[N/A] Tesla turns a $312 mil profit in Q3

[Tarheelpilot]

It kind of does, but it shouldn't. Electric cars really are cool and even the folks in the fly over states would love them if they gave them a chance.

No we wouldn’t. At least I wouldn’t l. I can’t afford another car that only fits 20% of my travel needs.

 

[bflynn]

Curious, what issues?
Brown smudge?

Tim

The brown smudge that you see over cities from car pollution. Don’t all pilots recognize that or is it just certain cities? I became a believer in electric cars almost two decades ago after seeing the scenery disappear over a matter of hours in LA and the cause was pollution/smog, mostly from cars.

What issues? Range is one. Rapid refueling is one. Battery degradation is one. Where we are going to get all that electricity when everyone starts driving them. What are we going to do with all those batteries. Is there enough raw materials to supply demand.

And probably some more that we haven’t thought of.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It seems to me Tesla fits perfectly along with many other things in the great Right And Left Coast vs Flyover Country dichotomy.

I live in the Midwest, and I'd love a Tesla. (Alas, I cannot afford both an airplane AND a Tesla right now.) I just bought my third plug-in vehicle, and I'm a big fan. (In case you couldn't tell.

The Midwest isn't as EV-friendly as the coasts, and my particular area (greater Milwaukee) is less friendly than neighboring Madison and Chicago. I rarely see other plug-in vehicles around here. Volts are probably the most common, and I might see one or two of those per week. But, in the nearly 4 years since I've been driving electrified vehicles and paying attention, and excepting electric vehicle events I've been to, I've seen one CMax Energi, one i3, a handful of Model Ss, and a handful of Leafs... It's a bit of a black hole for EVs.

But I saw my first Model 3 in May, second in June, third in July... And three days later I saw three at the same place, and a couple more even within a mile of my house in the boonies in the last month or so. They're definitely getting much more popular, and they're going to disrupt things much faster than the price tag and the vastly different technology might suggest.

Whoa there fan boy! I wouldn't say nobody. I bought a Chevy Bolt and I would again without hesitation.

Well, us pilots are somewhat of a different animal. I could go for a Bolt too (there are just none available for sale in my immediate area). But, that's because my mission is pretty much to be able to go 200 miles in the dead of winter, and that's because that's generally the farthest I'll ever drive - Anything longer than that, I'm taking the airplane. But, non-pilots are much more likely to be taking road trips, and the SAE-CCS infrastructure here in the Midwest sucks big-time.

@flyingcheesehead and @deonb, give it up. You're trying to sell electric cars to Blackberry folks. Hell some of them are flip phone guys. Just try to remember these earlier Tesla threads and then in 5-10 years from now, read about all these guys posting about the awesome new electric car they just bought and how smart they are for buying it. Like it or not, electric cars are taking over and faster than many think they will.

Yep.

 

[deonb]

No we wouldn’t. At least I wouldn’t l. I can’t afford another car that only fits 20% of my travel needs.

Ok, didn't know 80% of your driving was done on your 1400 mile Denver/Tulsa round trips. So that has to be multiple times per month type of deal for that to be 80%? Ouch - I feel for you, and I agree you shouldn't use an EV for that. Not the right equipment for that kind of mission.

I occasionally pull a 20'000lbs RV and I take my F350 for that and leave the Tesla at home. You use the right tool for the job - Tesla's certainly can't perform every extreme mission. (Not that I don't drool over a Tesla Semi...).

I was thinking more normal situations where people have only two or three trips per year that have > 500 miles of driving in a single day.

I wouldn't say nobody. I bought a Chevy Bolt and I would again without hesitation. ... I'm not planning on buying a replacement for the Bolt until 2027

Bolt sales have dropped from 6700 in Q3 2017 to 3900 in Q3 2018. Tesla sells more cars in a day than Bolt sells in a month at this point, and still growing (even at the current price).

The thing about a Bolt is, is it has to be a secondary car. Although it has good range, you can't realistically take it on a thousand mile road trip without making some huge sacrifices. Where with a Tesla your sacrifice basically comes down to "eat in the restaurant instead of eating in your car" during road trips, which is something most people can live with (extreme cases like Tarheelpilot's excluded). Bolt is not nearly there yet for the majority of the country. And it shows in the sales numbers - even though it's a much cheaper car.

 

[RJM62]

My observation has been that the appeal of electric-only cars is a philosophical / political / environmental one more so than a practical one. For most people, a plug-in hybrid with a battery range of > 50 miles would be more practical. It would allow "typical" drivers to almost never burn dinosaurs, while retaining the option to do so on a long cross-country trip.

I actually was considering a plug-in hybrid a few months ago. I decided not to go with it for now because I think it makes more sense to wait a few more years to see how the electric technology advances. But even based on today's technology, living in the boonies, and assuming that I never charge away from home, the ICE in a plug-in hybrid with even a paltry 25- to 50-mile battery range would only kick in once during one of my average weeks. With a 100-mile battery range, the ICE would kick in maybe once or twice a month. But it would still preserve the option of making a 500-mile round trip without having to plan around twiddling my thumbs waiting for the car to charge a few times during the trip.

Rich

 

[Ken Ibold]

My observation has been that the appeal of electric-only cars is a philosophical / political / environmental one more so than a practical one. For most people, a plug-in hybrid with a battery range of > 50 miles would be more practical. It would allow "typical" drivers to almost never burn dinosaurs, while retaining the option to do so on a long cross-country trip.

I actually was considering a plug-in hybrid a few months ago. I decided not to go with it for now because I think it makes more sense to wait a few more years to see how the electric technology advances. But even based on today's technology, living in the boonies, and assuming that I never charge away from home, the ICE in a plug-in hybrid with even a paltry 25- to 50-mile battery range would only kick in once during one of my average weeks. With a 100-mile battery range, the ICE would kick in maybe once or twice a month. But it would still preserve the option of making a 500-mile round trip without having to plan around twiddling my thumbs waiting for the car to charge a few times during the trip.

Rich

The BMW i3 tried to go this route, with a "range extender" motorcycle engine serving as an onboard generator. Good idea, except the engine can't deliver enough juice to power the electric motors at highway speed. Up the engine to one that can, and you have a Volt.

I'd love an electric vehicle, if they didn't all look so damn dorky. Tesla Model S excepted, but that is overpriced. If I were spending $100K on a car, I'd get a Panamera or something else that was the ultimate expression of 120 years of automotive development rather than version 1.2 of a new iteration.

 

[RJM62]

The BMW i3 tried to go this route, with a "range extender" motorcycle engine serving as an onboard generator. Good idea, except the engine can't deliver enough juice to power the electric motors at highway speed. Up the engine to one that can, and you have a Volt.

I'd love an electric vehicle, if they didn't all look so damn dorky. Tesla Model S excepted, but that is overpriced. If I were spending $100K on a car, I'd get a Panamera or something else that was the ultimate expression of 120 years of automotive development rather than version 1.2 of a new iteration.

