|
Deteriorata posted:Mostly it's the bouncing around. Your body is constantly reacting to maintain your balance and it wears on you. The constantly changing scenery also fatigues your mind with evaluating everything you see. OK, but napping is still napping, right?
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
spandexcajun posted:You can drive a Tesla from any metro area in the USA across country and fast charge along the way with no issues. Honolulu 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:I can't really see that being true, what with SpaceX going forward. Sure, from a space exploration perspective SpaceX is really cool and good and right now the environmental impact is negligible, but if/when they start with the launch schedule that was talked about earlier (a launch every two weeks), then "averting climate change" is not something the man is interested in. And then there is the space debris aspect of launching a car into space just for the PR. Even if, in some hypothetical future time, there was a threat of space launch emissions becoming a significant problem, spaceX's next rocket is designed to use methane as the fuel, and they are building systems to create methane fuel from atmospheric CO2 (for Mars, but Musk has explicitly talked about using this method to abrogate their Earth emissions some day in the future). /space derail KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:I look forward to a glorious future where the people who can afford it keep driving, eating meat and go to the Maldives for Christmas while the rest of us keeps sucking off the job creators. gently caress excise taxes loving over poor people forever. Just ban poo poo. Yet again the brain genius diesel guys come out on top
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:I'm not really assuming anything. I just read stuff. Here's one example from "How good are electric cars? - An environmental assessment of the electric car in Sweden from a life cycle perspective." They refer (in the Master’s thesis you link) to a “Nordic electricity mix”, but don’t define it. They go through a bunch of other studies that don’t seem straightforward to compare, so it’s hard to tell what the assumption underlying that figure is in the text. Also, as far as comparing life cycles go: quote:systems for transportation/distribution of electricity and other fuels are not considered. However, in some LCAs it is impossible to distinguish these from other processes, and in these cases they are included. So that makes things a bit tricky to draw conclusions from! I keep looking for a solid, peer-reviewed analysis of this stuff, but alas. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Or you know, range. Not really an issue for most new EVs with 200+ miles and DC charging. I know, I know "what about my regular 2000 mile road trips?" Sure, some people do this but I doubt it is an overwhelming majority. I know I have seen data / studies that show the average amount of mile driven daily in the US is like 30 miles per day. Will some small subset of drivers require fossil vehicles to travel long distances? Sure, but not enough to put a dent in widespread adaptation. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:tesla has the best charging infrastructure by far Will Tesla's supercharging be able to scale up if they are selling 100,000 cars this year and 200k - 500k per year in the future? It's a legitimate question, I think they will be able to scale up existing stations to double / triple capacity without to much trouble, guess we wait and see. But when you say it's underwhelming, compared to what? To fossil fuel, sure, but does any other EV network come close? IDK what to say about dismissing the Model S as a success, it clearly is. Is it a niche? Sure, but it's far and above winning that niche. The X sales speak for themselves, Tesla sold around 22k in 2017 very competitive with say a Porsche Panamera 28k in 2017. Nidhg00670000 posted:On the other hand, strictly environmentally speaking the LCA of a diesel running HVO100 can actually outperform an electric car in multiple cases. A quick Google showed me a paper that said HVO100 puts out around %18 less NOx then trad diesel, so still quite a bit more then EVs, even if the power source for EVs is dirty. And grids around the world continue to add emissions free renewable. EVs get cleaner the longer they are driving, fossil will never be able to compete with this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:lack of infrastructure is a drag on adoption though Yes it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
