Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I would think that would at least be in the summary if not the headline. Tesla needs those federal funds. And they're not going to get them if they don't open the charging Network up. At least not while Biden's in the White House.
I would think that would at least be in the summary if not the headline. Tesla needs those federal funds. And they're not going to get them if they don't open the charging Network up. At least not while Biden's in the White House.
After years of watching Joe Biden's White House ignore and dismiss the efforts of Tesla in the EV sector, I find it funny that you assume Tesla is the one in need here.
Joe Biden is the one who needs to repair his shitty reputation he built by ignoring the world leader in EV. This is his attempt to extend an olive branch and save face.
After years of watching Joe Biden's White House ignore and dismiss the efforts of Tesla in the EV sector,
After years of watching Joe Biden's White House ignore and dismiss the efforts of Tesla in the EV sector,
What should Biden do, send Elon some flowers or a thank you card? You want Biden to take some of my tax money and give it to Elon to make Tesla better?
Biden had an EV summit and chose to exclude Tesla from the event/summit. He is likely as upset at teslas non-union workforce as he is at Musk's political positions.
Tesla sees the writing on the wall, they lost the standardization battle.
Tesla sees the writing on the wall, they lost the standardization battle.
I will give Tesla credit for at least bowing out somewhat gracefully, unlike Apple with their damn Lightning cables.
I will give Tesla credit for at least bowing out somewhat gracefully, unlike Apple with their damn Lightning cables.
Except Tesla has doubled down on NACS and proposed it as the new standard.
Though, at least by "opening up" they're making the Superchargers with CCS plugs so they will have both Tesla NACS and CCS cords on them.
The problem for both Tesla and Apple is that switching is hard. There's a huge install base using Lightning, and when Lightning was introduced, there was nothing else like it - you only
Saying Tesla "lost the battle" is sort of like saying Microsoft "lost the battle" for desktop OS. I mean, look at how many more companies are backing Linux!
Personally, I don't expect either CCS Type 1 or Tesla/NACS connectors to go away, as far into the future as I can usefully look. They'll have to co-exist, and we all better get used to that. Tesla seem to be paving the way for inter-operability with simple adapters and the "Magic Dock" device, as well as publishing the NACS specs for other charging ne
they really should have freed NACS about 2-3 years earlier. By waiting so long it stinks of desperation to pretend they still have a shot at it being widely adopted.
I know Musk was trying for it to be a carrot for a patent truce, but most everyone else took the can't-sue-us clause as a poison pill. Musk really needed to get his connector into first gen Fords or a swath of newbie major brands (Hyundai, Nissan, etc)
Now they're going to have to support both NACS and CCS, and either start a transition-to-CCS pl
As I recall, they presented what is now called NACS to the standards bodies, and the standards bodies went with the CCS form factor instead.
NACS and CCS both implement the same communications standards, which is why Tesla has a phyiscal adaptor.
NACS is not the same as the original Tesla Supercharger standard. Tesla Supercharger worked much more like CHAdeMO, and it used the automotive CAN bus for communication. My understanding is that NACS is much more like CCS routed through the Tesla physical connector. (We might almost think of it as CCS Type 3.) Older Teslas don't support CCS Type 1 adapters, and they don't technically support NACS. It won't matter when using one of Tesla's own pedestals, of course. I'm guessing that third-party NACS ch
No one needs anything here, but Tesla wants in on that lucrative subsidy. Who would give up free money? Especially when every other manufacturer in the country is using CCS, the standard charging plug.
No one needs anything here, but Tesla wants in on that lucrative subsidy. Who would give up free money? Especially when every other manufacturer in the country is using CCS, the standard charging plug.
Tesla really shouldn't have a reason to give a shit about what "every" other manufacturer is doing.
As if Apple's lightning connector doesn't stand tall as the ultimate Fuck You reason.