I drive a Kia Soul, so I'm not too worried about dorky designs. It's the idea of having to plan my trips around charging stations, hoping there's no line waiting for them when I get to one, and having to waste time twiddling my thumbs while the car charges, that are deal-killers for me.

Give me a 500-mile battery range and I'd be satisfied. That's more than most sane people would want to drive in a day, anyway. It would allow me to make any round-trip I've made for the past 10 years without having to either plan extra charging stops or mooch electricity from the people I'm visiting. 500 miles would do that for me.

The most common counter-argument I hear from electric-only zealots is that I could let the car charge while shopping, having dinner, etc. The problem with that is that assuming that a charging station is available when you arrive, you also have to run back out in the middle of whatever you're doing to move the car once it's charged so that it will be available for the next guy in line to use it. It's not the end of the world, but it's an added bother.

The other problem is that you have to have a charging station with in reasonable walking distance of the place where you want to shop, eat dinner, etc. One salesman who was trying to sell me an EV pointed out a bunch of charging stations in Kingston, New York, where his dealership was located. (His dealership, by the way, wasn't one of them.) The problem was that none of the charging stations were within walking distance of any of the places I go in Kingston. So again, it would require an extra stop, hoping that a charger was available, and waiting for it to happen, before doing whatever it was that I went to Kingston to do in the first place.

The plug-in hybrid solves these problem while still leaving the option open for charging at a public charging station when it's convenient to do so. But the very idea of having an ICE in the car seems to be something akin to anathema for electric-only car zealots. They're not so much in favor of electric cars as they are opposed to ICE cars; and as with anything else, when one's whole support for something is based on one's opposition to something else, common sense and pragmatism tend to take back seats to ideology.

I look at electric-only zealots like I do my neighbor Hippie Lady, who just got her cord of wood to burn for the winter. Her house has propane heat, which burns much more cleanly than wood does; but she's convinced she's doing the environment a favor by burning wood because the carbon she's spewing into the air was sequestrated in the tree 50 to 100 years ago.

The problem with that thinking is that it makes no difference when the carbon was sequestrated. She's still releasing it today. In fact, one can say the same thing about oil, gas, or coal. They're all sequestrated carbon. So all Hippie Lady is doing is depriving the fossil fuel industry of whatever infinitesimal percentage of their profits that would have derived from her burning propane.

She actually admitted that to me once when she installed the wood stove: She did it because she hates oil companies. And hey, if that works for her, it's fine with me. Let her burn wood, propane, dead bodies, or whatever else she wants. I really don't give a flip. Running my own life is a full-time job. I don't have time to run anyone else's. So I nod, smile, and go about my business.

I feel the same way about electric-only car zealots. If they don't mind having to wait in line at charging stations, and then spend the next half-hour wolfing down overpriced rest-area fast food while their cars charge so they can get them out of the way for the next person in line, who am I to say otherwise? More power to them. (See what I did there?)

For me, I like choice. I want to be able to burn dinosaurs if that makes more sense, or charge at a charging station if that makes more sense, within the context of a given trip. Otherwise I may as well just take a bus.

Rich

 

[Velocity173]

My observation has been that the appeal of electric-only cars is a philosophical / political / environmental one more so than a practical one. For most people, a plug-in hybrid with a battery range of > 50 miles would be more practical. It would allow "typical" drivers to almost never burn dinosaurs, while retaining the option to do so on a long cross-country trip.

I actually was considering a plug-in hybrid a few months ago. I decided not to go with it for now because I think it makes more sense to wait a few more years to see how the electric technology advances. But even based on today's technology, living in the boonies, and assuming that I never charge away from home, the ICE in a plug-in hybrid with even a paltry 25- to 50-mile battery range would only kick in once during one of my average weeks. With a 100-mile battery range, the ICE would kick in maybe once or twice a month. But it would still preserve the option of making a 500-mile round trip without having to plan around twiddling my thumbs waiting for the car to charge a few times during the trip.

Rich

Yep, that’s why Chevy went with a plug in hybrid over full up EV. They found that 78% of Americans drive 40 miles or less to work. They designed the car around a 40 mile range. They didn’t quite get there (Gen1) but it meets my 31 mile commute. Then, you’ve got the ICE for those of us that don’t want to deal with “range anxiety” or spend an hour at a charger.

Just too many problems with Tesla; Lawsuits, employee safety, QC problems, financial problems, etc. Just watch “Revenge of the Electric Car” and you’ll see the same problems they had in 2009 still persist today. Elon continues to make promises he can’t keep. Excellent documentary by the way.

Doesn’t matter what issues the company has or how they’ve failed to meet an EV for the masses, they have a cult following. Despite the glaring problems the company has had, people are blinded for the status of owning a Tesla. Fortunately there are enough well to do individuals that can afford a $56K vehicle. I can’t and until they make an EV for half the cost, Musk will never meet the goal of every car on the road being EV.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My observation has been that the appeal of electric-only cars is a philosophical / political / environmental one more so than a practical one.

Maybe for the initial buy - But once you try it, you'll never want to go back. After you've driven a smooth, quiet, responsive electric car, going back to a gasser makes you realize how horribly primitive they are.

In fact, I got to rather enjoy my stupid-looking suppository-in-a-tuxedo look BMW i3. It was really fun to pull up at a stop light next to a Mustang, Camaro, or other wanna-be sports car at a stop light, see their derisive looks, and then leave them in the dust. But the overall driving experience was excellent too.

For most people, a plug-in hybrid with a battery range of > 50 miles would be more practical. It would allow "typical" drivers to almost never burn dinosaurs, while retaining the option to do so on a long cross-country trip.

To a point. You're basically describing a Chevy Volt. Gen 2 has an electric range of 51 miles. And, that covers the vast majority of driving for most people.

However, it also introduces some complications. You may go months without ever needing the engine, and that means the engine is just sitting... Which isn't good for engines. The better plug-ins, like the Volt and the Ford Fusion Energi, do have special modes for fuel and oil "maintenance" where they'll run the engine even if it isn't needed, but that doesn't happen for a long time - 18 months before it'll fire up to burn up a tank of old gas, for example, and 18 month old gas is not something that I would normally want to run through an engine either. Plus, while the service intervals are longer, it still needs a lot of the maintenance that a plain old gas car does.

Driving fully electric, you just need a bigger battery, and to ensure the proper charging infrastructure is available. PlugShare (web site and app) makes this very easy.

I actually was considering a plug-in hybrid a few months ago. I decided not to go with it for now because I think it makes more sense to wait a few more years to see how the electric technology advances.

IMO, no reason to wait on a plug-in hybrid any more. The tech there is pretty well developed, and for the most part today's R&D is focused on fully electric vehicles. Four years ago, I leased a plug-in hybrid rather than buying, for the same reason. Now, I just bought a used Volt.

