|
IOwnCalculus posted:I will absolutely agree with the idea that 120 miles of range should be more than enough for a majority of drivers a majority of the time. However, the Leaf's official rated range is only 73 miles per the EPA - not even 2/3 of that. The worst-case scenario for a new Leaf can result in as little as ~60 miles of range (winter, stop and go, heater on) and that's before you even account for battery degradation... which would leave me rolling home with <10mi of range every night without running a single errand. Yeah, this is why the tesla sedan is the first EV that really "does it" for me - of course I'll never be able to afford it, but its existence means that probably in 15-20 years there will be much cheaper electric cars with a 250+ mi range. And if I was some high-falutin business type I would totally own one to commute in.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
A not-quite-retraction by the NY Times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Excelent points. Yeah I don't know where I had it in my head that the range on the Leaf was 120 miles, so I got that one wrong. But a sizable portion of people drive very few miles a day. For instance I usually drive back and forth to work which is a 20 mile round trip, with most of errands along that route. So a Leaf would be perfect for me. I don't have the NIST omnibus stats with me, but I do believe they said a large group of the population that does drive themselves to work have a same or slightly more commute range than me. Maybe not the majority but well over a couple of million people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Excelent points. Yeah I don't know where I had it in my head that the range on the Leaf was 120 miles, so I got that one wrong. Because that's the maximum possible (it's not possible), so Nissan uses it in all their marketing. The 2013 is supposed to last 20% longer so maybe it'll be easier to reach that mileage in absolutely perfect conditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
http://yaro.kinja.com/tesla-model-s-a-month-of-use-in-nyc-247403829 Dude is mildly complaining about needing tabs, flash and HTML5 support for the browser IN HIS GODDAMN CAR. The sooner phones can mirror their output to an external display/control, the better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Have now wired one cubic assload of money to the Tesla Motor Company. It's gonna be the future soon. Got the post-transaction shakes, just like when committing for a house.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Despite Broder ignoring RTFM, max range mode, range mode setting, effecient driving, not plugging in overnight, traveling on the coldest/worst possible day of the year, not even attempting to fully charge the car at the stations, blatantly lieing about his speed and reviewing the charging stations not the car, and the fact that 9 other Tesla owners made the same trip with only 1 car requiring a software update (yeah, that kinda sucks, but that is a hell of a lot better than ending on a flatbed), somehow the ignorant Margaret Sullivan had to consult with multiple people including Tesla owners and her mechanic friend in order to reach the conclusion that Broder was fair and Tesla placed the charging stations to far apart. Holy poo poo. . . 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
I think the conclusion is electric cars take more work to drive then a jerky NY times reporter can put into them. My plug in prius scam has ground to a grinding halt. No one will sell me one for less then $28,500. Moving on to a used leaf unless chevy has a super sale on a lease.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Great news, EV fans! Virginia is finally addressing one of the most pressing issue of EVs and other alternative fuel vehicles. While other states are pushing their socialist policies of rebates and tax deductions for EV cars, dodging the real and pressing issues that Americans truly care about, Virginia is closing the road tax loophole for vehicles that don't use gas by charging a $100 fee on all alternative fuel vehicles. Progressive!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
grover posted:Great news, EV fans! Virginia is finally addressing one of the most pressing issue of EVs and other alternative fuel vehicles. While other states are pushing their socialist policies of rebates and tax deductions for EV cars, dodging the real and pressing issues that Americans truly care about, Virginia is closing the road tax loophole for vehicles that don't use gas by charging a $100 fee on all alternative fuel vehicles. Progressive! It sucks but if you have a road usage tax entirely built as an add-on to gas purchases, what other option is there? The DOT is a different entity than other government branches pushing for a better environment, and no amount of good feelings is going to fix a pothole for free  As electric cars become more popular I think this topic will be coming up a hell of a lot more. There aren't fees in place to tax electricity from charging a car used for driving yet. They still wear and damage the road surfaces like any other light vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
So with the number of EVs in VA this tax should raise about $200,000 a year, or about a 1/4 mile of road. Go government! EV drag strip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:It sucks but if you have a road usage tax entirely built as an add-on to gas purchases, what other option is there? The DOT is a different entity than other government branches pushing for a better environment, and no amount of good feelings is going to fix a pothole for free
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