Tesla FY21 profits: $5.524 billion Tesla FY21 carbon credit revenue: $1.46 billion [sinbon.com] Tesla FY21 profit (or loss) with zero carbon credit sale revenue: +$4.064 billion
Tesla FY22 profits: $12.583 billion Tesla FY22 carbon credit revenue: $1.78 billion [carboncredits.com] Tesla FY22 profit (or loss) with zero carbon credit sale revenue: +$10.803 billion
Please explain how "Tesla has only been profitable because of government subsidies" when they made 7x the profit from other sources. Also explain how they "did have one possible year last year" when they've been profitable without a single dollar of carbon credits for at least two years, as shown above.
Or, just stop spreading this provably false bullshit that literally hasn't been true for years.
If there wasn't meant to be overlap, Tesla would have remained at the Porsche MSRP level and not ever cared about making a cheaper car more affordable to the masses.
If there wasn't meant to be overlap, Tesla would have remained at the Porsche MSRP level and not ever cared about making a cheaper car more affordable to the masses.
Teslas are nothingburgers at P-car MSRPs. Affordable cars are their only hope.
I mean I've been in a BMW and I've been in a Tesla and there really isn't a comparison. Maybe the teslas are better if you're an influencer. Kind of like how if you review guitars for a living and you get sent a sample that sample is the best sample set up by the best professionals
I mean I've been in a BMW and I've been in a Tesla and there really isn't a comparison. Maybe the teslas are better if you're an influencer. Kind of like how if you review guitars for a living and you get sent a sample that sample is the best sample set up by the best professionals
I find it rather hilarious that you picked the one brand that is notorious for breaking down and repair costs to compare against a Tesla, which you then suggest Tesla is somehow making "extra special" perfect samples for "influencers". I've seen some stretches to bash Tesla before, but this takes the cake.
Elon isn't the richest guy on the planet because he's still struggling in the marketing department. No, there's no special manufacturing line set up exclusively for the likes of Shmee and Greta Thunberg.
You're painting with a broad, cynical brush. I can provide the counter-anecdote of working at a place where people who unfortunately need to take FMLA do so, and eventually return to their job without fear of retribution.
The financial side of matters are addressed by a comprehensive employer-subsidized health plan, as well as short- and long-term disability insurance that covers (IIRC) 60% of salary.
You're painting with a broad, cynical brush. I can provide the counter-anecdote of working at a place where people who unfortunately need to take FMLA do so, and eventually return to their job without fear of retribution. The financial side of matters are addressed by a comprehensive employer-subsidized health plan, as well as short- and long-term disability insurance that covers (IIRC) 60% of salary.
You're painting with a broad, cynical brush. I can provide the counter-anecdote of working at a place where people who unfortunately need to take FMLA do so, and eventually return to their job without fear of retribution.
The financial side of matters are addressed by a comprehensive employer-subsidized health plan, as well as short- and long-term disability insurance that covers (IIRC) 60% of salary.
"Comprehensive employer-subsidized health plan" is a joke in the United States if you are "working class".
I am a graphic designer with over 26 years of experience, talented and skilled at most facets of my profession across a vast categories of products, materials, and applications. Am I the best? No. Design and art is subjective. Even I can judge some of my work as "meh" or just not good while I more often than not output satisfactory or exceptional end products (I have a proven track record). I work on ju
I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully share your perspective.
Please don't interpret my comment as trying to claim that the US model of healthcare doesn't have problems or as claiming that anyone can get the coverage they need "if they just work hard enough and make smart decisions!". It can work out on an individual level, but there are clearly systemic problems that need to be addressed, many of which you've highlighted.
FMLA is used to take care of others, it isn't for personal disability - you have short and long-term disability insurance for those issues.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year...for any of the following reasons: For the birth and care of the newborn child of an employee; For placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care;To care for an immediate family member (i.e., spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; orTo take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year...for any of the following reasons:
FMLA can be used both when the employee needs to provide care to a family member, or when the employee themselves is unable to work due to a serious health condition.
If you're making $100k/yr or more, you probably can afford health insurance and your stated concerns would be primarily over the continued existence of the ACA. The Republicans had their chance to repeal it, and they didn't, so any concerns in that regard are likely unfounded.
If you're making less than $100k/yr, there really isn't a Tesla in your budget. Unless you plan to live in it, I guess?
