Dropped cases mean that they really didn't have a shot in the first place. Impacts to sales? I'm going to note that Teslas have shown themselves to be extremely safe - the drivers all walked away from the 3 car fires the class action suit was about. The Autopilot death was one of a handful of deaths in a Tesla, and an interested buyer can simply tell themselves that that guy was being an idiot.
Somebody researching the car that might be turned off by those news items can look at the death rates for other vehicles on the road and note that they're all higher.
As for the Autopilot feature - Tesla has shielded themselves pretty well by labeling it as an alpha feature and not a true autopilot where you don't have to still monitor the vehicle. They also have live updates, so fixes can be deployed over the air.
Roughly speaking, after the car fires, Tesla stock took dips, but sales weren't actually affected, so the stock prices recovered.
Biofuel is stupid, you're consuming your food supply to drive cars, don't even get me started on Ethanol which is the dumbest idea ever...
Biofuel doesn't have to be from food sources- you have algae and cellulose based methods, for example. Turning corn into ethanol is stupid, I agree.
I'm willing to bet that more than 50% of all new cars and light trucks in 2100 are still gas powered...
Only if there's far, far less of them, because we'd have exhausted most of the reserves by then. At some point just growing the fuel becomes cheaper than trying to pump it out. Thus the biofuel idea. Of course, at the price point where biofuel is cheaper than dino-fuel, electric cars make sense as commuters.
Oh, and where did global warming come into this?
0.6% to 0.5% to 0.4% is not moving the goalposts, those are rounding errors...
They're huge when you consider the absolute number of EVs being sold. That's a 30% decline.
Even at the same price of gas cars, even if they had 500 miles of range, a majority of people still won't buy them...
I think just the opposite would happen then. At the same price as a 'comparable' gasoline car with 500 mile batteries I think that they'd sell like hotcakes.
At that point if charging time is still an issue we'd see battery swap stations.
Too many EV fans forget that human beings are human beings, and don't give a crap about your rational arguments. Want proof? Look at the 600,000+ F-150 pickup trucks sold each year, more than half to people who don't need a pickup truck whatsoever...
Actually, I think there's some very good reasons that people buy those trucks, and they're not always obvious.
1. Tax benefits and EPA regulations: The vehicles are actually cheaper for their feature set.
2. Ride height. My family includes a number of members that aren't quite as spry as they used to be. To be frank, I have several members who find climbing out of a modern car to be difficult, but climbing into a truck(or SUV) to be far easier. Ergo, they're driving trucks and SUVs despite no 'need'.
They may be in different market categories, but they solve precisely the same transportation problem,
Roughly speaking, perhaps. You're forgetting the luxury and performance parts I think. The performance of Teslas are quite insane in short races - they peak quickly, but they reach that peak insanely fast. Stuff like beating a race car while towing said race car:
(okay, so it's a Tesla model X, not a S)
The S 90D w/ 19" rims (not sure precisely where that stands in the Tesla lineup)
It's their premium non-performance car. The 90 means that it has a 90kWh battery, and the lack of a "P" means that it's not a performance edition, which is a little less efficient, but much more powerful. The D means that it's all wheel drive.
They're getting ready to come out with 100kWh batteries, which would be designated with model numbers like "S 100D", "S P100D"
The reason why the S70 would take longer is that the 70kWh battery isn't capable of taking a charge as quickly as a 90. Also, if I remember right, it only has half the internal chargers of the 85 and up models, which also limits the speed at which it can charge.
Eh, here's the ultimate deal, I think: Tesla has developed battery swap technology where you drive over the system and it swaps your battery for a fully charged unit(and can put a larger battery on to boot, so it can take off a 70kWh battery and put in a 90kWh one for your long drive), in ~90 seconds. However, among actual owners not enough interest has materialized to get Tesla to install them. They'd prefer to use the free superchargers than pay for a battery swap.
My uses for a car are infrequent trips to places nearby (Dr, dentist, etc) and long road trips,
That's fine. Not everybody takes long road trips.
With more self driving features, the 'must be 21' will probably go away, and I mentioned car-sharing services for a reason. Hell, that's how USAA got started - car insurers wouldn't issue insurance to Army Officers, so said officers ended up forming an insurance cooperative to have insurance to drive around. The company ended up expanding to be both a cooperative insurance company and a credit union.