The BMW i3 tried to go this route, with a "range extender" motorcycle engine serving as an onboard generator. Good idea, except the engine can't deliver enough juice to power the electric motors at highway speed. Up the engine to one that can, and you have a Volt.

The i3 REx does several stupid things to meet California ZEV rules. It seems like most of the well-informed owners "code" them - It's rather easy to do, apparently, and BMW doesn't bat an eye. This basically involves an OBDII device and an app called Bimmercode, and lets you activate a lot of software options that are available in other parts of the world, one of which is to activate the range extender at 75% battery power instead of 5% so that there's plenty of power at highway mode. You can also unlock the bottom 60% of the gas tank - One of those CA rules is that to be considered a ZEV, the i3 REx and similar vehicles must have a longer electric range than gas range, so you can only use about a gallon at the top of the tank.

I'd love an electric vehicle, if they didn't all look so damn dorky.

Yep. That's not by accident - The traditional manufacturers have been fighting electrification tooth and nail. The dealers are going to be in a world of hurt without all the maintenance that traditional cars need, and the old guard didn't want to spend too much money on R&D (or batteries, for that matter). The easy solution is to build butt-ugly electric cars so they can tell government regulators in places like California that "people just don't want electric cars." Then Tesla pulled back that curtain and showed the wizard for what he was.

 

[tspear]

I drive a Kia Soul, so I'm not too worried about dorky designs.

LMAO, and so true...

It's the idea of having to plan my trips around charging stations, hoping there's no line waiting for them when I get to one, and having to waste time twiddling my thumbs while the car charges, that are deal-killers for me.

I plan my trips now around gas stations... Not sure what the difference is
The reason no EV for me, does not make financial sense. I have a 2013 Subaru, need AWD which means super expensive EV or Hybrid. I am driving about 8K miles a year. Payback is never....
But when I replace this car, I am 99% positive it will be with an EV.

Tim

 

[Velocity173]

LMAO, and so true...



I plan my trips now around gas stations... Not sure what the difference is
The reason no EV for me, does not make financial sense. I have a 2013 Subaru, need AWD which means super expensive EV or Hybrid. I am driving about 8K miles a year. Payback is never....
But when I replace this car, I am 99% positive it will be with an EV.

Tim

That’s why you need two vehicles. I keep my Subaru for the 2-3 times out of the year that I’ll need AWD and use the Volt for my daily commuter.

 

[wsuffa]

Exactly. $46K+ seems like a lot of money for a niche vehicle. Maybe a nice niche vehicle, but not one that seems to be a better value than my $22k Accord. I/we take multiple >250 mile trips a year, and the current electric offerings just don't compete well on those trips.

MSRP for the 2018 Accord is between $24K and $36K. Toyota Highlancer is is between $31 and $47K.

Seems like a lot of money, at least compared to an old Ford Torino, but that's where the prices are headed these days.

 

[SCCutler]

Ultimately, it is (or should be) about the product, and it seems to me that Tesla has product that the market wants.

Having been in and around several, I know I'd love to have one; their product mix is (to me) a little off - the X is too big, the S is gorgeous but also too big for around-town; the 3 is a great size, but I can't stand the "no time to design it, just ship it" interior. The "instrument panel" is an invitation for distracted-driver disaster. The rest of the car is near-perfect, great size and shape, good interior size and comfort. The front end also has sort of an East-German look to it, but - meh, who cares? It's a car.

I still wonder if they'll get to the point that they can deliver cars at rational prices in volume (by "rational prices," I mean something like the prices they claimed they'd sell for when they were announced - the S was going to be a $50,000 car - had it been, I'd have one now).

One car in the shop for a coolant leak, another about to go in for a persistent emissions test fail, an all-electric sounds pretty good to me just now. Of course, the first referenced car has 130k miles, the second 190k, so I am asking a lot, I guess. That 190k vehicle is a Suburban, and I fully expect to drive it another 100k miles, best-built car I've had.

 

[SCCutler]

Maybe for the initial buy - But once you try it, you'll never want to go back. After you've driven a smooth, quiet, responsive electric car, going back to a gasser makes you realize how horribly primitive they are.

This is what will do it for me, I suspect. Simple driving dynamics - a superior experience.

 

[Hank S]

I plan my trips now around gas stations... Not sure what the difference is

I plan my trips around the highways, with dodges to avoid high traffic areas. Gas stations are everywhere, i just start looking around 1/4 tank. I also know which states that I drive to / through regularly have the best prices.

I've only ever seen one Tesla charging station, at a mall so you can go inside, shop, eat, whatever. But if you are traveling, it's another 15-20 driving time off of the interstate, plus time to charge, then 15-20 back to the interstate, so we passed an hour even with your 30-minute partial fill. So no, an electric vehicle won't work for me, but may be possible as a second vehicle only, making trips starting fully charged at hime and going less than half of the allowable distance (meaning no, I can't take it visiting any of my family). And not a $50K+ second vehicle . . . .

Now let's talk emissions. Sure, the car itself does not put out any exhaust. It all comes out the stack at your nearby power plant. Hydro is the lowest emission power generator in popular use, but environmental groups are doing their best to tear out as many dams as possible "for the fish." That leaves: coal power, also targeted for elimination by environmental groups and liberal politicians; oil power, typically a gas turbine used only for peak hours due to operating costs; nuclear power, also targeted by environmentalists and liberal politicians; and the two non-competitive, expensive, inefficient sources approved by some environmental groups and liberal politicians--solar power and wind turbines. They seem to ignore the environmental effects of many acres of solar cells, how to generate power in non-sunny areas, distribution of said power from sunny Arizona to needy Alaska and New York City. Also ignored are the effects on local wildlife when the landscape is covered in solar cells or wind turbines, or how to create power when large systems bring heavy clouds for days at a time, or the wind doesn't blow for days at a time.

 

[RJM62]

. . . .

I plan my trips now around gas stations... Not sure what the difference is

Tim

The difference is three minutes for a full tank versus three hours for a full charge.

Rich

 

[SoonerAviator]

I plan my trips around the highways, with dodges to avoid high traffic areas. Gas stations are everywhere, i just start looking around 1/4 tank. I also know which states that I drive to / through regularly have the best prices.

I've only ever seen one Tesla charging station, at a mall so you can go inside, shop, eat, whatever. But if you are traveling, it's another 15-20 driving time off of the interstate, plus time to charge, then 15-20 back to the interstate, so we passed an hour even with your 30-minute partial fill. So no, an electric vehicle won't work for me, but may be possible as a second vehicle only, making trips starting fully charged at hime and going less than half of the allowable distance (meaning no, I can't take it visiting any of my family). And not a $50K+ second vehicle . . . .

