What’s the difference between ‘rarely’ and ‘not so often’?

You should not ask qualitative questions in surveys as they are open to subjectivity and therfore do not result in good data. You need to ask quantitative questions (like “once a week”, “once amonth”, “less often than once a month” etc. )

To get up a hill you have to input the energy based on m*g*h. Note how time isn’t part of this equation.

The losses that you can affect by speed are wind and rolling resistance. Both of which go up as your speed increases. So slower is better.

…to a point as there are consumers in your car that are independent of driving. E.g. your AC/heater, lights, and simply keeping the cars computer running also draws some power. So there is an equilibrium point where crawling even slower will no longer save energy.

It’s a combination of lots of small optimizations that allows Tesla to have such good efficiency.

Most of all they don’t compromise on aerodynamics. However it’s also tiny things like scavenging heat from everywhere in the car to minimize heating needs for interior and battery temperature control (they scavenge heat off of the charging connector, for chrissakes)

Make it DCFC faster

Do nothing else

Profit

Problem is that charging speed is dependent on battery size (and type). To make the Bolt charge faster you have to put in a way better (and more expensive) battery. Which negates the ‘Profit’ part unless you make it more expensive.

How about instead of complaining about the slow pace…try leading? By example? You know the thing you claimed you were doing?

​

You’re not leading, Mary…and it doesn’t amtter anymore.

I’m intrigued to know your thoughts on how the future will justify the pricing of fully electric vehicles

By shifting price perception from ‘sticker price’ to ‘total cost of ownership’ (which should have been the way people think about any purchase since the dawn of time)

EVs are very efficient. This means they don’t have all this waste heat sloshing around as in an ICE.

On the down side this means an EV has to get some energy from teh battery to supply heating (but compared to the amount of energy you use for driving the energy for AC/Heating is tiny)

On the up side this means you get heat/cold instantly and don’t have to wait for a motor to heat up. It also means you can precool/preheat your car from the app and you neve have to fiddle around with AC/heater controls while driving.

ADAC only counts reliability (i.e. how often cars actually broke down and needed to be rescued by someone else). Software problems usually don’t lead to the car being undrivable.

German ADAC begs to disagree.

(4.9 EVs per 1000 needed assistance vs 6.9 per 1000 for ICEs)

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/unfall-schaden-panne/adac-pannenstatistik/

Actually this was supposed to be mandatory in all of the EU by July 2023

(Deadline was moved to July 2024)

Also note that this is only mandatory for charging stations built from then on.

Try the same trip in a Tesla. Night and day.

ABPR shows me that you would have done the trip in a Model 3 LR in 6hours 44 minutes

https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan\_uuid=1523e8c5-47db-4d77-8083-6c7436d593db

Why isn’t there Tesla specific service centers?

Becasue there are?

I have a Tesla service center within 5 minutes drive and another within 15 minutes drive.

He said that NO V2 Superchargers would ever support third-party charging and they will only ever work with Tesla cars.

This probably just means that they will rip those out eventually and replace them with v4 (or even newer ones)

ADAC statistic (2023) for how often cars need roadside assistance (in german, but you can probably make out what the various graphics/tables mean or run it through google translate)

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/unfall-schaden-panne/adac-pannenstatistik/

Key numbers:

Cars with need for roadside assistance (per 1000):

ICE: 6.9 total (of which: 2.5 due to 12V battery; 1.6 tires; 0.5 starter/lights/ignition; 0.6 keys/locks: 1.3 motor/motor management/high voltage system…and then various positions at 0.1 each for chassis, drive related systems, brakes and ‘other’)

EV: 4.9 total (of which: 2.5 due to 12V battery; 1.1 tires; 0.6 starter/lights/ignition; 0.2 keys/locks: 0.2 motor/motor management/high voltage system…and then various positions at 0.1 for chassis, other drive systems, brakes and 0 for ‘other’)

​

(I highlighted the block “motor/motor management/High voltage system” whicc is probably what you’re intersted in. Effectively ICEs break down 6-7 times as often due to issues in that area)

Most of those '27 predictions are BS.

Charging is already sufficiently standardized. Fast charging is already available to go anywhere today. Solid state offers no advantage (only higher price). Diagnostics tools are irrelevant for the end user. Optimized car frames are already a thing for the likes of Tesla or BYD (and also something the end user doesn’t care about). TCO EVs have been cheaper than ICE cars for years already.

The good EVs of today are far superior to ICE cars and fulfill all but the most extreme use cases. There is no reason to wait.

None. All legacy automakers are still vastly skewed towards making ICEs.They make about as many as they must in order not to pay fines for CO2 fleet emissions.

On a Tesla I would have said ABPR…but I find myself using it less and less as time goes on (the inbuilt nav is just as good). The Tesla app is sufficient for me - and that is a must have.

I do have a bunch of charging apps but have never used any of them - so they are definitely not a ‘must have’.

The problem here is: you don’t always have solar (e.g. in winter) and for most people the car isn’t at home while the sun is out because they have a job/commute.

Read: To make DC charging work at home reliably you need a pretty big battery storage system…and you have conversion losses twice: Once going from solar panels (or the grid) into the home storage battery and from there to the car.

It’s just not worth it.

Dead company walking?