The problem with Biden praising Tesla is that it plays poorly to the majority of his electorate. Those who can af
Current new model 3 low end price, after rebate, is $35k. Considering Camrys go for $30k, and the average driver would save about $1500/yr in fueling costs (with any kind of decent home charging plan), the 5 year total cost of ownership is really good. Model Y low end is $45k after rebate. A bit more than a new Explorer ($36k) but hardly homeless level.
So unless you're really saying that anyone making less than $100k/yr doesn't have ANY reasonable new car in their budget, you need to update your thinking about Tesla pricing. Though admittedly that's worse than before Covid when M3 Standard Range had a 5yr TCO lower than a new Honda Civic. (with rebates. Without, the civic just edged it out)
Considering Tesla makes more total profit than all of Toyota (ie, not just EV's, gas cars included), and Tesla is past the lose-money-on-every-car phase of EV development and everyone else in the mass market (ie not Porche) outside China is just getting started losing money because of price sensitive market means they can't charge full price, I'd say things are not looking great for the other car companies.
So unless you're really saying that anyone making less than $100k/yr doesn't have ANY reasonable new car in their budget, you need to update your thinking about Tesla pricing.
So unless you're really saying that anyone making less than $100k/yr doesn't have ANY reasonable new car in their budget, you need to update your thinking about Tesla pricing.
It really depends on the cost of living in your area, family size, and household budget situation. 72 month loan at 5% APR and $0 down on a base model Tesla Model 3 would be about $758/mo. Doable if you earn pretty close to $100k/yr? Certainly. Do most people earning less than $100k/yr have almost 3/4 of a grand worth of wiggle room in their monthly budget? It depends, specifically on how far below your income is from $100k/yr and where the rest of your money is going.
No, you're not understanding the situation. According to Kelley Blue Book, the average price for a non-luxury vehicle in November 2022 was a little bit more than $48,000.
Your complaint about buying a Tesla model 3 on an average salary isn't unique to the Tesla, it is a general complaint about the average price of a new car. And while I agree with you that those types of payments are crazy, that is the average payment for a new non-luxury car in the United States.
Do people buy cars with zero down-payment?
Conservatives don't like the spending,
Conservatives don't like the spending,
Oh that's a good one. https://www.manhattan-institut... [manhattan-institute.org]
and they're generally also not too keen on BEVs being forced down everyone's throat.
and they're generally also not too keen on BEVs being forced down everyone's throat.
I'm holding an ice pack to my eye right now. Earlier today the doorbell rang. Standing outside was Kamala Harris accompanied by some rather large looking goons. They saw my ICE vehicle parked outside. They roughed me up a bit and told me that next time they come back there better at least be an electric Hyundai in the driveway.
What the fuck are you smoking, BEV forced down everyone's throat?
Bullshit. Conservatives want to spend money on their priorities. Liberals on their priorities. It isn't like there's this huge difference in amounts of spending from one Congress to the next in the past 20 years.
It isn't like there's this huge difference in amounts of spending from one Congress to the next in the past 20 years.
It isn't like there's this huge difference in amounts of spending from one Congress to the next in the past 20 years.
No, the difference is in taxation. Republicans want to spend without taxing, because they're trying to destroy the system -- they're afraid if they don't, they'll have to pay taxes one day.
Oh that's a good one.
Oh that's a good one.
I was referring to the electorate, not the politicians. I'm well aware that the concept of fiscal conservatism is typically used more as a lofty campaign promise, rather than as a true part of the conservative ideology.
BEV forced down everyone's throat?
BEV forced down everyone's throat?
Well, figuratively speaking [ca.gov], yes. A literal BEV down the throat would probably prove to be quite lethal and not at all representative of good environmental policy.
Get back to us in 2035 when ICE sunsets begin.
Or 2030 in the case of some states. (looking at my neighbor Washington right now)
And remember that the ICE sunsets are ramping up well before the 2030 and 2035 dates bandied about in the press. Those dates are for full compliance. There are ramping requirements from now till then that will leave dealers in some states in situations where they will not be able to sell more new ICE until they have sold additional zero emissions vehicles to meet increasingly stringent percentages. CA for example will be re
What the fuck are you smoking, BEV forced down everyone's throat?
What the fuck are you smoking, BEV forced down everyone's throat?
