Official Tesla Model S thread

[GRA]

Hey, you win the prize for being the first person this year to accuse me of being anti-EV or an oil company shill. Congratulations!

He's not the first I've been saying you're against BEVs for a while now, everyone here knows you are. As I've said before I don't understand why you're on a Nissan Leaf electric car forum? You have nothing but negative things to say about them and all you do is continuously post about FCEVs. It's like HELLO! You're on the wrong forum to be promoting FCEVs! Nobody but you keeps those threads going, why do you suppose that is?!? Nobody cares! Most people come here because they're BEV enthusiasts so why are you here?!? We are tired of hearing you say that a BEV must do EVERYTHING an ICE vehicle can do to be successful. How long has the modern day BEV been around? 6 years only and it's already up to 300 miles per charge. How long have ICE vehicles been around? over 100! Kind of silly to expect 6 year old tech to be at parity with 100 year old tech don't you think? Can you imagine where BEVs would be if they would have been evolving for over 100 years like ICEVs? We know the average Joe isn't going to run out and buy a BEV right now....so what! The tech will continue to improve over time, cost will come down then the average Joe will start to take notice.

Your statement contains so many inaccuracies that replying to them all just isn't worth my time.

 

[rcm4453]

Your statement contains so many inaccuracies that replying to them all just isn't worth my time.

Yeah don't waste your time, you have more important things to do like post more garbage in the FCEV threads.

 

[GRA]

Your statement contains so many inaccuracies that replying to them all just isn't worth my time.

Yeah don't waste your time, you have more important things to do like post more garbage in the FCEV threads.

Feel free not to read them.

 

[rcm4453]

Your statement contains so many inaccuracies that replying to them all just isn't worth my time.

Yeah don't waste your time, you have more important things to do like post more garbage in the FCEV threads.

Feel free not to read them.

Oh believe me I don't because what you post is cherry picked, bias articles anyway. There are similar articles out there for BEVs too but you never post those for some strange reason. When you do post an article BEV related it's usually a negative one or one about it's shortcomings.

 

[WetEV]

Compare a Mirai with a more convenient and more economical BEV of more similar visual and driving appeal, the Mitsubishi iMiev. Probably more iMievs will be sold. At least $33,000 more affordable, before incentives. Just think of all the time not spent driving 30+ miles round trip to fuel up at the few hydrogen stations, while standing outside in the heat and the sun or the wind and the rain or the snow and the cold. And not only that, I could buy an iMiev, unlike the Mirai, sold only in limited areas of California.

Oh please, no one is driving 30 miles locally to refuel, {propaganda deleted}

I considered, before BEVs were available, buying a CNG Honda Civic. The nearest CNG station is about 15.5 miles away, or 31 miles round trip. And, if for any reason, that station isn't available, I'd need to drive another 31.43 miles to get from the first station to the nearest second station. So if I was at home, I should never let the tank be lower than about 45 miles of range plus some additional safety margin. Why, again, would hydrogen be any better? I didn't buy, for several reasons, one of which is the waste of time to get to the CNG stations. It will be decades before there are hydrogen stations any closer than that, if ever.

I fuel my BEV in the garage, most of the time. Little time, little waste, ... A great joy, one that you need to own a BEV for a while before you will understand. Which you haven't, and don't.

As to being out in the sun/wind/rain/snow, oh my, how ever have we survived the past 100+ years of fueling ICEs (back of hand held dramatically to forehead)?

Wonder how we survived morning and night trips to the barn every day in all weather without fail to feed the horses?

If you've got a dedicated place to charge and low-price electricity, then BEVs with adequate range are a good choice; if you don't, they aren't, and you need something else.

The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people, and FCEVs are not a good choice for anyone. So why do you run down BEVs and flog FCEVs to a website full of BEV drivers? I don't get it.

Or the Chevy Bolt, with more usable range than the Mirai. More usable range, as you can recharge the Bolt almost anywhere, unlike the Mirai where you will be driving miles to refill, and will need enough range in reserve to drive even more miles if the first hydrogen station is down. Oh yes, and at least $20,000 more affordable.

Or the Chevy Volt, with the mobility of a gasoline car and the ability to be mostly electric.