spandexcajun posted:Not really an issue for most new EVs with 200+ miles and DC charging. I know, I know "what about my regular 2000 mile road trips?" Sure, some people do this but I doubt it is an overwhelming majority. I know I have seen data / studies that show the average amount of mile driven daily in the US is like 30 miles per day. Will some small subset of drivers require fossil vehicles to travel long distances? Sure, but not enough to put a dent in widespread adaptation. it's not that anyone else has a better EV network, it's that even the best EV network still sucks compared to the current established industry standard of fossil fuel stations - did you read what i wrote? they're not conflicting statements at all. you don't have to be the best EV network, the target is ICE infrastructure and to get even close is very expensive. i think it'll happen but the amount of hand waving about "industry leading charging!" when the industry SUCKS rear end is ridiculous. ev evangelists have to figure out that yes, factually, very few people do 2,000 mile road trips, but a lot of people fantasize about the ability to do 2,000 mile road trips. cars are not rational purchases. the idea that yes 70% of Americans can do their commute in a leaf is certainly true, but the vast majority of Americans have so far decided that no they do not want to do their commute in a Leaf for a lot of reasons. model x market share is not very high. your theory is that EVs are vastly superior and beloved by the market other than price issues. if that were true the X would be leading its sales segment which it isn't. most of the other OEMs split large luxury SUV between multiple product lines. El Grillo posted:Any sources on your Model X sales statement? I can't find any decent info on its actual sales figures vs expected sales & production capacity. goodcarbadcar has sales information for everything don't know what you mean by "expected sales" but the Model X is certainly Tesla's highest margin product and if given the opportunity to sell X vs S vs 3, Tesla would produce more Xs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
I dunno what the sales figures are but I see a lot of Models X in and around San Francisco. Though that's maybe just relative because around here I see easily 100 Teslas, probably many more, in an hour of freeway driving
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:"The data and profits". I thought I was critical of Elons supposed mission to avert climate change, but sure. I don't doubt he's going to make a shitload of money on it. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/sustainable/5-ways-nasa-help-environment.htm http://www.actforlibraries.org/space-exploration-benefits-climate-change-environmental-change/ If a re-usable rocket isn't more environmentally friendly as well, I don't know what to say. Yes, profits. Space X is shutting everyone out of mass commercial launches at this point, the Chinese, the Russians, Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I dunno what the sales figures are but I see a lot of Models X in and around San Francisco. about 2k/mo and they're definitely concentrated in certain parts of the country - yours is one of them
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:spaceX's next rocket is designed to use methane as the fuel, and they are building systems to create methane fuel from atmospheric CO2 (for Mars, but Musk has explicitly talked about using this method to abrogate their Earth emissions some day in the future). Unless you’re saying that Musk can violate thermodynamics, the energy to do this has to come from somewhere, and converting it from atmospheric CO2 means conversion losses on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
The S and X are everywhere in my neighborhood but I know that overpriced and over leveraged suburbs in South Orange County, California are not representative of the rest of the country/world. But seriously, my neighbors on either side both have an X, and one just got a 3 as well. My wife and I are the oddballs with our bought-used CMax’s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
The S was the #1 selling car for a year in the next town over when I lived in SV, of any type new or used. Regional variation is definitely a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:They refer (in the Master’s thesis you link) to a “Nordic electricity mix”, but don’t define it. Swedish electricity production is 1. Hydro (~45%), 2. Nuclear (~30), 3. Wind (~10), 4. CHP (~rest) Very, very low carbon emissions altogether. It doesn't get much better than that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:it's not that anyone else has a better EV network, it's that even the best EV network still sucks compared to the current established industry standard of fossil fuel stations - did you read what i wrote? they're not conflicting statements at all. you don't have to be the best EV network, the target is ICE infrastructure and to get even close is very expensive. i think it'll happen but the amount of hand waving about "industry leading charging!" when the industry SUCKS rear end is ridiculous. ev evangelists have to figure out that yes, factually, very few people do 2,000 mile road trips, but a lot of people fantasize about the ability to do 2,000 mile road trips. cars are not rational purchases. the idea that yes 70% of Americans can do their commute in a leaf is certainly true, but the vast majority of Americans have so far decided that no they do not want to do their commute in a Leaf for a lot of reasons. You sure seem very angry about EVs... no one bought leaf's because they are not very compelling or desirable cars and the range was a lie (60 - 80 miles after a few years use is not practical). This is clearly not true with Model 3s and other new EVs coming out, including the new Leaf. They are very desirable cars, even for for the "irrational" folks. As far as the Tesla charging network, you can, today, get in a Tesla and drive anywhere you please in the US with very few exceptions. The thing you are saying will never work, works right now and works quite well. Tesla owners do it all the time, and it gets old consistanly hearing about how something you do with ease "won't work" or is "impractical and not possible" It might have scaling issue, (might, like we don't really know) but that is a different thing. