Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#231

Post by marshray » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 9:36 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #215

marshray wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you lose sleep over cable/satellite channels that could be available if only you paid for them? No. I decided cable TV wasn't a good value and canceled it years ago. > Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30? No. My switch is 1 Gb. > Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter? No. Would you buy a ca…

> No. I decided cable TV wasn't a good value and canceled it years ago. And I decided not to get a driver's license because having a car is pretty useless. Obviously this means your argument is invalid.

I was answering a question about my sleeping habits in the face of cable television pricing models. Obviously this discussion has been driven to absurdity (by those who don't like to hear the logic of it).

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#232

Post by MarkMc » Mon, Apr 01, 2013, 10:00 PM UTC

notdrunkatall wrote: post #118

caf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems entirely irrational for those customers to change their opinion based on what some other customers are or aren't getting.

It is, but humans are not entirely rational.

Not just humans. See this clip for a hilarious study into fairness done on monkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#233

Post by caf » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 1:24 AM UTC

lobster_johnson wrote: post #202

caf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems entirely irrational for those customers to change their opinion based on what some other customers are or aren't getting.

That's not irrational, assuming I'm interpreting the parent comment correctly: If 40 kWh car is really a "locked" 60 kWh that allows modders to unlock the remaining 20 kWh, then it's entirely reasonable to be pissed off if one bought the more expensive model. After all, one could saved a lot of money by buying the much cheaper 40 kWh model and unlocked it.

From the point of view of the 60KWh customers, they're still getting the same product for the same price that they agreed - so if the product was worth it to them at that price before, it should still be, regardless if some other customers are getting a greater surplus. Other people getting a good deal doesn't affect your utility.

This is so even if they were just shipping the 60KWh model as-is to those lucky 40KWh customers.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#234

Post by lobster_johnson » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 2:15 AM UTC

caf wrote: post #233

lobster_johnson wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not irrational, assuming I'm interpreting the parent comment correctly: If 40 kWh car is really a "locked" 60 kWh that allows modders to unlock the remaining 20 kWh, then it's entirely reasonable to be pissed off if one bought the more expensive model. After all, one could saved a lot of money by buying the much cheaper 40 kWh model and unlocked it.

From the point of view of the 60KWh customers, they're still getting the same product for the same price that they agreed - so if the product was worth it to them at that price before, it should still be, regardless if some other customers are getting a greater surplus. Other people getting a good deal doesn't affect your utility. This is so even if they were just shipping the 60KWh model as-is to those lucky 40KWh c…

Yes, except the 40 kWh customers are essentially getting a rebate ("20 extra kWh" for free). The 60 kWh-ers may reasonably ask why they don't should not deserve a similar rebate (eg., free upgrade to 80 kWh), especially considering they paid more for the product than the 40 kWh-ers.

Note that I'm agreeing that it's nothing to get angry about (and we don't know whether this is something that can be "unlocked"), but I disagree that it's some kind quirky human, irrational response. On the contrary, it's completely rational; it's rational to recognize when something is distributed inequally in a way that favours some people out of sheer luck.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#235

Post by glenra » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 6:06 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #200

glenra wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if the subsidy makes the subsidized industries lazy and encourages political competition - lobbying for bigger subsidies - rather than technological competition in this and other industries, leaving us stuck subsidizing inefficient dead-end technologies rather than moving on to new ideas from better smaller firms that didn't have the clout to get subsidized, then it will NOT be the most efficient u…

You got the logic right, but flipped the actors. The state isn't subsidizing electric cars, it's subsidizing oil and internal combustion engine cars. Nobody ever paid for the pollution and damage caused. The result is that we have been basing transportation on burning dead dinosaurs for over 100 years yet, and there has not been a single new car company in the US for that same period (until Tesla). If you are looking…

> we have been basing transportation on burning dead dinosaurs for over 100 years yet, and there has not been a single new car company in the US for that same period (until Tesla).

Where did you get that last claim from? You seem to be missing all the caveats that would be necessary to make it true. Did you perhaps really mean to say something like: there hasn't been a single successful new company (for some definition of "success") in the last X years that survived until today without getting bought by a larger firm? Because the thing you actually did say isn't true.

Unless you can come up with a way to argue that, say, The DeLorean Motor Company wasn't a "new car company" founded in the last "over 100 years". And do the same for a dozen others of less renown (eg, the Muntz Car Company)

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#236

Post by glenra » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 6:20 AM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #59

rgbrenner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime ..." Is this guy serious? The average car is driven 13.5k miles/year. So 50k is 3.7 years. Why would anyone use a ridiculously low number unless they were just trying to prove a point they already made up their mind on?

"The average car on the road is about 11 years old, and the average car is driven about 15,000 miles per year. Multiply those figures together and you’ve got a fairly average car with something like 165,000 miles on it" http://business.time.com/2012/03/20/what-you-only-have-100k-... And that's AVERAGE of cars still being driven

Not only is it a math error to multiply it out like that, but it's also wrong to extend the logic to electric cars. Electric cars are likely to have LESS than the AVERAGE CAR total mileage, because (a) they're less useful in places where people need to drive extra-long distances, (b) the batteries get worse and worse at holding a charge over time, just as cellphone batteries do. (c) it's still a rapidly-advancing technology, meaning older models will get obsolete quickly and need to be retired faster than they do with a more mature technology.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#237

Post by notdrunkatall » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 10:14 AM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #232

notdrunkatall wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, but humans are not entirely rational.

Not just humans. See this clip for a hilarious study into fairness done on monkeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

Haha, that was great, thanks for posting!

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#238

Post by cyrus_ » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 2:01 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #171

jonknee wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it successfully brings electric cars into the main stream it will be the most efficient use of $7,500 the government ever paid.

How can you be sure? A bunch of rich Valley workers getting $10,000 rebates on luxury cars is the "most" efficient use of tax money? (barney54 was right: There's another $2,500 free from California.) I know you're exaggerating for effect, but when has such a scheme ever worked to bring a new technology mainstream? The government didn't need to give you a tax credit to buy a PC. I suspect it would be much more efficie…

Those rich Valley workers, with help, are funding the core tech development and manufacturing capacity that will lead to lower prices for the rest of the world.

The government didn't need to give tax credits for PCs because they directly funded much of that research via research grants and there were more immediate uses for PCs in the corporate and military world. Corporations aren't about to buy fleets of electric cars.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#239

Post by jacquesm » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 5:58 PM UTC

relix wrote: post #180

jacquesm wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Look, I understand that you're not comfortable with people modifying stuff, but please understand that people designed it in the first place and that some of us are perfectly comfortable with entrusting our lives to our own creations / modifications. In fact, I feel rather more comfortable driving cars that I've worked on compared to those that I haven't worked on because I know those cars on a much more intima…

No need to be patronizing, I wasn't asking from a negative standpoint, I was merely curious how current non-digital modding insurance claims work.

Sorry, I thought you were the same account as this guy:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5471961

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#240

Post by jotux » Tue, Apr 02, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

relix wrote: post #104

jotux wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It could mean you can disable safety measures How is this any different from being able to open the hood on a conventional car? Or having a screw driver and socket wrench that fit the nuts/bots/screws on a conventional car?

It's not, but I'm pretty sure it's also illegal to disable your brakes and then drive your car on a public road.

And yet the right to disassemble and replace the brakes on my car is socially and legally accepted. Why is it suddenly "scary" to modify the software?