grover posted:Yes, but it's not really a problem yet. I just think it's a bit ironic that the federal government and most states have rebates and subsidies for hybrids and alternate fuel vehicles, yet VA has chosen to go in the opposite direction. It is a problem now. It's not only a problem with EV vehicles. Strides in fuel economy for all vehicles coupled with fuel tax freezes for most states and the federal government since the mid 90s has created a crisis in highway funding across the nation. Providing tax incentives to push consumers to adopt alternative fuel vehicles and then turning around and setting up fee structures to capture revenue needed for highway funds is neither hypocritical nor ironic; they are two separate issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:It sucks but if you have a road usage tax entirely built as an add-on to gas purchases, what other option is there? The DOT is a different entity than other government branches pushing for a better environment, and no amount of good feelings is going to fix a pothole for free I think self-reporting mileage when renewing your registration would be a totally acceptable solution, just add it to the vehicle license tax. Require random odometer checks every couple years since they won't be going in for emissions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:I think self-reporting mileage when renewing your registration would be a totally acceptable solution, just add it to the vehicle license tax. Require random odometer checks every couple years since they won't be going in for emissions. But who gets the money? Gas is generally purchased in the area the car is driven, which doesn't always line up with where a car is registered. EVs are going to start causing a ton of trouble when it comes to hashing out how much people pay and who to pay it to. It really needs to be taxed at the power source, otherwise the area being impacted doesn't get the funds to fix their roads. I mean you could get all govt up the tailpipe and tax based on GPS tracks, but good luck getting that to fly. Taxing power for cars seems like the only intuitive way to still pin usage to a general location. Long term I think this is one area most people wish was left overlooked. Take the same state/federal gas tax per gallon (worked out per rough MPG average) and apply it to the KWH for what an average EV might need per mile driven. The huge price difference between gas car and EV starts to shrink and the economics of getting an EV to pay off start to become not so great. Yea you can complain its better for the environment, but to the DOT that only cares about road upkeep it doesn't matter if you are a gas spewing muscle car or a Tesla S... you still cause wear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:But who gets the money? Gas is generally purchased in the area the car is driven, which doesn't always line up with where a car is registered. EVs are going to start causing a ton of trouble when it comes to hashing out how much people pay and who to pay it to. It really needs to be taxed at the power source, otherwise the area being impacted doesn't get the funds to fix their roads. Some states have different plates, you drive under 6000 miles a year, you can reg your car as something historic and you don't have to get smogged and poo poo like that BUT you pay more. What might work out instead of that, is more like "weight" tax. You have an EV, under 6000 miles a year, you pay X as an EV road use tax, over 6000 a year, you pay Y. That would be a less pain in the rear end than trying to do a IFTA for EVs. So you are to pay 24 cents a gallon for fuel in state taxes. (Or 36 cents plus percent plus another percent if in CA) You say that you get "50mpg" in your EV, works out to 120 gallons of fuel for 6000 miles, so you pay $28.80 to the DMV as your EV tax each year. Or $57.60 for unlimited use. That's better than the $205 in taxes I'm paying for 6000 miles. Or $3428 my big truck gives in taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 09:29
|
|
|
InterceptorV8 posted:Some states have different plates, you drive under 6000 miles a year, you can reg your car as something historic and you don't have to get smogged and poo poo like that BUT you pay more. What might work out instead of that, is more like "weight" tax. You have an EV, under 6000 miles a year, you pay X as an EV road use tax, over 6000 a year, you pay Y. That would be a less pain in the rear end than trying to do a IFTA for EVs. So you are to pay 24 cents a gallon for fuel in state taxes. (Or 36 cents plus percent plus another percent if in CA) You say that you get "50mpg" in your EV, works out to 120 gallons of fuel for 6000 miles, so you pay $28.80 to the DMV as your EV tax each year. Or $57.60 for unlimited use. That's better than the $205 in taxes I'm paying for 6000 miles. Or $3428 my big truck gives in taxes. I never liked gas taxes; they always struck me as horribly regressive. Increased taxes on trucks is only going to end up rolled into the costs of the goods they transport, and result in essentially another regressive tax. There's got to be a better way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Leasing a Leaf SL today. Screwing Nissan to the max. So cheap. These drive themselves right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:But who gets the money? Gas is generally purchased in the area the car is driven, which doesn't always line up with where a car is registered. EVs are going to start causing a ton of trouble when it comes to hashing out how much people pay and who to pay it to. It really needs to be taxed at the power source, otherwise the area being impacted doesn't get the funds to fix their roads. Why not do it on the roads most traveled in your state? There are many existing systems that read traffic data, including new "smart lights" that analyze traffic flow patterns to self-optimize the light timing. Otherwise you can have two or three road crews set up traffic counters in random areas throughout a year. Gather data from these (neutral party verifying all data, of course - don't allow the Barney Fifes of some rear end-backward municipality to claim the traffic flow of a superhighway in L.A.) take all funding from the self-reported odometer readings and split it based on traffic flow. In the end, little towns with a poo poo-ton of roads will probably get less funding per road, but as they aren't dealing with major traffic flow they should be able to stretch maintenance out. Then larger routes will be maintained better, such as a highway connecting two towns that counts as part of a major trade route.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Lost in the kerfluffle about the $100 tax is the fact that Virginia, like the morons they are, haven't raised the gas tax in a billion years. Just index it to inflation and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Edmunds got a Model S for their long term fleet. I always quite enjoy reading these (especially the more weird cars like the old Porsches, Ferraris, or Miatas) so this could be a good source for real-life experiences and issues. There's one already - the huge touchscreen doesn't work  http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2012/long-term-road-test/
