free market, the oceans ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smart (Score:5, Interesting)
CARB was convinced that Tesla demonstrated the ability to swap batteries, and CARB sets the rules for ZEV credits. Tesla have done exactly what they needed to do in order to meet CARB's bizarre diktats.
Now, can anybody explain to me why battery swapping is worth additional credits in the first place? CARB's mandate is supposed to be cleaner air. Swapping batteries doesn't make the air cleaner. They give three times the ZEV credits for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as they do for battery electric vehicles -- even though both produce the same amount of pollutant emissions: none. Where's the logic?
Oh yeah. . . The logic is that Toyota -- by some measures the largest car company in the world (effectively tied with VW, last I heard) -- unloaded a truckload of cash to lobby CARB board members.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Any system which allows for refuelability/battery swapping has a much better chance of competing with current transportation fuel methods.
Nice assertion. I'll counter with one of my own: Battery swapping has negligible effect on the ability of EVs to compete with ICEVs for consumer travel. The only case where it's of use is in long-distance, non-stop travel, which is a miniscule percentage of road miles and which can in most cases be done with a rental vehicle. As long as the people in the car need to refuel every few hours, all you need is enough range to go as far as the people can, and a sufficiently-fast recharge time that by the time the people eat the car is ready to go again.
What's needed for EVs to compete isn't battery swapping, it's lower prices for vehicles with adequate range. The Model S has the range required, now. The Nissan LEAF and similar cars are in the ballpark on price. When we get a $25K (new) EV sedan with a 250-mile range, they'll sell like hotcakes in suburban middle-class America, and pollution levels in places like LA will decline dramatically in just a few years.
This isn't to say that battery swapping never makes sense, or that better highway and home charging infrastructure (particularly for apartment dwellers) doesn't matter, but solving the price/range problem will put EVs over the hump and the rest will follow naturally.
Re: (Score:3)
currently the battery packs alone are $8k - $12k
LEAF batteries are $6K.
getting people to give up a major factor of anything (in this case Range/"Refueling" time) requires a significant incentive
There is no "refueling time" issue to "give up". Refueling time is a major advantage of EVs for everyday use... refueling my EV takes ten seconds. Five when I get out of the car and plug it in at night, and five more when I unplug it in the morning. I find my ICEV much, much more of a bother to keep fueled.
This is only true in the exceptional case of long-distance, non-stop travel. And even there, all it takes is enough range and fast-enough recharging to ensure that the car doens'
Re: (Score:2)
What's the big deal with a battery swap? I would think that waiting 20 min to get an 80% charge for free would be much more preferable to paying $80 and getting a battery that might have seen abuse and wear. Charging is the future. We just need to bring it down to 10 minutes.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
The top range Tesla now is 270 miles per charge. How often do you drive more than 270 miles in a day? Be honest now. . . Because most of us rarely do that.
Recharging time. . . It takes 20 seconds to plug in your car in the evening. In the morning you have a full charge. That's way more convenient than going to the gas station.
If you're on the highway, taking that epic road trip, then yeah. . . You're screwed. It's gonna kill your soul when you have to stop for a 20 or 30 minute quick charge a couple of times during the long day's driving. And you totally weren't going to stop like that in your gas car, because you are a superhuman who never needs to rest, eat or use the bathroom.
I have no idea what "shitty little cars with no cargo" you are referring to. I thought the topic was Tesla? The Model S is a full-sized car with enormous cargo space, front and back. You can haul your drum kit in it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Smart (Score:4, Insightful)
That's perfectly valid-- you're among the 1-5% of the population that the current Tesla isn't an ideal fit for at least several times a year. For everyone else's use case, it's way more than adequate. It may even be adequate for you, depending on how many of those trips you make. If you save enough gas during the rest of your year, the difference may be enough to rent a vehicle for those trips to your mom's house and still leave you break even or profitable relative to driving something else all year long (ignoring whether or not you can afford a Tesla right now in the first place of course).