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:model x market share is not very high. your theory is that EVs are vastly superior and beloved by the market other than price issues. if that were true the X would be leading its sales segment which it isn't. most of the other OEMs split large luxury SUV between multiple product lines. Look, I provided sales data about the Model X vs the Porsche, I don't even know what other $120k super SUVs are out there but you can not say the Model X market share is not very high if it's within 20% of Porsche (I assume the leader) If it's #2 in the class and Tesla is planing on building 50k this year and that is not what would you consider "high market share", what the hell is? Like give an example of what bar they would need to clear? It's fine for you to not like EVs but don't misrepresent the reality about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
I actually like EVs a lot and am a big fan of them. I also think that EVs are the future. I hope EV market share grows faster than projected and I hope Tesla can figure out how to continue making cars profitably and at a lower price point. I just find the continuous hype before results really annoying, and I think it prevents us from having a real conversation about why the EV market isn't growing faster! If you really believe that the only remaining challenges are manufacturing at scale we really don't have that much to talk about. I'm not saying that the Supercharger network doesn't work. The Supercharger network works adequately for a VIO of approximately 200,000 units against a total American VIO pop of 266 million registered cars. The SAAR for new vehicles is ~17 million these days. Tesla at 10k a week capacity will capture 3% market share against a current sub-1% market share. That is going to put a huge amount of pressure on that network and the problem with sales ramps is that they're cumulative and you'll need to build out progressively more infrastructure. Is this a solvable problem? Sure. Is it a solved problem? No. Tesla has a head start but that's not a guarantee when you look at future requirements against current capacity even for the industry leading charging network. Current capacity is a tiny tiny drop in the bucket compared to even next year's requirements. spandexcajun posted:Look, I provided sales data about the Model X vs the Porsche, I don't even know what other $120k super SUVs are out there but you can not say the Model X market share is not very high if it's within 20% of Porsche (I assume the leader) If it's #2 in the class and Tesla is planing on building 50k this year and that is not what would you consider "high market share", what the hell is? Like give an example of what bar they would need to clear? In my opinion the bar that has to be cleared for someone to definitively say that the market has spoken and prefers EVs categorically to ICE cars is for EVs to make up 50% or more of cars sold in a given segment. Right now, the market prefers ICE cars in every segment Tesla plays in. The idea that the market has spoken and inherently prefers EVs is absurd, which does not mean that EVs are not successful in certain segments!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Unless you’re saying that Musk can violate thermodynamics, the energy to do this has to come from somewhere, and converting it from atmospheric CO2 means conversion losses on top of that. The energy to make petroleum-based fuels out of crude oil also has to come from somewhere. All energy to do anything has to come from somewhere. That doesn't mean it's not useful to be able to make a fuel where everything except for the energy required to produce it is carbon-neutral (assuming the energy requirement of production isn't ridiculous of course). Energy can come from all kinds of places and doesn't necessarily represent a large injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:model x market share is not very high. your theory is that EVs are vastly superior and beloved by the market other than price issues. if that were true the X would be leading its sales segment which it isn't. most of the other OEMs split large luxury SUV between multiple product lines. blugu64 posted:Unless you’re saying that Musk can violate thermodynamics, the energy to do this has to come from somewhere, and converting it from atmospheric CO2 means conversion losses on top of that. Although personally I'm more into modern fission gen but hey. Either is renewable and provides energy, which is all you need to produce carbon-neutral (ish) methane for your bigass rocket. In theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The energy to make petroleum-based fuels out of crude oil also has to come from somewhere. All energy to do anything has to come from somewhere. That doesn't mean it's not useful to be able to make a fuel where everything except for the energy required to produce it is carbon-neutral (assuming the energy requirement of production isn't ridiculous of course). Energy can come from all kinds of places and doesn't necessarily represent a large injection of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yeah, but that’s a false equivalence because you get more energy out then you put