I think near future government bans on the sale of ICE vehicles could be colorfully described as forced down throats.
I thought you were feeding an AC troll, but I you got me to look, and now I see by the parent mods why so many qidiots prefer AC status.
(I wanted to make a joke, but best I could think of just now was q-believing idiots => qidiots along the lines of kids who don't know better. Sincerely? Or paid to fake it?)
Manufacturers and states are planning to stop making ICE vehicles or allowing the sale of new ICE vehicles within their boundries.
Sorta sounds like EVs being shoved upon buyers.
The overlap of the sets "Conservatives" and "Today's Republicans" is far from complete. Fascism and racism aren't "conservative". Neither is mail-ordering a succession of wives and paying porn stars for sex.
Republicans don't like EVs because they're heavily invested in petro.
Tesla's chargers being open won't have much if any impact on their vehicle sales: people buy Teslas for the cachet. The sub-par build quality and service challenges of their models is widely known, but people still buy them like cra
The left-wing? Their love affair with Musk ended when he made his political feelings clear during Covid, and most recently with his weird antics as His Highness, Lord of the Tweets.
The left-wing? Their love affair with Musk ended when he made his political feelings clear during Covid, and most recently with his weird antics as His Highness, Lord of the Tweets.
Nah, it ended well before that.
My prediction is that Tesla will start giving "discounted" electrical rates to their branded vehicles while everyone else gets the higher rate. Of course, I put it in quotes because what it will truly be is a surcharge for charging a competitor's BEV, in the same way that some gas stations presently have a credit card fee disguised as a cash discount (to circumvent credit card company rules regarding explicitly charging a credit card fee). TANSTAAFL, folks.
I think everyone is expecting it to be like other charging networks where there is a lower member price, with the difference being that the membership is included in the price of the car for Teslas. This would also make it very easy to account for the charging network as a separate business, and even spin it off potentially.
Yeah, the government didn't go far enough. If they wanted to regulate this properly right from the start, they need to make memberships illegal. A hodge-podge of logins just to get the new "gas" is very unfriendly for consumers, and isn't even good capitalism because it makes price discovery difficult. There's a little bit of this going on with petroleum based fuels too, but it's not nearly as bad. You can still make reasonable price comparisons with Gas Buddy, even if you know in the back of your mind
My prediction is that Tesla will start giving "discounted" electrical rates to their branded vehicles while everyone else gets the higher rate. Of course, I put it in quotes because what it will truly be is a surcharge for charging a competitor's BEV, in the same way that some gas stations presently have a credit card fee disguised as a cash discount (to circumvent credit card company rules regarding explicitly charging a credit card fee). TANSTAAFL, folks.
My prediction is that Tesla will start giving "discounted" electrical rates to their branded vehicles while everyone else gets the higher rate. Of course, I put it in quotes because what it will truly be is a surcharge for charging a competitor's BEV, in the same way that some gas stations presently have a credit card fee disguised as a cash discount (to circumvent credit card company rules regarding explicitly charging a credit card fee). TANSTAAFL, folks.
For Tesla, the big advantage in locking out competitors comes at the initial point of sale. People just want to know they can charge in that network if they need to. That means even if Tesla has an absolutely insane 1000% markup for non-Teslas it probably doesn't deter many people from getting a non-Tesla.
So, given that it's not helping the initial sale all a big markup is doing is driving non-Tesla customers away from from Tesla charging stations, which costs Tesla money in charger revenue. As
In other words, I wouldn't be worried that Tesla will do something wonky with the charging.
In other words, I wouldn't be worried that Tesla will do something wonky with the charging.
I would imagine it would be more like how Starlink is priced - not enough to be unreasonable, but still more expensive than what you'd pay if you had a wider selection of options.
From my experience looking at the rates of BEV chargers just out of curiosity, it seems there's quite a few of them that charge a significant premium over what you'd pay for power charging at home. One of the most egregious examples are the chargers at Disney World [go.com], which costs a whopping $0.35 per kilowatt hour.
Well, not if you use shitty charging networks.
Even if you use nothing but the supercharger network, you will be paying far less than that rate you quoted where Disney is just getting an early start to a day of siphoning your wallet empty from entering Disney World.
