Precisely. I get the appeal of Soylent (quick meal replacement when otherwise obtaining food would be too big a distraction), but I don't get the appeal over meal replacement protein powders – many of which already taste better, have more protein, and are cheaper than Soylent.
2) "It'll have terrible resale value" considering the life of batteries
3) It's definitely going to have a computer in it, and probably be phoning home all the time and that data could be siphoned to find out where I've been and how fast I've gone.
4) Cars with modern computers are scary easy to hack
5) I just don't drive
6) I haven't driven an electric car and so I have biases
7) I do very long road trips with very short pit-stops. Electric cars will never be able to do that (for some size of 'ever')
8) I'm over 60, and the technology won't be where I want it by the time I'm likely to leave this earth.
9) (added) I don't think we'll need to own electric cars. I think Uber or some other company will send out electric cars to us that will drive autonomously to their destination, and I think this will happen before I need to buy a new car.
2) terrible resale value / battery life: "A survey of 80 European Model S owners has demonstrated that, on average, most Tesla Model S batteries seem to degrade only 5% after 30,000 miles (50,000 km). After that point, degradation appears to slow down, showing very little further degradation for the next 30,000 miles." [0]
4) Cars with computers: what are the alternatives?
7) Short pit-stops: 30 minutes for 170 miles at a supercharger, for free (estimated to cost Tesla around $2K over the lifetime of the vehicle). The company expects to reduce this to 10 minutes in the next few years. [1]
9) Car ownership: Good point. But the low cost of fuel and maintenance will accelerate the switch to EVs. This way, you might use them and we might even own them - provided that we launch local cooperative fleets to replace Uber.
Indeed. It amuses me to no end that charging is the biggest worry of people unfamiliar with EVs, but is one of their great advantages over a traditional car.
It is a knock-out factor for long trips. I agree that if it meets your needs, an EV is compelling. But let's not try to make it out as something it's not.
Having done several long trips, I strongly disagree. I certainly wouldn't recommend it if your idea of a road trip is eating a sandwich at the wheel and running into the bathroom while you pump gas, but if you actually sit down for your meals and take stretch breaks, charging barely adds any time. I drove DC to South Florida this winter and I'm planning on DC to Montreal this summer and not once do I wish for a gas car.
> The low end luxury market are engineers, doctors, etc. and they will seriously consider buying a minivan or a SUV or whatever instead.
I would say this is a big "it depends". I think I'm in that low-end luxury market. I paid 36k for my car, when all is said and done. I absolutely did not consider minivans or SUVs, and for one really big reason: I don't have kids. Kids aren't even on the horizon. When I look at minivans and SUVs, I think of mobiles that, while great people movers are, generally, not very fun cars to drive (there are some amazing Mazdas and Acuras in this collection, though).
I bought a Subaru WRX, because I like the way it feels; but, I am VERY excited about this new Tesla, and I completely believe that the next car I purchase, bar getting a huge amount of money that I can choose to not be practical with, is going to be an electric card, and is also probably going to be a Tesla.
I have a friend who owns a 90k Infiniti. He prefers luxury more than I do; but, he's 100% on the Tesla bandwagon and is very excited at the prospect of owning one. He'll be one of the first in line when they announce the price.
I have another friend, similar market. He owns an Audi ... A5? S5?
Barring my infiniti-owning friend, we are people that like cars and want a little extra. We definitely do exist, and I suspect many of us will be looking very intently at that Tesla.
>I absolutely did not consider minivans or SUVs, and for one really big reason
Minivans and SUVs are also handy if you do outdoor activities involving a lot of gear--including boats, etc. that go on the roof. A number of paddling friends I know actually consider minivans more practical than SUVs for this purpose.
Of course, said activities also often involve going to places where electric cars aren't practical--even if they didn't have gull-wing doors that preclude roofracks.
That said, I also have a small second vehicle. But then I paid $18K for it in 1998 or so and it's still going strong at 170K miles. (Honda Del Sol.)
Putting a boat on the roof of a vehicle is dumb: it really kills your fuel efficiency. You can get a small trailer to put the boat on instead, and then you can get a small car with a trailer hitch to pull it (if the boat is light enough to put on the roof of a minivan, it's probably a kayak and weighs very little), which means you don't need a big, ugly, gas-guzzling minivan or SUV at all. Any small car can pull a 500-pound utility trailer.
To each his own. I do know people who use trailers for sea kayaks and it can be quite a pain getting into tight quarters. So putting boats on the roof may be dumb but it's what 98% of the people I know with boats do.
> Barring my infiniti-owning friend, we are people that like cars and want a little extra. We definitely do exist, and I suspect many of us will be looking very intently at that Tesla.
Yes but is there 175k every year such as the article implies? I'm skeptical.