in, that being kind of the whole point of why people have drilled wells, mined coal, etc. What I am saying however is that use all the fancy systems you want, you’re not getting more energy out then you put in period. Converting whatever to whatever. Calling it “carbon neutral” rocket fuel is just dishonest. The energy for Elon’s rockets is coming from somewhere, and probably out of the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:The energy for Elon’s rockets is coming from somewhere, and probably out of the ground. This isn't necessarily the case. Certainly it'd be the cheapest option, but I would not put it past Elon to decide that his rockets being entirely powered by pollutants reclaimed with solar energy is something he's not gonna budge on. (Of course the solar panels, infrastructure, and the rocket itself undoubtedly have lots of fossil fuels going into them one way or another...)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Yeah, but that’s a false equivalence because you get more energy out then you put in, that being kind of the whole point of why people have drilled wells, mined coal, etc. This is a dumb nitpick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:It's carbon neutral if the energy you put in didn't come from fossil fuel sources either. This particular line of discussion started over a long-term vision of making methane from atmospheric sources in an effort to be carbon neutral. If this is a process that's being considered some time down the road, and for the express purpose of reducing carbon emissions, then it would only make sense to do if the input energy source is also carbon neutral.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
spandexcajun posted:Will Tesla's supercharging be able to scale up if they are selling 100,000 cars this year and 200k - 500k per year in the future? It's a legitimate question, I think they will be able to scale up existing stations to double / triple capacity without to much trouble, guess we wait and see. But when you say it's underwhelming, compared to what? To fossil fuel, sure, but does any other EV network come close? Tesla's supercharger network will soon be a huge liability for whatever PR benefit it gave them as a first mover. Everyone else is about to gang up on the with CCS and while it was a nice PR exercise as far as making road trips possible for EVs people, at least the market for EVs people don't take many road trips. What electric cars need is an urban quick charging infrastructure, Tesla is broke and has a large but little used long distance supercharging network to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Tesla's supercharger network will soon be a huge liability for whatever PR benefit it gave them as a first mover. Everyone else is about to gang up on the with CCS and while it was a nice PR exercise as far as making road trips possible for EVs people, at least the market for EVs people don't take many road trips. What electric cars need is an urban quick charging infrastructure, Tesla is broke and has a large but little used long distance supercharging network to maintain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
I agree with part of that. When CCS is everywhere, superchargers will seem niche. I don't see many service stations offering kerosene anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
I think I agree as well about CCS. I think if Tesla could keep building out their network they'd be fine. But they're basically broke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Tesla could easily swap the cord on Superchargers to CCS and issue current owners an adapter for minimal cost. This isn’t the hurdle people are thinking it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
The Sicilian posted:Tesla could easily swap the cord on Superchargers to CCS and issue current owners an adapter for minimal cost. It's a disaster for Tesla. He was hoping to crowd everyone else out and set the de facto standard for charging, then use royalties from the Supercharger licensing to generate additional revenue. His manufacturing woes have drained him of cash and limited the build-out of his system, and now others with more capital are going to push him out. A Supercharger to CCS converter would mean surrender and the end of the Supercharger network.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a disaster for Tesla. He was hoping to crowd everyone else out and set the de facto standard for charging, then use royalties from the Supercharger licensing to generate additional revenue. His manufacturing woes have drained him of cash and limited the build-out of his system, and now others with more capital are going to push him out. A Supercharger to CCS converter would let tesla generate revenue at leser-used Supercharger sites from non-tesla vehicles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:A Supercharger to CCS converter would let tesla generate revenue at leser-used Supercharger sites from non-tesla vehicles? I guess it's a terminology issue. Musk would be fine (eventually) with a converter that would allow non-Teslas to charge at a Supercharger, just not now because he's selling exclusivity. An adapter that would allow a Tesla to charge anywhere would be a disaster for him, because it removes the incentive to seek out a Supercharger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
