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

2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

automobilemag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 286 posts

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#211

Post by ryanhuff »

matthewaustin wrote: post #200
freehunter wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The only argument? How about my family lives 575 miles away from me, and even with the ideal 250 mile range of a $100k Model S I would still need to add at least an hour and a half to my already 10 hour one-way trip when I visit them a few times per year? Meanwhile my $5,000, 14-year-old Toyota might only get 20mpg, but the tank holds 350 miles of fuel and I only need to refill once (rather than thrice) durin…

Congratulations - you are the 1% who this model fails for. The rest of us will be just fine, since 99% of us don't travel more than 250 miles a day. And for the couple times a year we need to take road trips, we can rent a luxury sedan with the money we've saved on fuel costs.

Isn't the 250 miles a max range, assuming ideal driving conditions? Also, as the car ages, will the battery range erode significantly? If its similar to consumer rechargeable battery technology, should we expect that the 250 mile range will be closer to 150 miles with "typical" driving behavior and after the car has been driven for 50K miles?

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#212

Post by BenoitEssiambre »

rdl wrote: post #12

If they can get to volume production, I think the $50-60k models, leased, could be great sellers. The really interesting thing would be to rip off Better Place's model and lease the cars at a discounted monthly payment plus a per-mile "fuel equivalence" charge. It's just accounting, but you could basically price the Model S at BMW 3-series lease rates (or even Toyota Avalon!), plus a per-mile fuel cost which was 10-2…

Why are they giving away Leafs in California? I had read multiple articles about the new lower prices and went on the nissan.ca website to price one here in Canada and it's almost $700/month for a 48 month lease! What up with that?

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#213

Post by SeanLuke »

thetrb wrote: post #115
SeanLuke wrote: post #81

The Fisker Karma was their 2012 Automobile of the Year. In 2011 it was the Volt.

That's not true, in 2012 The Audi A7 was their car of the year. So that shows that they're not just always picking an electric car no matter what. The original article also mentions that the Fisker Karma won their "Design of the Year" award in 2012, but not the "Car of the Year".

> The Audi A7 was their car of the year.

Sorry, you're right. The Karma was the "Design of the Year".

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#214

Post by damian2000 »

cletus wrote: post #79

The Tesla Model S is a great-looking car but, unlike some, I still don't see electric cars as being the future. Batteries are still too heavy, take too long to charge, are too expensive and require materials that in widespread use will probably become far more of a problem than fossil fuels in terms of scarcity. Of course, there can be and no doubt will be technological innovation in this space but (IMHO) the future…

As EVs become more popular and the batteries become smaller and lighter, I can see a market for a 'battery exhange' which could be located in existing gas stations ... this would negate the problems with range and recharge ... as usual it would only appear when they become more popular.

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#215

Post by evgen »

stretchwithme wrote: post #206
lambda wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Batteries are still too heavy > Changing. Rapidly. It doesn't matter how rapidly they are changing; the original comment was saying that they are too heavy now . You can hypothesize about where they will be in 5 years, but that's uncertain and doesn't apply to cars that are available now. >take too long to charge > Improving, rapidly. Much more rapidly than, say, gas mileage. Again, rate of improvement doesn't have…

The important thing is that those who believe that electric cars are viable be able to finance the enterprise. The sooner the taxpayer is no longer forced to subsidize them, the better.

When do I get to opt out of subsidizing ICE cars and the infrastructure needed to keep them on the road?

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#216

Post by klinquist »

jblow wrote: post #202
lambda wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Batteries are still too heavy > Changing. Rapidly. It doesn't matter how rapidly they are changing; the original comment was saying that they are too heavy now . You can hypothesize about where they will be in 5 years, but that's uncertain and doesn't apply to cars that are available now. >take too long to charge > Improving, rapidly. Much more rapidly than, say, gas mileage. Again, rate of improvement doesn't have…

What does "the batteries are too heavy" even mean? Too heavy for what? Tesla just released a really big car with a heavy battery that goes 265 miles on a charge (under the very strict new EPA rating; at older methods of measuring range this number would be much higher). So I ask the batteries are too heavy for what exactly? Also, if you are paying attention, you know that Tesla has just opened to the public a number…

Not only do the Supercharger stations charge the batteries rapidly, they charge them for FREE and the electricity is from the SUN, not coal..

