4 ms·

Please don't share seekingalpha articles. The site is known for poor-quality articles and highly biased authors.

by sabertoothed 7y ago

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
Can you refute the math?
- sabertoothed 7y ago
  The problem isn't the pure math. It's the assumptions and conclusions.
  - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
    But you are doing the textbook version of ad hominem. We want to know if what they are saying is correct and math can tell us. We don’t need more. >a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive...
    - sabertoothed 7y ago
      I think you are not being intellectually honest here. The headline is "Electricity Shock: Toyota Camry Cheaper To Fuel Than A Tesla Model 3". Then the author assumes the Tesla will always be charged at an (expensive) supercharger. The math checks out (as in: I assume the simple calculations are not incorrect). The author's assumptions/conclusions do not check out. And do not back up the sensationalist (and incorrect) headline. My comment was not ad hominem. Not only because I did not attack a human.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  yes. people don’t charge their teslas primarily at supercharging stations.
- hokkos 7y ago
  Sure : http://carboncounter.com/ http://carboncounter.com/
  - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
    That's great but that isn't what the math was about.
- rasz 7y ago
  Sure. Math is pretty simple: You dont buy Tesla because its cheaper. You buy it because its a Tesla, accelerates 2x faster, and doesnt stop acceleration this fast until you reach speed limit.
Someone1234 7y ago
Considering how many electrek.co articles are shared on here about Tesla (and how biased those are), is this really a hill people want to die on? Plus the article is using difficult to dispute numbers (average cost of gas, cost of electricity Tesla charges, and cost of both vehicle). So I guess when you run out of answers to the critique, just critique the messenger themselves instead, that way you never really have to address the point made.
- fhood 7y ago
  I bought my 2003 mazda for 2300. Lets see how many years will it take for a Model 3's fuel savings to make up that...oh never. It will never happen. Nobody on this website needs to be told this, and this article is just another battleground in a completely pointless debate between tesla lovers and haters. It is stupid and it demeans hacker news. So do electrek.co articles, although their average quality does appear to be significantly higher than this site.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    The article is comparing two new cars and their relative fuels and costs over a lifetime. Their analogy is a lot more apt than contrasting a new Tesla with a 2003 used vehicle. I don't think a contrived analogy nobody was making is a good argument for why the article's comparison shouldn't be made or discussed. As to electrek, I strongly disagree their quality is "significantly higher." It isn't a good quality publication and is heavily biased.
  - dublin 7y ago
    Yeah, I can buy a couple year-old Hellcat (or Porsche, if you're the Euroweenie type) for less, it will hold its value far better than the Tesla, and it naturally increases testosterone, too... (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962046 ) I'm pretty sure no Tesla is cheaper to own over the long haul than a Ferrari - I owned one for 25 years, and it's actually one of the cheapest-to-own cars I've ever had (worth more when sold than when bought!), despite the fact that it got 12 MPG no matter how you drove it.
- 7y ago
luxuryballs 7y ago
Let the votes handle that.
dublin 7y ago
Because you disagree with their politics, you want to silence them. Typical PC (Politically Correct or Progressive Communist, your choice) imposition of "cancel culture". I saw nothing seriously wrong with their analysis - so your position is clearly that they can't be tolerated just because they dared to speak a non-PC opinion on electric cars...
- sabertoothed 7y ago
  What are you even talking about?

Please don't share seekingalpha articles. The site is known for poor-quality articles and highly biased authors.

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

Can you refute the math?

sabertoothed 7y ago
The problem isn't the pure math. It's the assumptions and conclusions.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  But you are doing the textbook version of ad hominem. We want to know if what they are saying is correct and math can tell us. We don’t need more. >a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive...
  - sabertoothed 7y ago
    I think you are not being intellectually honest here. The headline is "Electricity Shock: Toyota Camry Cheaper To Fuel Than A Tesla Model 3". Then the author assumes the Tesla will always be charged at an (expensive) supercharger. The math checks out (as in: I assume the simple calculations are not incorrect). The author's assumptions/conclusions do not check out. And do not back up the sensationalist (and incorrect) headline. My comment was not ad hominem. Not only because I did not attack a human.
gameswithgo 7y ago
yes. people don’t charge their teslas primarily at supercharging stations.
hokkos 7y ago
Sure : http://carboncounter.com/ http://carboncounter.com/
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  That's great but that isn't what the math was about.
rasz 7y ago
Sure. Math is pretty simple: You dont buy Tesla because its cheaper. You buy it because its a Tesla, accelerates 2x faster, and doesnt stop acceleration this fast until you reach speed limit.

Someone1234 7y ago

Considering how many electrek.co articles are shared on here about Tesla (and how biased those are), is this really a hill people want to die on? Plus the article is using difficult to dispute numbers (average cost of gas, cost of electricity Tesla charges, and cost of both vehicle). So I guess when you run out of answers to the critique, just critique the messenger themselves instead, that way you never really have to address the point made.

fhood 7y ago
I bought my 2003 mazda for 2300. Lets see how many years will it take for a Model 3's fuel savings to make up that...oh never. It will never happen. Nobody on this website needs to be told this, and this article is just another battleground in a completely pointless debate between tesla lovers and haters. It is stupid and it demeans hacker news. So do electrek.co articles, although their average quality does appear to be significantly higher than this site.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  The article is comparing two new cars and their relative fuels and costs over a lifetime. Their analogy is a lot more apt than contrasting a new Tesla with a 2003 used vehicle. I don't think a contrived analogy nobody was making is a good argument for why the article's comparison shouldn't be made or discussed. As to electrek, I strongly disagree their quality is "significantly higher." It isn't a good quality publication and is heavily biased.
- dublin 7y ago
  Yeah, I can buy a couple year-old Hellcat (or Porsche, if you're the Euroweenie type) for less, it will hold its value far better than the Tesla, and it naturally increases testosterone, too... (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962046 ) I'm pretty sure no Tesla is cheaper to own over the long haul than a Ferrari - I owned one for 25 years, and it's actually one of the cheapest-to-own cars I've ever had (worth more when sold than when bought!), despite the fact that it got 12 MPG no matter how you drove it.
7y ago

luxuryballs 7y ago

Let the votes handle that.

dublin 7y ago

Because you disagree with their politics, you want to silence them. Typical PC (Politically Correct or Progressive Communist, your choice) imposition of "cancel culture". I saw nothing seriously wrong with their analysis - so your position is clearly that they can't be tolerated just because they dared to speak a non-PC opinion on electric cars...

sabertoothed 7y ago
What are you even talking about?