Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrfusion | Hacker News Reader

I’m not convinced on the lower maintenance costs. Can you speak to that a bit? It seems like there’s still a lot that can go wrong and you’re stuck paying whatever tesla wants to charge you to fix it.

View on HN

Look under the hood of a Tesla, and you'll understand why maintenance costs are lower.

There is still a lot that can go wrong on the body, notably the infamous door handles, but the power train is just much, much simpler. Notably, no oil changes, no gas, and due to regenerative braking, the physical brakes last a lot longer. Longer-term, while there is a coolant change required, there is no timing belt replacement, no spark plugs, no catalytic converter / muffler, etc.

The batteries themselves have seemed to hold up relatively well, but in the 10+ year range, that is indeed a concern, as they represent a large fraction of the value of the car. But prices are dropping, and maybe a cheaper and better battery pack can be retrofitted when the time comes?

> The batteries themselves have seemed to hold up relatively well, but in the 10+ year range, that is indeed a concern, as they represent a large fraction of the value of the car.

Current Tesla Model S fleet data is showing substantial longevity (80% initial storage capacity retained) well past 10 years/500k+ miles [1] [2]. This can be credited to their thermal management system and an advanced battery management system.

[1] https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-dat...

[2] https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/16/tesla-battery-packs-live...

The Model S was released in the summer of 2012; we don't know what the batteries will look like after 10 years yet.

I agree that they will likely still be serviceable, though.

Sure, but electric cars have far fewer moving parts. Components are simply less likely to break.

> Components are simply less likely to break

I wouldn't say that they're less likely to break, but rather there's just fewer parts to potentially break. Your point is still completely valid of course.

Fewer moving parts does not mean that the components are less likely to break. A car with only one gear would have fewer parts but would break down more often.

Most electric cars have only one gear. Why does it break down more often?

Just saying as a thought experiment that having fewer parts does not mean it will break down less often.

That's not what a "thought experiment" is -- you confidently said something that has no basis in reality and no argument behind it. You didn't say "maybe" or "might".

A "thought experiment" is when you set the stage to explain something using fundamental physics.

There are hundreds of thousands of one-gear cars on the road. There is data.

There's no basis in saying that single gear ice vehicles would break-down more frequently under conventional driving conditions?

A thought experiment needs to explain something using fundamental physics? What about a math or logic related thought experiment?

Why would I have to include maybe or might in a thought experiment?

You literally said "A car with only one gear", not "single gear ice vehicles".

I'm down with math and logic, as well as physics. But the problem here appears to be that you left out a word, so your audience is mystified.

Here’s a thought experiment:

Product A has 100 parts. Each part has a 10 percent chance of breaking over the products lifetime.

Product B has 25 parts. Each has a 10 percent chance of breaking over the product’s lifetime.

Which product is more likely to break more often?

Electric cars break down less often, not more often, in general. They have less car fires too. Tesla has enough millions of miles that there are a number of comparisons of rates of various problems compared to the regular fleet about accidents, fires, etc. It's not magic but has generally been very encouraging.

That's a bad example. Early Teslas had 2 gears, but then got rid of that and now only have one. That got rid of the transmission and gearbox, and the car breaks less as a result.

ICE cars can't do that because their engines work best in a fairly narrow range of RPMs. But electric has no such limit.

That was the original Roadster -- and it reduces the top speed, that's the minus. Well worth it, in my mind.

The point being that having fewer parts in and of itself does not mean that it will break down less frequently.

Depending on what you mean by "break". What about bitrot and software bugs? Quick search reveals articles like https://electriccarsreport.com/2018/06/gm-recalls-model-year... and https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/toyota_recalls_6250...

The kind of component matters. Altho in the long, long term we can expect software bugs to trend to 0.

Things EVs lack or have less chances of breaking:

* Fanbelts

* Flywheels

* Transmissions

* Oil Changes

* Brakes / Brake pads (regenerative breaking makes them last a lot longer)

* Transmissions

* Spark Plugs and wires

When there are less moving parts, there is less chance of them breaking. It really is as simple as that.

Alternator, it's always the alternator.

The motors in the Tesla basically act as alternators. I hope they last longer. It's funny with alternators that the heavy mechanical bit is always ok and it's the semiconductors that have packed up but they try to make you replace the whole thing.

* Pumps * Condenser * Gasket seals * Timing chain/belt * Valve clearances going out of spec * Injectors becoming clogged * O2 or other fuel related sensors failing * Radiators * Engine mounts failing causing terrible vibrations

It's such a tremendously long list. And all the items above are something I've dealt with on a vehicle at some point in my life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com