Comment by vonklaus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vonklaus | Hacker News Reader

obviously Tesla is the front runner for spearheading the insudtry by virtually every metric & subsector (except maybe price). Look, I love Tesla and have been bullish on the company for a pretty long time, so I am biased, but why can't other car companies have quality cars and aesthetics.

* Fisker Karma: The car looked super sleek, was super sexy and from an engineering standpoint it was a heap of shit.

* Chevy Volt: Was an ICE car that had the worst of both worlds. Not particularly attractive.

* Rimac Concept One: Ok this car was fucking brilliant but it was like $1M USD.

* Prius: Pretty decent as far as hybrids go. Aesthetics are lacking what many might consider: the ability to not look like a cross between a golf cart and a mobility scooter.

* Chevey Bolt: Seems to have pretty amazing specs. Aesthetics are sub-par for sure.

Yes, Tesla's thing was making a compelling electric car, however other manufacturers seem to be doing alright in actually making the car. They just need to bend the metal in a way that doesn't look fucking horrible and Tesla will have a bit harder of a time of it.

Edit:

Here is a quick album I made. Nearly every car looks the same:

http://imgur.com/a/HEsyf

edit 2:

Here[t] you can see Tesla's offerings. The roadster is omitted. However, of the 4 cars, they made: roadster and the models s,3,x,y* you would be hard pressed to confuse them for any of the cars in the above album. However, those in that album are very close to one another aesthetically.

[t]http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/2017-Tesla-...

* they haven't made y yet....

I recall reading an article (can't find it at the moment) that suggested that the ugliness of hybrid/electric vehicles was, in general, a deliberate move; that people buying an EV didn't actually want an EV (even if they thought they did); they wanted their neighbors to think they wanted an EV, and designing EVs in a distinctive style allowed that market to be tapped much more effectively than if EVs had followed the design patterns of IC vehicles.

As time goes on, CAFE standards tighten, etc., aren't cars converging on whatever turns out to be the aerodynamically optimal shape?

They look like every other car to me, I have no idea what you are talking about.

It's too bad about the Volt. I drove one a few times... It isn't a terrible car at all, and bypasses the gaping flaws in a pure electric vehicle.

What's too bad about the Volt? I may be about to buy one of the new ones. The 2016 model has better electric range and looks better too.

It doesn't seem to have done too well in the market and gets ragged on a lot. IMO a good concept.

I guess I live in a bubble. Here in Sunnyvale I see them everywhere.

They are great cars, nice and quiet, very comfortable seats, good performance, full set of options (no self driving) and GM offers excellent warranty coverage. Puritans don't like the hybrid part, but the simple fact is that there isn't sufficient charging infrastructure to support pure EV cars in most places and certainly if I take a trip into the country I won't be able to charge it for the trip back, but can easily refuel. They do increase demand for power plugs at employers, residential buildings, shopping centres, etc so I think they help the cause and improve the practicality of pure EV vehicles. Take one for a test drive, my favourite comment is, "Oh, these are actually nice." There is enough EV trashing going on as it is, some people would do well to actually put some thought into their opinions before sharing them.

What do you see as the 'gaping flaws' of a pure electric vehicle? I would never want a hybrid, as I would optimize for either an ICE or EV but there doesn't seem to be space in a consumer vehicle to have a workable hybrid that is better than either of its pureplay counterparts.

A few:

- Road trips. Range needs to accommodate the 95th percentile trip, not the mean.

- Apartment living

- Unknown depreciation curve

The other inconvenient fact is that you need to drive a lot for the TCO of an electric car to be lower than a similar gasoline car.

- Road trips.

Someone should make a novel rental program where you can swap an electric for a fresh one every 200 miles or so, like getting fresh horses. It would let more people try the vehicles while also offering a faster solution for road trips (assuming Tesla owners would get a significant discount).

Median daily distance is actually close to about 30 miles in the US. I'd be surprised if the 95th percentile (equating to more than once per month) wasn't already within the range of a Tesla, though the report doesn't have that figure.

https://www.aaafoundation.org/american-driving-survey-year-o...

I travel regularly to NYC from Albany (about 150 miles). Many other people do as well, based on the NYC->ALB traffic you see on weekend evenings.

It's a trip that is definitely in the range of a Tesla from a point A to point B point of view -- but you end up with lots of overhead. Did I fully charge before the trip? Will I do a side trip? Will I drive around when I get there?

The electric car adds a lot of complication, and doesn't really solve any problem right now.

Its similar to the decision process of common carrier vs. car for any moderate/long range trip.

I want to say straight out, I agree that range-anxiety is real. People need to be comfortable that the car will be able to go wherever they need to go, whenever they need to do there. That is, at least in America, the cultural equivocation that driving === freedom.

That said, this statement:

> The electric car adds a lot of complication, and doesn't really solve any problem right now.

leaves me obligated to point out a few things. I will reason from analogy for point:

1. I just quit smoking, it wasn't obvious that it solved a problem right now, but I hope it will eliminate some later ;).

2. It doesn't matter, at least by Tesla's conception, that electric cars solve anything. Obviously, it is a mission driven company but that mission doesn't/shouldn't matter to the end user. Electric cars should be great for their own sake, and as good or better than a comprably priced ICE.

> workable hybrid that is better than either of its pureplay counterparts.

I don't really need my Prius to be better than an EV or a pure ICE, I just need something that works with existing infrastructure (not much EV infrastructure in Idaho where I live, and we make semi-regular trips to nothern Idaho to visit family) while getting decent fuel economy and reliability.

Actually, now that I think about it, from a reliability aspect my Prius trumps conventional ICE engines. The much simpler design of the Atkinson cycle engine, since it can sacrifice torque that the MG's can compensate for, leads to some pretty impressive durability and a relatively cheap replacement should it be necessary - it's much more likely (guaranteed, really) that I will need to replace the battery pack before I hit 300K miles but the engine and MG's will last until the car falls apart.

I think the Chevy Bolt looks ok, fairly similar to other current small cars. The BMW i3 is hideously ugly. The Nissan Leaf is growing on me, but maybe that's just because I bought one and now have some form of Stockholm Syndrome. The headlights are stupid looking, but I like the rest of the car.

One more for the list -- I got a Mercedes B250e three months ago and have been quite happy with it. It has a Tesla drive train [0] and although the official range is 83 miles per charge, I consistently get around 105. Bonus -- the CarPlay integration is really well-done.

[0] http://www.plugincars.com/mercedes-b-class-e-cell

Uh... what about the leaf?! IMO that's the car spearheading the movement right now.

> Rimac Concept One

Nice! I wonder if it's available with a combustion engine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com