It's not ideal in every possible situation today, and it likely never will be, but that's not a true negative because neither will any other vehicle be. But it's beneficial when it's ideal or close enough to ideal in enough situations, and for most people, Tesla has already surpassed that point (again, save for the current initial cost of the vehicle). It's already better than all of its most direct competition on most, but not all metrics, and most of its competition on several other metrics, and that was the purpose in making them in the first place-- demonstrating that it can actually be done in the real world.
So there's really very little reason for the auto industry to try to argue an opposing position if that position is already demonstrably false.
Re: (Score:2)
So for those several times per year, rent a car.
I lived in Colorado for three years, and regularly (almost monthly) made the 8-hour drive to my parents' home. Most of that time I had two vehicles, a Dodge Durango (needed to tow the camp trailer or boat, and to haul the whole family), and a Nissan LEAF, which was my commuter and the around-the-town vehicle when the whole family wasn't going. Given the amount of gas the Durango consumes I found it more economical (when all the kids weren't going) to rent a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The top range Tesla now is 270 miles per charge. How often do you drive more than 270 miles in a day? Be honest now. . . Because most of us rarely do that.
How often do you fully charge your Tesla? I knew a guy who owned one and was in a perpetual state of looking for chargers, basing his shopping and dining on charger locations and picking up 2-5 miles of range at each stop.
Re: (Score:2)
also not shitty little cars with no cargo like they're pushing for the land of fruits and nuts.
I helped a friend from Hawaii move his scuba equipment from the airport to the place he got his Tesla shipped to when he came back to the mainland. We had the back of my Tacoma packed full, and two bags crammed into the back seat. The Tesla not only ate all of that gear with no hassle at all, but also got him from San Diego to Sacramento in a day (while carrying a ton of scuba gear).
Range and space aren't hard to do in an electric car if you're willing to pour money into batteries. It's just a matter of
Re:Smart (Score:5, Insightful)
... theory here is that if more stringent fuel mileage standards are maintained, it will force traditional automakers...
I'm no fan of cars in general, although I would probably go for an electric vehicle next time I need to change. It looks to me like they (Tesla) are pushing for a standard that only or predominantly looks at the emissions from the vehicle, whereas the obviously right thing would be to count in all the emissions required to produce and maintain vehicles.
Re:Smart (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody counts the emissions to produce any other vehicles, so why would we hold electric cars to a different standard? The manufacturing processes are not particularly worse for one than for the other.
In fact, I would bet that the reduced metal machining from not having a solid-block engine under the hood probably saves overall manufacturing emissions, once you factor it all the way back to the metal foundry, refinery, and strip mine. Only the strip mine would be comparable for rare earths that go into batteries. The refinery is much smaller due to smaller volumes and the foundry isn't really necessary at all.
Other than that, you still have to have a metal frame, metal or plastic body panels, a finished interior, glass windows, and rubber for the tires and various other parts. This is identical for any car manufacturing process.
The reason they're pushing to measure emissions is because that's the only meaningful difference between electric and ICE cars.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I would bet that the reduced metal machining from not having a solid-block engine under the hood probably saves overall manufacturing emissions, once you factor it all the way back to the metal foundry, refinery, and strip mine. Only the strip mine would be comparable for rare earths that go into batteries. The refinery is much smaller due to smaller volumes and the foundry isn't really necessary at all.
There's an awful lot of wiring in them there electric motors which still need mining, refining and drawing out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
they'll have significant control over lithium ion battery production with the Gigafactory, and a 5-10 year head start at building ground up purpose-built all-electrics.
Building a new factory doesn't give you control over production. Other manufacturers of lithium ion batteries are available. It might give them a cost benefit.
As for a 5-10 year head start, what planet are you on? They have about a 12-month head start, if that. Just because other companies aren't productized yet doesn't mean they're 5 yea
Re: (Score:3)
All true, but anything that forces manufacturers to clean up and stop polluting the air I am have to breathe is a good thing.