Sorry, the Mirai is overpriced, ugly, slow, and not a Tesla Model S.

I had written a long reply but MNL ate it, so I'll just restrict myself to saying that I agree (and have said so numerous times) that PHEVs are the current road trip answer,

PHEVs are easier to consider as the first car, but are more expensive to operate than a BEV.

To repeat, no one is buying/leasing an FCEV or a Model S/X because it's the most economical option.

One might buy a iMiev because it was the most economical option. Especially after tax credits. The cheapest new car in the USA, in many places, and even cheaper considering the lower operating costs. Of course, maybe factors other than economics matter as well.

 

[WetEV]

If that indeed happens, and people are adopting BEVs with sufficient capability in large numbers, fine by me.

In 2015, about one in every 150 cars sold in the U.S. had a plug and a battery. But mass adoption of electric vehicles is coming, and much sooner than most people realize.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-electric-cars-will-be-here-sooner-than-you-think-1472402674

 

[GRA]

Compare a Mirai with a more convenient and more economical BEV of more similar visual and driving appeal, the Mitsubishi iMiev. Probably more iMievs will be sold. At least $33,000 more affordable, before incentives. Just think of all the time not spent driving 30+ miles round trip to fuel up at the few hydrogen stations, while standing outside in the heat and the sun or the wind and the rain or the snow and the cold. And not only that, I could buy an iMiev, unlike the Mirai, sold only in limited areas of California.

Oh please, no one is driving 30 miles locally to refuel, {propaganda deleted}

I considered, before BEVs were available, buying a CNG Honda Civic. The nearest CNG station is about 15.5 miles away, or 31 miles round trip. And, if for any reason, that station isn't available, I'd need to drive another 31.43 miles to get from the first station to the nearest second station. So if I was at home, I should never let the tank be lower than about 45 miles of range plus some additional safety margin. Why, again, would hydrogen be any better? I didn't buy, for several reasons, one of which is the waste of time to get to the CNG stations. It will be decades before there are hydrogen stations any closer than that, if ever.

Because you rightly decided that CNG made no sense for you, and anyone who's considering an FCEV will presumably make the same calculation, if the company doesn't do so for them. To repeat, anyone who doesn't have convenient H2 refueling with a reasonably convenient backup, such as described by the Edmunds' editor, simply has no business buying/leasing an FCEV now. The manufacturers and the state have decided, rightly IMO, to concentrate on certain seed communities for the stations and the cars, plus a few for connectors to allow out of town travel. Where they are and where near future expansion is planned, and why, is described in in the
"Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development" - Here's this year's: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2016.pdf

[]I fuel my BEV in the garage, most of the time. Little time, little waste, ... A great joy, one that you need to own a BEV for a while before you will understand. Which you haven't, and don't.

Of course not, as I, like many urban dwellers don't have a garage or any convenient places to charge, using electricity that's less expensive than gasoline. OTOH, I do have an H2 station 1.9 miles (7 minutes per google maps, 5-6 per moi) from me, so for someone in a similar situation, that's a more convenient and, given free fuel, cheaper option. At the moment, the alternate fueling locations are a bit far (ca. 20 miles), so it's necessary to keep a larger reserve on hand, but that will be changing in the next few months. Anyone not willing to put up with the potential inconvenience of being an early adopter where a limited infrastructure is the norm, should stick with something more conventional (like an HEV/PHEV).

As to being out in the sun/wind/rain/snow, oh my, how ever have we survived the past 100+ years of fueling ICEs (back of hand held dramatically to forehead)?

Wonder how we survived morning and night trips to the barn every day in all weather without fail to feed the horses?

Yeah, that was tough, and it was uphill both ways in the snow. In my case, to use a BEV I'd have to survive the 4.5 block walk each way in wind, rain, or (cough, California) cold just so I could pay more per mile for electricity than I'd pay for gas. Uh, no thanks - the walk I don't mind, but not if I have to pay through the nose for electricity in addition to paying more for the car, which still lacks the capabilities (and supporting infrastructure) I need from a car. Other people with different situations and requirements may find BEVs suit them fine. When/If the situation changes (much longer range at a lower price, local, convenient charging less expensive than gas, infrastructure where I need it on trips), it will be time to re-evaluate, but not until then.