I'm merely pointing out that the savings when compared to a relatively efficient ICE vehicle aren't always as significant as you might assume.
I'm merely pointing out that the savings when compared to a relatively efficient ICE vehicle aren't always as significant as you might assume.
I mean, you're not technically wrong. But saying "when you use the most expensive charging on the planet it's only a little bit cheaper" isn't really a strong argument.
Disney's charger rates are a little more than double what it would cost for me to charge at home. Ignoring the volatility of gas prices for a moment, the Tesla would cut my "fuel" costs in half. Would those "fuel" savings have paid for the difference in price between the Tesla and my cheap econobox? Nope, not even close.
The economics really only work out if you consider the price of the BEV a sunk cost. If you were going to drop $35k on a car regardless, and your choice is between ICE or BEV, the BEV wi
When Tesla developed their connector (now North American Charging Standard, NACS), the Combined Charging System did not exist. CCS, however, still wasn't developed by the government. The Society of Automotive Engineers issued the charging specifications for the United States as standard J1772; however, this isn't adopted as a national standard. J1772 is where the CCS implementation lies in the US.
When Tesla needed fast Level 2 charging (faster than 6.6kW), they had to develop their own standard. When Tesla needed DC fast charging faster than 50kW and less bulky than the CHAdeMO connector, they had to develop their own. They developed their own connector such that it could do *both* things, and do them well, and be able to extend it in the future with substantial backwards compatibility. Today, a single connector can handle 1.4kW (120@12A) all the way up to 1MW (NACS current max). J1772/CCS1 is a mess, and it's not compatible with the rest of the world's CCS connectors. Tesla was able to extend *their* connector to support CCS by upgrading the hardware on the charge ports and the supercharging stations to add the communications protocol.
And through all of that, they built out a charging network that is larger than the largest CCS network (Electrify America). They have a substantial majority of cars on the road using their network. They've developed a mechanism that allows CCS users to use their stations without having to bring their own adapter. There really isn't incentive to do anything else unless the government wants to declare a specific connector as the standard, which they haven't.
NACS and CCS are compatible. Different form factors, but the same signaling and communication.
https://www.amp.tech/tesla-nac... [amp.tech]
The government made a standard that the largest fleet of electric vehicles does not us. I'm curious why they don't use it? It's hard to imagine there wasn't efficiency built into the entire process by not going with this government standard.
The government made a standard that the largest fleet of electric vehicles does not us. I'm curious why they don't use it? It's hard to imagine there wasn't efficiency built into the entire process by not going with this government standard.
Does the Apple lightning connector provide enough of an answer for you, or should millions of workers now demand a new charging port standard in order to continue to use Apple products in Government?
Ain't it funny how some companies don't get juiced like that.
I'm not sure any private business person has ever positioned himself as well as Musk has to make money off the US federal government. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you believe the federal government generally improves things for citizens when it manipulates the market. But Musk's hypocrisy when it comes to his stances on federal interference in markets is among his most annoying traits.
Notice that Elon stayed out of politics until his massive subsidies ran out. Now all of a sudden he's attending the Super Bowl with Rupert Murdock. https://variety.com/2023/biz/n... [variety.com]
Also a bit of a snowflake. https://www.techspot.com/news/... [techspot.com]
Take a look at the defense industry. Elon is an amateur.
Take a look at the defense industry. Elon is an amateur.
I am not aware of any individual owner of a defense industry company who has amassed nearly $200 billion in wealth primarily through companies heavily funded by the government and/or heavily subsidized by the government. Elon is not an amateur.
So that common meme about the defense industry doesn't really hold water; the DoD budget has only increased during time of war. More importantly, the US wins wars not because we have better warriors or better equipment, it wins because we have the best logistics ie the abilit
From Tesla's perspective, they're building out their charging network anyway, and they don't really need any federal incentives for this. But they're going to go after this aggressively for two reasons.
First, and quite obviously, if they can build out their network with someone else paying for it, that's a pretty obvious thing to do.