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#217

Post by panacea »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #168
jblow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those of us who own electric cars know that electric cars have already won. They are just too good compared to regular somewhat-junky gasoline cars. The benefits are too numerous to list. The only problem that I have with my Roadster is that if I want to take a long road trip, there has to be a big stopover in the middle, which makes trips much longer. The Model S solves that. Therefore, EVs have won. They are here n…

While I'm all for EVs and would happily change if I could afford to, this strikes me as off: > ... if I want to take a long road trip, there has to be a big stopover in the middle, which makes trips much longer. The Model S solves that. The Model S has a range of about 400 km (250 miles). For long highway-type trips, that's probably about 4 hours of driving. Which is not much. It won't get you from Köln to Berlin or…

Köln to Berlin and Paris to Lyon are train journeys, not car trips.

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#218

Post by klinquist »

jlmendezbonini wrote: post #190
jblow wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those of us who own electric cars know that electric cars have already won. They are just too good compared to regular somewhat-junky gasoline cars. The benefits are too numerous to list. The only problem that I have with my Roadster is that if I want to take a long road trip, there has to be a big stopover in the middle, which makes trips much longer. The Model S solves that. Therefore, EVs have won. They are here n…

Did your electric bill increased significantly? Have you measure how many Miles/dollar,or some other similar metric, you get?

The Volt, for example, is about 12kWh to charge. For that, you get 40 miles.

I am signed up for PG&E's variable time-of-day rate plan, so between 9PM-9AM, my power is 9.8 cents/kWh. So the Volt costs roughly $1.10/40 miles.

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#219

Post by klinquist »

dancesdrunk wrote: post #182
cletus wrote: post #79

The Tesla Model S is a great-looking car but, unlike some, I still don't see electric cars as being the future. Batteries are still too heavy, take too long to charge, are too expensive and require materials that in widespread use will probably become far more of a problem than fossil fuels in terms of scarcity. Of course, there can be and no doubt will be technological innovation in this space but (IMHO) the future…

I agree with the statement that electric cars are not the future, but for a slightly different set of reasons. My MSc thesis / project was studying future engines and fuels - long story short: - IC engines have efficiencies of anywhere from 70% to 5%; depending on a huge range of factors and types (rotax at 3000rpm on diesel vs v12 carb at 8000rpm on 98-ron, outside temp and pressure etc). - Over 100 years of researc…

Where'd you find an 'old' FI 500cc motorcycle engine? Motorcycles didn't get FI until the late 90s, and some STILL have carbs!

Or did you convert a Suzuki EX500 to FI?

Re: 2013 Automobile of the Year: Tesla Model S

#220

Post by scythe »

cletus wrote: post #79

The Tesla Model S is a great-looking car but, unlike some, I still don't see electric cars as being the future. Batteries are still too heavy, take too long to charge, are too expensive and require materials that in widespread use will probably become far more of a problem than fossil fuels in terms of scarcity. Of course, there can be and no doubt will be technological innovation in this space but (IMHO) the future…

>What will change is the source of that fuel. It may be some kind of hydrogen-rich fuel (methane or ammonia) or it may be making the necessary hydrocarbons from the air and/or seawater.

There isn't any such fuel. Hydrogen is dangerous and corrosive, ammonia is hygoroscopic, hydrazine is super-toxic, boranes destroy everything, and that's the end of the story. Synthesizing hydrocarbons is highly inefficient, ditto for biofuels.

The range of hydrogen vehicles is not particularly impressive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-8_Hydrogen_RE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_Quark

If you're willing to spend more, you break even with electric cars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity#Specification...

Electricity works because it's cheap, and only getting cheaper: powering my house already costs me less than fueling my car. The correct answer to your three-line conversation is yes, you can use it in an apartment. You need a plug in your parking garage, maybe, but that's remarkably easy: a drill and a long copper rod can deliver energy through a solid concrete wall (just an example).

Batteries aren't too heavy; ~500# is counterbalanced by the simpler engine. 300-mile range has been demonstrated with lithium-ion batteries and longer is possible with lithium-sulfur. We're not going to run out of lithium, either:

http://gas2.org/2008/10/13/lithium-counterpoint-no-shortage-...

Lithium-sulfur batteries have been my bet for a while. They're light and they could be commercialized in less than a decade. Plus, the specific power is huge, which means way faster charging times.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/7382272v1u32m381/

Post reply on HN