3 ms·

Come on, 30 minutes for a charge that'll get you just 180 miles? I just checked the 2012 Honda Civic specs[0], you can fill up with 13.2 gallons in 2 or 3 minut

Come on, 30 minutes for a charge that'll get you just 180 miles? I just checked the 2012 Honda Civic specs[0], you can fill up with 13.2 gallons in 2 or 3 minutes, and that'll get you 13.2*32 mpg combined = 422 miles. There's no way this is gonna work unless the charging process is much faster or they swap batteries instead. 0: http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2012/road-test-specs.html http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2012/road-test-specs.html

ericd 14y ago
Are you comparing charging stats unironically and saying it's a dealbreaker if it's not just as good as the incumbent in this category? It's really not that terrible to stop for 30 minutes after 3 hours of driving. Long road trips just went from wildly impractical to almost convenient, assuming the chargers are well distributed. You could compare the 0-60 times of the Civic and say it's unacceptable that it takes the Civic twice as long to get to 60 mph, or that it only seats a measly 5 people, uncomfortably at that, or that it only has one trunk.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Are you comparing charging stats unironically and saying it's a dealbreaker if it's not just as good as the incumbent in this category? Yes, I can guarantee you that the layman doesn't give two shits about electric cars. Until it's cheaper and/or more convenient for him than gas cars, he won't switch. And until laymen switch, you won't get the economies of scale necessary for a vast charging network. > assuming the chargers are well distributed. That's a pretty big assumption. First of all, Musk said there are charging stations in several cities in California, but exactly how many are there in each city? Do you have to go to one particular location in each city for charging? Because that's DOA. There's no such thing as one convenient location for everyone. And don't forget that right now all the testing is being done in California and Nevada, both of which are well known for their plentiful sunlight. But how much energy will the solar panels be able to contribute back to the grid when installed in a place like Seattle? Far less, I'm guessing.
  - wmf 14y ago
    These superchargers are for road trips, so a location just off a highway exit is convenient for everyone. For places without plentiful solar, hydro, or wind, we know the solution (the n-word) but we just lack the political will to implement it.
  - ericd 14y ago
    Day to day it is already more convenient, because you charge mostly at home - you never have to go to the gas station in the first place. It's pretty rare that I have to drive more than 100 miles in a day, and when I do, I'm really happy to stop for half an hour here and there to stretch my legs.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > because you charge mostly at home One of Musk's arguments for the supercharger was that it doesn't use non-renewable sources of energy. If you're charging at home, you're doing just that, since you're relying on the power plant for energy.
      - ericd 14y ago
        Err, not necessarily... at that point, it's decoupled, and can come from any source, which can be changed at any time. And your whole argument was about convenience, but now you seem to be darting to a tangential argument. Once the car fleet is fuel-agnostic, it becomes much easier to shift into whatever clean power source ends up working well, or whatever mix of clean and dirty works well. In terms of dirtiness, it's not hard to make the average impact of a car on the environment better... I think even pure coal might be cleaner with these things due to efficiency gains. In any case, I don't particularly care if their solar proposal ends up panning out overall - it's more or less irrelevant to the feasibility of the plan, other than for PR and making the people who implement them look good.
      - lgbr 14y ago
        > If you're charging at home, you're doing just that, since you're relying on the power plant for energy. Not necessarily. In Seattle, where solar is less effective, the electricity comes from almost entirely hydroelectric, with a little wind and a little nuclear. Source: http://www.seattle.gov/light/fuelmix/ http://www.seattle.gov/light/fuelmix/
- ams6110 14y ago
  It's really not that terrible to stop for 30 minutes after 3 hours of driving. Depends on the driver I guess. When I'm driving I want to get where I'm going. I stop only for fuel and bathroom breaks (ideally these are combined). If I'm driving more than 8 hours I might stop for a meal. Stopping for 30 minutes ever three hours is not something I'd find acceptable on a long trip. That said, it does seem that Tesla are getting ever closer to making a practical (if not affordable) commuter electric car (for reasonably short commutes).
wmf 14y ago
Tesla never said it's as good as gas, just that it makes long trips possible.
toomuchtodo 14y ago
Get that Honda Civic then; I'm going to hold onto my Model S reservation. I have to drive more than 180 miles in a day? Oh no! I'll have to rent a car from Enterprise or Zipcar! Fueleconomy.gov says it costs $3,550/year to fuel my 2008 Infiniti G37 (at $4.75/gal, premium), and $400/year to fuel my Model S (assuming 15K miles/year). That's a savings of over $15750 over 5 years (assuming the price of petroleum-based fuels doesn't go up, which it will). The end of oil is near, not just because we're running out, but because we can do better.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Fueleconomy.gov says it costs $3,550/year to fuel my 2008 Infiniti G37 (at $4.75/gal, premium), and $400/year to fuel my Model S (assuming 15K miles/year). That's a savings of over $15750 over 5 years (assuming the price of petroleum-based fuels doesn't go up, which it will). Don't be absurd. Getting either an Infiniti or a Model S makes absolutely no sense if you're interested in saving money. The base model MSRP for a 2013 G37 is $36,900, and for the Model S it's $49,900. The MSRP for a base Civic Sedan? $15,955. This debate was never about what's the most economic option.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    If we're really talking about the most economic option, perhaps living near your work and walk/bike could put your commute gas at zero and yearly down significantly. At some point, comparing a luxury car with an cheap base brand is an apples to oranges comparison. If I didn't buy my Prius I sure as hell wouldn't have bought a Civic or Corolla... more likely a luxury vehicle.
  - toomuchtodo 14y ago
    You're demanding the convenience you get from gasoline from a rapidly developing technology that's still having tens of billions of dollars poured into it, and I'm absurd? You're not going to get the same luxuries from electric vehicles as you've gotten from internal combustion engine vehicles, at least not in the beginning. People won't have much option though when its either an electric vehicle or $5/gallon gas.
rayiner 14y ago
Can you fuel your Honda Civic at home while you sleep?
aik 14y ago
New entrants into markets with innovative new technologies often have products that are worse off in many areas than existing companies (ie. existing gas car companies), however are vastly superior in some specific new way(s). That is true for this product. The expectation I bet is that the technology will continue to evolve, and will over time improve to the point of overtaking the incumbents on more and more key metrics until gas cars just won't be able to compete any more. Tesla is betting on the fact that their value proposition is good enough today (or within 3-5 years) to allow them to gain enough market share in whatever vertical they're starting with (e.g. luxury every-day sport vehicles) to really cause a major disruption -- and expand from there. Key reference from: The Innovators Dilemma