Now let's talk emissions. Sure, the car itself does not put out any exhaust. It all comes out the stack at your nearby power plant. Hydro is the lowest emission power generator in popular use, but environmental groups are doing their best to tear out as many dams as possible "for the fish." That leaves: coal power, also targeted for elimination by environmental groups and liberal politicians; oil power, typically a gas turbine used only for peak hours due to operating costs; nuclear power, also targeted by environmentalists and liberal politicians; and the two non-competitive, expensive, inefficient sources approved by some environmental groups and liberal politicians--solar power and wind turbines. They seem to ignore the environmental effects of many acres of solar cells, how to generate power in non-sunny areas, distribution of said power from sunny Arizona to needy Alaska and New York City. Also ignored are the effects on local wildlife when the landscape is covered in solar cells or wind turbines, or how to create power when large systems bring heavy clouds for days at a time, or the wind doesn't blow for days at a time.

100% what I've been trying to get across. The EV/Tesla can work for some people as a full replacement for ICE, but not for a large portion of US drivers. I can't replace all of the utility of my ICE-vehicles, but I can cover 80% of it. Therefore, the EV (for me) is relegated to a daily commuter/2nd vehicle. Towing (or anything requiring a truck), long XC trips, can't be accomplish with current EVs. With Tesla, the value proposition isn't there for me. Intangibles like "not spending 5 minutes per week" at a fuel pump, or "not having to do oil changes once every 7-10K miles" don't mean much to me because it's such a small amount of time annually that I can't tie any real dollar-value to. I need to see a payback over an equivalent ICE-vehicle of some sort, and it's not there. I haven't looked into all of the calculations here, but this does a pretty good job of comparing total cost of ownership, even if it only uses a 5-yr timeline. Suffice it to say, a loaded Honda Civic comes out $7K ahead of a mid-level Tesla Model 3 after 5 years, total out of pocket. $7K buys a lot of fuel for a Civic, and puts the break-even on cost of ownership well past a decade and probably never breaks even after battery pack replacement.

Get a Tesla Model 3 to ACTUALLY be able to purchase at $30-35K, you might get close, but even then you're in a base model T3 versus a loaded Honda Civic.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...NqycmLjOhvBw_ekOj0b8QJw24/edit#gid=1622487334

 

[CC268]

I drive a Kia Soul, so I'm not too worried about dorky designs. It's the idea of having to plan my trips around charging stations, hoping there's no line waiting for them when I get to one, and having to waste time twiddling my thumbs while the car charges, that are deal-killers for me.

Give me a 500-mile battery range and I'd be satisfied. That's more than most sane people would want to drive in a day, anyway. It would allow me to make any round-trip I've made for the past 10 years without having to either plan extra charging stops or mooch electricity from the people I'm visiting. 500 miles would do that for me.

The most common counter-argument I hear from electric-only zealots is that I could let the car charge while shopping, having dinner, etc. The problem with that is that assuming that a charging station is available when you arrive, you also have to run back out in the middle of whatever you're doing to move the car once it's charged so that it will be available for the next guy in line to use it. It's not the end of the world, but it's an added bother.

The other problem is that you have to have a charging station with in reasonable walking distance of the place where you want to shop, eat dinner, etc. One salesman who was trying to sell me an EV pointed out a bunch of charging stations in Kingston, New York, where his dealership was located. (His dealership, by the way, wasn't one of them.) The problem was that none of the charging stations were within walking distance of any of the places I go in Kingston. So again, it would require an extra stop, hoping that a charger was available, and waiting for it to happen, before doing whatever it was that I went to Kingston to do in the first place.

The plug-in hybrid solves these problem while still leaving the option open for charging at a public charging station when it's convenient to do so. But the very idea of having an ICE in the car seems to be something akin to anathema for electric-only car zealots. They're not so much in favor of electric cars as they are opposed to ICE cars; and as with anything else, when one's whole support for something is based on one's opposition to something else, common sense and pragmatism tend to take back seats to ideology.

I look at electric-only zealots like I do my neighbor Hippie Lady, who just got her cord of wood to burn for the winter. Her house has propane heat, which burns much more cleanly than wood does; but she's convinced she's doing the environment a favor by burning wood because the carbon she's spewing into the air was sequestrated in the tree 50 to 100 years ago.

The problem with that thinking is that it makes no difference when the carbon was sequestrated. She's still releasing it today. In fact, one can say the same thing about oil, gas, or coal. They're all sequestrated carbon. So all Hippie Lady is doing is depriving the fossil fuel industry of whatever infinitesimal percentage of their profits that would have derived from her burning propane.

She actually admitted that to me once when she installed the wood stove: She did it because she hates oil companies. And hey, if that works for her, it's fine with me. Let her burn wood, propane, dead bodies, or whatever else she wants. I really don't give a flip. Running my own life is a full-time job. I don't have time to run anyone else's. So I nod, smile, and go about my business.

I feel the same way about electric-only car zealots. If they don't mind having to wait in line at charging stations, and then spend the next half-hour wolfing down overpriced rest-area fast food while their cars charge so they can get them out of the way for the next person in line, who am I to say otherwise? More power to them. (See what I did there?)

For me, I like choice. I want to be able to burn dinosaurs if that makes more sense, or charge at a charging station if that makes more sense, within the context of a given trip. Otherwise I may as well just take a bus.

Rich

Well said. Post of the month on PoA!

 

[CC268]

Hey all you Tesla owners - could you pass me the grey poupon, please?

Lol...I'm just having some good fun

 

[bflynn]

Bolt sales have dropped from 6700 in Q3 2017 to 3900 in Q3 2018.

This is probably because Chevy screwed up their distribution and the cars are not available outside of New York and California.

The Bolt is built in the same factory as the Sonic. The Sonic has been discontinued, so Chevy decided to retool that entire factory. Before shutting it down, they built up an inventory of Bolts and doing some simple x/y math on their entire supply chain decided they had enough to last the duration of the shutdown.

Chevy figured how many months they could go without building a car, but they did not take location of the cars into account. Yes, there are dealers who have 40 cars sitting on the lot, but they're all in California and New York and dealers elsewhere get one or two cars a month. Before buying my Leaf, I called around to dozens of dealers all over North Carolina and all anyone could do is put me on a waiting list that was somewhere between 15 and 50 people long. While I was on that waiting list, I got two calls saying "Hey, we have a car coming on (Friday), come down a test drive it." In both cases, the car was sold before I got there in the morning.

Additionally, the shut down and retooling project did not go as well as they would have liked. I think the Orion Assembly Plant is up again now, but they still haven't gotten the supply chain rebuilt.

So there are no new cars. And the cars they do have are clustered in two geographic areas of the highest demand. Hence, a lot of demand went unfilled in 2018.