Second, and more strategically, they need to do all they can to block other companies. Right now, they completely dominate EV charging (in the United States). If all of this build-out goes to other companies, Tesla could find themselves as a minority player in the charging market. But by trying to take the lead in this program, they will keep their lead position.
Third, non Tesla owners will need the Tesla app and see Tesla vehicles charging generally faster and a working infrastructure compared to other fast chargers. It's a way to get new owners
You're thinking as if these are gas-powered vehicles. I doubt the typical EV owner is going to be charging while traveling often enough to care how fast their car charges - the vast majority of the time, they'll be charging overnight, at home.
I won't disagree with "more" people charging in alternate locations if the alternate locations are "everywhere", but I don't think that "easier to track actual cost" would be a reason for any significant number of people spending even 15 minutes every other day parked somewhere charging, when they can spend seconds plugging in at home.
For the very reason you say - convenience trumps all. Why make a special trip PERIOD if they don't have to? I know driving a mild hybrid that I'm like "man, I gotta visit a
Will they switch their cars over to using CCS though? The European models do. It's not a great situation for Tesla owners, because older ones can only use Tesla chargers or CHAdeMO with an adapter that has been out of production for years.
Tesla chargers here now have two connectors, the old Tesla one and a new higher power CCS one. Even so, charging power is limited due to being 400V only.
Maybe, but it's not looking like it. Tesla has a CCS adapter, but it only works on newer cars. They're going to soon start retrofitting older cars to be compatible with the adapter, but I haven't heard what, if anything, they'll charge for the update.
So it's adapters for everyone right now.
The federal government is willing to spend millions on EV chargers while the DoD has to scrape together funds on a carbon neutral alternative to petroleum fuels.
https://www.autoevolution.com/... [autoevolution.com]
The raw material is water. The energy source is anything that can produce electricity. If done on a larger scale than an aircraft carrier then more efficient processes are available where high temperature heat is applied to the synthesis process. The carbon for the hydrocarbon fuels is from CO2 that is naturally d
The problem with synthesized fuel is that it will always be more expensive than the source of energy used to produce it. The laws of thermodynamics make sure of it. That's not to say the concept isn't appealing. As you said, we'd be able to continue using ICE vehicles without the concern that we're trashing the climate in the process. Unfortunately, the economics just won't work out.
I do believe that there's going to be a bit of a reckoning once all the previously externalized costs associated with priv
The economics of BEVs vs. synthesized fuels in ICEVs starts with heat, not electricity.
What's the efficiency of taking heat from a geothermal well, a solar concentrator, or nuclear fission reactor to the wheels of a BEV? There's a few ways to work that out given how far the wires need to run, the efficiency of the turbines, the losses in the batteries, and so on. What's the heat to wheels efficiency of synthesized fuels? That would also be an interesting calculation to estimate. We start with heat becau
I have confidence that the people working on this technology know more about the end costs than you do. If the costs were so easily proven nonviable like you claim then they'd have abandoned the technology long ago.
I have confidence that the people working on this technology know more about the end costs than you do. If the costs were so easily proven nonviable like you claim then they'd have abandoned the technology long ago.
This is a case where I'd like to be proven wrong. I personally don't find BEVs appealing due to their high initial cost and battery longevity issues (which invariably someone will refute with how long they last in "miles", when I'm specifically referring to degradation over a chronological period).
The main reason I doubt the economic viability of synthetic fuels is because every existing manufacturer of ICE vehicles has significant profit incentive to keep the status quo intact. They have very likely alre
A quick google finds that a 10 year old Tesla maintains >80% of designed battery capacity [nimblefins.co.uk].
That'd have the range of a base-model Model 3 go from ~300mi to ~240 miles. How big of a problem that is depends on your use case of course, but for long-distance driving that would still allow for 3+ hours of driving in a stint, at which point I wouldn't mind taking a break for a coffee and a recharge.
That's assuming the battery doesn't start developing strange operational quirks due failing cells. The other issue is that battery longevity probably will be a corner which gets cut on more affordable makes of BEVs, so a limited budget (which is what I have to work with) increases the likelihood of ending up with a vehicle with a less than stellar battery.