If you've got a dedicated place to charge and low-price electricity, then BEVs with adequate range are a good choice; if you don't, they aren't, and you need something else.

The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people, and FCEVs are not a good choice for anyone. So why do you run down BEVs and flog FCEVs to a website full of BEV drivers? I don't get it.

Seeing as I've repeatedly said that BEVs are a good match for some, and I've recommended them for people who I think fall into that category (here's an example: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=22387&p=467723&hilit=spark+ev#p467723 ) why do you keep acting as if I haven't? And am I running down BEVs when I recommend them for someone, or recommend against them for someone else, AFTER first finding out what their situation, needs, wants, priorities and willingness to make accommodations are to see if they're suitable? That's being objective. Once Gen 2 shows up, the pool of people I'll be willing to recommend BEVs to as a daily driver without much thought will grow a lot, but right now we have to almost have someone give us as much info as a job application, before we can (accurately) decide if an affordable, short range BEV is suitable for them.

How do you know that FCEVs aren't a good choice for anyone, regardless of their situation? If you mean economically, then sure - early adopters pay for the privilege. But for anyone in a similar situation to mine, who wants to go ZEV and is willing and able to pay for it, an FCEV is a better choice than a BEV. Different situation, different conclusion.

PHEVs are easier to consider as the first car, but are more expensive to operate than a BEV.

Sure, but not more expensive than _two_ cars, which is the other option (along with renting/borrowing). In my particular case I only need the road trip car, but I'm an outlier.

One might buy a iMiev because it was the most economical option. Especially after tax credits. The cheapest new car in the USA, in many places, and even cheaper considering the lower operating costs. Of course, maybe factors other than economics matter as well.

Yeah, these days, especially in California, IMO the Spark EV is the best all-around BEV deal (although if I had to pick an affordable BEV for me right now, I would probably opt for a Soul). The iMiEV is really a Local-only car, but you can fake regional trips in the Spark when new, and still use it locally for quite a while if your daily driving range needs are modest.

 

[GRA]

If that indeed happens, and people are adopting BEVs with sufficient capability in large numbers, fine by me.

In 2015, about one in every 150 cars sold in the U.S. had a plug and a battery. But mass adoption of electric vehicles is coming, and much sooner than most people realize.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-electric-cars-will-be-here-sooner-than-you-think-1472402674

Uh huh, and Nissan will sell 500,000 LEAFs by 2013, GM will sell 60,000 Volts in their second year on the market, and we'll have 1 million PEVs on U.S. roads by the end of 2015. Forecasts are great, anyone can make them, and one of them is almost certain to be correct eventually. I can remember forecasts in the early '90s of the rate at which PV and wind were going to expand - I'm sure one of them was more or less right too, but if it was it was strictly a coincidence, and most of them were way too optimistic. Do you remember the forecasts only a few years back of what we'd be paying for gas now? We had an entire thread here speculating on just how soon we were going to reach $5.00/gal. gas - IIRR, in August or September 2013 on a similar trip to the one I've just taken I paid $3.68/gal. in Oakdale, and gas in Lee Vining was $4.90/gal. vs. paying $2.30 in Tracy (Oakdale was about $0.10 more) now, and it was $3.86 in Lee Vining. In 2013 I sure as hell wouldn't have predicted that I'd only be paying $2.30/gallon in August of 2016 - would you?

And now, having once again made the great circle trip around the pros and cons of FCEVs and BEVs, let's get this topic back to Model S specific news and info here, shall we?

 

[Firetruck41]

Don't forget: and in 2008 we will be able to lease the Honda Clarity FCEV.

 

[lorenfb]

The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people,

"Significant", really? And what data have you compiled that results in that conclusion? Could you in your data research
have possibly over looked the meager conversion rate from ICEVs, i.e. the poor overall BEV growth rate over the last
few years.

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority
of present day ICEV consumers.

 

[Stoaty]

"Significant", really? And what data have you compiled that results in that conclusion? Could you in your data research
have possibly over looked the meager conversion rate from ICEVs, i.e. the poor overall BEV growth rate over the last
few years.