 

[CC268]

100% what I've been trying to get across. The EV/Tesla can work for some people as a full replacement for ICE, but not for a large portion of US drivers. I can't replace all of the utility of my ICE-vehicles, but I can cover 80% of it. Therefore, the EV (for me) is relegated to a daily commuter/2nd vehicle. Towing (or anything requiring a truck), long XC trips, can't be accomplish with current EVs. With Tesla, the value proposition isn't there for me. Intangibles like "not spending 5 minutes per week" at a fuel pump, or "not having to do oil changes once every 7-10K miles" don't mean much to me because it's such a small amount of time annually that I can't tie any real dollar-value to. I need to see a payback over an equivalent ICE-vehicle of some sort, and it's not there. I haven't looked into all of the calculations here, but this does a pretty good job of comparing total cost of ownership, even if it only uses a 5-yr timeline. Suffice it to say, a loaded Honda Civic comes out $7K ahead of a mid-level Tesla Model 3 after 5 years, total out of pocket. $7K buys a lot of fuel for a Civic, and puts the break-even on cost of ownership well past a decade and probably never breaks even after battery pack replacement.

Get a Tesla Model 3 to ACTUALLY be able to purchase at $30-35K, you might get close, but even then you're in a base model T3 versus a loaded Honda Civic.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...NqycmLjOhvBw_ekOj0b8QJw24/edit#gid=1622487334

 

[tspear]

That’s why you need two vehicles. I keep my Subaru for the 2-3 times out of the year that I’ll need AWD and use the Volt for my daily commuter.

Nah. I an too cheap. The capital cost alone will not pay for the savings in gas, let alone adding insurance.... I just do not drive that far anymore. Last two years are about 8k a year.
I use the extra cash for retirement planning or airplane fund.


Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

I plan my trips around the highways, with dodges to avoid high traffic areas. Gas stations are everywhere, i just start looking around 1/4 tank. I also know which states that I drive to / through regularly have the best prices.

I've only ever seen one Tesla charging station, at a mall so you can go inside, shop, eat, whatever. But if you are traveling, it's another 15-20 driving time off of the interstate, plus time to charge, then 15-20 back to the interstate, so we passed an hour even with your 30-minute partial fill. So no, an electric vehicle won't work for me, but may be possible as a second vehicle only, making trips starting fully charged at hime and going less than half of the allowable distance (meaning no, I can't take it visiting any of my family). And not a $50K+ second vehicle . . . .

Now let's talk emissions. Sure, the car itself does not put out any exhaust. It all comes out the stack at your nearby power plant. Hydro is the lowest emission power generator in popular use, but environmental groups are doing their best to tear out as many dams as possible "for the fish." That leaves: coal power, also targeted for elimination by environmental groups and liberal politicians; oil power, typically a gas turbine used only for peak hours due to operating costs; nuclear power, also targeted by environmentalists and liberal politicians; and the two non-competitive, expensive, inefficient sources approved by some environmental groups and liberal politicians--solar power and wind turbines. They seem to ignore the environmental effects of many acres of solar cells, how to generate power in non-sunny areas, distribution of said power from sunny Arizona to needy Alaska and New York City. Also ignored are the effects on local wildlife when the landscape is covered in solar cells or wind turbines, or how to create power when large systems bring heavy clouds for days at a time, or the wind doesn't blow for days at a time.

By trips, I am talking daily commute. Everyday when going home I check the gas gauge (old habit). I actually get gas about every three weeks.
For me, I can time it to a grocery store run or some other activity that takes me ten minutes or two miles south from home. Or I can pay an average of 30 cents more gallon for my 16 gallon tank and stop on the way to work which is north bound. Since I am cheap, I do plan when I get gas....

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[tspear]

The difference is three minutes for a full tank versus three hours for a full charge.

Rich

Nah, getting gas takes closer to 10 to 15 minutes. Start the clock from the time you pull into the station and run it until you are back on the road. Not pulling out, but actuallyback on the road.

You will be amazed at how you lose 20 seconds pulling up to the pump. Anther 30 seconds to stop the engine, get out, walk around the car. Then 10 seconds to auth the credit card, open the gas tank and start the pump.... it very quickly adds up. Depending on the station I use, my 16 gallon tank takes between 4 minutes and 8 minutes to fill (the oldest cheapest cash only station is actually the fastest!).

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

 

[RJM62]

Nah, getting gas takes closer to 10 to 15 minutes. Start the clock from the time you pull into the station and run it until you are back on the road. Not pulling out, but actuallyback on the road.

You will be amazed at how you lose 20 seconds pulling up to the pump. Anther 30 seconds to stop the engine, get out, walk around the car. Then 10 seconds to auth the credit card, open the gas tank and start the pump.... it very quickly adds up. Depending on the station I use, my 16 gallon tank takes between 4 minutes and 8 minutes to fill (the oldest cheapest cash only station is actually the fastest!).

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk

Most of those actions (pulling up to the pump, getting out of the car, credit card auth, etc) would be identical at a charging station. The difference would be the fill time, which is about three minutes on my little car. And for that three minutes I can drive ~ 440 miles without stopping if that's what I want to do.

Rich

 

[bnt83]

Most of those actions (pulling up to the pump, getting out of the car, credit card auth, etc) would be identical at a charging station. The difference would be the fill time, which is about three minutes on my little car. And for that three minutes I can drive ~ 440 miles without stopping if that's what I want to do.

Rich

Exactly, filling station pumps about 8 gallons a minute, my tank is less that 14 gallons.

 

[RJM62]

IMO, no reason to wait on a plug-in hybrid any more. The tech there is pretty well developed, and for the most part today's R&D is focused on fully electric vehicles. Four years ago, I leased a plug-in hybrid rather than buying, for the same reason. Now, I just bought a used Volt.

There would literally be no break-even point for me given the current state of the art, my current car's MPG, and the cost of electricity in New York. Maybe there will be a few years down the road.

I average > 36 MPG combined in my little manual-transmission Soul. On the highway, I get about 41-45, depending mainly on how fast I drive, but also things like elevation differences, wind, and the like. If I wanted to, I could push it closer to 46 - 48 MPG with aggressive hypermiling (as opposed to my ordinary moderate hypermiling).

A plug-in hybrid would beat that, but even the bottomist of the barrel plug-in hybrid would cost about three times the $14,825.00 I paid for my Soul by the time I was done haggling. (For the best new car deals, shop for a manual-transmission car in October. They practically give them away just to get them off the lot.)

So how much gas would I have to save to break even on another ~$28,000.00 of acquisition cost? About 366,545 miles worth based on today's gas price of $2.75 / gallon at the Sparrow Fart Speedway and an average of 36 MPG. And that's not even considering the cost of the electricity, which I'm too lazy to calculate right now. Factor in a couple of battery replacements during those 366,545 miles, and I literally would never break even. Either I, the car, or both would be dead before that happened.

It helps that I don't really give a rat's ass about a car's styling or the latest fancy gadgets and luxury features. I just want reliable transportation. I'm not drag racing on weekends or trying to impress broads ladies. I just need transportation. It also helps, especially in October, that I prefer manual transmissions. There are always a few stick-shift cars languishing on dealers' lots and just begging for new homes in October. They practically give them away.