The Nissan Leaf is already a good example of this. The batteries in that car are known for failing prematurely due to inadequate cooling, which was, no
Not sure about Tesla or Nissan, but the Volkswagen I have on order warranties that 80% for a decade. Any 'strange operational quirks due failing cells' and they will repair or replace it. When choosing it we worked on an estimate of half the stated maximum range for battery degradation and then half it again for cold weather and other factors. 25% of the maximum range is enough to do the daily commute, so that battery range is fine for us.
The cheaper the car, the shorter the warranty. I'll agree that a decade of warranty on the battery is probably enough for most first owners. However, when you look at the age of vehicles presently on the used market, and factor in the average age of a car in the USA (approximately 12 years), it means the average driver will be encountering battery issues.
At any rate, my original statement was why I don't want a BEV, not why I don't think they work for other people (clearly they do, otherwise they wouldn't
So, exactly like all of the other parts on cars that wear down or degrade over time?
So, exactly like all of the other parts on cars that wear down or degrade over time?
Except a battery pack isn't like say, an alternator, where you just pay a few bucks for a new one and swap out in your driveway. Everything I've had fail on older vehicles has just been easy, DIY shade tree repairs. BEVs are fine until something breaks, and then you either hope you still have warranty, or be prepared to open your wallet wide.
Right. So total up all of the costs of the small repairs over ten years, including parts, labour, materials, tools, and so on.
My last ICE car, a 2015, once had a gasket go. The part itself was like five bucks. Unfortunately, the engine had to be disassembled to get to it. That ain't 'shade tree.'
Buy your car, then pay for it every day. Guess where the big money is !!!!
So what magical car do you drive that doesn't consume energy at all, or generates it's own energy without ever having to add anything to it, yet still gets you where you want to go and back again?
Every single car you can drive, costs you money for every single inch you drive it, regardless of age or power plant type. Fuel, insurance, registration, maintenance, licensing, etc.
Who are you replying to, bro?
Please point out where I complained about taxes, even once. I won't wait for your response.
So how come Electrify America sucks so much? why are the other car manufactures dragging there feet, now they can even provide the "fuel" to the cars they sell.
I know nothing about the US marked, but I find it interesting that I see many new fast charging operators here in the EU
Seriously, this is where Tesla always needed to be. Providing battery and electric infrastructure for EVs, homes and the grid as a whole.
Car companies are insanely established and since they have seen the EV opportunity, Tesla has a huge battle ahead if they just stay with cars. Or they could produce technology that is in every charger and car and so on. That's a solid business that accomplishes the reduction of fossil fuel use to even larger scale that just making your own cars.
Musk has had a lead in the market, but now the legacy car companies are coming in *HARD*. He's not competing with Rivian, Lucid & Polestar anymore, it's GM, Ford, Hyundai/Kia, Honda, ... They have far more engineering & marketing resources and economies of scale he can't touch.
Opening up the chargers to other makes gives him a) a tax break from the Feds for the build-out and b) a small steady cash-flow from those Other Cars using Supercharger stations (presumably at a markup from Tesla owners). As
Seriously, this is where Tesla always needed to be. Providing battery and electric infrastructure for EVs, homes and the grid as a whole. Car companies are insanely established and since they have seen the EV opportunity, Tesla has a huge battle ahead if they just stay with cars.
Seriously, this is where Tesla always needed to be. Providing battery and electric infrastructure for EVs, homes and the grid as a whole.
Car companies are insanely established and since they have seen the EV opportunity, Tesla has a huge battle ahead if they just stay with cars.
You seem to be forgetting that there were no serious Electric Vehicles before Tesla. Sure, Tesla could provide battery and electric infrastructure... but to who? There was nobody to sell to. Tesla had to make the cars AND the infrastructure for those cars. They couldn't just make the infrastructure.
You seem to be forgetting that there were no serious Electric Vehicles before Tesla. Sure, Tesla could provide battery and electric infrastructure... but to who? There was nobody to sell to. Tesla had to make the cars AND the infrastructure for those cars. They couldn't just make the infrastructure.
You seem to be forgetting that there were no serious Electric Vehicles before Tesla. Sure, Tesla could provide battery and electric infrastructure... but to who? There was nobody to sell to. Tesla had to make the cars AND the infrastructure for those cars. They couldn't just make the infrastructure.