Same sort of deal could happen with college students. We're probably looking at 25 years for this sort of stuff - 10-15 years for such cars to actually come out(or for EVs to become seriously common), plus the 10-15 year average lifespan of automobiles today.
As for can't afford the EV - lots of college students don't have cars period, and there's always the used market.
I know we all want cool automation, but just like Tesla is seeing the litigators won't let it happen. Fix laws and maybe.
I'm seeing 1 settled lawsuit, 1 class action, and 1 'possibly liable' over the autopilot death.
What I'm not seeing more lawsuits than I'd expect against any given company. The site that mentioned the class action said that it's almost certainly going to be tossed out in court, because it's tying stock price declines after news that a Tesla car had caught fire. 3 cars in total, all 3 after serious collisions. It's alleging securities fraud because Tesla didn't disclose that the battery pack could be pierced by road debris and catch fire, despite honestly getting the highest safety ratings*, and the news of such supposedly depressed sales which might of cost those who purchased securities money.
*Which aren't actually about the car at all, but survivability for the people IN the car.
No, it isn't... And FEWER were sold in 2015 than in 2014... Not a lot fewer, but it was fewer...
You're getting a lot of exercise hauling those goalposts around.
And what happened in 2015? LOWER GAS PRICES. Doesn't counterdict my statement that EVs sell better when gas prices are high.
If you don't replace gas car sales, then who gives a crap about EVs? The whole damm point is to stop burning gas, if you don't do that, EVs don't mean anything.
They do replace gas car sales, just not at a significant rate right now. However, if you keep improving range and reducing cost by about 2% a year, we'll start seeing EVs ramping up.
I fully expect in the year 2100 we will still see gas cars being sold new. I think the problem is much, much bigger than you think it is...
To be honest, I'd be happy to just see the year 2100, and yes, I'd see gas cars being sold new then as well. I just see them as being special purpose at that point, and they might be biofueled rather than petrol.
1. Used Passats and Teslas are in different market categories.
2. Your trip is 800 miles, which is closer to 1300 km, not 1000 km in my reply to the original poster. That means another charge, so yeah, 3 charging stops, 1.5 hours of charging. Why the site has you using 4 chargers over 3 hours, I don't know. Also, it's 3 hours of charging on the site, not 4, and I already mentioned integrating breaks into it.
That being said, it looks like the superchargers are 200 miles apart and assumes longer charge times.
Just driving inland on the eastern side of Australia.The towns are in the range 100km to 150km apart.
Try driving through areas where the gas stations are ~200 miles apart... Yes, there are signs 'fill up NOW'. I've driven through a number. (Alaska, Canada, North Dakota, Texas).
When I head south 230km would get me to a town with the next town a further 130km. Do the 30 minute charge then the next town to stop at is again 230km as 300km would not get to the next town after that. With the next charge a possible 110km down the road
230+130+230+110=700km, not 1000 km.
It looks like you're forgetting that the totals here are 500 km starting/maximum range and charging is 300km in 30 minutes(slowing after that). You're not actually restricted to precisely 300km of recharge in 30 minutes. So you might or might not get 400km in 40 minutes. More likely if you're running near empty. IE to reach 500 km range from 200 km range will take longer than reaching 400km from 100 km. 100km to 400km is the 30 minute charge. Start at 40km left? That first 60km should take less than 6 extra minutes.
230+130=460km. Drive to the second town, fill up. Probably want to spend a bit more than exactly 30 minutes there. ~400 km range after charge. We're out of stated driving distances...
Anyways, the goal should be that, while keeping a safety margin, you simply stop long enough until you hit the sweet spot between getting the fast charge and how far you can stretch to reach the next charge point.
So if a 36 minute charge gets you to the next charge point, you hang around for the extra 6 minutes. If a 24 minute charge gets you to a charge point but the next charger is another 30 minutes charge away due to having to get over 400km in the battery, then you leave a bit earlier. Or if you're enjoying lunch, you gain more margin, because why not?
With the initial charge you mentioned and planing for the 30 minute stops it would be doable with stops needing to be more planned than "i want a break lets stop here".
Depends on you. You're unlikely to want to stop on a full charge(when you first started driving), so as long as you stop and top off your vehicle at the same time, you should be good.