People who like to spend three times as much as they have to for a depreciating asset fancier cars might very well do better with a plug-in hybrid because the difference in acquisition cost would be much lower, so there would be an eventual break-even point because of the fuel savings. But for someone like me who just wants reliable transportation and who couldn't care less about the rest, that point will never come, given today's state of the art.

But maybe tomorrow it will. We shall see.

Rich

 

[RJM62]

Exactly, filling station pumps about 8 gallons a minute, my tank is less that 14 gallons.

You need a new gas station.

Never mind. I read that wrong.

Rich

 

[kyleb]

MSRP for the 2018 Accord is between $24K and $36K.

I paid <$22k for my "Accord Sport" a year ago. That was the out the door cost excluding our state ad-valorem tax.

 

[Dav8or]

Bolt sales have dropped from 6700 in Q3 2017 to 3900 in Q3 2018. Tesla sells more cars in a day than Bolt sells in a month at this point, and still growing (even at the current price).

Here we go again with the usual "winner" vs. "loser" attitude of the Tesla fan. The stated goal of Tesla is to get people to transition to electric from fossil fuel. The Tesla "mission statement" doesn't say, only rich people will drive electric. It doesn't say everyone will only drive Teslas. Therefore, if you actually believe in the Tesla mission statement, you should applaud GM for doing what Tesla couldn't and that is bring a capable 200 plus mile BEV down market to a more sane and affordable price so that people like me would actually start driving electric.

There is no Tesla that works for me even with their fancy chargers. If it weren't for the Bolt, I would still be buying gas every week and not saved all those gallons over the last year and half. I'd still be patiently waiting for Elon to save me like hundreds of thousands die hard Tesla fans are now.

The point is, Bolts are selling. They haven't stopped selling just because there is now the miracle 3. Your statement about cars "nobody wants" is flat wrong, but yea snobby rich people!! They're all winners!!

The thing about a Bolt is, is it has to be a secondary car. Although it has good range, you can't realistically take it on a thousand mile road trip without making some huge sacrifices.

Answer honestly now- is your Tesla your only car? If you do have more than one vehicle, is it 100% electric? Are you now no longer buying gas for your ground transportation? I have yet to meet a Tesla owner that didn't have multiple cars. Usually at least one gas burning one still.

Have you gone on that easy 1000 mile road trip with your Tesla yet? I have met several that have done such a thing and most say never again. They did it once for the experience and much prefer their gas car for long trips like that. There's no shame in that, it makes sense. Use the right tool for the job. The Supercharger Network is way over blown. It's a talking point, a sales feature and a bragging point for Tesla, but in reality it's not that big of a deal. I have traveled over 15,000 miles over the last one year, seven months and used a public L2 charger exactly once. Mostly just for the experience and novelty.

Bolt is not nearly there yet for the majority of the country. And it shows in the sales numbers - even though it's a much cheaper car.

Don't kid yourself. The Teslas, or any BEV isn't nearly there yet for the majority of the country. Just look at this thread as evidence. Most in this thread have said no thanks, it doesn't work for me. Don't get me wrong, I think Tesla makes some nice, innovative cars. I am also sold on driving electric and know that driving electric will work for the majority of American drivers, but they just don't get it yet. What I find ridiculous is the idea that the Tesla Model 3 is the only logical, workable BEV out there and that somehow the sales numbers are supposed to prove that. All those numbers prove is that Teslas are trendy amongst wealthy people.

 

[CC268]

Just no way I could stomach driving a Chevy

 

[bflynn]

Most of those actions (pulling up to the pump, getting out of the car, credit card auth, etc) would be identical at a charging station. The difference would be the fill time, which is about three minutes on my little car. And for that three minutes I can drive ~ 440 miles without stopping if that's what I want to do.

Rich

Gee, my fill takes me about 15 seconds, to open the door, insert the plug and walk away.

After the $7500 tax break next year, I will have paid about $27k for my car. It isn’t a Tesla. But it runs pretty well all the same.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Gee, my fill takes me about 15 seconds, to open the door, insert the plug and walk away.

Call it 30 seconds. Every day. Versus 5 minutes once a week or two. Hardly worth crowing about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ultimately, it is (or should be) about the product, and it seems to me that Tesla has product that the market wants.

Yup.

Having been in and around several, I know I'd love to have one; their product mix is (to me) a little off - the X is too big, the S is gorgeous but also too big for around-town; the 3 is a great size, but I can't stand the "no time to design it, just ship it" interior. The "instrument panel" is an invitation for distracted-driver disaster.

I disagree with your take on the interior - It was purposefully designed that way, to be very minimalist and without focusing everything on the driver (hence, the center screen) - This is just the first time a production car's interior has been designed with the self-driving future in mind. When you think about it from that perspective, it makes a lot more sense.

Also, if you have only seen it in pictures as opposed to driving it - You need to try it. Actually experiencing it is vastly different than what you'd expect from the pictures.

Finally, I think it's *less* of a distraction than most car instrument panels. Because you don't have all the controls up all the time, the screen has very few things to look for, thus taking your attention off the road for less time, as opposed to vomiting buttons freaking everywhere. Again, expectations and reality are vastly different here.

I still wonder if they'll get to the point that they can deliver cars at rational prices in volume (by "rational prices," I mean something like the prices they claimed they'd sell for when they were announced - the S was going to be a $50,000 car - had it been, I'd have one now).

I think Musk said $40K was the target way back before the S first came out. In fact, they did sell the S for $40,000 *very* briefly, but such a low proportion of orders was that model that it didn't make sense to build a 40 kWh pack, so the people who had ordered 40s got a software-limited 60 instead and they nixed the 40. I'm guessing their margins were pretty low on that too, which probably helped its demise.

One car in the shop for a coolant leak, another about to go in for a persistent emissions test fail, an all-electric sounds pretty good to me just now. Of course, the first referenced car has 130k miles, the second 190k, so I am asking a lot, I guess. That 190k vehicle is a Suburban, and I fully expect to drive it another 100k miles, best-built car I've had.

Waitaminute... You drive a Suburban, but a Tesla is too big?

I've only ever seen one Tesla charging station, at a mall so you can go inside, shop, eat, whatever. But if you are traveling, it's another 15-20 driving time off of the interstate, plus time to charge, then 15-20 back to the interstate, so we passed an hour even with your 30-minute partial fill.

Where was that? The vast majority are well under 5 minutes from Interstates, with the exception of California where they're just everywhere.