The Sicilian posted:Tesla could easily swap the cord on Superchargers to CCS and issue current owners an adapter for minimal cost. What? No, it's not the plug, it's the entire charging protocol and billing system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
Lol they already have a god drat CHAdeMO adapter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:24
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I guess it's a terminology issue. Musk would be fine (eventually) with a converter that would allow non-Teslas to charge at a Supercharger, just not now because he's selling exclusivity. I'm not so sure. Superchargers were never intended to be profitable by themselves, at least as it relates to Tesla owners. They say this up front: quote:Tesla is committed to ensuring that Supercharger will never be a profit center. The S/X unlimited free deal keeps getting extended and the model 3 rates are pretty cheap-- in Arizona it's 22c/min at a 72KW charger, which works out to about 18c/kWh. For comparison to other national networks: blink is 4c/min for 6.6kW charging (36c/kWh), Electrify America is 30c/min for 50kW (also 36c/kWh). Superchargers exist for peace of mind, and are deeply integrated into the in-car nav. It would take a lot of effort for Tesla owners to not seek them out. The existence of the network is one of the reasons I bought a Tesla over a different BEV, so the loss leader worked on me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a disaster for Tesla. He was hoping to crowd everyone else out and set the de facto standard for charging, then use royalties from the Supercharger licensing to generate additional revenue. His manufacturing woes have drained him of cash and limited the build-out of his system, and now others with more capital are going to push him out. Him him him him him loving who, Nikolai Tesla? He's been dead for the better part of a century! Tesla is a publicly traded car manufacturer with a noisy chief executive. Did everybody characterize Chrysler and Iaccoca as the same entity back when he was running things? I'm genuinely asking, I don't remember.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Did everybody characterize Chrysler and Iaccoca as the same entity back when he was running things? I'm genuinely asking, I don't remember. Pretty much, that's the impression I had back then anyway as a kid. My stepmother wrote him a letter because she was very unhappy about her new Daytona Turbo being a pile of dog poo poo. It was a fun car tho, first time i ever experienced BOOSTU 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:I'm not so sure. Superchargers were never intended to be profitable by themselves, at least as it relates to Tesla owners. They say this up front: The profits from the Supercharger were intended to come from licensing the technology to other auto makers, after Tesla had it all set up. It was never intended to gouge Tesla customers, true. The problem I've noted is that Tesla didn't have the capital to gain the critical mass necessary to dominate the charging market and set the standard. Now other, larger companies that do have the capital are going to push him out instead. Tesla owners are going to be pissed when there's 10x as many other charging stations they can't use as Superstations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Newest hot take, Tesla will be in trouble once they start making money. https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-could-be-doomed-by-earning-money-1531942345?mod=yahoobarrons&ru=yahoo&yptr=yahoo Tesla invented a DC supercharging standard when none existed. I hate to keep making Apple analogies, but having a proprietary charger never hurt the Iphone / Ipad / macbook :itsaphoneanalogie: The CCS is just j1772 with some afterthought DC poo poo slapped onto the bottom of it, it looks stupid as hell, I guess it probably works ok. If someone (VW, I guess) builds a big CCS network across the US, more power to them, competition is good. I don't get why half the posters in this thread are referring to Tesla's (largest by far) charging network in past tense. It could go belly up, but today it is the industry leader and a very large competitive advantage for a EV car seller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The problem I've noted is that Tesla didn't have the capital to gain the critical mass necessary to dominate the charging market and set the standard. Now other, larger companies that do have the capital are going to push him out instead. Tesla owners are going to be pissed when there's 10x as many other charging stations they can't use as Superstations. If there's ever a critical mass of CCS chargers, I assume Tesla will probably just do in the US with CCS what they do in europe with Mennekes-- just put both ports on the cars and offer an adapter to existing owners. New Teslas currently come with a J1772 adapter already to be able to use most of the current public infrastructure. The whole reason the Tesla connector was created is that the standards bodies in the US hadn't settled on a DC fast charge alternate mode for the existing pinout when the S was released.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Lol they already have a god drat CHAdeMO adapter. There are data, patents and copyrights involved, it's not just a plug. What makes you think VW wants Tesla using their chargers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 05:30
|
|