Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#181

Post by andersen1488 »

vinay427 wrote: post #91
andersen1488 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chinese aren't buying Teslas because they want clean air even if they should Neither is anyone else. People buy Teslas because they are the best car money can buy.

>People buy Teslas because they are the best car money can buy. I can't imagine you can make a valid case that there is one best car that money can buy, presumably for everyone who can afford one.

The safest vehicle (not just cars, any vehicle) ever tested by the IIHS, and the highest aggregated reviews of any car ever seem to agree with me.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#182

Post by naveen99 »

dionidium wrote: post #153
ams6110 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never spend more than $10K on a car.

Throughout this thread I've argued that most people do not spend $40k on a car. That really shouldn't be controversial, since it's easily verified. If you want controversial, here you go: a lot of people in this thread own cars that cost $40k and up on a salary that doesn't justify it. They think they can justify it. Everyone is telling them they can afford it. Their friends all have similar salaries and similar cars…

Agree should spend less on cars, but you also need a dependable and honest mechanic who won't milk you on a used car.

Also is driving for Uber really good financial advice ?

And why do people use gross income. Should use net income. It's not like you can deduct your car on taxes.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#183

Post by agumonkey »

forgetsusername wrote: post #106
agumonkey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying not to be too much of a fan boy I smiled at the fact that, on its way to develop EV market recognition and infrastructure they made cars that topped anything else in safety and speed. 'if you want to have EV, all you have to do is buy the best cars we just made' kind of.

> that topped anything else in safety and speed. In what sense? Look at European NCAP safety ratings; the Model S is great, but certainly didn't "top anything else". There are quite a few cars with better overall safety ratings. And speed? Good acceleration, sure. But not faster than anything else. Top speed either. Where does this myth originate?

Maybe I forgot and it was the US standards that had to recalibrate but it was said in a few articles that Model S was above the highest ratings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S#Safety But I now read that there was a rebuttal ..

For speed I meant the 0 to 100km/h, but anyway you're right, not the fastest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car... , only number 6. Maybe seeing it faster than a McLaren made me assume it was number one.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#184

Post by osweiller »

talmand wrote: post #179
osweiller wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your original post. The statement that everyone apparently isn't understanding right- One minor counter to this is that you shouldn't get too caught up in the hype about this being a mass-produced car. HN and tech journalism is a bit of a bubble. Normal people do not spend $35-40k on a car. You are moving the goal posts around to somehow derive a win through some simply wrong statements. That's hardly uncommon,…

>> elsewhere you twisted it to not only somehow claim that these people aren't "normal", but also that people who buy a more expensive car are wrong and shouldn't be doing it anyways Um, just wow. I find it hilarious that you seem incapable of understanding you are talking about new cars while dionidium is talking about used cars. And then you go off the rails with some strange conspiracy theory about dionidium label…

Conspiracy theory?

"Normal people do not spend $35-40k on a car."

That is dionidium's phrasing, and you're throwing slurs at me? Really?

"you seem incapable of understanding you are talking about new cars while dionidium is talking about used cars"

In a conversation that can only be about new cars, in a discussion that was about mass production (wait..were they talking about the mass production of used cars?)

EDIT: I realize now that talmand is simply a troll, and I apologize for biting.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#185

Post by talmand »

osweiller wrote: post #184
talmand wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> elsewhere you twisted it to not only somehow claim that these people aren't "normal", but also that people who buy a more expensive car are wrong and shouldn't be doing it anyways Um, just wow. I find it hilarious that you seem incapable of understanding you are talking about new cars while dionidium is talking about used cars. And then you go off the rails with some strange conspiracy theory about dionidium label…

Conspiracy theory? "Normal people do not spend $35-40k on a car." That is dionidium's phrasing, and you're throwing slurs at me? Really? "you seem incapable of understanding you are talking about new cars while dionidium is talking about used cars" In a conversation that can only be about new cars, in a discussion that was about mass production (wait..were they talking about the mass production of used cars?) EDIT: I…

Wow.

I see you didn't reflect upon yourself. You really need to stop projecting. I suspect you are just having fun with us.

Normal people do not spend that much money on a car, new or used.

I would have to assume that all used cars were mass-produced at some point in the past, or were all used cars hand manufactured?

>> If you have nothing to add, maybe keep your nonsense to yourself.