Another thing I thought of - part of the reason for stopping is because sitting for long periods isn't good for you, so multiple drivers, short of a larger vehicle where the passengers can stretch their legs, shouldn't actually speed things up too much as the passengers need breaks as well.
To convert back to US measurements, 300 miles at 60 mph(average) = 5 hours, which is about the time between meals anyways.
Once down to wanting the 30 min for 300km charges would be stopping in as little as 230km to charge. Starting with a full charge would stop to charge 3 times. Starting with a 30 minute charge would stop to charge 4 times. Making it a 2 day trip instead of 1 day would save 1 charge later in the trip at the cost of a motel room for the night.
First, I always assume starting a long drive with a full battery. Hell, I do that with gasoline vehicles - I top off as I'm leaving town.
Second, it looks like you're disregarding that you have roughly 100km of flex in charging locations, and that's before you figure that you can just spend a little more time in one location to avoid an additional stop. Oh, and that if you add stops you remove the need for the stops to be 30 minutes.
It was a round trip of 28km to the local shop for the bottle of vegemite I got the other day. For those trips an electric car with a range of a few hundred km would not think twice.
Nope, which is actually the reason why EVs could replace 90% of vehicles on the road today - because your trip is unusual.
Oh, here's another way to look at it: If we get all the city-dwellers to switch over to EVs, that means more liquid fuel for those of us who live out in the country! Cheaper gasoline for us! Stop trying to stop me from convincing them to buy EVs!
No they don't, they don't sell well at all...
Goalpost shift. I said they sell better. I didn't say compared to what else, so it's compared to themselves, not up against gasoline vehicles.
There seems to be this expectation that EV sales MUST rise and MUST replace gas cars. There is no assurance that it will ever happen. It might, but a number of things would have to change for that to happen.
Not really. Just 1 thing needs to change: Cheap oil, and therefore cheap gasoline/diesel. That's it. Improved and cheaper batteries have helped.
Price is the first issue, range is the second, and places to charge everywhere is the third.
I agree with you on the first, but I'd swap your next two, with the caveat that I place it that way in that if you fix the first, the range will be fixed as well - Teslas have the necessary range. Fix their price, and the remaining problem is recharge availability. Which most people won't need on a routine basis if they can charge at home and/or work.
On the cables - well, you want to get pedantic they're carrying low voltage electricity, but under 48V, just for signalling. Still, hard to kill you with that, though you always have the idiot who managed to fatally electrocute himself with a 9V battery.
None of which have batteries. Or need routine energy top-ups by their users.
At least the RV probably has batteries in it. And they're designed to be plugged in when stopped.
As for topoffs - cell phones, tablets, cars(gasoline, which can be more dangerous than electricity), lawn mowers, etc...
No, they really aren't... people just tell themselves that to feel better about the emotional purchase they have already decided to make...
No, people actually do the math and figure out that, then don't buy the EV. When it comes to 'economical', 'close' doesn't cut it.
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
If they're uneconomical they're uneconomical. 'close' merely means that you check again next year rather than 5 years down the road.
First, it assumes supercharger stations are available for all the drive, and it then further assumes they are optimally positioned for the journey of the day.
1: Why are you repeating one of my suppositions? I'll repeat: " let's say this is moderately in the future and you're looking at a Tesla class vehicle, where the only real difference is that they're now cheaper and superchargers are common."
2: Optimally placed: There's roughly 100 km of flex built into the given scenario for the charging stations. The only reason it's not 200km is that you really need to get the EV down to at most 100km of range before you can get the really fast charge. IE you could stop after driving 300 km, but you're not going to get 300km of range in 30 minutes due to it charging slower the more charged it is.
3. Neither is likely to be true - Now, but as I posited in the "moderately in the future" scenario, it could be.
I suspect this (and maybe price) is why there is at least 10% that such vehicles won't presently work for.
First and second paragraph. Already stated.
In reality the above scenario would tack probably 90 minutes to the already long drive and would further restrict the routes that could be driven.
Already acknowledged. I was just saying that it's likely possible, with current technology, for the guy to make his drive without significant extra time, and if it DOES take him extra time, it's probably because he's not taking proper rest stops for maximum safety. What's lacking is infrastructure.
Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him. - Fyodor Dostoevski