Now let's talk emissions. Sure, the car itself does not put out any exhaust. It all comes out the stack at your nearby power plant. Hydro is the lowest emission power generator in popular use, but environmental groups are doing their best to tear out as many dams as possible "for the fish." That leaves: coal power, also targeted for elimination by environmental groups and liberal politicians; oil power, typically a gas turbine used only for peak hours due to operating costs; nuclear power, also targeted by environmentalists and liberal politicians; and the two non-competitive, expensive, inefficient sources approved by some environmental groups and liberal politicians--solar power and wind turbines.

I don't drive an EV for environmental reasons. That said, EVs can really help to stabilize the grid and make it more efficient. I don't know of a single EV that doesn't have options to automatically charge at night on a time-of-use power plan. There's even some EVSE's (which you might call a "charger" even though that's not technically correct) that can be controlled by the power company so that they're only charging when power demand is lower than the base load, so that a) they're not wasting any power, and b) they don't have to fire up the less-environmentally-friendly peaker plants.

Second, even if an EV runs purely on coal, it's about the same, environmentally speaking, as a gasser. Here's a map of the MPG you would need to get today to have lower emissions than an EV:

100% what I've been trying to get across. The EV/Tesla can work for some people as a full replacement for ICE, but not for a large portion of US drivers. I can't replace all of the utility of my ICE-vehicles, but I can cover 80% of it. Therefore, the EV (for me) is relegated to a daily commuter/2nd vehicle. Towing (or anything requiring a truck), long XC trips, can't be accomplish with current EVs.

Things are going to get really interesting when Tesla comes out with their pickup, and the rest of the world comes out with their first EVs. I'm hoping to see an electrified F150 too.

Get a Tesla Model 3 to ACTUALLY be able to purchase at $30-35K, you might get close, but even then you're in a base model T3 versus a loaded Honda Civic.

I would expect the base 3 to be a better car in terms of features than a Civic, just the way I would expect the BMW 3-series to be better than the Civic, even if the Civic was loaded and the Beamer was a base model.

Most of those actions (pulling up to the pump, getting out of the car, credit card auth, etc) would be identical at a charging station.

At least at the Superchargers, there's no credit card auth - You tie a card(s) to your account and it charges you automatically. There's not even a place to swipe the cards.

Not that that's going to help ALL that much, but it's really plug and chug.

So how much gas would I have to save to break even on another ~$28,000.00 of acquisition cost? About 366,545 miles worth based on today's gas price of $2.75 / gallon at the Sparrow Fart Speedway and an average of 36 MPG. And that's not even considering the cost of the electricity, which I'm too lazy to calculate right now. Factor in a couple of battery replacements during those 366,545 miles, and I literally would never break even.

The whole battery replacement thing is mostly FUD. Some of the very earliest EVs didn't have the greatest batteries (for example, the Leaf's 2011-2012 battery chemistry did not react well to Arizona heat), but for the most part, the batteries should last essentially forever. There are Teslas that are over 300,000 miles, and they still have 90%+ battery capacity.

I have yet to meet a Tesla owner that didn't have multiple cars. Usually at least one gas burning one still.

With the 3 out now, there's quite a few Tesla owners that only owns Teslas or other purely electric vehicles. I know at least one in person - He has an S and a 3 and is very happy to be all-Tesla. (No, he's not a pilot either, he's gotta do his road trips the "old fashioned" way!)

Have you gone on that easy 1000 mile road trip with your Tesla yet? I have met several that have done such a thing and most say never again.

I've heard from most that they loved it, and only one that didn't. No "never agains." The one that didn't had a 60 too, for what that's worth. IMO, people should only get the shortest-range ones if they really know for sure they'll never need more. I would never buy a 60 or 70, especially up here in the north where the cold takes a toll on range in the winter.

I am also sold on driving electric and know that driving electric will work for the majority of American drivers, but they just don't get it yet.

Very true. It's hard to "get it" unless you've tried it, but trying it isn't something most people will do unless they're sure it'll work for them. Chicken vs. Egg.

What I find ridiculous is the idea that the Tesla Model 3 is the only logical, workable BEV out there and that somehow the sales numbers are supposed to prove that.

The sales numbers prove nothing beyond that it's something people want.

That said, Tesla is the most workable EV but for the cost. It has the least compromises, especially range and ability to go places. With any other EV, you really need to know what you're getting into and set expectations accordingly, and generally make it a second car. I think the vast majority of people, especially those away from the coasts, can't make a non-Tesla EV their primary car currently due to shorter range and lack of infrastructure.

 

[bflynn]

Call it 30 seconds. Every day. Versus 5 minutes once a week or two. Hardly worth crowing about.

Every third day or so.

It is worth crowing about around the same amount an 8-12 minute fill up is worth complaining about.

 

[Velocity173]

https://www.transportenvironment.or...iesels-even-when-powered-dirtiest-electricity

 

[Dav8or]

My observation has been that the appeal of electric-only cars is a philosophical / political / environmental one more so than a practical one.

None of those things applies to me. I have no problem with people burning fossil fuels. I own an airplane, a boat, two jet skis, a roadster, a motorcycle just for fun and a full size van to haul all this stuff and go camping in. My carbon footprint is still Sasquatch sized! I didn't buy my electric car fro practical reasons either. I bought for the same reason as the things listed above. For fun.

I'm sick of going to the gas station and gas prices going al over the place. I'm sick of oil changes and ICE maintenance. I have plenty of that to do. I am intrigued and excited about the future of transportation and I wanted to try it out. I'm so glad I did! It's way more fun than I thought it would be. It's hard to explain to someone who is skeptical and a die hard piston head, but all I can say is, it's true what they say. Once you go electric you won't want to go back.

Electric cars may be more practical than you think. They are by no means the cheapest way to get around, but if you consider the total cost of ownership, it's not too bad. My Chevy Bolt cost me $29,000 out the door after the tax credit and rebates. It's factory maintenance schedule is- rotate the tires. Change the cabin filter. Flush the cooling and brake lines every three years. Inspect things. That's it. The brake and coolant service is the same interval that they recommend for ICE cars and you know how strictly people adhere to these. Basically not much to do.

Where I live, the "fuel" for my car costs less than a 1/4 that of gas and falling as gas prices rise. Basically there is the big up front cost, but not that far off from other brand new cars and the insurance is higher because they cost more to repair or replace at this time. Related to insurance though is safety and the Bolt as well as the Teslas are the safest cars you can buy. They rank at the top in the crash tests. I guess surviving a crash is kind of practical in a way...

 

[Dav8or]

With any other EV, you really need to know what you're getting into and set expectations accordingly, and generally make it a second car. I think the vast majority of people, especially those away from the coasts, can't make a non-Tesla EV their primary car currently due to shorter range and lack of infrastructure.

There you go again, all focused on the once in awhile 400 mile trip to Grandma's or something. I think you have it all wrong. The primary car should be the one you drive every day. The one you drive less than 150 miles daily 90% of the year. That's the car that needs to be EV. The secondary car is the one you take on the long highways trips, probably 10% or less of the year. That's the car that ideally would be an ICE car, but could be a Tesla with the network if you have the patience.