4-bangers less anemic than they used to be (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I dislike the NY Times trend towards posting videos, it was interesting to see their review of the new Volvo XC90 with a 4 cylinder engine that's supercharged AND turbocharged. IIRC the review says its rated at nearly 300 HP.
It's a large and fairly heavy car, so I don't think combined mileage was more than 25 MPG but it's definitely an improvement over the 4.4L V8 (my S80 with the same engine gets about 17 combined).
The only thing I'd worry about is if they're extracting Fast and Furious style horsepower from 4 cylinder engines is that they'll get Fast and Furious levels of engine life.
Frankly, I don't think Tesla needs to play the bootlegger-and-baptist game with fuel economy regulations to be competitive with ICE carmakers, they just need to be price and performance competitive within their model segments. At the oligarch country club where I do some work, I've seen a lot more Teslas and a lot fewer new S550s and my guess is that most of the drivers don't give a shit about the fuel cost or environmental impact of what they drive. They want performance and look-at-me status, and if it gives them an environmental cachet with their daughters' bohemian ivy league friends, so much the better,
The bigger challenge will be providing a car the plebes find competitive at the $30k mark. For tofu-eating yoga types, this won't be hard. They would drive a Prius or a Fit anyway. It's the Honda Pilot or Santa Fe buyers they need to appeal to and provide a competitive alternative.
Reliability in small displacement engines (Score:2)
The only thing I'd worry about is if they're extracting Fast and Furious style horsepower from 4 cylinder engines is that they'll get Fast and Furious levels of engine life.
Japanese companies have been doing this for ages and there is no problem with reliability. While there is some challenge in making a high strung 4 banger reliable, it's a problem that was solved a long time ago. A Subaru WRX generates plenty of HP and still manages to be quite reliable. You get F&F reliability when people who don't actually know what they are doing tune their cars beyond what they were designed for. That's not an issue when you are the company designing the car in the first place.
The bigger challenge will be providing a car the plebes find competitive at the $30k mark.
Ye
What about YOUR self interest? (Score:2)
Hey I like Tesla as much as the next guy, but wake me up when a corporation lobbies government in a way that goes against their own self-interest.
So you don't care when a company lobbies against YOUR self interest like the traditional auto makers have been doing? Personally I care about that very much. Improved fuel economy standards are in MY interest so I'm kind of behind Tesla on this one.
The theory here is that if more stringent fuel mileage standards are maintained, it will force traditional automakers to either make more tiny, anemic 4 cylinder gas engines (early 1980s anyone?) or push further into hybrid and electric car territory in order to deliver meaningful power without as much (or any) gasoline.
More or less yes. Though "anemic" is a bit subjective. 20 years ago a car with 300 HP was rather unusual. Now it's more or less routine despite very few people actually needing more than about 150 or so HP. So despite today's engines actually being much imp
Re: (Score:2)
1. Anticipate the need for higher fuel efficiency standards
2. Build your company around them
3. If they have not yet materialized, lobby for them
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've confused a statement made to a reporter as part of a PR effort with lobbying the government.
The Koch brothers actively lobby for corporate-friendly legislation that includes those tax credits and spend millions backing the Republican party which has spent the last three decades doing everything they can to cut taxes on the wealthy.
Re:Smart (Score:4, Interesting)
They haven't been very successful at it. From the latest data I could find (2012), the top 5% of income earners paid 58.9% of all Federal taxes, and the top 1% paid 38.1%.
Re:Smart (Score:5, Informative)
That top 1% owns 40% of the wealth in the country. Only a fool would argue that they shouldn't be paying 40% of the taxes.
Let me guess, you're a card-carrying member of the Republican party and you really believe that Fox News is fair and balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're now arguing that unrealized capital gains should be taxed? I think you have no clue what effect that would have on the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying some poor slob making minimum wage is just as free to buy a 40 ft. yacht as Bill Gates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are fine with the concept of already earned money and assets being taxed time and again? Because that's what you are pushing when you bring wealth into the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
If the top 5% make most of the income shouldnt they pay most of the tax?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have reaped more benefit than I have.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because they get the vast majority of income in this country.