Patience, grasshopper.

 

[WetEV]

"Significant", really? And what data have you compiled that results in that conclusion? Could you in your data research have possibly over looked the meager conversion rate from ICEVs, i.e. the poor overall BEV growth rate over the last few years.

The usual time frame for a technological change to become fully implemented is about 50 years. A decade of sub 1% market share is likely.

 

[rcm4453]

The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people,

"Significant", really? And what data have you compiled that results in that conclusion? Could you in your data research
have possibly over looked the meager conversion rate from ICEVs, i.e. the poor overall BEV growth rate over the last
few years.

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority
of present day ICEV consumers.

Slow consumer adoption of BEVs has nothing to do with BEVs not being a good choice for many of them. There's been enough research done that proves a 110 mile BEV would make a great commuter car for many people. Most people don't like change, they stick with what they know and they know ICEVs. There are other factors as well such as price, low gasoline prices, lack of advertising, lack of understanding (I still get people asking me how much gas I use in my Leaf). Like any new tech it's just a time thing.

 

[GRA]

The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people,

"Significant", really? And what data have you compiled that results in that conclusion? Could you in your data research
have possibly over looked the meager conversion rate from ICEVs, i.e. the poor overall BEV growth rate over the last
few years.

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority
of present day ICEV consumers.

Slow consumer adoption of BEVs has nothing to do with BEVs not being a good choice for many of them. There's been enough research done that proves a 110 mile BEV would make a great commuter car for many people. Most people don't like change, they stick with what they know and they know ICEVs. There are other factors as well such as price, low gasoline prices, lack of advertising, lack of understanding (I still get people asking me how much gas I use in my Leaf). Like any new tech it's just a time thing.

Which was exactly the point lorenfb was making. Until the _average_ person sees some compelling reason (to them) to switch, they won't because they find ICEs satisficing (a compound of satisfactory and suffice, a term invented by Herbert A. Simon to describe something that's good enough that it's not worth it for most people to put in the effort to look for the optimum. Or, as the wiki puts it:

In decision making, satisficing refers to the use of Aspiration levels when choosing from different paths of action. By this account, decision-makers select the first option that meets a given need or select the option that seems to address most needs rather than the "optimal" solution.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing.

 

[rcm4453]

"Significant", really? And what data have you compiled that results in that conclusion? Could you in your data research
have possibly over looked the meager conversion rate from ICEVs, i.e. the poor overall BEV growth rate over the last
few years.

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority
of present day ICEV consumers.

Slow consumer adoption of BEVs has nothing to do with BEVs not being a good choice for many of them. There's been enough research done that proves a 110 mile BEV would make a great commuter car for many people. Most people don't like change, they stick with what they know and they know ICEVs. There are other factors as well such as price, low gasoline prices, lack of advertising, lack of understanding (I still get people asking me how much gas I use in my Leaf). Like any new tech it's just a time thing.

Which was exactly the point lorenfb was making. Until the _average_ person sees some compelling reason (to them) to switch, they won't because they find ICEs satisficing (a compound of satisfactory and suffice, a term invented by Hebert A. Simon to describe something that's good enough that it's not worth it for most people to put in the effort to look for the optimum. Or, as the wiki puts it:

In decision making, satisficing refers to the use of Aspiration levels when choosing from different paths of action. By this account, decision-makers select the first option that meets a given need or select the option that seems to address most needs rather than the "optimal" solution.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing.

That's not what I got from his post, he doesn't agree that BEVs are a good choice for a significant amount of people. That statement is wrong as technically speaking a BEV would work just fine for many people. I do agree with you about compound of satisfactory and suffice as well as the other factors I listed above. My point is that BEVs are suitable for many people and that's not the reason for the slow adoption rate.

 

[lorenfb]

That's not what I got from his post, he doesn't agree that BEVs are a good choice for a significant amount of people.

That's not what I implied! Please re-read.

 

[rcm4453]

That's not what I got from his post, he doesn't agree that BEVs are a good choice for a significant amount of people.

That's not what I implied! Please re-read.