ericd 14y ago

Are you comparing charging stats unironically and saying it's a dealbreaker if it's not just as good as the incumbent in this category? It's really not that terrible to stop for 30 minutes after 3 hours of driving. Long road trips just went from wildly impractical to almost convenient, assuming the chargers are well distributed. You could compare the 0-60 times of the Civic and say it's unacceptable that it takes the Civic twice as long to get to 60 mph, or that it only seats a measly 5 people, uncomfortably at that, or that it only has one trunk.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Are you comparing charging stats unironically and saying it's a dealbreaker if it's not just as good as the incumbent in this category? Yes, I can guarantee you that the layman doesn't give two shits about electric cars. Until it's cheaper and/or more convenient for him than gas cars, he won't switch. And until laymen switch, you won't get the economies of scale necessary for a vast charging network. > assuming the chargers are well distributed. That's a pretty big assumption. First of all, Musk said there are charging stations in several cities in California, but exactly how many are there in each city? Do you have to go to one particular location in each city for charging? Because that's DOA. There's no such thing as one convenient location for everyone. And don't forget that right now all the testing is being done in California and Nevada, both of which are well known for their plentiful sunlight. But how much energy will the solar panels be able to contribute back to the grid when installed in a place like Seattle? Far less, I'm guessing.
- wmf 14y ago
  These superchargers are for road trips, so a location just off a highway exit is convenient for everyone. For places without plentiful solar, hydro, or wind, we know the solution (the n-word) but we just lack the political will to implement it.
- ericd 14y ago
  Day to day it is already more convenient, because you charge mostly at home - you never have to go to the gas station in the first place. It's pretty rare that I have to drive more than 100 miles in a day, and when I do, I'm really happy to stop for half an hour here and there to stretch my legs.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > because you charge mostly at home One of Musk's arguments for the supercharger was that it doesn't use non-renewable sources of energy. If you're charging at home, you're doing just that, since you're relying on the power plant for energy.
    - ericd 14y ago
      Err, not necessarily... at that point, it's decoupled, and can come from any source, which can be changed at any time. And your whole argument was about convenience, but now you seem to be darting to a tangential argument. Once the car fleet is fuel-agnostic, it becomes much easier to shift into whatever clean power source ends up working well, or whatever mix of clean and dirty works well. In terms of dirtiness, it's not hard to make the average impact of a car on the environment better... I think even pure coal might be cleaner with these things due to efficiency gains. In any case, I don't particularly care if their solar proposal ends up panning out overall - it's more or less irrelevant to the feasibility of the plan, other than for PR and making the people who implement them look good.
    - lgbr 14y ago
      > If you're charging at home, you're doing just that, since you're relying on the power plant for energy. Not necessarily. In Seattle, where solar is less effective, the electricity comes from almost entirely hydroelectric, with a little wind and a little nuclear. Source: http://www.seattle.gov/light/fuelmix/ http://www.seattle.gov/light/fuelmix/
ams6110 14y ago
It's really not that terrible to stop for 30 minutes after 3 hours of driving. Depends on the driver I guess. When I'm driving I want to get where I'm going. I stop only for fuel and bathroom breaks (ideally these are combined). If I'm driving more than 8 hours I might stop for a meal. Stopping for 30 minutes ever three hours is not something I'd find acceptable on a long trip. That said, it does seem that Tesla are getting ever closer to making a practical (if not affordable) commuter electric car (for reasonably short commutes).