Indeed, Tesla did have to jump start the market, but now, if they stay with cars, they are up against every car company old and new.
Instead, they can pivot to making the core parts and standards for EVs. Not just charging. They could standardize around motors, brakes, infotainment. They could easily move to a model in which they supply a significant amount (if not a majority) of chargers, battery packs, motors, regen braking and other systems to every car maker out there.
In essence, they turn every car make
There's no doubt that Federal govt. funding helped Tesla (and probably Tesla Solar) get off the ground. And sure, if you make a deal with the devil? You can be sure there will be some downsides in your future (like being pushed into giving up your proprietary supercharging infrastructure for use by all competition).
Thing is though? Federal government has been throwing money at practically anyone claiming to have a "Green" industry, without much regard for how viable it really is. (Remember Solyndra under Ob
The European Union mandated that from 2023 all new chargers MUST support CCS Type 2, MUST be non-discrestionary way and MUST support a common payment type such as a credit card. The last one is a bit irksome because some charging networks will be assholes and interpret that to mean "through our app".
The legislation only covers new chargers and there is a sunset clause for older ones to be upgraded within a few years, but it will mean over time all chargers regardless of who makes them will be able to charge any car. Roll up, plug in, tap app / credit card and charge.
And you know what? Tesla is onboard with this. All new European Teslas are CCS Type 2 just like every other modern EV. Format wars are stupid and actually harm everyone in the sector including Tesla. Governments need to mandate the standard and then manufacturers will eventually get over themselves and comply.
Tesla was forced to put CCS in its cars. The EU mandated it, it wasn't Tesla's choice and they didn't do it until the EU required it.
Same with their chargers opening up to other vehicles. They only started doing it once the EU decided it was mandatory, and they needed to be ready for the 2023 deadline.
They weren't forced to, they chose to. They could have used a proprietary charging format but they would still be obligated to offer CCS. Fortunately it turns out even Tesla will use a standard when they see which the way the wind is blowing.
Obligated in their public chargers I mean. Car could have done anything they liked.
Tesla were told you will allow anyone to use them, you will provide an adaptor on all of them for the standard EU charging adaptor, they will work with any and all vehicles with a standard EU adaptor (which is all of them in the EU besides Tesla), no we are not going to give you any money, and the alternative is they will all be ripped out at your expense ...
Qualcomm switched it's model and instead stopped selling phones and focused on licensing CDMA to those companies, and as a result the FCC made CDMA the standard for 3G. Qualcomm became THE telecommunications powerhouse it is today by sharing and owning the part that tied all the smart phones together.
Tesla's market value not withstanding, it's facing the exact same issue. It's dwarfed by all the other car companies out there, and many of those companies are building EVs. Tesla's tech is the best in some areas and not the best in others, but they do have the charging network.
This makes Tesla the standard for all EVs for charging. They can stop building cars, license their tech if they choose, and own the distribution of energy for all EVs. Frankly I think Model 3s and Model Ys are kind of dumb looking with a lot of extraneous and stupid quality of life features. But I wouldn't mind driving a Honda or Toyota using the best parts of Tesla's tech but the car quality and branding of Honda or Toyota and charging at a Tesla EV station. That I would do.
I'm not a Tesla fan obviously, but this is the move I was hoping I would see from them. This makes them the government standard in the US. Focus on their core strength, share the rest with the car companies, and boom. Tesla's market value is not because it's a car company; it never was. It's an EV power charging company now, and they are the only game in town to charge EVs outside of your own home. I really hope Tesla takes this move now; I would actually become a Tesla supporter then.
Although the hide-under-a-rock (aka anti-woke) idiots here seem to have missed a comparison, but then they're probably all too young to remember 10 years ago, before the EU passed a law that ALL THE FUCKING PHONE MANUFACTURERS had to make ALL of their damn wallworts interchangeable, so all phones now charge via USB, rather than a separate wall wort for each brand, and each model.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Ransomware Gang Uses New Zero-Day To Steal Data On 1 Million Patients
Microsoft's Bing is an Emotionally Manipulative Liar, and People Love It