Well then you misunderstood what WetEV was saying when he said: "The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people." He's not saying a significant number of people are buying them right now. Your comment is about the slow adoption, not whether BEVs are a good choice for many people, two different things. I agree with you and GRA about the reasons for slow adoption but it doesn't change the fact that BEVs are still a good choice for a significant number of people.

Get it?!? I sure hope so....

 

[GRA]

That's not what I got from his post, he doesn't agree that BEVs are a good choice for a significant amount of people.

That's not what I implied! Please re-read.

Well then you misunderstood what WetEV was saying when he said: "The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people." He's not saying a significant number of people are buying them right now. Your comment is about the slow adoption, not whether BEVs are a good choice for many people, two different things. I agree with you and GRA about the reasons for slow adoption but it doesn't change the fact that BEVs are still a good choice for a significant number of people.

Get it?!? I sure hope so....

I don't think he misunderstood WetEV at all, he was pointing out that whether or not WetEV thought they would be a good choice for a significant number of people was irrelevant, as clearly most of those people don't agree that it would be a good choice for them given their different priorities (values), which is why he wrote

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority of present day ICEV consumers.

Hopefully, all misunderstanding has now been cleared up, and we can get back to talking about the Model S specifically.

 

[rcm4453]

That's not what I implied! Please re-read.

Well then you misunderstood what WetEV was saying when he said: "The point is that BEVs are a good choice for a significant number of people." He's not saying a significant number of people are buying them right now. Your comment is about the slow adoption, not whether BEVs are a good choice for many people, two different things. I agree with you and GRA about the reasons for slow adoption but it doesn't change the fact that BEVs are still a good choice for a significant number of people.

Get it?!? I sure hope so....

I don't think he misunderstood WetEV at all, he was pointing out that whether or not WetEV thought they would be a good choice for a significant number of people was irrelevant, as clearly most of those people don't agree that it would be a good choice for them given their different priorities (values), which is why he wrote

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority of present day ICEV consumers.

Hopefully, all misunderstanding has now been cleared up, and we can get back to talking about the Model S specifically.

Well I'm talking about being a good choice on a pure utility level (would meet their daily driving needs as a commuter car). Just because people aren't adopting them doesn't mean they're not "CAPABLE" of fulfilling many peoples' needs. Many of the reasons people aren't adopting them have nothing to do the vehicle not being capable. That's the only point I was trying to make.

 

[GRA]

I don't think he misunderstood WetEV at all, he was pointing out that whether or not WetEV thought they would be a good choice for a significant number of people was irrelevant, as clearly most of those people don't agree that it would be a good choice for them given their different priorities (values), which is why he wrote

You, as do most on this forum, view BEV acceptance from your perceived values and NOT those of the majority of present day ICEV consumers.

Hopefully, all misunderstanding has now been cleared up, and we can get back to talking about the Model S specifically.

Well I'm talking about being a good choice on a pure utility level (would meet their daily driving needs as a commuter car). Just because people aren't adopting them doesn't mean they're not "CAPABLE" of fulfilling many peoples' needs. Many of the reasons people aren't adopting them have nothing to do the vehicle not being capable. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Sure, and Loren and I agree. I've got a friend who could, given a bit of work around* replace one of the family cars with a Gen 1 BEV now, for his or his wife's commute. I've mentioned it to him. Is he willing to give up his 4Runner, or his wife her 330i? As the NRA types like to say, you'll have to pry the steering wheels from their cold, dead fingers. Does he need the capabilites of his 4Runner? I tease him because he's owned it for 15 years and put it in 4WD once, to exit a muddy parking lot. He's never been on a jeep trail with it, but he's got heavy steel brush guards front and rear that worsen his handling and mpg, because 'they look cool'. He gets 18-20 mpg and he's perfectly happy with it, because it does everything he wants it to do at a price he can easily afford. His priorities are far more representative of the general public's than are the typical EV forum's members.


*Sometimes they both make road trips to different places at the same time, as when he and I go up to the mountains on a weekend and she takes their daughter and drives 200+ miles to visit her sister, but we could usually take my Forester on such weekends. If we're biking it's better to use the 4Runner, because he's got a hitch rack and I have to put them on the roof, which drops my mpg down to about the same as the 4Runner, and is a lot less convenient