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Maintaining a separate car for longer trips probably isn't an option for many people. It has to be stored, maintained still, purchased and registered / insured. That probably wouldn't be very popular at all over here in Australia, considering many of us probably pay $1000 a year to register a vehicle give or take. I'll just ignore the fact that I've never seen an EV recharge station ever as that pretty much nullifies everything anyway because where the hell could you recharge it besides home?,
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
I don't see why they don't have a little range extension trailer. Make the trailer big enough to be used for light hauling as well as having an onboard generator. Rent them through some outfit like uhaul (hopefully with better maintenance). People might think this is inconvenient but when gas is $20 a gallon no one will bat an eye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
General_Failure posted:Maintaining a separate car for longer trips probably isn't an option for many people. It has to be stored, maintained still, purchased and registered / insured. That probably wouldn't be very popular at all over here in Australia, considering many of us probably pay $1000 a year to register a vehicle give or take. I'll just ignore the fact that I've never seen an EV recharge station ever as that pretty much nullifies everything anyway because where the hell could you recharge it besides home?, Yes it is. Here in the US there's 1.9 cars for every 1.8 drivers. A huge swath of drivers live in households where they aren't the only driver, so they don't have the only car. Plus, every car will have compromises. I don't haul furniture in my sports, I won't make long trips in my EV. Worse case scenario, rent a car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Yes it is. Here in the US there's 1.9 cars for every 1.8 drivers. A huge swath of drivers live in households where they aren't the only driver, so they don't have the only car. Plus, every car will have compromises. I don't haul furniture in my sports, I won't make long trips in my EV. Worse case scenario, rent a car. My wife and I have long considered an EV. Her commute is ~25 mile each ways, mine is 7. We have 3 cars for the two of us (two Fits, and my 2500HD). If we could get rid of her Fit and swap it for a Leaf, we would. However, she drives a ~90 mile round-trip at least once a week, and 3-4 times a year drives ~500 miles to NY state and back (staying there for 2-3 weeks), plus her family lives ~150 miles away and she visits them often. She could rent for the drive to NY, but keeping a rental for 2-3 weeks isn't cost effective. The real problem is the cost of an EV. If we could get into a Leaf for $~25K, we would probably have made the switch and dealt with the annoyances of limited range. Instead, we've got 2 paid-off cars that get ~35MPG, and a paid-off truck that gets 12.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
sharkytm posted:My wife and I have long considered an EV. Her commute is ~25 mile each ways, mine is 7. We have 3 cars for the two of us (two Fits, and my 2500HD). If we could get rid of her Fit and swap it for a Leaf, we would. However, she drives a ~90 mile round-trip at least once a week, and 3-4 times a year drives ~500 miles to NY state and back (staying there for 2-3 weeks), plus her family lives ~150 miles away and she visits them often. She could rent for the drive to NY, but keeping a rental for 2-3 weeks isn't cost effective. Why wouldn't she use your Fit for the long trips while you use the leaf on those days?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
On the cost front, Renault's Twizy manages to solve that problem - <£7k for the car, £40 a month "battery hire" (easily offset by fuel saving)... And then doesn't have proper doors or a heater. God. Damnit. The ZOE should solve those issues, and at £13k/£70 it's not out the way. While I'm not entirely convinced, I think the "Purchase car outright save for battery, which is effectively rented" model might be the best way to get over the sticker shock of EVs while still delivering savings in running costs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Edmunds got a Model S for their long term fleet. I always quite enjoy reading these (especially the more weird cars like the old Porsches, Ferraris, or Miatas) so this could be a good source for real-life experiences and issues. There's one already - the huge touchscreen doesn't work Tesla need to hire some actual QA staff. This is getting embarrassing for them now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:While I'm not entirely convinced, I think the "Purchase car outright save for battery, which is effectively rented" model might be the best way to get over the sticker shock of EVs while still delivering savings in running costs. Of course, that model doesn't exist in the US. Edit: I mean the renting a battery model of EV sale, not the model of almost-car that doesn't go fast enough to be used for my wife's commute anyway. roomforthetuna fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Feb 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Yeah - if I could pay X for the car (at a rate comparable or less than an equivalent gasoline car), and pay Y per month for the battery forever (including exchange / repair as needed), I would jump on it in a heartbeat as long as the battery cost + electrical cost came out to less than my typical fuel cost in a month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