Oh, yeah, you're just having fun at our expense.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#186

Post by koenigdavidmj »

illumin8 wrote: post #122
jacquesm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're buying them because they're better cars. Faster, quieter, more fun to drive, filled with the latest technology. EV's are great for a number of use cases but they are not even close to a viable option for many uses of ICE's at the present. No doubt this will change but even if a Tesla is a 'better car' than my daily driver 'Faster', 'Quieter', 'more fun to drive' and 'filled with the latest technology' do no…

Yet again, you're parroting the "I can fill my ICE vehicle in What was the range of the first ICE vehicle I bought on a tank of gas? 300 miles. What's the range of the Tesla model S? Also 300 miles. For most consumers, they will actually spend less time waiting for fuel, since the Tesla charges in your garage at night while you're otherwise occupied, and an ICE vehicle requires you to wait in freezing outside tempera…

That gets you commuting to work and driving around your city, for which a Nissan Leaf is already perfectly adequate. It doesn't get you long-distance road trips.

Not sure if this is still planned, but at one point the intention was to have automated stations that would pull off your battery and replace it with a freshly-charged one, which should take about the same time as a gas station stop.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#187

Post by knodi123 »

osweiller wrote: post #172
knodi123 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not lose track of what started the conversation. It was somebody saying "the median family spends nowhere near that on a car". That's what we're discussing. That the amount people pay for a car, is less than what people pay for a new car. That's the only point I leapt in to defend, and if you're arguing with me against other points, then you're talking to the wrong guy. Look- the average number of arms for a te…

Now, you want to argue that among people who buy a new car, This conversation is specifically and only about new cars, in this case the Tesla Model 3. It is outrageous that you're implying that I'm the one diverting the conversation, when the very root post by dionidium was a completely irrelevant non-sequitur as they injected some completely irrelevant sociology bias into the conversation. If we were discussing the…

> This conversation is specifically and only about new cars

I understand that's certainly how you've been behaving. Despite several people trying to disabuse you of that notion.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#188

Post by vinay427 »

andersen1488 wrote: post #181
vinay427 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People buy Teslas because they are the best car money can buy. I can't imagine you can make a valid case that there is one best car that money can buy, presumably for everyone who can afford one.

The safest vehicle (not just cars, any vehicle) ever tested by the IIHS, and the highest aggregated reviews of any car ever seem to agree with me.

1. IIHS safety tests are certainly not comprehensive, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone at the IIHS who would claim so.

2. To match your claim, it would have to have the highest reviews on every publication/outlet.

I'm simply pointing out how vast your claim is that somehow every single car buyer who can afford one would want to buy one. Think about the luxury large SUV market, or the coupe market, or the exotic coupe market, or the super-luxury sedan market, etc.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#189

Post by shifter »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #73
fab13n wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given its artificial constraints. Given the lethality of air pollution in Beijing, I'm not sure it's fair to call "artificial" those emission-limiting constraints. Otherwise, you'll also have to call "artificial" the constraint that one can't shoot/knife/strangle people who go out of their ways to be pains in asses, however genuine and natural the urge might seem :-) Other than that, yes, China is likely to be a ve…

It is an artificial market constraint, Chinese aren't buying Teslas because they want clean air even if they should (debatable: perhaps the electricity for charging comes from coal that is dirtier than gasoline engines, at least the cars are checked for air quality, the coal plants aren't!). But I also agree it's a valid way of making the air cleaner if it would have an effect. BYD already produces electric cars that…

> perhaps the electricity for charging comes from coal that is dirtier than gasoline engines

Burning coal (especially when coupled with electric motors, which have efficiencies of 90%+) is more efficient than burning gasoline.

Re: The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (2006)

#190

Post by chillacy »

huuu wrote: post #44
Yaggo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because why would you use a lot of energy for sensors, insane mode, automatic doors, displays, computers, and so on? Signals electronics (displays, sensors, etc) use so little energy compared to power electronics (the drivetrain system) that it doesn't really matter.

It does matter. 1 W * 1,000,000 cars is still 1 MW. It's like saying a javascript file of 1MB is ok because there are images of 10MB on the same page.

An entry level model S has a ~360hp engine, so 0.2 MW

A million of those cars is 200,000 MW

Amdahl's law: when optimizing performance, target the largest consumer first. And in this case the engine is the largest, by at least 5 orders of magnitude

It would save much more electricity educating people to drive less aggressively and use less braking than to remove the sensors

Post reply on HN