Perception matters (Score:2)
Nissan has outsold Tesla by 3-4X.
Umm, completely different cars in completely different market segments. Not even remotely a meaningful comparison. One is a performance luxury car that sells for nearly six figures to wealthy tech nerds. The other is a compact runabout purchased almost entirely by the granola crowd for eco cred. Would be hard to be more different.
Tesla's "grip" on the EV sector is imaginary. They are certainly in a very, very nice position in the industry. But they are a medium sized player and their "lead" is mostly imaginary and one of perception.
Perception matters. For example there is no technical reason the Ford F150 has been the best selling vehicle in the US for the last 32 years. In a given year the Chevy or Ram
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason the F-150 is #1 is that GM splits it's pickup sales across Chevy/GMC. Whereas there are very very few people stupid enough to buy a Lincoln pickup truck (same as pickup truck Escalades).
People don't buy based on objective criteria (Score:2)
The only reason the F-150 is #1 is that GM splits it's pickup sales across Chevy/GMC.
You are correct but kind of missing the point. The Ford does outsell the Chevy (which is true) but the point you glossed by is that there is no objective reason for this to be the case based on the technical merits of the respective vehicles. In some years the Chevy is an objectively better vehicle and the prices are so similar as to be identical. So if people were buying entirely based on objective evidence you would expect the sales crown to pass to Chevy or even Ram from time to time. But this doesn'
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, those tiny little 4 bangers turn out not to be any more efficient than the decently sized ones (though substantially better than most V6/V8s).
All that changes is that the guy driving the little 1.1l 4 banger floors it all the time, because he needs all its got all the time; while the guy driving the 1.8T just uses a tiny bit of what's available.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the amount of torque it's where it is.
V8's make torque at 1000RPM, something no little engine can do.
no electric car likely, but maybe a motorcycle (Score:3)
I can only have one car, and an electric just cannot now, nor is likely to be able to, in my lifetime, do the kinds of things for which I use one. It doesn't help that none of the current, or probable, models of car (not SUV) allow a linebacker-sized driver (and, yes, I've tried the on the Telsa; it's pathetic).
I have ridden a couple of electric motorcycles. H-Ds demo reminds me of my 2004 Ducati Monster, and there's an electric superbike (Energica Ego) coming, maybe, from Italy. Modern superbikes have limited range, anyway, so an electric is not a downside. One of those I could do.
Re: (Score:2)
> an electric just cannot now, nor is likely to be able to, in my lifetime, do the kinds of things for which I use one.
Hmmm... I don't think Tesla's are much smaller than say S class Mercedes, but maybe even that's too small for you. In any case, I'm sure they could serve you, but I imagine that will come 10+ years down the road as electrics slowly replace all the smaller markets.
Unless you're in your 70s, I sense you'll live to eat those words by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
If he won't fit in tesla, there are very few cars (not SUVs) he actually will fit easily into. I'm only 6' - 200# and most sedans are fairly cramped. SUVs, otoh, are generally roomy.
Funny that a car without an unlimited range is a non-started for him, but a bike with very limited range is okay.
Unless he's a regular cross-country driver, I suspect you're right - in 10 years there will be an electric car which meets enough of his (actual) needs to be his sole vehicle. On the rare case you need to go futher, y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of weird bodily proportions do you have that you can't fit into most cars? I could understand if you were 7' tall or something like that, but I'm 6'0" and a bit further past 200 lbs. than I'd like. :-P My daily driver up until about a year ago was an Oldsmobile Alero, which was their smallest model. I had no trouble
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because your entire body will hurt after driving them for much longer than that limited range?
Specific complaint? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only have one car, and an electric just cannot now, nor is likely to be able to, in my lifetime, do the kinds of things for which I use one.