I want a Mr. Fusion. Is that too much to ask? 2015, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah - if I could pay X for the car (at a rate comparable or less than an equivalent gasoline car), and pay Y per month for the battery forever (including exchange / repair as needed), I would jump on it in a heartbeat as long as the battery cost + electrical cost came out to less than my typical fuel cost in a month. That's true, plus it's also extremely subjective. That break even point is totally different depending on who you are. I imagine it'd be up around the higher mileage range of an EV that's used and charged daily. But then I'm looking at a vehicle that gets worse mileage than my V8 on the highway, but the around town mileage is better to the point where the car would have at least earned its registration cost back (~1k) in a year and paid for itself totally in two. While that isn't relevant to this thread on its own the example is. Unless I'm mistaken EVs excel at around town driving especially in a street grid with constant stop starts. Around town my Ford gets about 25L/100km because of the stop start nature of intersections. That's utterly appalling. Especially when fuel is about $1.60/L. Now let's take an EV, with regen braking because I say so. That would cost SFA to drive all those short errand distances which I'm always doing but can't walk because I'm either short on time, need to take my kid(s)/whole family or need to carry something. I just went to dig out the most recent electricity bill for $/kWh but it seems to have gone for a walk. Whoah the computer just had a fit and rebooted and I didn't lose a single character of this post!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah - if I could pay X for the car (at a rate comparable or less than an equivalent gasoline car), and pay Y per month for the battery forever (including exchange / repair as needed), I would jump on it in a heartbeat as long as the battery cost + electrical cost came out to less than my typical fuel cost in a month. (They claim they'll still have 70% capacity after 10 years, but I'll believe that when I see it on a car that hasn't been kept in an air conditioned room for its whole life. I've never owned a laptop battery that's had more than 30% capacity after 5 years, is this tech so different?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Tesla need to hire some actual QA staff. This is getting embarrassing for them now. Datapoint: I picked up mine from the factory today, and the weather stripping on the trailing edge of the massive sunroof had come unstuck by the time I got home. I'm taking it back to the factory Thursday morning. It's a lower-risk affair, early-adopting, since I live so close to the Tesla plant. Which is, by the way, amazing to watch in action. The lingering impression I got from the buyer's tour is that it looks like a videogame level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:But you know it won't (at least not the way costs are now) because the batteries for a Leaf, for example, cost $15000 and in a hot climate will almost certainly suck balls after about 5 years. So that'll come to about $250 a month even before the electricity costs come in. Given that I know a guy here in Phoenix who dumped his Leaf within the first year due to already seeing a reduction in battery life, yeah. It's going to be a bit before the economics on that make sense, but I think a lot of it will depend on how valuable the remainder of the battery is to the company in a lease arrangement like that. I think the big difference between car batteries and laptops is the charge used. A laptop (or phone etc) will use nearly 100% of the capacity - full charge every time, discharge down to lowest safe levels before shutting off. Hybrid / electric car batteries never charge to true 100%, and will typically stop supplying power well before the minimum safe level. In other words, a battery might be rated for 50 kWh from full charge to full discharge, but only ever cycle through 25 kWh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:But you know it won't (at least not the way costs are now) because the batteries for a Leaf, for example, cost $15000 and in a hot climate will almost certainly suck balls after about 5 years. So that'll come to about $250 a month even before the electricity costs come in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Squibbles posted:Why wouldn't she use your Fit for the long trips while you use the leaf on those days? She doesn't like driving stick... forgot to mention that. If she did, it'd be a done deal. Its also why the 2500HD has an auto, my old Ranger was stick, and she HATED driving that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
sharkytm posted:She doesn't like driving stick... forgot to mention that. If she did, it'd be a done deal. So you keep her Fit and sell yours? If your main concern is fuel economy and price I'm guessing the driving experience of a manual Fit over and auto is something you could compromise on? Or do you track it or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Given that I know a guy here in Phoenix who dumped his Leaf within the first year due to already seeing a reduction in battery life, yeah. It's going to be a bit before the economics on that make sense, but I think a lot of it will depend on how valuable the remainder of the battery is to the company in a lease arrangement like that. How much was the reduction? I'm almost at the one year anniversary of mine and I'm in south Texas were it sat in 100 degree temps all day long during the summer and havn't noticed any reduction out of the ordinary (for what I think is ordinary, maybe I'm wrong). Or was he part of the group Nissan was talking about when they said they had some people reporting a quicker than expected death of their battery? duz fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Feb 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
I don't talk to him that often, he's one of my dad's friends - I think it was either one or two bars already gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 19:26
|
|