6 ms·

I don't think anyone is arguing that they're the absolute worst carmaker. A comparison to Toyota or Honda would have been a better choice. I don't want a power

I don't think anyone is arguing that they're the absolute worst carmaker. A comparison to Toyota or Honda would have been a better choice. I don't want a power plant that is advertised as "more earthquake resistant than Fukushima" in my backyard.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Can you compare Tesla to a manufacturer who innovates very little (Toyota or Honda) and simply churns out the same internal combustion engine 10 million times a year? I don't think so. All depends on what you're optimizing for. I can't get an EV from Toyota or Honda (at least not one that competes with our S and X), so I deal with some fit and finish and reliability issues. Powertrain has been rock solid. Charging network has been rock solid (having driven coast to coast in the US in both of our Teslas).
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Toyota and Honda brought the first two mass-market hybrids to market (the Prius in 1997 and Insight in 1999, respectively). I don't think it's fair to say they innovate very little or that they churn out the same internal combustion engine 10 million times a year. A bunch of my friends have plug-in Priuses (Prii?) that are effectively EVs, since if you're commuting you never need to run off gas.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Still no pure BEV from them, only hybrids and fuel cell. No charging network either. Owned two Toyotas and a Lexus before we sold them all for Teslas, really a shame as I liked the reliability of the brand, but buying EVs was more important to us. Personally, I want to support innovation, not the status quo.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  I thought the Toyota hybrid engines were very innovative.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Innovative in 1997 (first Prius model year), not so much 22 years later. They're coasting on that tech at this point. Tesla was incorporated in 2003, and has existed for only 16 years. What's Toyota's (an 80 year old manufacturing and logistics behemoth) excuse? Rhetorical. Entrenched interests (both internally and at dealers) and a lack of courage.
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      Excuse for what? I don’t even understand the rhetorical question.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        For not building a non-internal combustion vehicle.
        philwelch 7y ago
        There’s no sensible use case for one that isn’t more effectively satisfied with a plug-in hybrid?
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Plug in hybrid is double the complexity (combustion and EV powertrains) when having a charging network negates the need for the combustion component.
        gamblor956 7y ago
        Until a fire results in the power grid going down...
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Gas pumps stop working too when utility power is out. Can charge your electric car at home from solar if you have it (and in California, solar is mandatory on new residential roofs of new construction starting in January of next year).
- briandear 7y ago
  Tesla can’t be that innovative: they still don’t support CarPlay.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
barry-cotter 7y ago
One person has died from radiation from the Fukushima accident. The possible range for casualties ranges from zero to hundreds. The evacuation killed over 2,000 people. This for an earthquake ~10 times greater than the tolerance it was designed for. I’d rather live within a km of Fukushima now than 10km of a coal power plant.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Can you compare Tesla to a manufacturer who innovates very little (Toyota or Honda) and simply churns out the same internal combustion engine 10 million times a year? I don't think so. All depends on what you're optimizing for. I can't get an EV from Toyota or Honda (at least not one that competes with our S and X), so I deal with some fit and finish and reliability issues. Powertrain has been rock solid. Charging network has been rock solid (having driven coast to coast in the US in both of our Teslas).

nostrademons 7y ago
Toyota and Honda brought the first two mass-market hybrids to market (the Prius in 1997 and Insight in 1999, respectively). I don't think it's fair to say they innovate very little or that they churn out the same internal combustion engine 10 million times a year. A bunch of my friends have plug-in Priuses (Prii?) that are effectively EVs, since if you're commuting you never need to run off gas.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Still no pure BEV from them, only hybrids and fuel cell. No charging network either. Owned two Toyotas and a Lexus before we sold them all for Teslas, really a shame as I liked the reliability of the brand, but buying EVs was more important to us. Personally, I want to support innovation, not the status quo.
jtbayly 7y ago
I thought the Toyota hybrid engines were very innovative.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Innovative in 1997 (first Prius model year), not so much 22 years later. They're coasting on that tech at this point. Tesla was incorporated in 2003, and has existed for only 16 years. What's Toyota's (an 80 year old manufacturing and logistics behemoth) excuse? Rhetorical. Entrenched interests (both internally and at dealers) and a lack of courage.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Excuse for what? I don’t even understand the rhetorical question.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      For not building a non-internal combustion vehicle.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        There’s no sensible use case for one that isn’t more effectively satisfied with a plug-in hybrid?
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Plug in hybrid is double the complexity (combustion and EV powertrains) when having a charging network negates the need for the combustion component.
        gamblor956 7y ago
        Until a fire results in the power grid going down...
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Gas pumps stop working too when utility power is out. Can charge your electric car at home from solar if you have it (and in California, solar is mandatory on new residential roofs of new construction starting in January of next year).
briandear 7y ago
Tesla can’t be that innovative: they still don’t support CarPlay.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

barry-cotter 7y ago

One person has died from radiation from the Fukushima accident. The possible range for casualties ranges from zero to hundreds. The evacuation killed over 2,000 people. This for an earthquake ~10 times greater than the tolerance it was designed for. I’d rather live within a km of Fukushima now than 10km of a coal power plant.