Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by denverpilot, May 20, 2018.
Did you sucker a bunch of investors into paying for it?
I'm not that old, but I don't recall taking 4 screws out, unplugging a IDE and power line, verifying jumpers and putting 4 screws in being that hard, compared to swapping a yuuuge battery out of a car where they'd rather you just buy a new car from them.
I wonder if folks had a similar conversation about gas stations on internet forums at the beginning of the 20th century when most folks thought a horse was much more convenient and useful than some new fangled motor car.
Who paid for the infrastructure, and how many years did it take to get to the present state?
Gas stations? Or internet forums early in the 20th century?
The automobile taking over from the horse really happened when Ford started making the Model T. Tesla has zero chance of duplicating that but perhaps the legacy manufacturers might do it.
Yeah, I was pretty lazy making my point. To an extent I think it's because I really do see it as a foregone conclusion.
All the people arguing here against the practicality of electric vehicles are niche users. The people who have a need to do long road trips in tight timescales, regularly enough that renting a car doesn't make sense, are a very small proportion of the American population. They are significantly over-represented on this forum because pilots tend to be the kind of personality who'd also be into setting off independently on that kind of trip.
I'd guess that existing electric vehicles probably meet the needs of 95% of the population, >99% of the time. In Europe, the percentage is probably even higher. A few more years of development, coupled with the artificial incentives that government provides (like them or hate them, they're there) and electric cars (probably even shared electric cars) will be the obvious choice for nearly everyone. In a lot of places, they already make much more sense than petrol or diesel.
The car that James linked to is very cool on paper but the market of people who are looking for a new ride for the cannonball run is probably very limited!
They make up 80% or more of the market, but they are niche users. lol Right.
Gotta admit, Ford, the Model T and his assembly line was a black swan event that changed transportation world wide.
Now, just talking here, but let's say there was a black swan event that changed how cars are powered. Suppose some big gas station company like Shell, Amoco, Casey's, etc. decided it was time to catch that E-Car market. Let's face it, most of their business comes from folks stopping to fuel up, right? So, what if they decided to start putting chargers at their stations. I bet folks would tend to migrate into the stores. Maybe sit down for a bite to eat.
I could even see them setting things up at places of business so workers can get charged up while on the job.
Really, about the only thing preventing this from happening right now is the fact that Tesla has been providing free charges for their more expensive cars, but I understand that's changing.
Just read this in the WSJ.
“Tesla has given the first signals that it is giving up on its ambition to become a mass-market car maker. Prospective customers should be angry, and investors ought to be wary.
Over the weekend, Chief Executive Elon Musk announced a new, $78,000 version of Tesla’s car for the people, the Model 3. More important was his admission that his promised $35,000 version would cause the company to “lose money and die” if built right away.
Then there are the nearly 500,000 Tesla’s die-hards who put down $1,000 deposits for what they thought was a car that started at $35,000. How many can afford, or would be willing to pay for the higher-end models? These refundable deposits account for a third of the cash on Tesla’s rickety balance sheet.”
People have been saying this since before Tesla existed. In fact, Tesla's free chargers were going to solve the problem that what you described wasn't happening yet.
Keep searching, you'll find the problem for this solution.
Not me. I'm just making conversation.
If you think that, you're sadly deluded. Ever visited a city, or another country? From the way you think, I'm guessing not.
Really? You think non-hybrid electric cars exceed 20% of the market? I'm deluded?
Check your reading comprehension. I said that people whose typical travel wasn't possible with an electric vehicle were a niche market. You don't help your argument by pretending others said things that they didn't.
Here's a graph showing average journey length for trips taken by US drivers in 2009. I feel pretty safe in saying that a 200 mile range electric vehicle is going to work just fine for the vast, vast majority of the population.
Feel free to show me some data that says 80% of the population are making regular, epic cross country drives though.
Oh, so people aren't buying electric cars just to spite you? You know they are better for them, but they are just too stupid to know it.
Sorry, if people thought electric cars were better for them, they'd be buying them. It's not for you to decide what makes sense for others.
You seem to be stuck in the past. The rest of us here are talking about how things will change going forwards. Don't you understand that or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Any idiot can see it's not going to change instantly but the tech is at the point where it's starting to swing that way fast.
Yes, I am deliberately not accepting your unsubstantiated premise that electric cars are the only solution for the future.
Care to quote where I said that?
We'll come back to this thread in 5 years and see how things have changed.
Sounds like you're back tracking. Wise move.
Mmm, I didn't think you could quote anything to support it. Come on, show us all where I said that electric cars are the only option for the future.
Here, I'll post it again before you edit it out:
Tesla actually has a bunch patents related to this.
From where are you pulling these "stats"?
It's right there in what you quoted: I guessed. A few posts later you'll see a graph to support it though, from the 2009 US Travel Survey.
I'd be chasing wild geese too, if I were on your side of this discussion.
Thanks for playing anyway, Salty. Next time you engage in a battle of wits, try not to come unarmed
Right. You reversed your position, but I'm the one that lost. Keep telling yourself that.
@Salty stated that 80% of the population would not buy a EV because it cannot do the mission.
@Katamarino stated that current EV tech can perform for 90+% of the current driving public.
Did I miss something? Or is this a case of miscommunication?
So how long does the battery pack (or whatever they call it) last in the Tesla? What does it cost to replace?
Great, that'll encourage others to jump into the market.
I think you got it Tim! Although I don't think we've quite worked out what Salty is arguing; he stated that right now not many people own EVs, but nobody was disputing that in the first place.
You got some USDOT, AAA, etc. data? The one you posted made by a Dutch guy. Europe is a hugely different travel environment. Anyone can make a graph "proving" their point.
Sure; the guy is Dutch, but working at Columbia University in the US, and the data is from a survey of 150k+ households across the USA.
In the first one, you can see the geek out math for Seattle versus a few other countries.
It is actually interesting that Seattle drive less per day then Europe, but drive more days.
Second article gives generic national stats.
isn't the sample size noted as 749K?
the difference in our arguments is that mine is based on fact that people aren’t buying ev, and his is 100% his opinion that they should.
I have presented some facts, and you have prevented none. Tim also gave us some facts that pretty much line up with mine. Feel free to get involved at any time though.
I think that's the number of individual journeys in the graphed sample, not the number of households surveyed.
Actually no. His position is that current tech meets the mission for most. And eventually due to tech, it will take over the market.
Your argument is because people do not buy it, it there for cannot meet the mission. There is not definitive provable correlation between capability and sales.
No. You misstated my position. My position is that if he were right, people would be buying the cars. They aren’t because they know better than him what makes sense for them.