wmf 14y ago

Tesla never said it's as good as gas, just that it makes long trips possible.

toomuchtodo 14y ago

Get that Honda Civic then; I'm going to hold onto my Model S reservation. I have to drive more than 180 miles in a day? Oh no! I'll have to rent a car from Enterprise or Zipcar! Fueleconomy.gov says it costs $3,550/year to fuel my 2008 Infiniti G37 (at $4.75/gal, premium), and $400/year to fuel my Model S (assuming 15K miles/year). That's a savings of over $15750 over 5 years (assuming the price of petroleum-based fuels doesn't go up, which it will). The end of oil is near, not just because we're running out, but because we can do better.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Fueleconomy.gov says it costs $3,550/year to fuel my 2008 Infiniti G37 (at $4.75/gal, premium), and $400/year to fuel my Model S (assuming 15K miles/year). That's a savings of over $15750 over 5 years (assuming the price of petroleum-based fuels doesn't go up, which it will). Don't be absurd. Getting either an Infiniti or a Model S makes absolutely no sense if you're interested in saving money. The base model MSRP for a 2013 G37 is $36,900, and for the Model S it's $49,900. The MSRP for a base Civic Sedan? $15,955. This debate was never about what's the most economic option.
- r00fus 14y ago
  If we're really talking about the most economic option, perhaps living near your work and walk/bike could put your commute gas at zero and yearly down significantly. At some point, comparing a luxury car with an cheap base brand is an apples to oranges comparison. If I didn't buy my Prius I sure as hell wouldn't have bought a Civic or Corolla... more likely a luxury vehicle.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  You're demanding the convenience you get from gasoline from a rapidly developing technology that's still having tens of billions of dollars poured into it, and I'm absurd? You're not going to get the same luxuries from electric vehicles as you've gotten from internal combustion engine vehicles, at least not in the beginning. People won't have much option though when its either an electric vehicle or $5/gallon gas.

rayiner 14y ago

Can you fuel your Honda Civic at home while you sleep?

aik 14y ago

New entrants into markets with innovative new technologies often have products that are worse off in many areas than existing companies (ie. existing gas car companies), however are vastly superior in some specific new way(s). That is true for this product. The expectation I bet is that the technology will continue to evolve, and will over time improve to the point of overtaking the incumbents on more and more key metrics until gas cars just won't be able to compete any more. Tesla is betting on the fact that their value proposition is good enough today (or within 3-5 years) to allow them to gain enough market share in whatever vertical they're starting with (e.g. luxury every-day sport vehicles) to really cause a major disruption -- and expand from there. Key reference from: The Innovators Dilemma