And that would be what exactly? What do you do with a car that is so different from the rest of us that it can never work for you?
It doesn't help that none of the current, or probable, models of car (not SUV) allow a linebacker-sized driver (and, yes, I've tried the on the Telsa; it's pathetic).
If you think the Tesla is "pathetic" then you are talking out your ass. It's among the nicest luxury vehicles available this side of a Rolls Royce. Maybe it's not your particular cup of tea but anyone who thinks it is "pathetic" has either never actually sat in one or has an ax to grind. You don't even have to like Tesla to see that it is a very nice car.
As for size, if you a
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly ride the motorcycles when traveling around town and commuting, so the car is used for road trips and tightly scheduled long days when it's too hot for getting in and out of the armor multiple times or lots of people/stuff to haul. By "road trip", I mean things like Sturgis, SD, to Mt Rushmore on to the Devil's Tower and ending up at Buffalo, WY. Cannot do that in an electric, nor can I pause for an hour while running 400 miles of errands in the LA basin.
It's not the waistline, it's the seat-to-cr
Not there YET. Key word is yet. (Score:2)
By "road trip", I mean things like Sturgis, SD, to Mt Rushmore on to the Devil's Tower and ending up at Buffalo, WY.
The big thing will be getting recharge times down. That's going to take another 10-15 years minimum I think. (The superchargers are nice but not quite there yet) Until then long distances with EV will be via hybrids. I think it won't be long before we start seeing long distance haulers and trucks being hybrids. Lots of torque from the electric motors and it will help the automakers meet CAFE standards. Wouldn't be surprised to see some diesel electric hybrids at some point.
Cannot do that in an electric, nor can I pause for an hour while running 400 miles of errands in the LA basin.
Cannot do that in an electri
Tesla asks for huge tax on meat: (Score:2, Insightful)
How polite (Score:5, Informative)
"I'm an advantaged rich prick". Sorry. There's no gentle way to say it.
Maybe not, but there is a way to say it like an asshole which you just proved.
Re: (Score:3)
search on youtube. tesla demonstrated a battery swap system.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way electric cars can become affordable is to double the number of the most expensive single element out there? It's the batteries that make them so insanely expensive. And to have a swap system you will need double the number (roughly) to allow for inventory, spares, and repairs. You're talking about a huge outlay of funds on a resource that is going to have to have a long payback period in order to show black on the balance sheet.
Not to mention that batteries take up a huge amount of space and we
Re: (Score:2)
Dedicated solar car chargers at work sound nice, since you'd be parked during the day, but they would sit unused on weekends and holidays. Similar for home based systems. It simply makes no sense to associate the two from a practical standpoint.
The choice to use solar and the choice
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Battery swapping seems to me like an elaborate and costly solution to a non-problem. Most electric cars are simply going to be charged at home anyhow, most of the time, because that's most convenient. In the marketplace -- especially in the USA -- convenience usually wins out.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it unlikely Detroit will put out any compelling auto no matter if it runs on electric, gas, diesel.
The current Corvette is broadly considered to be the best deal in high performance... in the world. The new Cadillacs are awe-inspiring and built like they mean it. Even Ford has apparently discovered reliability. You're talking bollocks.
I'll grant you a lot of garbage is still coming from the big three, but look around the world. Everyone makes shit cars.
Re:Compelling products from Detroit? unlikely (Score:4)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious what relevance your "when I was a young man" story has to the GPs statement about the current corvette? Stating that something was not good in the past, and thus will never be good in the present, or the future, is not really a good argument.
Re: (Score:3)
But guess what? The Corvette is the best if you like Corvettes, and I don't. Lots of other people also don't. I remember leaving those big lumbering beasts in the dust in a street ported RX-7 with Weber carbs when I was 20.
But guess what? The Corvette of today is a completely different vehicle. It's got half as many parts as that corvette you dusted when you were 20. Today, the stock Corvette driver will fucking eat your RX-7 if he is anywhere near as good a driver as you are.
