- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
From the article: “About a decade ago, Tesla rigged the dashboard readouts in its electric cars to provide “rosy” projections of how far owners can drive before needing to recharge, a source told Reuters. The automaker last year became so inundated with driving-range complaints that it created a special team to cancel owners’ service appointments.”
You must log in or # to comment.
And no one was ever surprised, except for people stupid enough to buy anything from Muskmelon in the first place.
My Tesla never ever got close to the advertised range. Usually 200 miles a charge. I went back to an ICE.
If you have no life a PHEV is the best of both worlds. I went all of COVID without ever getting gas because I was able to just use the battery. And PHEVs have been increasing in range too. I got mine in 2019 and it only has 26 miles range, but the RAV4 prime gets 42 now. Maybe there is even something better, haven’t really been paying attention cause I don’t need a new car.
Nah. The world’s burning; going back to build more fires ain’t the way.
(Edited as I no can grammar)
Lithium mining is very bad for the planet. ICEs are bad, but battery EVs are also horrible.
What happens to lithium after it’s mined? What happens to oil after it’s mined?
There’s no comparing how much worse ICEs are compared to EVs.
The problem is no what happens to lithium afterwards. The problem is what the environmental cost of getting the lithium out of the earth.
But once it’s out, it’s out. It can then be recycled and reused “forever”.
You extract oil once and burn it once; then that carbon is stuck in the atmosphere “forever”. Now you have to extract more oil and do it all over again.
That’s the big difference, EVs don’t consume lithium; they borrow it.
That’s not how recycling works.
Most recycling today is PR anyway. Recycled stuff gets dumped into some poor third world country.
The solution is trains
For most people, including most city dwellers, trains are indeed the correct solution.
US rural settlements were built on train lines before cars destroyed that.
For most long range travel, trains are the solution.
Exactly.
I have two sets of tracks in my city, one that’s used as a commuter rail, and the other which is currently unused but connects to a light rail network (about 10 miles away). That unused rail connects about 500k people, and eventually connects to a commuter rail in two places (one about 15 miles south w/ a university, another about 20 miles north w/ a hospital), and goes through a blue collar job areas, residential areas, and white collar job areas, with downtown areas for shopping shopping along the way. The existing rail goes by a major league stadium, shopping district, and later a hospital, with connections to other lines.
The commuter rail takes ~2 hours to get to my office because of awkward transfers. If they moved a bus line to that station, my commute would drop to ~1hr. Or if they extended the light rail on existing tracks, my commute would be ~1hr and I would use it for shopping and recreation as well.
But because they don’t do either, I drive ~30 min to get to work. I would take the train if it was only 1hr.
Instead of building out along this existing rail, they built a new light rail line that only connects one hipster community (maybe 100k people) that cost the same more or as extending the light rail to my area. I just don’t understand the priorities I guess.
And bikes or PEVs for short range travel.
PEVs are kind of a trap though.
ICE cars are not just problematic because of their emissions, they do much worse things with their infrastructure requirements. Roads and parking that can support everyone driving their car alone everywhere results in sprawl. That makes everyone not in a car have to get in a car as well, and also increases infrastructure costs for other services, since they have to service a much larger area.
Cars have their place, but in an ideal world, a regular family regardless of where they live shouldn’t need one. It’s not a personal mobility solution. Taxies and stuff make sense, everyone sitting in their own car doesn’t.
And this is not even counting that car accidents are a leading cause of fatalities because we give a licence to everyone with a pulse.
Good for you. EVs have a place in most households for quick trips and short errands. But that’s it. They have a huge set of issues that the anti ICE car brigade don’t wish to discuss. Face it, batteries are not a viable way to power the vehicles we all rely on and enjoy driving. Maybe as a second vehicle, yes but forget some big takeover. It’s so stupid.
I can’t be the only one who read this and wondered what problems Teslas were causing to golf courses.
why? I don’t get it.
In golf you start a long way from the hole, so when you first start a hole you’re probably not trying to make it exactly, you’re just trying to get the ball to go a long way to get near the hole. That’s known as a drive. A driving range is a place to practice doing that.
Elon pulling numbers (which happen to be what the markets want) out of thin site is nothing new. Delivery time of cyber truck? Price points?
He, like jobs before him, has morphed from a brilliant engineer to ruthless marketer. And like jobs before him justifies it versus his internal stunted moral compass
Appreciate him for fostering the electric car economy, admire his work ethic (space x), but hate the guy
Except he never was a brilliant engineer, he was fired for engineering incompetence at one point, and he’s been lying about having an engineering degree.
Both electric cars and spacex are government subsidized industries. He’s not competing on the free market. Elon excels at getting the government to make his business for him.
He’s not competing on the free market.
Those subsidies are exclusively available only to Elon’s companies?
Come on, he’s a massive douche; but Tesla/SpaceX are in the same market as all their competitors. They’re not special, they just chose to do things others weren’t. Why didn’t GM build BEVs sooner to suck up all those subsidies? Why didn’t ULA land their boosters to reduce launch costs and secure more launch contacts and grants?
All I am saying is that he built Tesla and SpaceX with government (taxpayer) money.
And that’s a bad thing? Isn’t the entire purpose of that government money to spur development? Seems like it is working as intended then?
There’s no shortage of reasons to hate Elon, but using government subsidies for their intended purpose seems like a strange one.
Yes it’s bad. Competing for market share should be balanced and free of government intervention. How does a company (small or large) hope to compete against a company that is being subsidised.
Tesla can then undercut their competitors as they don’t need to make a profit. They’re subsidiesed.
Then the government has also imposed regulations for car manufacturers, that if they don’t sell enough EVs in the year, they have to pay a penalty by buying carbon credits.
Well Tesla sells those carbon credits. So they can undercut their competition, entice consumers with lower prices and recoup the losses through subsidies and selling these credits. All thanks to government intervention.
Basically screwing competition and screwing you. As these have knock on effects.
Those other companies can qualify for the same subsidies. Sometimes it’s a first mover advantage (subsidies change over time), and sometimes it’s not. But AFAIK, Tesla and SpaceX don’t get any subsidies that other companies couldn’t qualify for. Maybe there are some that foreign companies can’t get, but that’s not unique to the US (see AirBus vs Boeing).
That said, I’m generally against subsidies. For example, I think the EV subsidies have essentially just changed into additional profit margin. Look at what happened to Tesla Model Y prices when subsidies changed, it basically dropped by the amount of the subsidy reduction. If we removed EV rebates today, I think car companies would drop prices by about that much, which means those rebates are essentially pure profit. I don’t think that’s the case for SpaceX though, but I don’t know enough about that industry to know for sure.
Thanks for saying what I was trying to say.
I think the EV subsidies have essentially just changed into additional profit margin.
I would probably say that was their purpose from the beginning. Companies aren’t going to do something unless there is profit to be made. The subsidies exist to create that profit.
Now you could say that manufacturers are charging more and the customers are paying more because they know part of the cost will be reimbursed with the subsidies. But that doesn’t seem sustainable for long, because all it take is one manufacturer to start dropping prices to attract customers. Then everyone would drop prices to match. We weren’t really seeing that previously because everything was supply constrained. But now we seem to be seeing that happen with Tesla at least, they’ve been dropping prices in the USA recently.