I can believe there is going to be 100k in sales but that isn't a market dominating product. I could even see it hitting 200k that first year due to pent up demand but it won't sustain it.
I don't know. I wrote up a longer comment; but, when I was typing it up, I realized that I don't know, I don't even have the beginning of an idea.
I think the BMW 3-series will hold it's buyers pretty well, though. There's just something, especially in the tech community, about owning a BMW 3-series. They might as well be the Toyota Corolla of some parking lots I've seen.
The EU were looking at abolishing this as against free trade, much like they are waging war on roaming charges within the EU.
They were talking about it a year or two ago, not sure what has happened since then as different countries in the EU have different censorship so it's not that simple (e.g. games in Germany are usually less gore).
This is the only thing I can find about it, but I'm sure it was reported on here on better known sources:
What does the Commission plan to do about geo-blocking?
Addressing unjustified geo-blocking will give more choice of products and services for consumers at lower prices. The Commission is planning to make legislative proposals in the first half of 2016 to end unjustified geo-blocking. Action could include a targeted change to the e-commerce framework, and to the framework set out by Article 20 of the Services Directive (on non-discrimination of recipients of services). As a result, traders will have only limited possibilities to deny access to online services.In parallel to legislative proposals, the Commission today launched a Competition Sector Inquiry to analyse the application of competition law in this area (press release and factsheet)
There's lots to this behind that link, and at the digital single market site (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en) but it seems like some DSM legislation will be proposed later this year, but not all of it (since the eCommerce report isn't scheduled to be completed until 2017)
and, for a long time, I worked on side software projects; but, when I get home, I'm often so tired from coding all day that I don't program as much at home anymore. Lately, I've been learning to play a midi-controller and maybe make some music :)
Because he had to explain a situation where a driver in front of him caused a very dangerous situation and felt he had to respond in that way?
As much as I love driving, there will be many improvements when we don't have to drive to get to our jobs and things anymore. I'll get to go and play on a race-track, sure; but I won't have to be all hands on deck at 8 or 9 in the morning with everyone else who woke up 30 minutes to an hour ago.
The truck driver caused the dangerous situation by tailgating. There's no right to drive at the speed limit, and certainly no justification for causing danger when another driver is annoying you.
While true, unless there are extenuating circumstances (weather, limping car, etc), it's better to drive near the speed limit.
Much of the danger in driving occurs when there's a substantial difference in speed between cars. (I imagine the second most common time there's an accident is when cars are going almost exactly the same speed[1]). Driving 10 under can be very dangerous.
[1] my thinking here is that if you have 2 cars going almost exactly the same speed, but one is sitting in the other's blindspot, then one of them can attempt to change lanes and the other might miss it and suddenly accident.
That's a bit of a tricky one though. A large truck can't stop very fast. They may end up tailgating if the car in front reduces speed.
If you are in a car it's definitely your responsibility to make sure you're doing the right thing. You're a lot more nimble and more able to make manoeuvres.
It is everyone's responsibility to do the right thing, but when someone does something wrong, it's completely unacceptable to make a more hazardous situation in response.
He said tail-gating as in 3-4 car lengths. Admittedly, that is tailgating for a vehicle that takes forever to stop; but, this isn't the big scary monster right behind you situation. They're further back, but just as unable to stop
My biggest trouble with cyclists at night, as a driver, has always been the ones that don't have any lights on their bike. Sometimes the reflectors don't even reflect very brightly (or aren't present).
When a bike is all lit up, I have no trouble seeing and reacting appropriately to them.
No, but you can't expect everything in the road to be light-emitting. There could very easily be a car in the middle of the road with its lights disabled. There could be a person walking down the road without crazy nanopaint, because he was in a car and wasn't expecting to walk, but the car broke down. There could be a horse or cow in the road.
I still think this doesn't shift any blame away from cyclists who don't use lights. A bicycle is moving, unlike those examples, and you need to be aware of it even when it isn't in your way yet or in the beam of your headlights.
Well, a driver needs to be careful, it's true. At the same time, it behooves a cyclist to take basic precautions to improve his own safety and to make things easier for drivers around him.
I narrowly avoided an accident with a cyclist who was riding at night, without lights, without a helmet, with crappy reflectors, wearing dark clothing. The area wasn't particularly well-lit (obnoxious San Jose low-pressure-sodium orange-hue lighting). The cyclist was riding along a busy street but his bicycle was on the sidewalk, behind a row of parked cars, heading the opposite direction of traffic on that street... and he headed out into the intersection with a side-street at full cycling speed, not pedestrian speed.
I really wouldn't have minded some extra help not-killing the guy, you know?
People that don't tend to work out need around 0.8g / kg; but, people that do work out tend to need 1.2-1.4g / kg a day.[1]
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/414351