Electric cars

Martyn1981

Silly post warning!

Watching/reading comments on the Model 3 as it gets delivered I started to notice a theme. Tesla seems to be downplaying the car. I thought it was just me, but I posed the question on Cleantechnica and got some surprising responses:

Question -

Something keeps nagging at me. I've read reviews, stories and articles, and watched several vids from the various Tesla youtube channel fans.

So far I've heard that vampire drain on the 3 is about 90% less than on an S.
I've heard that the range of the 3 was downgraded by the EPA (following a request from Tesla) from 334miles to 310miles (mentioned in this article too).
That the acceleration speed is far higher than claimed.
And, simply noting that the 75kWh 3 has a greater range than a S90D.
Edit - The 3 can take a higher charge rate too(?)

Am I being paranoid, or has Tesla built 'too good a car' in the 3, and is trying hard to downplay it as that could cannabilise (sic?) sales of the S?

I suppose the S is safe at the moment due to the 2yr(ish) waiting list, but would folk possibly consider a 3 over an S given the 50% cost saving?

Replies -

The 3 has many advantages over the S. I would prefer the 3 even at the same price.

Having owned a Model S for almost five years, and now a Model 3 for about three weeks, I agree with you completely; I think the car is a little "too good." It's not perfect, but it's close, and personally I think I prefer the 3 to the S regardless of price.

Obviously this post will attract 'fanboy' claims from the silly people, but it looks like EV's have moved forwarded. Imagine what we should see in just the next 5yrs.

Gloomendoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Obviously this post will attract 'fanboy' claims from the silly people, but it looks like EV's have moved forwarded. Imagine what we should see in just the next 5yrs.

I wish they would move a bit more quickly. I want an electric "proper" 4x4.

AdrianC

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I wish they would move a bit more quickly. I want an electric "proper" 4x4.

Outlander PHEV not "proper" enough?

Martyn1981

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I wish they would move a bit more quickly. I want an electric "proper" 4x4.

Don't say Land Rover Defender ... *cough*.

Gloomendoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Don't say Land Rover Defender ... *cough*.

That's what I'm waiting for.

I'm pretty sure I could build a car similar to the one linked myself.

Edit: Actually, it has piqued my interest. It's about as close to my Series 1 as it gets. Needs bigger wheels and a tad more ground clearance though.

IanMSpencer

AdrianC wrote: »

The question, therefore, is more one of why it hasn't "taken off" further as yet.

Quite, straight back to the point I made in my first post. As I said, there is nothing new in the concept, nothing specific to EVs (aside from it is a bit easier to fuel them at a parking spot, but there are downsides too) and none of these schemes have ever managed to breakthrough into wider general acceptance.

Why for example, might the Parisian model not fit London?

Economics is rarely part of the equation in car choice.

zeupater

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Yes, it seems clear that GM have no plans to produce more than 30k cars a year, which AIUI is the limit for compliance cars ...

Hi

However, there is still an advantage to be gained from maintaining production at that kind of level ... when moving to mass production volumes they'll probably have a head-start on ironing out all of the initial technology, supply chain & volume related manufacturing glitches which other manufacturer have yet to experience ..

HTH
Z

NigeWick

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I'm not convinced it ever will. There is nothing in EVs that makes TaaS more attractive as a business or usage proposition.

All the infrastructure to enable TaaS has been around for years, and EVs are irrelevant to whether it takes off.

I disagree. THE big thing is the combining of cheap electric travel with fully autonomous use. If you mean businesses owning the vehicles, then that is one part of the answer. Systems like the one Tesla is setting up for individual owners to send their vehicles off to work is another. At present there is no readily available infrastructure for people like me who want TAAS and are prepared to accept minor limitations of waiting while the "taxi" arrives. The cost savings for someone (me) who can accept the limitations will be immense.

EV's are not irrelevant because of those cost savings over ICE vehicles. Autonomous EVs are the answer.

NigeWick

Just seen this:-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-15/fiat-chrysler-s-marchionne-the-future-of-cars-will-be-electric-and-commoditized

IanMSpencer

NigeWick wrote: »

I disagree. THE big thing is the combining of cheap electric travel with fully autonomous use. If you mean businesses owning the vehicles, then that is one part of the answer. Systems like the one Tesla is setting up for individual owners to send their vehicles off to work is another. At present there is no readily available infrastructure for people like me who want TAAS and are prepared to accept minor limitations of waiting while the "taxi" arrives. The cost savings for someone (me) who can accept the limitations will be immense.

EV's are not irrelevant because of those cost savings over ICE vehicles. Autonomous EVs are the answer.

My argument is simpler, regardless of costs and technologies, people are not logical beings who do sensible things. Instead they want status and image, so they will always want to own their car, even if, as we see today, PCP means that they don't even really own their car at all, it is the image of being the owner that is important.

Now if there is a serious collapse in the economy so that people generally find it difficult to afford to run a car as they used to expect to, then that might be a driver for change, but I have very little faith in people doing sensible things, and even less faith when cars are involved.

I do accept though, that the autonomous element can be an important factor in "taxification" - the imposition of a stranger into our world that a driver is should not be underestimated. I'm not saying that there will be no change, but frankly we live in a world of marketing and image and do you think that the marketing world is going to let the population get away with using less money on transportation if it can help it?

The other issue of driverless cars is that unless you can resolve the rush hour problem, the one that actually kills public transport because they have to have capacity that lies idle most of the day, you hit the same problem once you move into the idea that you just have a car when you want it. Providing autonomous technology isn't providing any new driver to solving that issue that doesn't exist already.

I don't doubt that there is a viable market, and people like you will benefit from it, but we also live in a world where QuickQuid have a viable business model doing what they do.