Show me something that does more than consume more gas than 10 reasonable cars combined while going in essentially a straight line, and I'll be impressed. Detroit doesn't make that.
You think that because you're ignorant, but that's the only reason. In fact, the 'vette has bank deactivation and is a relative fuel-sipper for its displacement...
Snark on Detroit? (Score:2)
I find it unlikely Detroit will put out any compelling auto no matter if it runs on electric, gas, diesel.
Right. That's why in 2014 GM sold 2.9 million, Ford sold 2.48 million, and Chrysler sold 2.09 million vehicles. Because it's really easy to sell over 7 million vehicles in a calendar year when you don't have any compelling products. (oops, did I leave the sarcasm bit on again? my bad)
You might not like their products but clearly a lot of people do. The Ford F150 has been the number one selling vehicle in the US for the last 32 years running. That doesn't happen by accident. Are you seriously going to
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That's why in 2014 GM sold 2.9 million, Ford sold 2.48 million, and Chrysler sold 2.09 million vehicles. Because it's really easy to sell over 7 million vehicles in a calendar year when you don't have any compelling products. (oops, did I leave the sarcasm bit on again? my bad)
In the 1970s, all of them were selling absolutely awful products by the metric shitload (10% more than a normal shitload), so it's not exactly without precedent. FWIW, I agree with you in principle that Detroit actually has some life in it, but making that point with sales numbers isn't actually convincing proof.
Sales are the best data on what is compelling (Score:2)
In the 1970s, all of them were selling absolutely awful products by the metric shitload
And people were buying them because they were the best alternative available in most cases. Yes they were very often crap but there was no non-crap option available. Once there was and they started bleeding market share they eventually (albeit late) starting making better products. The reason for the recent bankruptcies was because their labor and benefits costs because uncompetitive in a competitive market. But the cars they make have continued to appeal and sell, even in the darkest days of bankruptcy
Re: (Score:2)
And people were buying them because they were the best alternative available in most cases. Yes they were very often crap but there was no non-crap option available.
That's a fair point, which is taken.
People like their products even when they probably shouldn't if they were being objective about it. ... It's only not proof if you think people are nothing more than gullible sheep with no concept of what interests them. Since that isn't actually true we have to consider that people buy what actually appeals to them and that sales figures are actually the best data available on what constitutes a compelling product
This, however, was the point I was trying to make: brand loyalty is a thing (even in fleets, which is bizarre and should result in someone getting fired, but it still exists) and that, for many (even most?) people, buying a car is NOT the rational transaction that it should be, but a purely emotional one. I have no data to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that emotion favors the big three for a variety of reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why people keep talking about how awful cars were in the 1970s? I'm old enough to remember those cars, but maybe I was too young to appreciate what was wrong with them.
To me the true automotive dark age was the 1980s, when most cars looked like a box stacked on top of a larger box with woefully underpowered motors, squeaked like a sack full of mice, and periodically left you stranded on the side of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why people keep talking about how awful cars were in the 1970s? I'm old enough to remember those cars, but maybe I was too young to appreciate what was wrong with them.
The 1970s represents a nadir in the quality of US manufactured goods in general, and cars were an exceptional representation of that. Detroit saw itself as having a captive market, innovated nothing, and let stuff leave the factory that never should have. I'll agree there are some examples of interesting design (Chrysler, especially, produced some absolutely beautiful machines through the 70s) but they were poorly executed, built by an apathetic and self entitled workforce, and outside of the "cool" factor
Re: (Score:2)
In the 70's Toyota & Honda were also making shit. You won't see very many of them on the road. But now & then we do see Ford Torinos, & Chevy Novas & lots of other car's out of Detroit (many actually MADE in Detroit) made in the '70s on the road.
Don't get me started on VW, it's amazing they survived.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think he means that the business owner is asking for regulations on competitors in the open without a bribe, whereas the rightist solution is to pay politicians for the law directly (and behind the scenes), like everyone else.