This is why a Bolt, or Tesla if you have the money, makes an awesome primary car.

 

[deonb]

Answer honestly now- is your Tesla your only car?
If you do have more than one vehicle, is it 100% electric? Are you now no longer buying gas for your ground transportation? I have yet to meet a Tesla owner that didn't have multiple cars. Usually at least one gas burning one still.

We have two Tesla's (Model S and Model 3), and a Ford F350. The F350 is exclusively used for towing and hauling - we don't use it as a general purpose vehicle and have never taken a destination road trip in it, so I wouldn't count it (also it burns Diesel not Gas, so I guess technically I have no gas vehicles...).

When I bought my Model S in 2013 I kept my Toyota Highlander because I thought I would need it for road trips. I traded the Highlander in 3 years later for a Nissan Leaf for my wife, and in that 3 years we added maybe another 500 miles to the Highlander - all driving within 5 miles of the house. It was SO not needed, and a complete waste of money. ALL long trips were done in the Tesla instead.

We traded in that Nissan Leaf earlier this year for a Model 3, but I loved everything about the Leaf. Some of it even more than the Model 3 - particularly the 360 cam and the ability to get into small parking spaces. But my wife now needs to transport a kid to college regularly (240 mile day trip). With the Leaf that added 3 hours of charging. No charging required on her Model 3. So the Leaf was just not practical anymore but I certainly loved it.

I'm by no means a Tesla-only snob and welcome especially the new EV's like the Jaguar iPace and Audi e-tron. But I still consider the Bolt/Leaf/BMW i3 as weird-mobiles that "nobody wants". Yes, I know it's not mathematically "nobody", but it's such a small percentage inside their class/price range that it just doesn't move the needle of being a mass market vehicle.

Have you gone on that easy 1000 mile road trip with your Tesla yet?

10 of them (you made me count). Longest was 2400 miles (SEA->LA->SEA) - did that one twice. Another 4 times SEA->SF->SEA (1600 miles). Also 4 times Seattle->Butte->Seattle 4 (1200 miles). Longest leg in a single day was San Francisco to Seattle (807 miles). I've made over 100 Supercharger stops between the 2 Tesla's if you also include the dozens of 300 mile+ day-trips I've done that included charging.

The main sacrifice I had to make was changing my habits from eating in the car, to eating in a restaurant (or even a fast food place). That's really the extent of it. I recall "waiting" for the car to finish charging exactly once, back in 2014. It was 3:00a and everything around it was closed. Every other time the car is done before I am.

e.g. Over this weekend I took what was supposed to be a 260 mile day trip with my wife & BIL (his first road trip in an EV). Traffic was delayed 2 hours due to construction, so we decided to take a 100 mile scenic detour to avoid it. Thus we needed to unexpectedly charge (Model 3 has 310 mile range). Stopped at a Supercharger with Starbucks, ordered coffee, sat down and drank it, everybody went to the bathroom and as I came out, my wife got up and said we need to get a move on to catch the rest of daylight. My BIL then asked me: "Wait - didn't you guys say we need to go charge first??". "No, no, we're done charging". Arrived home with 60 miles to spare - as usual the charge was faster than we were.

 

[RJM62]

There you go again, all focused on the once in awhile 400 mile trip to Grandma's or something. I think you have it all wrong. The primary car should be the one you drive every day. The one you drive less than 150 miles daily 90% of the year. That's the car that needs to be EV. The secondary car is the one you take on the long highways trips, probably 10% or less of the year. That's the car that ideally would be an ICE car, but could be a Tesla with the network if you have the patience.

This is why a Bolt, or Tesla if you have the money, makes an awesome primary car.

How is having two cars, one of which will rarely be driven, more practical than having one car that can do both missions while consuming zero or almost-zero liquid fuel in its primary one? That's not hard to pull off for most people. All you need is a plug-in hybrid that can run on batteries for the number of miles driven in a typical day.

In the strictest sense of "typical," five miles would do that for me. My typical daily drive, four days a week, is to the Post Office and back. Sometimes not even that. We don't have carrier-route mail delivery in Sparrow Fart, but we do have USPS Informed Delivery, which emails us when there's mail to pick up.

One day a week on average, I have to drive to the Greater Sparrow Fart Transfer Station to dump the garbage. That's about ten miles away and is usually performed in the same trip as the Post Office run. But because it's in the opposite direction, let's call it 12 miles. So if that's figured into "typical," now I need 24 miles battery capacity to avoid burning dinosaurs.

I also go shopping once a week. That's either a 54-mile round trip or a 100-mile round trip. If we call the longer trip "typical," then I need a 100-mile battery capacity. That's doable in a higher-end plug-in hybrid.

Maybe once a month, I make trips that exceed 200 miles round-trip. That would not be a reasonable battery capacity expectation for a hybrid, it would be a reasonable battery capacity for a mid-to high-level EV; so the EV would have that advantage.

However, I almost never drive between 100 and 200 miles in a day. It's usually either < 100 or > 200, making any battery capacity between 100 and 200 miles moot. So what is the cost advantage of the EV compared to a 100-mile plug-in hybrid in that scenario? Assuming 50 MPG when the plug-in hybrid is running on gas, about 48 gallons in a typical year (two gallons for each 100-mile gas-powered leg of a 200-mile trip, times two time each trip, times 12 trips a year).

Maybe two or three times a year, I make trips in excess of 400 miles round-trip in a day. Neither a hybrid nor any present EV can handle that on battery alone; but a 100-mile plug-in hybrid can handle it on battery and gas, most likely without even a gas stop depending on the tank size. But because of the rarity of those trips and because neither vehicle can handle it on electricity alone, I'll call the EV's fuel cost savings and the plug-in hybrid's convenience advantage a wash for my purposes.

At today's price at the Sparrow Fart Speedway, 48 gallons of gas will cost about $133.92. That's slightly more than what it would cost me to insure a second car for one month, assuming full coverage. If we limit it to liability, then it's about two month's insurance. So in terms of overall annual cost of operation (less acquisition cost), the insurance on a second car would add either six or twelve times as much as the fuel costs for a 100-mile plug-in hybrid for round-trips in excess of 100 miles.

In summary, no matter how I add it up, the numbers don't show any advantage in my owning two cars, one of which will be used only for long trips, compared to owning a 100-mile plug-in hybrid that can accomplish both missions.

Now if you need a second car anyway because you have two drivers, or because you need one that can pull a trailer, or because you need a pickup that can carry manure, or because you're an enthusiast and just want more cars around to play with, then I agree with you. An EV as the primary car and an ICE car that you'd have to own anyway as the secondary car might make sense, depending on what the second car is.

But to own a second car for the sole purpose of making trips that exceed the non-stop range of the first car just doesn't make sense mathematically for me nor, I suspect, for most "average" drivers.

Rich