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

$4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#231

Post by EngineerBetter »

realusername wrote: post #220
aquadrop wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's because Tesla was they one who started actively pushing world in this direction. You can buy this Renault Zoe now probably in large part because of Tesla. Also, Tesla is one of the rare electric cars that looks good, it seems other manufacturers are trying visually separate hybrid/electric from regular cars, and don't give them same design.

I think that's the opposite, Renault was making consumer market electric cars before Tesla (and more accessible as well).

Totally agree. There's no way I could've afforded a Tesla when we got the Zoe, four years ago. Including the battery rental the Zoe was £225/month, with a first payment of £5,000.

I've only been able to get the Model X because I've been irresponsible with money, and because we IT folk get paid more than we're worth to society.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#232

Post by overcast »

apexalpha wrote: post #190
overcast wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a month traveling ALL of India last year. In the immediate cities sure. But go outside to the "highways", and it's like Mad Max out there. Seriously. Everyone is hauling ass on no lane roads, passing each other constantly into oncoming traffic. Also NO ONE wears seat belts. I had to demand them in cars that were picking me up. Usually they were either disconnected, or hiding away never used. It's terrifying.

You did an entire (sub)continent in one month? Did you spend all your time on the road/tracks?

Chennai, Pondicherry, Bangalore, Mumbai, Jaipur, Pushkar, Delhi, Noida, Kolkata, and just about every road in between.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#233

Post by gibberfish »

jdavis703 wrote: post #152
swimfar wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing fatalities per 100k people seems like a pretty useless statistic when we're talking about safety standards. If you look at fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles it's 12.9 compared to 130. So 10x as much. An even better statistic to use would be fatalities per 1 billion vehicle miles. But that data isn't available for India.

Non-motorized transportation options aren't counted in vehicle miles. So accidents involving pedastrians, bicycles and other bystanders would skew this some. Since car accidents don't just hurt other motorists it's useful to measure this against the total population.

Also, looking at accidents per distance driven hides hides the fact that more time spent on the road is a societal choice that also leads to more fatalities.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#234

Post by masklinn »

rihegher wrote: post #215
EngineerBetter wrote: post #177

Kinda off-topic: I own a Renault Zoe, which is an EV hatchback that you can get second-hand for about £4k, and also a Tesla Model X 90D. People get far too excited by Tesla's brand, when there are really competitive EVs out there. Feel free to AMA about EVs or how mine compare.

At that price I'm pretty sure the battery is not sold with it, which means you need to pay a rent subscription for it. In France this rent monthly cost for a ZOE battery is about 50 euros a month

AFAIK you need to rent the Zoe battery either way.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#235

Post by aquadrop »

realusername wrote: post #220
aquadrop wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's because Tesla was they one who started actively pushing world in this direction. You can buy this Renault Zoe now probably in large part because of Tesla. Also, Tesla is one of the rare electric cars that looks good, it seems other manufacturers are trying visually separate hybrid/electric from regular cars, and don't give them same design.

I think that's the opposite, Renault was making consumer market electric cars before Tesla (and more accessible as well).

I don't think this is true (not the accessible part of course). Renault started to sell Zoe in 2012, Tesla Roadster was selling for 4 years at that time and Tesla Inc was releasing new model. I don't say that Tesla single handedly pushed electric cars forward, but it draw a lot of attention to it, like Toyota Prius sparked attention to hybrid cars before that. Before 2010 electric car was treated mostly as a freaky concepts and sales were almost non-existent.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#237

Post by arprocter »

abawany wrote: post #141
arprocter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 190 in 80s India probably cost quite a bit more than the equivalent of $4k

That's not the point I was making. I am saying that the design principles of good design, especially for safety, should be well known now that decades have passed. Two additional points: 1. Can a 190 of that vintage be had for $4k now? IMO, that is a better investment than the Renault. 2. Could a car company license to build that 190 in India now at a low cost? That would have saved a lot of the design cost and provi…

Safer normally means heavier. I'm not sure of fuel costs in India, but this Renault has a 800cc engine

1 is true, but I assume the Renault will have a warranty, dealer support etc

2 I'd doubt it. Older Mercs were over engineered (the last of which was the w124) - it's not rare to still see them today, whereas other marques from the era are in scrapyards

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#238

Post by ceejayoz »

abawany wrote: post #142
gozur88 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine if they could make a $4k car that's as safe as what you find in the US and Europe they would be sold in the US and Europe.

I have a hard time imagining that 6k of the remaining cost (a basic car in the US can be had at $10k) would be because of a decent safety standard. I am curious to know how much more than $4k this Renault would be if they had spent a little time designing a safer passenger cell.

Safety requirements will easily hit that. Replacing airbags alone after an accident costs $3-5k. The crash test videos posted up-thread show there's a lot more than just airbags lacking, too.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#239

Post by unethical_ban »

F2 wrote: post #60
unethical_ban wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put a 2017 Nissan Versa against a 2017 Harley Davidson. They're both allowed on the road. I've wondered if less safe vehicles (lighter, cheaper, smaller) could be made and required NOT to be on high speed roadways (above 45mph, freeways, etc.), or just have the US admit their regs are too strenuous.

Did you know you can buy baby formula in third world countries for a fraction of the price here? All because evil regulations make companies make use actual safe ingredients and manufacturing practices. When will this big government madness end. When will the US admit their regs are too strenuous so we can finally buy our cut rate industrial runoff baby formula in peace.

Your comment isn't up to HN standards, and it also misses the point. We already allow two-wheeled death machines on freeways, and we allow people to ride them without helmets, and we allow children to ride as passengers.

Your sarcasm would have made a valid point if modern sedans were the low bar in vehicular safety in the US.

Re: $4k Renault compared to Tesla Model 3

#240

Post by kerbalspacepro »

dx034 wrote: post #191
renaudg wrote: post #132

Anyone else feeling slightly uneasy with the exciting and "disruptive" plan of ushering a population of 1.3 billion into the glorious era of the fossil-fuelled car ? Seems exactly what the world needs right now.

Just because the "developed" world has already brought us 90% to irreversible damage doesn't mean that we should deny cars to people who couldn't afford them previously. I'm sure that those cars will be sold as EVs as soon as that's feasible. Meanwhile countries that have the money could probably do more to reduce emissions. India's efforts to reduce emissions (i.e. increase them less) look extremely ambitions given…

I'm pretty sure that being brought up to 90%* irreversible damage is actually a perfectly legitimate reason to deny cars to people who couldn't afford them previously.
Post reply on HN